Arizona’s 85% law—a truth-in-sentencing policy—requires certain offenders to serve at least 85% of their sentence before becoming eligible for early release.
While designed to enhance public safety, the law has sparked intense debate over its effectiveness, fairness, and long-term impact.
So, should Arizona keep, reform, or repeal the 85% law?
Let’s break down the key arguments on both sides.
Arguments in Favor of the 85% Law
Supporters argue that the law ensures justice, protects the public, and keeps dangerous criminals off the streets.
1. Increases Public Safety
- Keeps violent criminals behind bars longer, reducing the chance of reoffending.
- Prevents early release loopholes, ensuring dangerous individuals serve most of their sentence.
- Sends a strong message that serious crimes come with serious consequences.
Example:
A violent offender sentenced to 20 years cannot be released after just 5 or 10 years.
Victims feel safer knowing offenders must serve most of their sentence.
More time served = fewer repeat offenses in the short term.
2. Supports Victims’ Rights & Restores Public Confidence
- Ensures justice is fully carried out, giving victims and families peace of mind.
- Prevents criminals from gaming the system for early release.
- Increases trust in the justice system by making sentencing more meaningful.
Example:
A family who lost a loved one to murder doesn’t have to worry about the killer getting parole after just a few years.
Victims deserve to see full justice—not early releases.
3. Acts as a Crime Deterrent
- Knowing they must serve at least 85% of their sentence, criminals may think twice before committing a crime.
- Harsher penalties discourage repeat offenses.
Example:
A repeat offender considering armed robbery may reconsider if they know they’ll serve nearly their full sentence.
Fear of long-term prison time can reduce crime.
4. Reduces Judicial & Parole Board Discretion
- Prevents biased or lenient parole boards from releasing dangerous offenders early.
- Ensures sentencing consistency, so similar crimes receive similar punishment.
Example:
In some states, parole boards release prisoners based on subjective assessments.
The 85% law ensures Arizona’s sentencing remains predictable.
Justice should be consistent—not random.
Arguments Against the 85% Law
Critics argue that the law is overly harsh, costly, and does little to reduce crime in the long run.
1. Increases Prison Costs & Overcrowding
- Arizona has one of the highest incarceration rates in the country.
- Keeping prisoners locked up longer costs taxpayers billions each year.
- Money spent on prisons could be redirected to rehabilitation, mental health, and education programs.
Example:
Arizona spends nearly $1 billion annually on prisons.
Reducing nonviolent sentences could save millions—without increasing crime.
More inmates = higher costs for taxpayers.
2. Doesn’t Reduce Recidivism
- Studies show longer prison sentences don’t always prevent reoffending.
- Many inmates return to society without job skills, education, or rehabilitation, increasing crime rates.
- States focusing on rehabilitation over strict sentencing see lower recidivism rates.
Example:
Texas reduced some mandatory sentences and invested in rehabilitation programs—their recidivism rate dropped.
Meanwhile, Arizona keeps inmates locked up longer but has a higher recidivism rate.
Locking someone up longer doesn’t mean they won’t reoffend.
3. Harsh Sentences for Nonviolent Offenders
- The 85% law applies not only to violent criminals but also to some nonviolent offenders.
- Drug offenders and first-time criminals often serve excessive time without access to rehabilitation programs.
Example:
A low-level drug offender serving 10 years must serve 8.5 years before release.
With proper treatment and job training, they could have been rehabilitated much earlier.
Prison shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all punishment.
4. Removes Incentives for Rehabilitation & Good Behavior
- Since inmates must serve at least 85% of their sentence, good behavior has little impact.
- In states with earned release programs, prisoners have a reason to rehabilitate and improve their behavior.
Example:
Inmates in other states can take educational programs to reduce their sentence.
In Arizona, even if an inmate completes job training, they still must serve 85% of their time.
No motivation to change = wasted years behind bars.
Should Arizona Keep, Reform, or Repeal the 85% Law?
- Keep It? Supporters argue it protects victims, deters crime, and ensures full accountability.
- Reform It? Some suggest allowing nonviolent offenders and rehabilitated inmates to earn earlier release.
- Repeal It? Critics believe it wastes taxpayer money, overcrowds prisons, and doesn’t effectively reduce crime.
Final Thought
Justice should be strong—but also smart. Arizona may need to find a balance between public safety, fairness, and rehabilitation.
Testimonials from Our Clients
What Clients Say About Our People-First Approach
Need a process server that’s fast, reliable, and legally airtight?
ProcessServer.io isn’t just another process serving company—we’re the gold standard in the industry. Choose ProcessServer.io and get it done right the first time.
"*" indicates required fields
Ready to Talk?
Journey with The Process Server (TPS) and experience the simplicity and comprehensiveness of expert legal support by TPS.
We're here to assist you with any legal support services you may require.
We're here to assist you with any legal support services you may require. Although our main office is located in Phoenix, we have dedicated local teams to handle all location-specific tasks efficiently. Here's how you can get in touch with us.
The Process Server
13416 North 32nd Street #110F, Phoenix, Arizona 85032, United States
Phone: +1 (602) 675-2333
Email: [email protected]
For further details, please refer to the Justice Courts Case Search.