By Beth Anne Mumford

The commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have you believe that none of the more than 5,300 people currently serving life sentences in our prisons are worthy of a second chance.

Beth Anne Mumford (submitted photo)

That is morally indefensible and fiscally irresponsible.

Our courts sentence people to life in prison without possibility of parole at one of the highest rates of any state - in a state with less than 4 percent of the U.S. population we hold 10 percent of all such prisoners.

It costs taxpayers more than $42,000 a year to house each prisoner. But elderly prisoners, who typically pose considerably less risk to public safety after release, can cost as much as nine times more than younger ones.

And in Pennsylvania, two out of five serving life without parole are 50 or older.

State Sen. Sharif Street, D-Philadelphia, has introduced legislation that would address these injustices by allowing for consideration of parole after an inmate has served 15 years of a life sentence - that means almost two-thirds of those now incarcerated for life would become eligible for parole.

For those incarcerated at an early age -- more than half of those serving life without parole were 25 or younger when they entered prison -who have caused no trouble and sought rehabilitation, society should extend a second chance.

Sick and elderly prisoners, who would pose little risk to the public if they returned to their communities, deserve a measure of compassion in their final years rather than what the Abolitionist Law Center refers to as death by incarceration.

Street's bill is a good first step in reforming Pennsylvania's antiquated parole and sentencing systems.

The Legislature has set it aside for now, which means it will not be considered this year. That's unfortunate, but it also means there is a chance to make it even stronger when it is reintroduced in the next legislative session.

Beyond reforming the parole process, the legislature should also address our rigid mandatory minimum sentencing for third strike offenses. Judges need to be able to impose punishments that fit the crime. That means taking into consideration the unique facts of each case and the defendant's record.

Three-strikes-and-you're-out laws are responsible for many of the injustices in life-without-parole sentences. They undermine the public's concept of justice and reduce respect for the law. They also needlessly increase the cost of our prison system.

Lastly, a crucial goal of parole system reform should be to increase the chances that released inmates can succeed outside prison.

That will happen only if they have access to effective, evidence-based re-entry assistance plans.

Such programs can improve the lives of former prisoners as they return to their communities and work to reclaim their lives. They also reduce recidivism, keeping the public safer and saving taxpayer dollars.

We are better than this. We are not a society that rejects hope. Indeed, we are a society that believes in the moral imperative of redemption. We know that everyone deserves a second chance.

Our criminal justice system should reflect those values. Right now, it doesn't.

Street's bill is a good down payment on ensuring that it will someday, and when lawmakers are back in Harrisburg in 2019, they should make it a priority.

Beth Anne Mumford is state director of Americans for Prosperity-Pennsylvania, a conservative advocacy group. She writes from Harrisburg.