There are four ways that people can reduce prison sentences once they are incarcerated. When the public is not aware or informed about how that can affect original sentencing, it can cause voters to have a distorted sense of their state’s justice system, according to a report by National Affairs.

The four methods are the California Board of Parole Hearings process, remaining disciplinary-free while in custody, actively participating in-prison programming, and the Elderly Parole Program.

“In all but a few states, someone who hears of a carceral sentence imposed in court should assume that the convicted person will spend significantly less time in prison,” the report states.

The first method is through the California BPH process, in which a panel authorized by the state’s statutes grants the suitability of an incarcerated person. The panel analyzes an offender’s risk factors to determine if the individual can live in society without committing more crimes.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Adult Institutions has a department that calculates parole eligibility dates of those incarcerated.

To make the determination for suitability, the parole panel considers the offender’s central file, medical and mental health records, substance use and treatment records, the incarcerated person’s testimony, and statements from others collected before and during the hearing.

Community members can track an incarcerated person’s location and parole eligibility date via the information search website http://inmatelocator. cdcr.ca.gov or by calling CDCR’s Identification Unit at (916) 445-6713.

Incarcerated people can gather information about their parole eligibility dates and credit earnings by contacting their assigned correctional counselor in the institution where they reside or through the CDCR appeal process outlined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3481.

“If there is a change in the law or the person is resentenced, CDCR’s Case Records Services will recalculate the person’s parole eligible dates, if necessary. In addition, a parole eligibility date may be moved up based on credits that may apply to the person’s sentence. Creditearning is governed by regulations found in Division 3 of Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations and can be changed through the state’s administrative rulemaking process,” reported the California Parole Hearing Process Handbook.

The second method by which a sentencing discount is earned is when an incarcerated person remains disciplinary-free while in custody.

The third method by which an incarcerated person can earn a sentence discount, unless prohibited by law, is participating in education, treatment, or rehabilitative programming.

The CDCR Adult Institutions, Programs, and Parole Operations Manual defines adult programs as academic education, Career and Technical Education training courses, library services, student support services, and a transitions course. The goal of these programs is to provide education and career training to increase public safety and reduce the chance of a person returning to prison.

The last method by which people in prison can receive a sentence discount is through the Elderly Parole Program.

According to the California Parole Hearing Process Handbook, persons 50 years of age and older who have served a continuous 20 years in prison may be eligible for a parole hearing under the Statutory Elderly Parole Program or the Court-Ordered Elderly Parole Program.

People excluded for parole eligibility under the SEP program are those sentenced to Life Without the Possibility of Parole, those sentenced under California’s “Three Strikes Law” for a second or third strike, or persons convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer.

Also eligible under the COEP program are persons who are at least 60 years old and have continuously served 25 years of incarceration. Excluded from those eligible for the COEP program are people sentenced to death or Life Without the Possibility of Parole.

“Each person’s earliest parole eligible date is provided to them and is publicly available on CDCR’s website via the California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (CIRIS) application,” the California Parole Hearing Process Handbook reported.

The reality is, people in prison can earn time off their sentences. However, the general public’s assumption is that when someone is convicted of a crime and is sentenced, the conviction is a guarantee to victims and survivors that the offender will spend the entire sentence behind bars.

This deception can cause the public to lose trust in the criminal legal system, view laws differently, and lean more toward harsher sentences, which damages the systems credibility, reported National Affairs.

“Damaged credibility decreases compliance, increases resistance and subversion, sparks vigilantism, and weakens the purchase of shared norms,” said the article.

History has shown that people comply with the law when it is reliable and in line with societal norms. Otherwise, it loses its social influence if it doesn’t represent what society views as justice.

Coercing an offender to accept a plea deal before going to trial is an incentive. This type of coersion can presumably deter others in the community from committing crime, and the sentence discounts can save taxpayers by removing the expensive cost of incarceration.

Once the public understands the sentencing deception, problems may arise, reported National Affairs. However, sentencing deception does not deter active criminals who are familiar with imposed sentencing guidelines and laws.

The long-term incentive for lawmakers to show that they are “tough on crime” overrules the effect of revealing the truth to society about sentencing practices.

National Affairs journal pointed to two important goals for sentencing courts to consider. The first is a truthful, publicly imposed sentence, not a longer sentence. States should direct judges to impose sentencing practices to line up with the amount of time an offender will realistically serve. Secondly, politicians should defend the time-served practices to their constituents, as opposed to masking them.

“True transparency would entail all jurisdictions making data about their criminal-sanctioning practices publicly available,” said the article. “Sentencing transparency is the only path to a criminal-justice system that does justice, avoids injustice, and earns back credibility with the community.”