Ostrom, truth in sentencing is the most prominent sentencing reform movement of the 1990s (2001). Truth in sentencing was designed to closely align the sentence imposed by the judge with the actual amount of time served in prison by restricting or eliminating parole eligibility and good time. This violent offender incarceration and truth in sentencing initiative was amended in 1996 to promote reform by providing States grants to expand their prison capacity if they included truth in sentencing requirements to violent offenders (Rosich, 2005). This grant program was instrumental in many states adopting the truth in sentencing guidelines into their policies. To be eligible for grants, each state had to demonstrate they applied truth in sentencing laws, within three years truth in sentencing laws would be implemented. By 1999, 41 states and the District of Columbia passed laws or implemented some form of truth in sentencing; however each state varied in their applications. .
Each states truth in sentencing policies regulated offender's time in prison, each state chose different ways to do so. The basic sentence of time served may be determinate or indeterminate, for the states using indeterminate sentences this percentage can apply to the minimum or maximum sentence. Most states that used truth in sentencing reform included violent offenders required to serve at least 85% of their imposed sentence. Many states continue to use indeterminate sentencing. .
Indeterminate sentencing comes from the rehabilitative theory of punishment; prisoners are released when they are suitably rehabilitated (Friedman, 1994). Many people are familiar with the concept, but may not be aware of the term. One example of indeterminate sentencing is the term five to ten years. Judges who issue sentences are aware of the release policies of prisons. .
When judges use indeterminate sentences, they can estimate the amount of time a prisoner may stay in prison and tailor their sentence to meet that estimation.