SmartTranscript of HCI-2025-04-16-9:00 AM

[Chair Alice Emmons]: Folks, this is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Wednesday We'll come back. April sixteenth. This is our morning meeting at nine o'clock, and we are taking some testimony on h three seventy nine. Last week, we had a walk through of the bill from our legislative council. We haven't decided how much we're gonna if we're really gonna work on the bill or not, but we wanted to take a little bit more testimony before we made that decision. So let's start off this morning with the sponsor of the bill, representative Eric Maguire. And Eric, welcome to your old committee. Hello. [Representative Eric Maguire]: Thank you very much, chair. For the record, yes. Representative Eric Maguire, Rutland City, human services committee. Good to be back, and I appreciate everybody's opportunity and time that they're gonna be spending today within this bill. I really wanna be brief so I can turn it on over to doctor Pisani Ruiz, who is without a doubt the foremost expert in these initiatives with her agency, the agencies that she works with. They have the ones that have developed the second look initiative, which I am very, very supportive of. Main reason why is that this is a very, very balanced approach. And what I mean by that is that the cost savings and the money that also gets put into, like, victim initiatives, supporting victims in their roles, laying things out in a very practical and applicable manner. This is not a get out of jail free card. This is not everybody can apply after fifteen years and there's automatically an answer of yes. There is a significant process that needs to be completed. There are things that need to be accomplished. There is a lot of assessments, understanding facts involved in this this initiative. So with that, I do I just wanna be brief and allow doctor Brashani Rees, and again, thank you for bringing in the expert in this to give you the facts, the true understanding of this initiative, and I hope everybody would be very responsive to it. And we do have an opportunity to become one of the few states that do push this on through because over time also, this reduces significant unilateral and collateral costs upon the taxpayer as well as upon the system. So thank you very much. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Very quick. Thank you, Eric. [Connor Casey]: He's changed. [Representative Eric Maguire]: I'm smart enough to recognize when you got the smartest person in [James Gregoire]: the room. [Chair Alice Emmons]: No. No. [Kevin Winter]: No. No. Drive away. You you did hit every buzzword. So [Chair Alice Emmons]: So, doctor Reese, welcome. So if you could also identify yourself for the record. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Of course. Good morning. My name is doctor Vershawn. I'll do a little more introducing myself once I get my my Your bearings. Yes. Get my bearings. Everybody. Everybody can see. Yes. Okay. Great. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Okay. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Good morning, everyone. Good morning, chair Emmons, vice chair, Traiano, ranking member of Morrissey. Well, that's an [Chair Alice Emmons]: old one. [Troy Headrick]: That's you. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I already messed up. Okay. Rep, you're gonna have to kick me out. This is this whole commitment. [Kevin Winter]: We we don't pick people. I would make them stay longer. Yeah. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: That's the [Chair Alice Emmons]: new not financial. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Time for a car. It's true. I love this. Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, thank you for welcoming me. And, as team members of the committee, I'm really honored to be here. My name is doctor Roshani Rees. I'm the executive director of Drop O'Wop New England. I wanna begin today with a personal story. When I was in my early twenties, I survived an attempt on my life at the hands of a romantic partner. I was choked. I was dragged by my hair. I was pistol whipped. As I was losing consciousness, I saw my body in the Charles River. The only reason I survived is because he let me go. He was a lot bigger and stronger than than I was. But his subsequent incarceration did nothing to bring me here. It did, however, put me on the path that brought me here for you today. And for that, I am grateful. Today, I hold the doctorate in clinical psychology, dual specializing in forensics and children. I have studied dangerousness and violence for the last decade. I'm also a trained restorative justice facilitator, which did actually help bring me home. I wanna thank representative McGuire for making this bill a possibility, and I wanna thank the committee for this discussion today. Without further ado. In this presentation, I will give an overview that includes second look defined, the problem of life sentences, a focus on Vermont, associated financial costs, an overview of second look legislation elsewhere because this is a movement for sure. I will then conclude my presentation, and I'm happy to take questions from the committee at any point during the presentation. So please please feel free to interrupt. [Troy Headrick]: This is a really basic one. I don't know what LWOP is. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yes. Life without parole. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Life without the passivity of parole. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Let's dive into the definition of second look. So second look is defined as any legislation that authorizes judges to review sentences after a person has served a lengthy period of incarceration. Second Look is colloquially referred to as sentence review because that's all it is. It's simply a review. For the bill drafted here in Vermont, the eligibility would require fifteen years served before one can even apply, and this underscores the thoughtfulness that is required in assessing a person who has been convicted of a violent or serious crime. If the hearing is granted, and the if is important, the individual must demonstrate both remorse and rehabilitation among a variety of many other factors. It's ultimately in the judge's hands to decide whether or not their sentence will be reduced. It may be reduced. It may not be. It is not release as Rob McGuire emphasized. Now let's explore why a second look is necessary. Why is this a move going across the country? In all fifty states, we are witnessing a problem, a relatively new problem, an aging prison population. This is relatively new because it's caused by the rise in life sentences. Now, Second Look is not explicitly for individuals who are serving life sentences, but it's evident from its design that it is intended to help people who are serving lengthy sentences, including life sentences. As members of this committee are aware, there there are three kinds of life sentences, life with the possibility of parole, meaning a person will see a parole board after several years, a few years, a lot of years, life without the possibility of parole, meaning the person will die in prison regardless of the number of years they have served, and virtual life, which is defined as a sentence as fifty years or more, and research has shown that that most likely will ultimately lead to the person's death in prison as well. The origin of the issue of the aging prison population has its roots in trends that started forty years ago. In In general, this shift occurred for two very simple reasons. One, we started sentencing way more people to life sentences, and then two, stopped letting them out. This chart from the Sentencing Project illustrates the trends since the early nineties. You can see, in nineteen ninety two, we had fifty seven thousand eight hundred and eighty eight people serving life with parole, nine thousand four hundred and four individuals serving life without parole. By twenty twenty, the numbers have skyrocketed. Life with parole is at one hundred and five thousand five hundred and sixty seven. Life without parole is fifty five thousand, just shy of fifty six thousand people. And virtual life sentences, as indicated by the light green, That's a phenomenon that started getting tracked by the Sentencing Project in two thousand sixteen. You can see in twenty twenty, forty two thousand three hundred and fifty three people. It's important to note that although it's not represented on this chart, in nineteen eighty four, which is two years after I was born, there were only thirty four thousand people serving life in all three of those categories. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So let me ask a couple of questions here. Sure. Back in the early nineties, we were seeing an increase in overall incarceration to begin with. That was three strikes you out was one of it on the national level. But also there was a move in the country and there also was here in Vermont for deinstitutionalization of our mental health system Yes. For folks to the theory was, move them out of an institutional setting, beef up the community system. And we were seeing an increase of folks being incarcerated after that. Do these numbers reflect any of that? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yes, absolutely. Because we believe that the mass incarceration, funnel, if you will, was a result of several different types of laws that swept the country, including, several types of laws that swept the country, coupled with the deinstitutionalization of our mental health hospitals. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Yeah. Because that's when in Vermont, we started really seeing an increase of folks being incarcerated as we were deinstitutionalizing our mental health system in our state hospital. And you can say you're gonna deinstitutionalize, but you are institutionalizing in a different setting. That's totally inappropriate. And that's what we were starting to see, the increase in folks being incarcerated in Vermont was due to the mental health issues. The other question I wanna ask is this is data from states. Does it also include Vermont or not? Because the data from other states, they don't have a mechanism in most states called furlough, and we do. Right. So is this just data from other states because they're incarcerated, and the next step for folks who are incarcerated in other states is parole? For us, we have incarceration, then we have furlough, and then we have parole. So do these numbers take into account anything within our system with the furlough piece? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Not this. So this is very broad. I figured I would start very broad and then we'll work down into Vermont. Because this is the Sentencing Project, which is a national organization, is attempting to capture the phenomenon, which I think they capture very well, which is that our trend of life sentences has a a very stark, steep and fine. Yeah. Questions? Kevin and then Brian? [James Gregoire]: And along the same line, inclusion of the institutionalized, is one reason. Yeah. Are you gonna address what you think the reason for the uptick is in this presentation? And I or should I ask what else is causing this increase because the population is generally staying stagnant or even dropping. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Right. Yes. And we'll move in into Vermont and talking about, you know, there has been a a a decarceration effort around the country that has actually been quite successful. Yeah. I say to people now, we don't have a mass incarceration issue. We have a life sentence issue. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Okay. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Just different. [James Gregoire]: So you're gonna sounds like you're gonna [Dr. Roshani Reece]: We'll talk a little bit about that, but please poke me if I don't Thanks. Get to your question. So we have another question here, Brian. [Troy Headrick]: Well, unlike Kevin, if you're gonna get to it, you're gonna get to it. But the two questions are, does Vermont show the same trend, and then is this due in part, to mandatory sentencing? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: All of this yes. Everything is captured in this very broad. So everything that you see here in this chart is laws that, over criminalize, you know, mandatory minimums. Like, in many states, for example, life without parole is a mandatory sentence for first degree homicide. So then you are obviously gonna see an uptick in those states. [Troy Headrick]: And then we show the same trend as the national trend here. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yes. But we'll talk about present day Vermont, which, again, is very positive place to be. I'm excited to be here. Just a quick, this is the most recent version of the chart. I just want to highlight this because it illustrates that our life sentences and our use of life sentences has remained consistent, even though, again, the country has been significantly decarcerating, but they are not decarcerating their life sentence population. If you looked at two thousand three forward, you know, you would think that a very large life population is the norm, but we know from this issue that we're dealing with, of the system not being able to take care of elderly people and things of that nature, we know that that means it's not typical. Prison systems were not developed to be nursing homes. Okay, let's talk a little bit about Vermont. A couple of things I want to point out to the Committee before I start, because on second, second look on page one, there are some statistics that I provided to explain the rationalization of the bill, but some of those research reports have been updated. So now some of those numbers are outdated. What I'll talk about today is the most current research trends published in January twenty twenty five. So cut off the presses. And I did bring copies of those reports for the committee's review. Here is a breakdown of life sentences in Vermont. Life with parole, you can see at the top chart, there are one hundred and seventy individuals serving life with parole, fourteen serving life without parole, twenty eight virtual life, totaling two twelve people. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So can I interrupt there? Do you know what their conviction was? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Which crimes? Yeah. I do not. That would [Chair Alice Emmons]: be something if we wanna work on this, it'd be very helpful for the committee to know what their convictions were. [Shawn Sweeney]: Thank you. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Thank you. That's good to know. And what the length of sentence is. To get [Dr. Roshani Reece]: both. Yeah. If you move to the chart below and to the left, you'll see the same the same groups but broken down in a different way. Now we're looking at those who are considered to be elderly inside Vermont DSE. Elderly is fifty five years or older. I know that you see that. It's not meant to be offensive, but it's definitely not a typo. We know from the research that for every year a person is incarcerated, they age two years For a variety of reasons, but as of right now, that means that forty one percent of the lifeblood population here is elderly by medical standards. And with each passing year, this number could go quite grow quite quickly because we don't know where the rest of this cohort is in their age timeline. And the trend, unfortunately, of incarcerating for life sentences here in Vermont persists. This chart again was published in twenty twenty, twenty five, January, twenty twenty five. It was created by the Sentencing Project, and it illustrates the percentage change in the life sentence population from twenty twenty to twenty twenty four. It ranks all fifty states by their ranking percentages. On the right, you'll see the zoom in I provided for you here highlighting that Vermont holds the third highest position for the percentage change, having added twenty seven percent to its lifer population in the last four years. Based on the current population, that would be about fifty seven people. And I think to the chair's point, it will be helpful to understand who those individuals are. It's my hunch is the bulk of that is changes that we made to, sex offenses. It will be interesting. [Chair Alice Emmons]: And also sex offenses. And that is a result of and I don't remember what year this was. It was the murder that happened at Brookfield, because we increased sentencing there. And sex offenders typically are older folks to begin with. They're not your twenty year olds, thirty year olds. They're mostly your forties, fifties, sixty year olds. That's the other piece here. I think we as a committee should do a little deeper dive Absolutely. Really see what's happening here. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Thank you for that. [Chair Alice Emmons]: It's just a hunch just based on what we've been working on, over the past twenty years. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Makes sense to me. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I have a dumb question. It's not so. [Kevin Winter]: Oh, it might be. Okay. There are dumb questions, and I have a few. So is this just the change? So let's just pretend use so we can use real numb right? You know, they're not real numbers. Say we had a hundred people that were sentenced without to life, and now we have a hundred twenty six, so it's twenty six percent change. Is it that measurement, or is it percentage of people under life versus the total population? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: It's that. So you take the base population and then how much have you increased in the last four years? And they did the percentage of the person. Yeah, exactly. Let's delve a little bit into the issue of aging in prison and examine why the implementation of second look policy is both practical and research based. The core issue revolves around the phenomenon of individuals aging out of criminal activity yet remaining incarcerated far beyond the point of dangerousness, eventually leading them to age into incapacitation. Now, this may or may not be physical incapacitation, but once they have reached a certain age where a nursing home or a similar placement is required, I think everyone in this room knows how difficult that is to find a way to get that person out of prison and back into the community. But for most people who are incarcerated, there are many years in between the young and potentially dangerous and the elderly and infirm. And second look is targeting those transitional years. Now, again, in Vermont, you have to wait fifteen years, but there's usually a significant time gap for most people where we could take a second look and review their sentence. This is how second look is distinguished from compassionate release because we're targeting those middle years, whereas in compassionate release is about the elderly and infirm stage, and Second Look is about the can we get them out of prison before they are elderly and infirm? But first, the concept of aging out of crime, and I know that this committee is very familiar, with things of this nature, but I think it bears repeating because it is a long standing and well tested concept in criminology. Individuals age out of criminal activity, for for a range of offenses. So I happen to pick murder and robbery here, but we have other charts that are very similar that basically show the peak level of dangerousness, quote, unquote, of a person around their twentieth, twenty first birthday, and then a decline by the time they hit forty five, fifty years old, they're significantly likely to be involved in criminal activity. Now this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. So this is not about our incarcerated population. This is just about people in the community who may be engaging in activity. So it shows a naturally a natural drop off. [Chair Alice Emmons]: But let's talk does this also show women or is it just males? Is it just men or does it also show the graph? Does that also encompass women or is it just males? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: It encompasses everybody. It's just that women are a small portion of it, but yes. I think when you separate the genders and we're doing risk assessments, you can find variation between the genders. Yeah. [Troy Headrick]: I mean, it's [Chair Alice Emmons]: a good point. [James Gregoire]: And Kevin? I'm sorry. [Chair Alice Emmons]: No. Go ahead. [James Gregoire]: Over what period of time is this data taken? I don't see this. Is this oh, nineteen ninety through two thousand times. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Yeah. I see that. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: There's so much on the screen that I always wanna make bigger so that everyone can see it. [James Gregoire]: But I got it now. Yep. Like, twenty years. Yeah. That's that's finished. Yeah. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: And it this even though it's twenty years worth of information, criminologic criminologists have been studying this for now. We're going on fifty years worth of time, and that trend hasn't changed. [Kevin Winter]: It's and it mirrors just any any common sense things we can help me. Like, the twenty year old guy has more of just to make it easy rage than a than a forty five year old man who's like this natural you know, That's mean you're criminal, but, like, you you do you define more passion. Let's go with that. And then then yeah. So [James Gregoire]: So watch out what lack of wisdom. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Lack of I mean, there's so much you're right, though. Right? I mean, you're young and dumb is what my husband would say. That's true. [James Gregoire]: That's a no problem. In basic [Kevin Winter]: terms, it's relatively true. It's biology. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. No. I I mean, how sweet would [James Gregoire]: What you do with that you [Kevin Winter]: know, what behaviors you exhibit, but then this is more naturally inclined. So anyways. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yes. Well and you're more inclined to do what your peers are doing Mhmm. At that age too, which also influences all So [Kevin Winter]: at most of our age, that's nappy. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I don't know. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: So you might be thinking, okay, people age out of prime, but can we talk about risk? Because public safety is an issue. It's a very, very, extremely important issue. And And you might be wondering, well, aren't life sentence populations more dangerous to be released? And chairman already knows where I'm going with this. But I would like to present a relevant case study because it's a perfect encapsulation of what we know from the research. This is a collective known as the Ungers. You might have heard of them. I'm not sure. But hundred and eighty eight people serving life, they were in Maryland. There was a court case. The case was overturned, which automatically allowed them all to be released at the same time. So a naturally a perfect research, study for us. They were each they were released in two thousand twelve. And when they had been released, on average, they had been incarcerated for forty years, and they were averaging about sixty four years old at the time of release. According to the Justice Policy Institute who followed them and tracked them, only five have returned for either parole, technical violations, or a new offense. This would be the equivalent of recidivism rate for this group of two percent, which is well below Maryland's overall recidivism rate of forty percent. And when we pull apart lifers and people who have served extreme sentences in this way, we tend to we tend to find this kind of repeatedly over and over. And you all probably know, you've talked to correctional officers, parole officers, probation officers, and I bet a lot of them say that their lifers are their easiest clients. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Mhmm. So could you give an example of a technical violation? I have some new members to the committee who are new to corrections, new to that world. So they're out on parole. What would be [Dr. Roshani Reece]: a technical violation? Drinking when you're not allowed to be using drugs. That's a condition of their release. Exactly. Yeah. That's often. Drugs and alcohol prohibition is often a part of the release. But my my favorites are things like you went outside of a certain area. So that may be relevant for certain cases and certain activities, but we have seen people, for instance, who are construction workers. They come out of prison, they're welders, they go to a job site, that job site is teetering on the edge of their whatnot. They've told their parole officer, but then their GPS won't stop buzzing. Their parole officer gets a phone call that says, go pick them up. They have violated their parole. And that parole officer, if he or she is worth their salt and has a good relationship with the client, they will not go and pick them up and reincarcerate them. They will give them a call and say, hey, I'm gonna stop by your worksite and check and make sure that everything is good just so I could cover my bases. But that would be a parole violation, and someone who wants to be by the books could just pick them up and take them and reincarcerate them. You may have some other ones, Chairman. Examples. As well, you [Chair Alice Emmons]: know, as we dig in deeper into corrections issues, you're gonna hear the term technical violation quite a bit. So I wanted the committee members to understand because that's very different than a new crime. Mhmm. Yes. Very, very different. And when we start talking at some point with our field offices and our PNP officers and how all of that is structured, it's really under really important to have that basic understanding of what a technical violation is. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: It's so true. It's so true. Brian? [Troy Headrick]: Yeah. It's sort of an encoded question, but, I mean, these people, the Youngers, were incarcerated decades ago Mhmm. Before at least some of the recent minimum sentencing rules. I don't know how many were in place at the time. So [Chair Alice Emmons]: it's [Troy Headrick]: an obvious observation. Everybody there is a shade of brown. Mhmm. Once we get to the minimum sentencing, does it start to skew more white because there's less choice involved? More white people are being locked up for the same rates, for the same crimes? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Across the country, state to state, it within the individual states, it varies. Across the country, we disproportionately incarcerate Black and Brown people. And then each state has varying levels of disproportion. Like the last time I looked into Vermont's data, like actually went into the data and checked the population, you all still disproportionately incarcerated people of color. [Shawn Sweeney]: Yeah. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: It was just at a different rate than a than a place that had a higher population of people of color. Still disproportionate, which I think is wrapped up in poverty and other sociological factors. [Troy Headrick]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I have another question. [Shawn Sweeney]: So that example you painted was I mean, that that's very sad example. I'm just curious. You know, if we're talking about the drug and the alcohol prohibition being a major violation for release, I mean, how many times does that actually happen? That second example that you gave where someone is working goes outside of their geographic area. I mean, is that, like, a very common sense, or is that just like a once in a blue moon? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: You know what you'll find is that it depends on that particular parole officer. I I have found that to be very interesting. Within the parole system, they know which officers sort of at the top chain of it. They know which officers, shall we say, are a little overzealous. [Troy Headrick]: Mhmm. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Right? And so that's that's important to have somebody who is in place for a really long time so they can then kind of manage that system. Technical violations, reincarceration for technical violations happen pretty frequently, hence the high recidivism rate, actually. Okay. Well, it's and that's one reason why it's hard to talk about recidivism broadly because some places will include that in their recidivism and other places won't. Not us. You don't For us, it's [Chair Alice Emmons]: a new cry. Yeah. It's not technical violations. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: That's the way it should be. Yeah. In my opinion, that's the way it should be. [Kevin Winter]: On that point, to Will's point, this is I mean, this is a little off the topic, but that's why anybody for their assessor, potentially, somebody who's out on, you know, and and worry. Everything in writing. Everything like, don't just do a parole. Hey. Hey. Can I go to this job site? Yep. Well, there's no evidence now. Put it in writing. Right? I mean, like, protect yourself at all costs because there there are people that [James Gregoire]: are overzealous. You know? So Absolutely. No. [Kevin Winter]: And I'm helps us today, but it just [Troy Headrick]: I mean, [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I'm I'm appreciating the knowledge in this room. It's it's it's it's really great to be able to talk about the system in a in a little bit of [Chair Alice Emmons]: a deeper level. So we have So continuing Yeah. [Troy Headrick]: I was gonna [Dr. Roshani Reece]: say Oh, yes. Oh, please. [Shawn Sweeney]: Question. So now that brings up a whole different topic of discretion by pull. So who or I'm assuming statute would govern that and how narrow or how wide the federal law No. [Chair Alice Emmons]: It comes from central office. It comes from central office. And we have in Vermont what we call graduated sanctions that play into this. We, we as a committee, we just haven't gotten into that part yet, because I didn't wanna confuse everybody. It's a whole different world when you are supervising someone on the outside versus the incarcerated setting. So everyone here is just getting their head around the incarcerated setting. We haven't even touched what it's like when they're supervising on the outside, what tools are used, what incentives are used, how often someone may have a technical violation before they're even pulled back into a correctional facility. And it depends. If they're on furlough, it's DOC that makes that decision. If they're on parole, it's the parole board. So we haven't even gotten into that as a committee [Dr. Roshani Reece]: in terms of supervision on the outside. It is a completely different Very different. [James Gregoire]: Yeah. And are those stipulations cookie cutter or can they be customized to the person? Customized. Yeah. Yeah. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I mean, they've got some broad policies. Yeah. Yeah. But then It can be customs. Yeah. Yeah. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: And we [Chair Alice Emmons]: have some statutes that are driving that, but in terms of the day to day operations, it comes from central office for their policies and directives. [James Gregoire]: Glad to hear that. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: No. And it's and it's good. And, I would love to go into depth. And I would love to be testifying next time on that going into depth because we're looking at our life sentences and moving them, you know, out of the prison and into the supervised community. Now let's talk a little bit about the expenses of incarceration. I noted during the walkthrough that it was noted that on the first page of the bill, the cost of incarceration per person is listed as a hundred and thirty four thousand two hundred and eighteen dollars. I wanted to clarify for the committee where that came from. So there is a fabulous, nonpartisan research org at the national level called USA FACTS. They're accountants, writers, researchers, and they scour all publicly available data to do their calculations, and they do their calculations on a number of things. So if you have never heard of them, I highly recommend them. However, I do want to be respectful and note that the Vermont Department of Corrections on a report that they issued in January twenty twenty three about the twenty twenty two fiscal year, they noted the cost of incarceration per at ninety five thousand two hundred and ninety two people per dollars per person. Haven't had enough coffee at this morning. So I can't explain the variation between those two sets of numbers because I don't know the internal processes of each, but what I can assure you is that both sources are considered reliable and credible from a research perspective. So let's look at the math and I put it on there for you. By the DOC calculations, two twelve lifers at ninety five thousand dollars per person equals an annual cost of a little over twenty million dollars By USAFAX calculations, the annual cost is twenty eight million dollars Now the reason I'm not so concerned, I'm a little more cavalier about the numbers here with the dollars and cents, is because this is the floor. All sets of these numbers are on the floor. This number is only gonna go up when people have chronic meds medical conditions, unexpected surgeries, cancer treatments. So either way, you're looking at an incredible amount of money for your lifer population. I'm sorry. I missed part [Chair Alice Emmons]: of those Yeah. Sending a text. So that ninety five thousand per person, that is that came from our DOC. Yes. And that is the average, which includes all of our facilities, I'm assuming. So the smaller your facility, the higher the per capita cost is. So we have some facilities that have a hundred people in them, some that have two hundred, and then you get to three fifty for four twenty five. So this is an average. Does that also include their health care at that [Dr. Roshani Reece]: point, the ninety five thousand? So I believe that way the Vermont DOC calculated it is a reflection. So for them, this this would include what they spent What they spent. In fiscal year twenty twenty two on average. Yeah. It only gets more expensive once people go. [James Gregoire]: Either number is huge. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yes. Yeah. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: So we The numbers we've seen for this fiscal year are one zero seven. That's what DOC testified to, and we also have, I think, a proposed fifteen percent budget increase. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So this is Yeah. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: We're gonna make it one twenty three, but to to point, they're all [James Gregoire]: out of mind. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So this is it's right above your head, Jill. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: But it's twenty twenty three. That's the date for Christmas. Well, so it was Isaac's presentation in January twenty three. So before fiscal year twenty two. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So we're talking fiscal year twenty six. Yeah. So some of that is inflation. Yep. Whatever. Right? Well, in terms of [Troy Headrick]: the discrepancy sorry, Jer, between the two numbers, is it possible that USAFAX is not counting our folks down south? Like, would they only count? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: It is it is quite possible. Yeah. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Because that that that can make sense. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. It is it is quite possible. They could have different timelines for when they did the calculations running for school years differently. Right. I'm sure that they included different areas of scope or didn't include certain That [Chair Alice Emmons]: would also include programming cost to everything per person, [Dr. Roshani Reece]: you know, which we obviously don't wanna get like the south, but I'll leave that conversation for another time. So we have the issue of an aging prison population, which has potentially aged out of crime. They are statistically lower in terms of recidivism and public safety risk, and they cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Those factors are huge driving forces behind the second look movement across the country. So second look across the country takes different forms, and I brought a report for you all if you wanna go in in-depth because the appendix will actually break down the statutes and the requirements of each State's second look policy because they're all different. But Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Oregon, Florida, North Dakota, and Washington, D. C, they allow for sentence review under certain conditions, such as the age at the time of the crime in DC, for example, under the age of twenty six, you can get a second look, and or serving a certain amount of time already. So in that case, a person has to have already served twenty years before they can get their review. The asterisk that's on Maryland is because second look legislation just passed last week, and so it's waiting for the governor to sign off. And it's additional second look legislation down there. California, Colorado, Oklahoma, they target their sentence review towards certain populations, such as survivors of domestic violence or military vets. And again, the asterisk, Georgia, just last week, passed brand new legislation that is awaiting the governor's signature. California, Illinois, Minnesota, Washington state all have statutes that allow prosecutors to initiate re sentencing, and California's version of that actually also allows the DOC to petition for the person to be re sentenced. The remainder of the states on the chart have judicial rulings that have basically tackled the issue of life without parole for emerging adults. So it's either made juvenile life without parole unconstitutional or juvenile life without parole up to the age of twenty, twenty one, twenty two, depending on which state you look at, requiring that state to resentence that person. And again, I brought a report for that. [Chair Alice Emmons]: In conclusion, [Dr. Roshani Reece]: so we have a problem. Very large life sentenced population that's stagnant. It doesn't have a lot of opportunities or pathways for review to see if we could release them at various points in their incarceration. We know that people typically age out of crime by midlife. We know that people who have served lengthy sentences are generally safe to release, persevering person to person, and the issue of the aging prison population is only going to get worse until you have a Google alert on my sentences and every day my email box is full of people being sentenced to life everywhere. Second look is a thoughtful review process It requires the person to serve a minimum amount of time. It requires a judge to look at that petition and make a decision. Will I accept this for review or will I not? And they can make that decision to not. And then when they have the person in front of them in the bill, you'll see there's a whole list of things that the judge is going to take into consideration, including the statements from survivors if they want to testify, prosecutors if they want to object, things of that nature. And then the judge may or may not choose to reduce their sentence, maybe by five years, maybe by ten years, maybe change their life without parole to life with parole, in which case they would then, I'm assuming based on the statutes here, need to go through the parole process here. So this is a very high bar that people would have to meet, but we have found from the research that these individuals are worth a second look. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So it's within the courts that determine whether or not the person's sentence is decreased, whether they'd be eligible then for parole, it would be up to the court and the judge based on facts or factors that were presented at that time of the hearing. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Right. What we're looking for is rehabilitation. Say not to interrupt your chairmons. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So the question is, who would petition the court for that review? Would it be DOC? Would it be the state prosecutor? Would it be in conjunction with DOC and the prosecution? Because we already have some things in place right now in terms of, and I'm thinking of home detention, because we, it's home detention is determined by the courts, but it's upon petition from DOC. And I think also state prosecutor as well as the defense counsel as well for that. So we already have some form of that instructor in our statutes. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: And we'll also throw in a, an an unusual or a rare occurrence, but it does happen in second look. The other great thing about second look is it allows a person to present evidence of innocence. When the Innocence Project doesn't have the capacity to take somebody's case. And if a judge were to receive that petition and they were to receive, you know, additional evidence or whatnot, it would be compelling then for that judge to, you know, say, okay. We're gonna take a look at this. We're gonna review this case. Because I think most people assume that if you have evidence of innocence that there's just a pathway back for you into court, but there just there just isn't. And so we have in Rhode Island, actually, we've been using that. We have an innocence case down there that they're just refusing to take. They just won't look at it even though they have an attorney. Second look would be a way to get to the judge through another mechanism to make that case. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Joe and then Connor? [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Page four states about the petitioner. [Chair Alice Emmons]: It's [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: And incarcerated person. It it's very vague about who the petitioner is, so I think I suspect that's intentional by whoever drafted it. That I I wasn't I [Chair Alice Emmons]: dropped it. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Oh oh oh, I'm sorry. No. No. No. I'm sorry, but I suspect you left it vague on purpose. Mhmm. Because there are various parties that could file a petition. Right? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Or I I was gonna say or I was writing six other bills at the same time. But I think, in other states, it varies dramatically. My recommendation would be a combination that it could be the person can petition because I think them being able to make their case to the judge is important. But I think it's powerful if the DOC were to feel that a sentencing review you know what I mean? I think a recommendation from the DOC or from a prosecutor would be extremely powerful because those would be very rare. And based on experiences in other States, they would not be happening very often. But it's obviously, I leave it up to the wisdom [Chair Alice Emmons]: of the committee. But So the way it's written is it's the per person who's incarcerated with petitions. It's not DOC. It's not the state prosecutor. It's the person who's in person. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Page [Chair Alice Emmons]: Top of page three. [William 'Will' Greer]: Yeah. Look at line nineteen. It does open up on page three. The name of the petitioner is different than the incarcerated person. [Chair Alice Emmons]: The petition shall include the name of the petitioner And I think of the incarcerated person. So So [William 'Will' Greer]: that means somebody else could be doing it on behalf. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Right. But if you Medical is an example of that. What do you mean medical? If somebody was incapacitated and somebody was writing on their behalf. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Right. So it could be a guardian. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. Exactly. Power of attorney or Exactly. [Chair Alice Emmons]: But that's not clear on the top of page three b. Notwithstanding, I have a provision of law to the contrary, an incarcerated person may petition the sentence in court for a reduction of the person's term. So it's silent in terms of line nineteen, in terms of how you get there. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: From an intent perspective, I think it's good to leave open maybe the petitioner. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I will take further testimony on it and work through. Let's just just get the basic understanding of the second look and see if the committee is interested in doing further work on it, and then we really do set up more testimony to work through the language and the bill and work through the practice that's occurring. There's a lot of practice in place right now in the state, because we do have the furlough mechanism. We have parole. We have different types of furlough, one of which is medical furlough. We also have medical parole and how all that would tie in. And also it's to look at, I'd like to know what those convictions what the conviction was and what their sentence because we have minimum and maximum for the most part. Other states may not have the minimum maximum. They have a determinant time of that sentence. Our sentencing is not determinant because we have a minimum and we have a maximum. Other states, you're in for ten years and then you're out. There's nothing in the middle. So we have a lot of off ramps when a person is sentenced. So that's what the committee needs to understand is what are those off ramps and then how that plays in if we do a second look. Mhmm. That's what I'm trying to bring together here for us as a committee. K. Okay. Connor and then Gavin and James. [Connor Casey]: Thanks. Thanks so much, doctor Reese. This is a really helpful testimony. Two questions. What I I guess one worry I would have is, you know, fifteen years goes by and maybe you don't have, like, an active family member or advocate network, maybe you have a serious, you know, mental illness or cognitive impairments. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I I [Connor Casey]: would worry about people getting left behind. Is there an automatic, like, sort of trigger that the person is notified that, you know, fifteen years is up, you can't petition at this point, you know? Because I could just see somebody, like, waving out and never even know it, you know? So that was one question. And then I just wonder how you arrived on the fifteen years and if that was consistent in other states. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: So the arrival point is that we have found from the research that anything beyond ten years doesn't make doesn't make sense. You you public safety wise, money wise, when you sort of combine it, I'm looking for the phrase diminishing returns. That's the phrase I'm looking for. Anything beyond ten years of incarceration, even for murder, other violent crimes, like, you're getting diminishing returns. So most states for a second look are not willing to contemplate ten years that feels too low to them. And so we have a variety of years set up in second look legislation depending on the culture of the state and and actually the specific problem that's in at hand. Like, who are we looking at here? For fifteen years is gonna be significant for many people. [James Gregoire]: Got it. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. [Connor Casey]: And and anything about the sort of notification that that happens in other states? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I'm making a mental note of that because I thought I put it in there. And if it's not in there [Connor Casey]: It might be. I could [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Usually, it's like a flag where it says, like, the d on day such and such, the DOC will notify the person that they're eligible to petition for this. [William 'Will' Greer]: Page three. [Connor Casey]: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I'm just not really online. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: So I appreciate your, wanting to make sure people know. We usually put say over that reason, but notice. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Mhmm. But the question, though, that Connor brought up, well, it would be to the court prosecution and the defender general, so they could be speaking on behalf of a person who has dementia or is incapacitated in some way. Mhmm. Kevin and then Troy? [James Gregoire]: Okay. Have you ever seen a summary of the recidivism for all those various off ramps, like you say? I mean, over the last five years, you've since the since the law has changed, two percent of the furloughs have [Chair Alice Emmons]: That will be a question for DOC, because it's over a three year average of someone being out is what determines the risk. I think we're at thirty, thirty three percent. We've we've held pretty stable, I believe. But that would be a question for DOC. And I know that there is I think it's an judiciary committee or maybe it's more in the senate. They're really looking at how we calculate our recidivism rate. There's a look because we put that in place we put that in place over ten years ago. So over ten years ago. And I know Senator Sears worked a lot. And it's an average of a person over a three year period of the person being outside, being out on for a little parole. But that would be a DOC question. That's definitely DOC. [James Gregoire]: Mhmm. I think that would be very helpful [Chair Alice Emmons]: to I think it runs around the third thirty percent. Yeah. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: But recidivism recidivism is so tricky. [Chair Alice Emmons]: It's very tricky. It's defined here and from on as creating a new, which is good, a new crime. In other states, that's not the definition. And so you gotta be careful when you it's not comparing apples to. It's true. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: It's so true. And so I because I focus on extreme sentences, generally, what we find for homicide Yep. If you have committed homicide and then you are released, the statistical average, you know, chances that [Chair Alice Emmons]: you would commit another homicide, about two percent. You already got rid of your problem. That's what DOC says. Get rid of your problem. If you're in for murder, we took care of your problem. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Well, but you said the recidivism for another homicide is two percent? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. A when you average it across the country in in a variety of studies. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Yeah. It's still one out of fifty. So if it's there's another I don't mean to make light of it, but that's [James Gregoire]: Yeah. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: That's pretty high, right, compared to the general population. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I would say so it's it's not when we look over time because our murder rates have been going down, down, down, down for the last decade or so. I think our our risk tolerance for releasing people is highly very culturally dependent, and we we seem to, as Americans, have a very low risk tolerance. So when something if I may, when something happens, there's a big explosive sort of reaction. One of the reasons that the problem we have in front of us today is the result of those reactions. Something happens. Mhmm. This thing was horrible. Mhmm. Now we're gonna put this law in place, or now every time somebody else does this, we're gonna sentence them to life without parole. Whereas in before, we would have sentenced them to life with parole knowing that they can be really rehabilitated. You know? So a point in case [Chair Alice Emmons]: Yes. It's the murder of the young girl in in Brookfield, Brooke Bennett. [Shawn Sweeney]: Mhmm. [Chair Alice Emmons]: A point in case. And that happened back in two thousand ten, two thousand twelve, and our sentence length for sex offenses went up Yeah. Because of that. [Kevin Winter]: And and [Chair Alice Emmons]: then So that's a cause and a reaction. [Kevin Winter]: And it's not just this field either, by the way. Things happen in society all the time, and we react. Okay. We we do go to one side [Shawn Sweeney]: or the other. [Kevin Winter]: The only thing I would say, like, as far as just, like, there's, you know, murder. I I think in many cases, you might have somebody not this right. Maybe somebody you're very angry at. You murder somebody or it keeps something happens. But then I look at this and you you gotta go with your own moral values. But as far as I'm concerned, I don't care if it's rehabilitated or not child molester. You should never be out of prison. But, I mean, we have that's like a discussion we'll have to have. But, like, there's certain people that I I'm sure each one of us has somebody that we say that particular thing shouldn't be eligible. So something to work here. [Chair Alice Emmons]: We'll work through testimony. Sean and then Brian. [William 'Will' Greer]: Thank you, doctor Reese. It's actually fascinating. But I I'm just wondering about victims. Yes. And how do they is there any data Yes. Okay, on how they feel about Second Look? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Well, not Second Look specifically, but we do have the twenty twenty two survivors speak report that I usually when I'm testifying as a survivor, I usually bring that data with me. I can I'm happy to share it with the committee. It's a very good report, and it basically shows that the majority, like, depending on which piece of it you're looking at, you know, two out of three survivors want the system to focus on rehabilitation versus just really long sentences. You know? And, like, you know, I think it's sixty six percent, don't quote me, but it's something like that of survivors that absolutely support the idea that somebody can earn their way towards a second look. So if they're active with their education, their job training, their drug counseling, their therapy, their whatever, If that person can demonstrate that they are doing that, that survivor is in support. And these are survivors of violent crime, like, included in these conversations. So so, yeah, I'm happy to send it to the committee. I usually bring it with me if they're going in. But yeah. Brian, and then [Troy Headrick]: It was the same line of questioning, and so I'd love to see that too. We had testimony earlier this year about, not second look, about a good time or time served, and there was some concern among some victims and victim's advocates that there hadn't been truth in sentencing. Right? It's gonna be ten, but it's only eight or something like that. And it seems like it could hit the same chord. But, yeah, so same request as Sean. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Well, in truth in sentencing is actually one of the major reasons that we landed here in the first place. Truth in sentencing is like a nineteen eighty policy. The woman who I believe one of the first people who started advocating for it is actually in New Hampshire. And so this truth in sentencing is one of the reasons we're here. You know? Survivors the situation with survivors is really challenging because as a survivor myself, I know that everybody's journey is different, and I don't believe anybody has the right to tell a survivor how to feel. And at the same time, I know that restorative justice brought me healing and that I have actively had to look for my own healing as opposed to just relying on the incarceration of a person. So I'm hoping that as we move into this next phase in our society where we're looking at this overall picture that we can find better ways to take care of and support survivors. It's one of the reasons that this bill at the end has the reallocation piece. Because when I worked with Robert Maguire on this, I asked him, I said, can we can we reallocate at least a portion of this savings to support survivors? Because I almost lost my job because I couldn't I couldn't show up. I was calling out of work because I had PTSD. I was having nightmares and flashbacks, like, night after night after night, waking up thinking that I was being choked. You know? I I couldn't afford therapy at that time. I was at a job that didn't give me health insurance. I couldn't even so I had friends and [Chair Alice Emmons]: I had family to support me. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: But I could imagine if I had friends and family who were telling me that he should rot in prison, that I would then take that mentality as like, oh, that's what that's what needs to happen in order for me to be sane. And but it it just isn't. It would never be for me. That would have never worked. [Troy Headrick]: Understood. Yeah. Thanks. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Kevin and then Will? [James Gregoire]: If you're not comfortable answering this question, I totally understand. But is your assailant still alive? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yes. [James Gregoire]: And and so [Dr. Roshani Reece]: And he has a family. [James Gregoire]: I'm sorry? [Chair Alice Emmons]: He has a family. [Troy Headrick]: And so [Dr. Roshani Reece]: He's working. He has a family. For Yeah. We have not had much communication. He was released in Massachusetts and then went back to his home state in Pennsylvania. And so I have seen him on Facebook. I've seen, you know, what he's up to and things like that. And even though it was a really horrible situation at the end of the day, it changed my life in a way that, like I said, brought me here. Beautiful. And so I'm grateful. But, yeah, he's still alive. [James Gregoire]: God has many ways of doing things. But you you obviously, since you're advocating [Chair Alice Emmons]: Yeah. [James Gregoire]: Believe that it was the right thing to do for him to be released. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I do. Yeah. And then when I started doing restorative justice inside the prisons, so I've facilitated in seven different prisons, one women's prison. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Explain what restorative justice is, because again, this is new terminology for a lot of a lot of folks here. So this is a new we have restorative justice here in the state as well. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I know. I work with your advocates. They're lovely people. Restorative justice is a philosophy that hurt people hurt people. And so when a hurt person has hurt another person, there is, like, a tear in the fabric of the community that has happened. And therefore, the mending of that fabric, is not to simply just take somebody and incarcerate them, though incarceration may be a part of what they do for as a part of punishment. But the real work and the real healing comes through dialogue, either with a surrogate or with the actual person themselves. So, like, for example, with Maya Salen, if we had done restorative justice together, I would sit down with him face to face with other people in a circle, and we would talk and I would get to ask him questions. I would be allowed to ask him all of the questions that many people wish they could ask. Why did you do it? Are you sorry that you did it? Like, have you changed? You know? There's a lot that people who have lost loved ones have told me they would never be able to the information can never come from any other source other than the person that took the life of their loved one. And so being able to have that direct conversation, which is really powerful, for me was transformative. You know, I decided to become a restorative justice facilitator when I sat in the basement of San Quentin Prison with a group of men, all of whom had taken life, and shared with them my story. And then they shared with me, like, what they felt about it, you know, their reactions to my story, their sorrow that I had lived through that, and then also some of the things, some of the violence that they had lived through as young people as well. And that makes everybody in that space, I think, a little better. Doesn't make it right, but it makes it better. And so after my assailant was sentenced, to seven seven to ten years, ten years, seven minimum, I was horrified. I didn't want him to go to prison. I had asked the DA to not pursue the case. She said she would subpoena me and force me to be on the stand to testify if I refused. So I was young and didn't know what to do, so I did. And then he was sentenced, and he went away. And all I felt was guilt and horror. And and I wondered, did he care about what he had done to me? Was he sorry? That's what I wanted to know. So then when I started doing restorative justice, fast forward doctorate, you know, restorative justice facilitator, and I'm in the spaces with all of these people inside, it's really hard for people in society to hear this. But people who are serving life without parole and really long sentences, the overwhelming majority of them are sorry for what they did and are either trying to be rehabilitated or are definitely rehabilitated from a forensic psych perspective anyway. That was a long winded answer. I apologize. [James Gregoire]: No. It was very helpful, and and I could see the difference between premeditated and [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I'm a passionate. [James Gregoire]: Yeah. I mean, I I appreciate that. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Thank you. Thank you, Jeremy. [Shawn Sweeney]: I'm glad you mentioned the victim's fund because yesterday when we asked about justice reinvestment from the federal level, there was no money that was being directed at least in that way. So I'm glad to hear that. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Connor? [Connor Casey]: Yeah. I guess you shouldn't talk politics too much in committee, but I was just wondering what the sort of fight was like to get this bill over the finish line in some of those other states. What was interesting to me was, you know, some of the states highlighted on your map there wouldn't typically be, like, you know, really lefty states. Right? So [James Gregoire]: Yeah. [Connor Casey]: You know, like, was there a lot of opposition? Was did did people duke it out in the state house? And it's has there been efforts to repeal it, you know, like, since so just just just kinda curious. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I would say I don't I was not intimately involved in all of them, but from a standing back and knowing all of the players who were involved, I would say, generally, this stuff is an uphill battle with the prosecutors. They they tend to they have said before that they get it right, that, you know, that everything that they do, they get it right. We actually had that happen in Connecticut where our other second look legislation is pending right now, where they said they get the cases right. So that tends to happen across the board that the prosecutors are are opposed. And then we get these places where so DC is a great example. They they have been really progressive on this stuff on these issues. Maybe progressive is the wrong word. Forward thinking. I think they've been forward thinking on these issues. They were the first to pass second look for emerging adults under the age of twenty six, with just a minimum of fifteen or twenty year sentence requirement. And DC then went on, like, a year or two later to abolish life without parole. And the federal government came in and said no and and took care of that. So they tend to move in a future oriented direction in these types of issues. Then the other places, it's all about who you're who comes out to support you if you have a survivor who's really high profile, who wants something like second look that is really helpful. You know the politics of it. Yeah. And then some of the specific domestic violence survivors, for instance, and the military vets, for instance, to me, they are the beginning of heading towards this because those two categories are basically saying we acknowledge that in the context, which is what you were referring to earlier, the context of the crime matters. And if these people were in a domestic violence relationship and the crime occurred in that context, these states are saying like, well, we should those sentences should be reviewed. Not that the person never does prison time, but that they're reviewed. Or if you were a military vet and you have PTSD and you have a flashback snap reaction and you kill somebody, you know, we now understand better the context of the crime. But to me, we're that's a slow walking towards the real thing, which is all violence happens in a context. And shouldn't we be reviewing or at least thinking about reviewing sentences at some point for everybody rather than just sending them into a black hole to die. But that's just my hot take. [James Gregoire]: Thanks so much. Yeah. [Chair Alice Emmons]: So what has happened where a second look is in place and say the court really agrees that, you know and maybe the person should be released. It's not always decreasing the length of time left on the sentence. It's saying, okay, you really should be released. What happens in a situation where there's no place to release the person? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Has that come up? It has come up and other states have one second look has passed. There has been a whole implementation phase that usually involves, more heavily the Department of Corrections, the judges. What do you mean by implementation stage? So, like, when if this bill were to pass, I think that our effective date is probably to that's listed on the bill is to, close. So we would push that out. Some other second look legislation has pushed it out even further. When the law allows effective. Exactly. [Chair Alice Emmons]: I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about when a person reaches that fifteen year, whatever whatever structure it is Okay. And the court is looking at should the sentence be decreased, and could the person be released. Right. And there's no place to put the person. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Right. And so when what we have done is when the statute has passed and it goes into law, we then have worked with Department of Corrections, judges, things like that, to come up with the the plan. What's the plan? Like, do we want to not statutorily require, but rather administratively require a process? So maybe the DOC would suggest, if the judge comes to this conclusion, we're gonna then ask for, I don't know, hundred and eighty days to make up their plan or or a full year, or I don't know if you have step downs here. I've seen some places have said that when you when they have reduced your sentence, they can step you down to, like, a minimum. [Chair Alice Emmons]: No. Minimum. Facility. Yeah. No. We don't we don't have no. Our facilities have both minimum and minimum and medium Got it. For that. So it's it just depends how many walls of separation between the person who's incarcerated and the outside. That's that's what's determined. And what determines a minimum or minimum or medium? It's really based on the offender's behavior while they're incarcerated. It's not based on their conviction or their crime. It's based on their behavior while they're incarcerated for that. So we don't the only thing that we're possibly looking at is for the women's facility. If and when we ever build a new one, they would have an incarcerated facility, and then they would also have a separate facility that's called reentry for folks who have served whatever length of the maybe two years out from meeting their minimum or a year out from meeting their minimum. They have, participated in the programming that was required. They've been a offender who abided by the rules while they're incarcerated, and they could qualify to be in the reentry building, which then would allow them to leave the facility possibly on a day to day basis and then come back to the facility. So that's what [Dr. Roshani Reece]: we're looking at for the women. Mhmm. That's long term. And the men, we don't have we don't have a structure like that yet. Makes sense. Yeah. So any recommendations that you have based that the committee has based on state you know, on this state specific, how we would wanna implement. Right? [Chair Alice Emmons]: Because I know one thing. Right now, a lot of folks could be released on medical for a while. A lot of folks could be. There's just no placement for it. That's one of the issues. Some folks should be in a nursing home. Nursing homes, particularly if there is a sex offense, will not take. And sometimes, you know, families are not capable of handling the case or the situation, the medical situation of the person, or the family is the victim and they don't want the person. So I'm just that's where I'm coming from. How would a court deal with that? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Right. And I think we would want to we have a great well, I should say, I have a great relationship with the DOC here too, and I would definitely be interested in speaking with them and partnering and saying, what is it that we can do? You know? And I think it would have to be [Chair Alice Emmons]: a case by case basis, obviously. Because we already have that mechanism in place, so to speak. Right. Because we do have the furlough piece and we have medical furlough, and we also have the parole piece, which is medical parole. So we already have those little mechanisms in place, not just say that we can look at at second look, which just a little it's another tool in the toolbox. Right. It's like, can we plug it all into to the same, like, pathways that already exist? Yeah. Are those are those off ramps available in Vermont for people who have no opportunity for parole? Or or maybe we No. Most of our sentencing is minimum, maximum. We don't have that many Fourteen. Yeah. Fourteen out of twelve hundred people who are incarcerated. Fourteen people life without parole. Right. So It's pretty minimal. [James Gregoire]: So the app the opportunity for this program in Vermont actually is minimal [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: because they all have opportunity for parole. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Furlough. If they have Furlough. Yeah. The furlough kicks in when they've reached their minimum. Right? And then if they're furloughed out at their minimum and they're successful, they could be paroled. We've also put in a few years ago that when a person has reached their minimum, they are presumed to be paroled. So they don't have to do the furlough step. They are presumed to be paroled, and the DOC has to make the case that they are not a good candidate to be paroled. Some folks, when they reach their minimum, who go right into the wall. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Right. But this bill, if I may, is designed to look at potential sentence reductions. So rather than waiting for somebody to get all the way to maybe when they're too old and now we're looking at an elderly in firms [Chair Alice Emmons]: To reach their minimum. Right. So if their minimum is twenty years, they've served fifteen years. So upon that fifteenth year, they could petition the court for a second look at their sentence. [James Gregoire]: So and I'm not saying your recommendation is wrong, but if we just change ours or a minimum of fifteen instead of twenty years, you've accomplished the same thing without a parent program. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Well, it's not us that makes those determinations for everything. In our statutes that come through the sentencing commission [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Right. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Is for certain crimes, what's the sentence, and there's minimum, maximums. That's set in statute, but it determines when it goes through the court proceedings, it's the judge that makes the determination Right. For that within the confines of the statute for that particular crime. But those statutes are derived from the sentencing commission that we have, but then goes into state law. So many layers. So it's up to the court when they sentence someone to what it is. So we can't we can't go say, well, every minimum is gonna be fifteen years because we have minimums that are five years, which you could have a maximum of twenty. So we can get into that a little bit with DOC. I think we would need to so folks can really understand how it plays out. [James Gregoire]: One one more curious question. I think I saw the state of Washington has all three situations? [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yes. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Yep. Because county by county, they [Dr. Roshani Reece]: No. It was a it's three as in they have they have a judicial ruling that makes j l makes l lop unconstitutional up to the age of twenty one. That's the Momski case. So that's judicial. And then they have legislation that is second look. And then what was the [Chair Alice Emmons]: and they abolish JL up. So those are [Dr. Roshani Reece]: the three. Yeah. Yeah. Because this is all about addressing the large life sentence population and what are the ways that we can address the large life sentence population. Yeah. [James Gregoire]: So It's not regions of the state No. They're handling in three different [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. They they live the way. They did the Monchke case before Massachusetts did their case last summer. [James Gregoire]: Sounds like we've got multiple offerings. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. Which, you know, from a life sentence perspective is is very good. No questions. How [Chair Alice Emmons]: much, Doctor Reese. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: So much of your time. I appreciate all of it. No. That's great. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Thank you. Opportunity to talk to you all. [Connor Casey]: Thanks, doctor Reese. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. You have someone else from Yale organization too. Yes. She's had a medical emergency. She's not on Zoom. I didn't see her. [James Gregoire]: She's still on Zoom. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Okay. I did not see her. She's done a lot around the country too. So [Chair Alice Emmons]: So I know we had some other folks here that I don't know if you'd be interested in testifying, either one or not, if you had planned on it or just in to hear the testimony from doctor Reese. I just wanna offer while you're here, if you would like to testify. I'm not asking you Thank you. You too, but Chris. Tim, you wanna come on up? And if folks don't need to take a break, take a personal break. But, Tim, just briefly. [Tim Birches]: Very briefly. My name is Tim Birches. I am the cochair of Dropout Law Off New England. I'm the executive director of Vermont Cure. I one hundred percent support this legislation. And, you know, obviously, I think a lot of legislation around the country has significant carve outs. I've heard a lot about sex offenders, things like that. And I would ask the committee if there are any questions for me to feel free to ask. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Questions at all? Yep. Sean, I'm in the room. [William 'Will' Greer]: I mean, why are you so passionate about it? [Tim Birches]: I've been I've been I've been incarcerated. I have I work very closely with people who are incarcerated, who are serving extreme sentences. And I know the positives and the negatives of, having served and incarcerated with people who have, as doctor Reese pointed out, grown out of their misspent youth. So [James Gregoire]: yeah. [William 'Will' Greer]: And then a follow-up to that, and I guess this is for doctor Reese too, but is there some correlation between having the victims meet with the with the perpetrators and come to some kind of, like that's almost like that that part of forgiveness and the the restorative justice, is that kinda baked in here too or not? Is it loosely just, like, just giving money at the end of it? [Tim Birches]: So I'll let doctor Reese attest to that. But as a person who had a victim, I know that baked into the program that's happening Programming within corrections. Within corrections. Thank you. The programming that happens, there is the baked in victim empathy piece. And in my situation, when I went from a parole board, there was no question that it was very, very centered on you created this victim. Now, how do you reconcile with that person? So I don't know if that answered your question. [William 'Will' Greer]: But Well, it's is it official? Like, is that part of the the the process? Like, it almost seems like that needs to be if the victim wants to hear it or be part of it, they should that should be part of to me, I don't know. It just seems I don't I don't know a lot about it. But [Tim Birches]: That should absolutely in my position in my from my personal opinion, absolutely be part of the process of pulling the victim into the discussion should they choose to want to be. It's another big piece of that and saying, where are you here in this process? I don't know if you wanted to say anything else, Roshan, on that. Yeah. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I'll just standing up for that to be a short I'll just add that I think that making services more available, more options available to survivors who choose to who want to participate in these things. Comparison to other states in terms of having restorative justice available, having very talented facilitators and a DOC who's open to it. I think most of the survivors don't know what it is nor I think initially, the reaction when you've been hurt is to be like, are you kidding me? You know, there's a lot of anger. There's a lot of rage. And so then finding ways to really connect them to another survivor who has done it, maybe one that they would trust or something like that. But I I love your suggestion. I think in addition to reallocating resources, if there's a way that I mean, we should talk to the DOC and see how we can make it happen, because it's a beautiful thing. There's not a correlation between like, we don't know enough directly about if somebody met with their perpetrator. You know? Do they support a second look, for instance? We don't we don't have that those connections yet, but it's also because we don't have a culture yet where where the where what you're working towards is healing and forgive healing, I should say, accountability first and foremost. Healing and maybe forgiveness if that were to ever be on the table for a person. But it's so delicate and case by case, and people don't trust it. You know what I mean? So I [James Gregoire]: think I'm [William 'Will' Greer]: right. Yeah. And I've always been a believer that when you say sorry and mean it, it really does move a relationship and something healing forward. So that's all I'm [Dr. Roshani Reece]: I know. I completely agree. [James Gregoire]: If I if [Tim Birches]: I may address that last comment you made, it's not only apologizing, it's meaning it and showing that you have truly that you're going to take actions not to be in that seat again. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Once you've been held accountable. Once you've been held. Thanks. [William 'Will' Greer]: Yes. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Brian and then Kevin? [Troy Headrick]: No. I'm fine. Thanks. [Chair Alice Emmons]: K. Kevin? [James Gregoire]: No. It's more of a comment than anything else. I would think that if you and your your offender are were able to come to a forgiveness situation that could offset the need for punitive action. But if that can't happen, then the victim, I would think, says, no. The minimum sentence is required because that at least [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Yeah. [James Gregoire]: That you know what? I it's not a question. I I'm trying to understand the mechanism, and it's too complex to [Troy Headrick]: I think [Dr. Roshani Reece]: that that's just what you said is exactly right. Complex. It's so complex. Because I think that it's hard to comprehend that restorative justice and incarceration, like, hand in hand Mhmm. Is oftentimes the necessary thing. So if somebody has taken a life, I always recommend, don't try to do restorative justice until after a decade. Like, unless you're just there naturally, like, if you right? But if you are a person who has most of our reactions after you've lost the legs is to be so, oh my god, enraged and just hurt and devastated. So the courtroom where the trial is happening and all of that is not the time to try to bring people together to have a conversation about it. You know? So incarceration for a decade, which, again, we know is research based, okay, that's part of punishment. It's also, as Tim says, a part of learning your accountability and really figuring that out. And then if a survivor is is interested in having that conversation, facilitating that conversation, I'm telling you, it's I didn't really believe in God, if I'm being honest, until I sat in those spaces and witnessed the healing between, you know, a mother and father who had lost their son to gun violence and the young man, now now no longer young, who shot him. Right. [James Gregoire]: Gotcha. Yeah. [Tim Birches]: Other questions? [Chair Alice Emmons]: Questions? Thank you. [Tim Birches]: Thanks, Denise. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Makes sense. Anyone else that would like to come up or not? I I've just very briefly [Meg McCarthy]: I have not much to say, but [Chair Alice Emmons]: I'd be happy to say it. Sure. Come on up to the hot seat, Meg. [Kevin Winter]: Go ahead. It's very tight. Yeah. Sorry. [Meg McCarthy]: If you could identify yourself. My name is Meg McCarthy, and I am here because my husband is a person that could potentially benefit from this bill. The chairwoman probably remembers me coming before this committee so many times trying to promote ideas about any bill that would give my husband some relief. He is in his fourteenth year of serving a seventeen year sentence. He will be seventy six when he is to be released, and he is not a danger to anybody. And that's why I'm here, just because I support this bill. And I hope I would like, in addition to thinking about the victims of crime, which, of course, is a very important to think thing to think of, also think about the loved ones of the people that could benefit from this. Not all of them have burned their bridges. A lot of people still have people that love them and would like to see them back in their homes. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Thank you. Any anything else? Sure. What's the [Dr. Roshani Reece]: best way to get these? [Chair Alice Emmons]: Just give them a link. [Kevin Winter]: Have some rest. [Dr. Roshani Reece]: Reports for your Issues to file [Shawn Sweeney]: an off counter. Can you? [Chair Alice Emmons]: Doctor Reese, I think your testimonies are very, very helpful. We'll spend time. What I'd like to do is take quick ten minute break for the committee and then come back. Let me just see where the committee is at in terms of wanting if they wanna do further work on the work. And if they do, it'll set up for their test Actually, Great. Right. [Joseph 'Joe' Luneau]: Is that it? [James Gregoire]: What's going? Thank you. I'm good. [Chair Alice Emmons]: Thank you. So let's go off.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of HCI-2025-04-16-9:00 AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: