Second Look, Smarter Justice: A Gendered Approach to Post-Conviction Initiatives

Introduction

Women are now the fastest-growing segment of the U.S. incarcerated population, with the rate rising more than 585 percent since 1980—outpacing men and setting America apart on a global scale. The United States currently jails women at a rate of 112 per 100,000, higher than any country in the world except El Salvador. Approximately 200,000 women and girls are locked up across the country’s prisons and jails, contributing to a carceral landscape in which the United States holds just 4 percent of the world’s female population but 25 percent of its incarcerated women.

This surge hasn’t been driven by violent crime; rather, it’s rooted in punitive responses to poverty, trauma, and caregiving that disproportionately impact women. States like South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho have incarceration rates for women that far exceed those of any other country. Racial disparities remain stark: Although the rate of Black women’s incarceration has fallen, admissions of white women—especially for drug and property offenses—continue to rise, and Indigenous women are jailed at rates up to more than four times higher than white women. The Bureau of Justice Statistics also reports that women now account for 48 percent of all violent crime victims, with less than half of those incidents ever reported—revealing the system’s ongoing failure to protect and respond. Correctional costs are staggering, with the United States spending approximately $182 billion annually on incarceration yet yielding minimal returns in terms of family stability or public health.

Most justice-involved women are mothers. Sixty-two percent of women in state prisons have a minor child. Their incarceration leads to hundreds of thousands of children entering foster care, academic disruption, and generational cycles of poverty and trauma. These effects are amplified in rural and Tribal communities by long jail stays, few alternatives to incarceration, and chronic underinvestment in prevention.

Second look policies, which authorize courts to review long sentences after a significant period, are a needed step for fairness and social repair. They provide a precision tool for moving beyond indefinite punishment, enabling courts to recognize rehabilitation, weigh family and community impact, and direct resources toward violence prevention and victim support.

Gendered Pathways to Incarceration

Drawn from feminist criminology, the “pathways” perspective reveals that women’s convictions are far more likely to be triggered by trauma, poverty, and survival behaviors. One-fourth of all incarcerated women were homeless in the year before confinement, and up to approximately two-thirds report prior domestic abuse. An overwhelming number of crimes committed by women are low-level drug offenses, property crimes, or responses to intimate partner violence. Despite these distinct routes, jail and prison policy remains focused on incapacitation rather than clinical or social support.

Girls’ contact with police and courts has also intensified: Since 1980, the share of girls arrested has nearly doubled, with much of this growth involving status offenses or “domestic disturbance” calls. Many are funneled into custody for failure to comply with probation or school policies, reflecting structural inequalities that start in the child welfare system.

Reentry exposes gaps in supervision and public services. Most women are released to community supervision systems not designed for their needs—often emphasizing compliance over stability, with little attention paid to untreated trauma, job discrimination, or parenting challenges. In many cases, punitive reentry quickly leads to parole revocation or new arrests for technical violations unrelated to safety. The lack of dedicated mental health, substance use, or trauma-focused support allows cycles of instability to persist, further rupturing families and community systems.

What Are Second Look Policies?

Second look laws provide a legal avenue for review, usually after 10, 15, or 20 years served. These policies require robust hearings, victim participation, guaranteed legal representation, and clear criteria for demonstrating change. As of 2025, 25 states—along with the District of Columbia and the federal system—authorize some form of review. The most effective statutes include the right to periodic rehearing, opportunities for survivor engagement, and mandatory written opinions from judges.

What distinguishes second look from parole or clemency is its evidence-based, court-driven review, with data showing extremely low recidivism rates of roughly 3.5 percent among those granted relief—even lower than average parole or mandatory release rates. These laws also create a pathway for recognizing the difference between current risk and historic threat, allowing courts to calibrate sentences based on rehabilitation, maturity, and social reintegration and enabling judges to align sentencing outcomes with demonstrated change and public-safety priorities. Model frameworks emphasize transparent data reporting, public oversight, and survivor participation, as well as eligibility for people whose original path to incarceration was shaped by trauma, coercion, or poverty.

Why Gender Matters

America’s system of sentencing and supervision has been shaped by laws, assumptions, and resource priorities focused on male crime patterns, leaving women’s experiences and needs largely invisible in policy and practice. Yet women’s entry into the system is fundamentally different. Pathways research and peer-reviewed literature confirm that most women are criminalized not for predatory violence, but for acts bound up in trauma survival, caregiver burdens, victimization, or economic need. Policies not grounded in that understanding have fractured generations of families, concentrated poverty among women and children, and failed to deliver lasting harm reduction.

Second look statutes are a uniquely targeted policy lever for remedying these inequities; closing mass-incarceration gaps; and honoring the relationship between healing, restoration, and community safety. By focusing on documented change and future risk rather than historical stigma, second look laws help correct course—centering women’s lived experience without sacrificing public safety.

Implementation and Impact

Second look adoption is growing. States have documented substantial drops in their prison population, measurable fiscal savings, and no significant increase in violent crime or recidivism linked to resentencing. Programs like Maryland’s “Connecting for Success” and PIVOT in Baltimore have emphasized recovery from trauma and shown that returning parents often rapidly stabilize both themselves and their families. Scientific research and international comparisons confirm that release after demonstrated growth—not simply sentence expiration—correlates with better safety, reentry, and even lower rates of child justice system contact.

Yet nationwide survey results found that fewer than half of states collect or publish data disaggregated by gender, making it difficult to evaluate outcomes for women and girls. Without this information, policymakers lack the evidence needed to assess whether sentencing and reentry programs are meeting women’s distinct needs. Expanding gender-specific data collection and analysis would strengthen accountability, guide resource allocation, and ensure that second look initiatives achieve their full public safety potential.

Public Safety and Fiscal Responsibility

Robust studies confirm that sentence length correlates only weakly with future offending—particularly for women, who age out of crime earlier and experience lower rates of reoffending. Serious-offense risk drops after age 35. Meanwhile, the cost of confining an individual often exceeds $100,000 per person, and women have additional health needs that differ from men. Keeping low-risk women imprisoned drains resources from public safety agencies, victim services, and community capacity.

Survivor advocacy surveys find that support for sentence review rises even further when survivors are informed about trauma histories, rehabilitation, and family impact, and when they themselves are offered counseling and preventive options. Transparent reporting, annual data reviews, and bipartisan oversight help strengthen public confidence in the justice system, particularly in communities that have experienced reduced trust in government institutions.

Policy Recommendations

The success of second look laws ultimately depends on how they are implemented, measured, and adapted to reflect real outcomes—particularly for women, whose entry into and release from the justice system differs from men. By grounding these policies in data, transparency, and gender-responsive practices, jurisdictions can ensure sentence review reflects both accountability and the realities of women’s rehabilitation and reentry.

• Prioritize Data and Evidence-Based Oversight: Sound policy depends on reliable information. California offers a template for transparency by publishing annual, disaggregated recidivism and demographic data for every resentencing under its second look statutes. Public access to outcomes on racial, gender, and offense-type disparities has improved understanding of what works and what issues still exist.
• Broaden Eligibility and Review: Legislatures could consider allowing judicial review after a certain amount of time has been served, particularly for individuals sentenced while young, primary caregivers, or those showing sustained rehabilitation. Maryland’s Second Look Act allows people sentenced between ages 18-24 who have served at least 20 years to petition for resentencing, explicitly including emerging adults, primary caregivers, and those demonstrating substantial rehabilitation.
• Provide Counsel and Victim Participation: Courts may benefit from ensuring that applicants have legal representation and that survivors receive clear notice and accessible ways to participate. Washington, D.C.’s Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act guarantees access to legal counsel for all individuals petitioning for resentencing. The law expressly requires courts to provide notice to victims and their families, who are entitled to submit written, virtual, or in-person testimony as part of the review process.  
• Incorporate Trauma-Informed Evaluation: Oregon law mandates that courts must consider a comprehensive set of factors during second look hearings, including the individual’s mental, emotional, and physical health; efforts and progress in rehabilitation; results of any trauma-informed or mental health treatment; victim safety; and any restorative actions taken. This statutory list extends far beyond simple behavior or risk and requires judicial review of evidence of prior victimization, caregiving roles, personal development, and progress on individualized case plans.
• Pair Resentencing with Reentry Planning: Sentence-modification processes might include coordination with reentry planning focused on housing, employment, behavioral health, and family reunification. For example, PIVOT automatically coordinates individualized reentry plans for women released under second chance and second look policies.
• Reinvest Savings in Public Safety and Support Services: States could explore directing a portion of cost savings from reduced incarceration toward programs that prevent violence, support survivors, and expand access to treatment and recovery services. Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, and New Hampshire still use the Justice Reinvestment Initiative to reduce crime and recidivism.

Conclusion

The story of women in America’s justice system is ultimately a story about family stability, personal responsibility, and the effective use of public resources. Grounded in evidence and guided by accountability, second look laws give courts a way to recognize genuine rehabilitation while remaining focused on community safety. They allow states to redirect limited corrections dollars toward what works—strong policing, prevention, and proven reentry support—rather than prolonged incarceration that no longer serves a public purpose.

Embedding trauma awareness, survivor participation, and gender-competent evaluation in sentencing review isn’t about leniency, it’s about accuracy and fiscal sense. When judges have the tools to weigh progress, risk, and rehabilitation, outcomes are fairer, families are stronger, and communities are safer. In an era when taxpayers expect measurable results from every public program, second look represents a responsible path forward—one that restores accountability, strengthens families, and delivers justice that is both effective and enduring.