The Prosecutor Who Pioneered A New Path Home From Prison

Forbes

29-05-2025

Hillary Blout
Hillary Blout founded For The People in 2019 to work with prosecutors to safely bring people home from prison, reuniting families and strengthening communities. Here, we discuss why pathways for second chances are important and how her team secured AB 2942—the first Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing law in the United States.
Michael Zakaras: Hillary, let's go back to the beginning. Why did you become a prosecutor, and what did you discover about the role?
Hillary Blout: Being from a community that experienced violence and crime, I thought there was value in becoming a prosecutor who treated everybody fairly. After all, prosecutors are the most powerful actors in our justice system. They decide if someone should be charged with a crime, and recommend how long they should go to prison. Later in my career, as I worked with organizations addressing the root causes of incarceration, I realized something: for prosecutors, a case ends at sentencing, but that's just the beginning for each of the nearly 2 million people behind bars. How could I be part of a system that sends all these people to prison without wondering what happens after the gavel strikes? My job was about public safety, but I came to see that we're not getting safer communities by keeping rehabilitated people in prison. Plus, it's costly. In California, taxpayers spend over $130,000 per year to incarcerate each person.
Zakaras: Seeing the broader picture, what did you do next?
Blout: I pivoted to working on statewide reform and learned from leaders who had been doing this work long before me. Still, I couldn't shake the idea that prosecutors could contribute to system-wide innovations if given the chance. I searched for laws allowing prosecutors to revisit past sentences in the interest of justice, but found nothing. The very people who'd asked for long sentences had no authority to revisit them—even as sentencing norms evolved over the past 30 years.
Zakaras: So you envisioned a different way forward. Tell us more.
Blout: Yes. I approached fellow prosecutors asking, 'If we had a law allowing you to revisit past sentences at your discretion, would you use it?" They said yes, that sounded reasonable, and this became my starting point—getting a law passed. So in 2019, AB 2942 became the first law of its kind in the country. We've since passed this law or rule in six states, Utah being the latest. What I've learned along the way is that our justice system values 'finality' above all. So what some saw as a 'small legislative fix" created questions about the overall design of our justice system, ultimately offering a new idea for updating and improving it.
Zakaras: With implications for millions, we might add. Stepping back for a minute, why are there so many harsh sentences?
Blout: Starting in the late 1970s and peaking in the 1990s, 'tough on crime' and 'war on drugs" policies took hold. Legislatures passed more laws enabling longer prison sentences. Prosecutors from that era tell me they were instructed to 'get the max," referring to maximum sentences, of course, and the 1994 Crime Bill incentivized prison construction with federal funding. Fast forward to today: now we see Republicans from conservative states talking about reentry programs. Over time, we've realized that in the majority of cases, keeping people in prison longer yields diminishing returns. Once rehabilitated, people should return to their communities as contributing taxpayers, parents, caregivers, and neighbors. And coming back to costs, we can also divert some of the $80B spent annually on incarceration to preventative measures that support mental health, housing, education, and recovery from substance use.
Zakaras: What might a different justice system look like?
Blout: The system historically relied on indeterminate sentences, 'life' or 'virtual life' sentences, which led to very low rates of release. Prison should be what we resort to after exhausting all other viable options such as diversion, jail, or workplace reentry programs. We should be working to get people ready to return home, not working to keep them inside forever. With over 600,000 people leaving prison every year and recidivism rates between 40–70%, a system that prioritizes dignity and rehabilitation would make our communities healthier—and cost less.
Zakaras: You started your organization, For The People, in 2019. How does it support prosecutors involved in resentencing?
Blout: First, we help pass laws that enable prosecutors to revisit past sentences. Then, we support implementation of these laws. We help prosecutors, prison officials, and others launch resentencing units to find people who are unnecessarily incarcerated. We provide technical support, analyze data, and help identify cases that fit their criteria. We also interface with incarcerated people and families to understand their stories—their childhood, what led to their crime, what they've done since incarceration, and their future plans. Prosecutors have to feel confident when they ask a court to release someone, so we apply our tested methodology, working together to find people who are ready to come home. Once people are home, we walk alongside them and help them access key services like job training, housing, and cash stipends so they can thrive.
Zakaras: How do you help prosecutors see the broader implications of their decisions, including for public safety?
Blout: Recently, we brought partner prosecutors to one of the largest women's prisons in the world. They heard about people's pathways to incarceration and the consistent themes of traumatic abuse, unstable homes, foster care, role models of violence, and gangs. The humility emerges when a prosecutor says, 'I can't say that I wouldn't have done the exact same thing you did, if my circumstances were the same. How then can I cast judgment on whether you're good or bad?' This humility is where growth happens.
Zakaras: And this kind of realization has ripple effects through the system, no doubt.
Blout: Right. The next phase is exploring how this work transforms the justice system as a whole. Is it changing how prosecutors approach a defendant in the courtroom? Are they rethinking prison versus diversion programs? We've had prosecutors tell us, 'I was in the courtroom, and the person in front of me reminded me of someone we resentenced. It had me thinking differently.' We want to measure what 'differently' means in practice. We are also focusing on tech innovations that can help prosecutors look back more efficiently. We've partnered with data scientists at UC-Berkeley to develop a tech tool that optimizes the initial phase of the case review process. And we're working to better understand how resentencing plays out across factors like race and gender—especially for women, who are often overlooked in the criminal justice system.
Zakaras: Last question, Hillary. In our hyper-polarized times, how do you maintain bipartisan support and bring everyone along with the change?
Blout: As a prosecutor, I worked with colleagues across the political spectrum and on different sides of the courtroom. We could agree to disagree respectfully. When starting this work, I knew we needed diverse support. One of California's most hardcore prosecutors told me, 'I support this law. We may not agree on other things, Hillary, but on this, I agree.' So we try to build a big tent. It's okay if we don't agree on everything, but very often, there is one thing we can agree on: there are people in prison who are simply ready to come home.
Hillary Blout is an Ashoka Fellow. You can read more about her here.
This interview has been edited and condensed by Ashoka.