Pennsylvania’s Abolitionist Organizers Win Victory Against Mandatory Life Without Parole 32%

By Sonali Kolhatkar41%

4/14/2026, 7:27:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Anecdotal, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 352 hits. Analysis detected 2,464 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.4% and a BS Rank of 32% (18,290 of 26,711 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.50% of the article peer group.

This story was co-published with Truthout . 
In late March, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court issued a momentous ruling overturning mandatory life sentences for people convicted of felony murder, also known as second-degree murder. 
Activists and advocates hailed the ruling as a victory that was years in the making and has the potential to impact the lives of more than a thousand people in the state, a majority of whom are Black. 
Those sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) are, by definition, never allowed to go before a parole board and can only ever win freedom if the governor of their state grants them clemency. 
The ACLU calls LWOP sentences “permanent removal from society with no chance of reentry, no hope of freedom,” and therefore, “short of execution, the harshest imaginable punishment.” 
It’s no wonder activists involved in ending LWOP refer to it as “death by incarceration.” 
Five states  Pennsylvania, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Carolina  require mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for felony murder convictions. 
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights , Pennsylvania has the nation’s highest per capita rate of people serving death by incarceration sentences. 
Such a conviction  in spite of its name  doesn’t mean the person accused is directly responsible for a death. 
One can also be convicted of a felony murder if one’s actions indirectly and unintentionally resulted in someone’s death. 
That was the case for a Black man named Derek Lee, who in 2014 was involved in a robbery where his accomplice’s actions resulted in a death. 
Because of Pennsylvania’s mandatory sentencing law, Lee was condemned to spend the rest of his life in prison. 
The Abolitionist Law Center filed an appeal on his behalf, resulting in the historic Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling that mandatory LWOP for second-degree murder was in violation of the state constitution’s prohibition on cruel punishment. 
“All of us who do this work know people who have been in for 20, 30, 40, 50 years even,” said Kris Henderson, co-founder and co-executive director of Amistad Law Project and founding member of the Coalition to Abolish Death by Incarceration (CADBI). 
“Many people who could come home today, would be an asset to their communities  but there’s just really no mechanism for them to come home right now.” 
Subscribe to our newsletters for regular updates, analysis and context straight to your email. 
Following the court ruling, Pennsylvania’s lawmakers have 120 days to create a mechanism ensuring the state’s compliance so that people like Lee have recourse. 
Henderson hopes that “the legislature will pass a bill that will allow all people who are serving death by incarceration for felony murder to have a chance to come home, that they will all be parole eligible after a certain number of years.” 
People who are sentenced to LWOP are often very young when they begin serving their sentences. 
That was the case with Phillip Ocampo , who, according to his mother Lorraine Haw, was only 18 years old when he was arrested and has served 32 years in Pennsylvania prisons. 
“If this Supreme Court ruling hadn’t happened, he was basically going to be in prison for the rest of his life,” said Haw. 
The groundwork for the court ruling was laid more than a decade ago when CADBI was founded. 
Henderson recalled it was a time when Philadelphia had been home to “this anti-carceral, anti-prison movement for years and years. 
And so many of us had been working together for years in different sorts of configurations at different moments.” 
CADBI’s co-founders began by sending letters to people in prison serving LWOP sentences, urging them to send family members and loved ones to an organizing meeting. 
“Hundreds of people showed up,” said Henderson. 
“Hundreds of people who didn’t know anything about a movement to abolish death by incarceration, didn’t know anything about organizing in general.” 
Among them was Ocampo’s mother. 
“We’ve gone in front of lawmakers, we’ve gone to legislators, we’ve gone inside prisons to talk about it. 
We’ve held rallies,” said Haw. 
Ocampo is her only child and Haw has made it her life’s goal to free him and others like him. 
“It was hard at the beginning because every time I talked about my son, I would have to cry. 
But I’m not there only for my son. 
I’m there for everybody that’s in the same situation as he is.” 
Thomas Schilk is a writer and artist serving a LWOP sentence in Pennsylvania. 
In an interview, his sister Joanne Schilk said, “My brother always wants people to know  although he did not kill anyone or [have] the intent to kill anyone, he did real harm, which he believes he should be accountable for.” 
She feels that after 42 years in prison, “he has taken accountability for his crime and has proven to be deserving of a second chance at freedom.” 
Like Haw, Joanne Schilk has been active with CADBI for years, attending rallies, making legislative visits, and lobbying state lawmakers to end LWOP sentences as well as supporting medical parole and compassionate release bills. 
“I helped recruit people from other counties such as Bucks and Lancaster to give them a voice and to encourage involvement, to lean on lawmakers by being a voice for their loved ones serving life sentences,” she said. 
That activism, together with sympathetic people in positions of power, paved the way for the Supreme Court ruling. 
Pennsylvania Gov. 
Josh Shapiro, who filed an amicus brief in support of Lee’s appeal, was formerly the state attorney general and had been directly involved in commuting life sentences. 
In Philadelphia, where more than 500 people are serving LWOP, District Attorney Larry Krasner has also publicly expressed support for an end to mandatory life sentences. 
“I thought my eyeballs were going to be swollen from so much crying,” said Haw, recalling how she felt when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling was announced. 
“I was so ecstatic, and I couldn’t believe it.” 
Schilk concurred, saying, “I absolutely could not believe that something had finally happened in such a huge way. 
I felt like I couldn’t breathe, I was so happy. 
I just sobbed and shook.” 
The reliance on LWOP sentences nationwide is in flux, caught in a tug-of-war between abolitionist grassroots activists and “tough-on-crime” politicians. 
Even in states where such sentences are not mandatory, LWOP can be applied to people who did not intend to kill or whose accomplices committed the murder in question. 
According to a 2025 report by The Sentencing Project, 16 percent of people in prison nationwide  that’s about 200,000 people  are serving life sentences. 
The proportion of those with LWOP sentences is up 68 percent from 2003. 
Yet, since 2005, the U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled in several cases that life sentences for people convicted as juveniles were unconstitutional (although the court’s new conservative majority has taken the court in the opposite direction). 
After the U.S. 
Supreme Court’s rulings on juvenile lifers, hundreds of incarcerated Pennsylvanians were able to come home, and according to Henderson, some among them are now involved in the movement to end LWOP for everyone. 
“They were leaders when they were incarcerated, and now are leaders at home, literally as executive directors of organizations, working for different organizations, really helping lead our movement,” said Henderson. 
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling is part of a nationwide trend to challenge life sentences without parole. 
In 2018, California changed how it applies LWOP sentences, requiring intent to murder. 
As a result, hundreds of people had their sentences reduced . 
However, thousands remain stuck behind bars, including Dortell Williams , a prominent essayist and activist. 
Efforts to soften and overturn LWOP sentences have stalled in the state . 
States like New York and Minnesota are also in the midst of reforms to LWOP sentencing. 
Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania, hundreds of families await the possibility of their loved ones being released. 
“Our hope,” said Henderson, “is that the legislature acts, and acts quickly, to allow all these people to be able to come home.” 
When asked what she would do if her son were released, Haw said, “I tell everybody, the day my son comes home, y’all better go see him and get your ‘hellos’ and your ‘goodbyes,’ because I plan to hide my son for two weeks to keep him for me, just me, just him and I, to catch up on all the years that I didn’t get to have him.” 
Schilk is also hopeful about her brother’s potential release. 
“Finally, there is a real chance for our loved ones to make a case for themselves and to be given a fair sentence for their release from prison,” she said. 
The post Pennsylvania’s Abolitionist Organizers Win Victory Against Mandatory Life Without Parole appeared first on The Appeal . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.9%Sonali Kolhatkar: 2.3%The Appeal: 2.7%Confirmation Bias7.9%This article: 1.7%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.4%The Appeal: 0.7%Anchoring Bias1.7%This article: 7.8%Sonali Kolhatkar: 3.2%The Appeal: 2.3%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.2%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.9%The Appeal: 0.4%Hindsight Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Sonali Kolhatkar: 3.1%The Appeal: 4.0%Framing Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.6%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.4%The Appeal: 0.4%Status Quo Bias1.6%This article: 1.2%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.3%The Appeal: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect1.2%This article: 16.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 9.4%The Appeal: 1.6%Optimism Bias16.0%This article: 2.4%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.6%The Appeal: 1.3%Pessimism Bias2.4%This article: 10.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 2.9%The Appeal: 6.1%Negativity Bias10.0%This article: 4.1%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.0%The Appeal: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 1.4%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.4%The Appeal: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error1.4%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.1%The Appeal: 0.5%In-Group Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Sonali Kolhatkar: 3.1%The Appeal: 0.4%Halo Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.8%The Appeal: 0.6%Recency Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.9%Sonali Kolhatkar: 3.1%The Appeal: 1.8%Appeal to Authority8.9%This article: 1.4%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.0%The Appeal: 0.9%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.4%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.4%The Appeal: 2.9%Hasty Generalization5.4%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.5%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.4%The Appeal: 0.1%Bandwagon1.5%This article: 23.8%Sonali Kolhatkar: 6.4%The Appeal: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion23.8%This article: 2.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.5%The Appeal: 0.5%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 8.1%Sonali Kolhatkar: 2.3%The Appeal: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.1%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.7%Sonali Kolhatkar: 4.2%The Appeal: 2.4%Anecdotal11.7%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.1%The Appeal: 0.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.7%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.2%The Appeal: 1.2%Unattributed Quote4.7%This article: 1.8%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.5%The Appeal: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection1.8%This article: 4.5%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.5%The Appeal: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice4.5%This article: 5.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.3%The Appeal: 0.6%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 7.7%Sonali Kolhatkar: 3.1%The Appeal: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Sonali Kolhatkar: 0.0%The Appeal: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Sonali Kolhatkar: 1.1%The Appeal: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

1476 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers52%attributed speech712writer words
Selected voice

ACLU

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words3.5% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%ACLU: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%ACLU: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%ACLU: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%ACLU: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.