.

The Second Look Act is a federal legislative proposal aimed at reforming long-term incarceration by giving people in prison a chance to have their sentences reconsidered after they have served a significant amount of time. First introduced by Senator Cory Booker and Representative Karen Bass, the Act addresses the fact that many individuals are serving extremely long sentences—often from the height of the “tough-on-crime” era—without any opportunity for review, even if they’ve changed or rehabilitated themselves. Under the Second Look Act, anyone who has served 10 years or more of a federal prison sentence would be eligible to petition the court that imposed their sentence to reevaluate it. This does not guarantee release, but it does require a judge to hold a hearing to determine whether the person’s sentence should be reduced, modified, or left in place. During this hearing, the judge considers multiple factors: the person’s rehabilitation, behavior while incarcerated, age at the time of the offense, current age, risk to public safety, and any additional evidence of change or maturity. Importantly, individuals who file for a second look would have the right to legal counsel during this process. Victims and prosecutors would also be notified and have the opportunity to be heard, ensuring that all perspectives are included in the judge’s decision. However, the judge ultimately has the discretion to make an independent determination, unlike clemency or parole, which require executive or board-level approval. The purpose of the Second Look Act is to correct injustices of over-sentencing and to support the idea that people can change. Many individuals who have served 20, 30, or even 40 years pose little to no risk to society but remain imprisoned under outdated sentencing policies. Research consistently shows that those who have been incarcerated for decades and are released in later life have very low rates of recidivism. This Act also aligns with the goals of reducing mass incarceration, lowering costs to taxpayers, and promoting racial and social justice. It is especially important for people sentenced at a young age or under mandatory minimums who were never given the chance to prove they’ve changed. The Second Look Act also supports broader reform efforts like the First Step Act, but goes further by restoring judicial discretion and recognizing human development over time. Although the Second Look Act has not yet been passed into federal law, it has been reintroduced several times with growing bipartisan interest. In the meantime, several states—such as Illinois, Maryland, and Connecticut—have introduced their own “second look” sentencing reforms or pilot programs, showing the national momentum behind the idea. The Urban Law School and similar institutions can support the Second Look Act by raising awareness, educating families, training legal advocates, and lobbying lawmakers. Every season is the right time to push for justice, dignity, and second chances. Let me know if you'd like this styled as a brochure, blog post, or part of a legal toolkit.

Double Jeopardy: Legal Breakdown Definition: Double jeopardy is a constitutional protection under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This clause ensures individuals cannot be prosecuted or punished multiple times for the same offense. Protections Offered by Double Jeopardy 1. Protection Against Retrial After Acquittal Once a person is acquitted (found not guilty), they cannot be tried again for the same crime, even if new evidence surfaces. Example: If a jury finds someone not guilty of murder, the government cannot retry them for the same murder. 2. Protection Against Retrial After Conviction After a conviction, the defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime. However, they may appeal the conviction, and if overturned, a retrial could occur. Example: If someone is convicted of robbery and serves their sentence, they cannot face charges for the same robbery again. 3. Protection Against Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense The government cannot impose multiple punishments for the same crime. This applies to sentencing in a single trial or subsequent punishments for the same conduct. When Double Jeopardy Applies Double jeopardy protections apply when: 1. The Same Sovereign is Prosecuting Double jeopardy applies only to prosecutions by the same government entity. For example, federal and state governments are considered separate sovereigns, so one can prosecute after the other for the same conduct under different laws (dual sovereignty doctrine). 2. A Valid Trial Begins Protections apply once a jury is empaneled and sworn in, or in a bench trial, when the first witness is sworn. 3. The Case is Resolved Protections apply after a final resolution, such as acquittal, conviction, or dismissal with prejudice. Exceptions to Double Jeopardy 1. Separate Sovereigns Doctrine Federal and state courts can prosecute for the same conduct if it violates both federal and state laws. Example: A person acquitted of a state murder charge may still face federal civil rights charges for the same act. 2. Mistrials If a trial ends in a mistrial (e.g., hung jury or procedural errors), the government can retry the defendant. 3. Appeals by the Defendant If the defendant successfully appeals a conviction, the government can retry the case unless the appellate court rules there was insufficient evidence for a conviction. 4. Civil vs. Criminal Cases Double jeopardy does not apply between civil and criminal cases. A person acquitted in a criminal case can still face a civil lawsuit for the same act. Example: O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder in criminal court but found liable in a civil wrongful death lawsuit. 5. Lesser Included Offenses If a defendant is acquitted or convicted of a greater offense, they cannot later be tried for a lesser included offense stemming from the same conduct. Example: Acquittal for first-degree murder bars prosecution for manslaughter based on the same act. 6. Continuing Conduct Double jeopardy does not protect against prosecution for new or ongoing criminal acts that occur after the initial trial. Relevant Case Law 1. Blockburger v. United States (1932) Established the "same elements test" to determine whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes. If each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not, they are considered separate offenses. 2. Heath v. Alabama (1985) Affirmed the separate sovereigns doctrine, allowing separate prosecutions by state and federal courts. 3. United States v. Dixon (1993) Clarified that the same elements test determines whether successive prosecutions violate double jeopardy. Practical Considerations Strategic Charging by Prosecutors: Prosecutors may charge crimes strategically to avoid double jeopardy issues, focusing on charges they believe will secure a conviction. Collateral Consequences: While double jeopardy prevents retrial, it does not shield defendants from collateral consequences like parole violations or deportation proceedings. International Perspective Many countries recognize double jeopardy protections but differ in scope and application. Some, like Canada and the UK, allow retrials in exceptional circumstances, such as the emergence of new evidence. Conclusion Double jeopardy ensures fairness in the legal system by preventing repeated prosecutions and punishments for the same offense. However, its application involves nuances, particularly concerning separate sovereigns, mistrials, and appeals. Understanding these complexities is essential for both defendants and legal practitioners.

AQOZv9zokFUwxQEi4lGA9N0QRJbL9lQF_tHRfRx0YXUm1R-CpTWl-M1VqrGdZz_AgsTf1c5_dfw8Yfdw7okAGEa2.mp4 Dontavius Carter killed last night at Washington State Prison. Please keep his family in your thoughts and prayers during this difficult time.  #death #prisoner #gdc