Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Friday, February 27. We have with us the chair of the House Judiciary Committee to go over some language that they are working on and hopefully will be voting on shortly. Updating, changing the definition of recidivism. And I ask the chair to come in to give us the language and talk it through, because I know that there's always been a lot of conversations in here about recidivism and how programs that are instituted within DOC or in the criminal justice system should impact recidivism. And I think there's a lot of different interpretations of what recidivism is and how it gets calculated. Right now, and correct me, Martin, if I'm wrong, the current definition of recidivism, which a committee went through a few weeks ago, is in a three year period of time, a person would commit a new crime. That's it in some simplicity in terms of what it is. So there's a time frame there. It is not like they are released in BAM, there's a crime automatically that's called recidivism. There's got to be some timeframe in there over a period of time. I hope I was right in explaining that. Kind of. Sort of. So I'm gonna turn it over to Martin if you could identify yourself for the record.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I sure will. Martin alone, representative from South Burlington, Chittenden 12, chair of the House Judiciary Committee and sponsor of H410. So it's very different from as introduced, but it fundamentally is redefining recidivism but doing some other things. So the big picture is that it's creating a new chapter in Title 13. We're calling it criminology measures. It's a place where we're going have the definition of recidivism and where we are going to place annual reports that we will instruct various entities. In this case, in this bill, the Statistical Analysis Center, also known as Prime Research Group. And I think this is important because you'll understand how recidivism will, the definition of recidivism will work for reports. So the definition is on page one, lines 10 to 16, and it's very straightforward. It is the criminal act or that a relapse into a criminal activity is evidenced by an individual who's convicted of a criminal offense after receiving a criminal conviction for a previous crime. The date of recidivism event is the date of arraignment for the convicted subsequent offense. I'll explain this in a moment. The arraignment date is used as a proxy for when the subsequent offense was committed, And the recidivism rate shall be calculated using a three year and five year period. So the idea is there are different places where you can look at the timing for when somebody recidivates, when somebody commits another crime, and different states and different places do it a little bit differently. We're trying to take a straightforward approach as possible. That you look at the crime, the conviction, the previous conviction, and then you look at when the next conviction has occurred. But to get the timing right, you look back at the arraignment date because that kinda gets it closer to when the crime actually was committed. It still has to be a second conviction, but just to see if it's within three or five years, you go back to the arraignment date. It's fairly straightforward. The arraignment date is something that it is readily available. You know, we had crime research group in going over this last year and a couple times this year. And, really, this is where we settled on as opposed to looking at the actual conviction date or, you know, for the second or subsequent crime or the arrest date. There's some some places you will ask for arrest arrest date. So that's the definition that this would provide. And I can go on a little bit. So you will see in the second section in here, Vermont Statistical Analysis Center annual reports. I don't know if I need to go over all those. We're looking for a bail report for arrest and clearance rates, will kind of give us an idea of crime rates, essentially, and then recidivism. So we're going to have them report annually recidivism rate measuring individuals who are convicted of a criminal offense after receiving a criminal conviction for a previous crime, and that will be measured according to the arraignment date. I'll wait for questions on that, and then I can go forward and tell you what's happening with the current definition of recidivism.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's where I'm headed, the current definition.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah. So what this bill does

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Before we get there, I just have a

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: question mark.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. No.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Just real

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: quick. It's very minor, but about previous crime, is there like, is there a definition and statute for what would define previous crime or just any kind of criminal?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I mean,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: it would be it would be a conviction. Okay. But a conviction also, just to make clear, a conviction does include a plea bargain where there is a consequence. That's understood. So it's not just somebody who goes through trial, which is a very small number of people. It's any probation. And that's the big thing that's different from the current definition, which it just looks at incarceration. This is probation, incarceration, be other, you know, sent to treatment, could be deferred sentence. There's different ways that somebody can be held responsible for the crime that that is not being incarcerated and still considered a conviction. So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the key is the person needs to have been completed a previous crime. Right. Not that they created a previous crime, and it hasn't finished going through Right. The judicial process. They need an actual conviction.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's correct.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: People understand that? Troy, and then Brian.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Do you have I don't need this, but I'm just curious. What's the current sort of span between your argument and conviction right now?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Oh, it's

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you want me to read it?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm I'm just what in in practice? What what are we seeing right now?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Well, it depends it depends on what kind. So so there are standards that the court looks at to try to, you know, or goals really that for a misdemeanor, they try to clear a case, meaning that from arraignment through to conviction of one hundred and eighty days, that's not always happening. For felonies that goal is three sixty five days, that is or isn't happening. That's all caught up in the clearance rates and the stuff that we've been looking at as far as whether they're meeting their goals. Does that matter? It shouldn't matter. Mean, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, there could be within a three year period of time somebody has arraigned, but their conviction happens outside that three year period of time. So that won't be counted initially as the three year recidivism rate. The next study that may apply, or it may apply for the five year, because it would be the five year. So that's kind of in part why we have three year and five year.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a calculation of the recidivism rate.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Correct.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: This seems super obvious and or you may have discussed it before I came in, but the date from which you're comparing is the date of release. So when you do three and five year? Is that in there?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: It's the date no, it is the date of conviction for the previous crime.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: For the previous one, okay. So I

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: mean, could be in prison and commit another crime in prison, Franklin, or when you're on probation. Yeah. So that would be a new crime, but you won't count until there's a connection. Okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it says here, the date of the recidivism event is the date of the arraignment for the conviction subsequent offense. So you need the conviction

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Correct.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Of the offense, but then you go back to when the actual arraignment was for that offense.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's for the subsequent offense. I'm talking to the previous offense. It is the conviction.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's the conviction. Correct.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Not really.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Right. Yes.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Not really. The conviction. Kevin?

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: If someone's arraigned and convicted, but they Now I'm gonna show my ignorance. But there's a plea bargain, are those two different things?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's considered a conviction as

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: That's considered a conviction.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Okay. And the one other thing, it could just be a fine as well. That's also a criminal fine, that's a conviction as well.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They went through the criminal justice system and they resolved the case.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Shall I move on? So what we do with the current recidivism measure, we could have renamed it something else, but we heard from DOC that it's used. We heard from other witnesses over the past year it's never used. So what this proposes is just repealing it, striking that. You see that at the bottom of page three. And then on page four, any other place where recidivism is mentioned in the statutes that we could track down, that refers to that definition in '28 BSC four is also repealed.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Where do you see? That's on page four. I know, but I'm looking This is my question. You've repealed the definition in Title 28, Section 125, which I get. And then in the report section 2a, you've repealed recidivism rates. Right? Correct. So if you look at what on line eight, recidivism has the same meanings as in section four of this title. You go to section four of this title, it's a standard measure of recidivism. That has not been repealed that I can see. Because what section four of title 28 is saying, the department shall calculate the rate of recidivism based upon offenders who are sentenced to more than one year of incarceration, who, after release from incarceration, return to prison within three years for a conviction of a new offense or a violation of supervision resulting in the new incarceration sentence or time served on the violation is at least ninety days. So where does that section get repealed?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's on the bottom of page three, section two. Okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. That's what I was looking okay. That's what I was

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yeah. Yeah. No.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That was look so my next question is, DOC uses a term of recidivism in a lot of different situations. Should there be a cross reference in Title 28 to this definition in Title 13? Because you're putting the definition in title 13, then there's no definition in title 28, which deals with corrections. I'm wondering if there needs to be some linkage to indicate when corrections in a world of corrections, you talk about recidivism. And then there's nothing in title eight title 28 that talks about a definition of recidivism. I'm wondering if we refer somehow in title 28 to the definition of recidivism in title 13? Cross linkage.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I would leave that for you to figure out. Because I don't know the answer to that, and that would be up to you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because we've been dealing with this. What was it we just did? What bill did we just do? Driver's license. It was driver's licenses. Yes. ID. For folks who are incarcerated. It's not entitled 28. It's in the Department of Motor Vehicles title. So in the world of POC, you wanna find out, can folks who are incarcerated have access to IDs? So you go to Title to My Hate, there's nothing there. And people wouldn't think to go to the title that deals with the agency of transportation.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: So I think that's what we tried to capture in the section three, where incidivism was in title 28, in that it would be repealed.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If But you've repealed it, then there's nothing in title 28 that defines recidivism.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Correct.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: By repealing those two sections, and there's nothing. And I'm just wondering if we should have a reference in title 28, that when the term recidivism is used at any time in any of our statutes in title 28, it has the meaning of title 13.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Sure. Thank you. I am happy to leave that with you. You no. Can No. And you can tell me the language that you wish. And we won't quote this today. We'll we'll take it up when we get back after break. But I need to run because I'm like, maybe unless I get back

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: to you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Does that make sense to the committee?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yep. Hillary literally just did it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. Hillary just did it in one of our bills.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I'll wait on you guys to come up with what you want for that. And I'll put it on when we get back after break.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That works for me. Okay.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: But if it's okay, I can

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Kevin has a question. I'm

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: curious. I assume there's no federal definition of precidicism. I don't know. Probably there is. I don't know what

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it would be used for federal

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Folks going through the federal system, they wouldn't have a definition for recidivism that all states

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: would

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: be

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: That's what I'm asking. To me, it seems like it would be wonderful if there was one definition of that word.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: There's lots of different But I

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: just wondered if we had looked to see what a majority of at least states, or if there was a federal, then to jump on board and so we're all standardized makes understanding the situation so much better rather than coming up with our own in Vermont. That's

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: No, that's a good point. And we had a crime research group who's done a lot of studies, they looked at different recidivism definitions. It was actually a group last year, last summer, I think it was, or maybe, no, two summers ago, including state's attorney, attorney general, some other folks that looked at this, and this tracks with what what they came up with. Yeah. So so, yeah, that that's that work's been done. Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Also, states are different, and we wanna honor the Mhmm. Autonomy of states and their their rights.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: All for federalism. Big fan of federals. Anything else? Is that okay? I'm on to get mic for

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the Thank you. You Supervision. Yes, thank you. I had a conversation with Trevor this morning about it. And he, we're gonna have to work. I said, well, it's gonna be mostly in your bailiwick, but it will be a little bit in our bailiwick in terms of beefing up the accountability docket and how that's gonna look like what's been proposed of the money for pretrial, how that money will be distributed or what it will look like. But also, we wanna make sure that there's a DOC person in that courtroom during the accountability guide. So that will be our focus. But Trevor wants to get some direction on the use of those dollars.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Right. Alright. I will switch over to the state's attorneys, defense counsel, and courts. I mean, we'll reach

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: out to DOC.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Perfect. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sorry,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I didn't speak on the bottom of page three. I was too focused on page four going to the statute. Did he say he would connect with Hillary, or is it us? It's us. And yes, there should be a connection in the two. There's got to be a connection between the two. Brian?

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Clearly he was in a hurry and it seemed like the question had been asked and answered, but it's not actually answered up here, which is if you're doing date two minus date one, it's not clear to me. I see in the definition that we're talking about the arraignment for the convicted or sorry, we're talking about the conviction of the previous crime. But where is it clear that the calculation is based on that date, the date of conviction as opposed to the date of release or any other date you choose? That calculation is not Aside from the use of the word fiction. Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We could if people are interested, when we get back on that Tuesday, if we have time, we could see if we could get Hillary and then walk us through this.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Yep. If it's clear

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: enough, I don't object. So like it's, know

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I wasn't focused totally on this because I was looking more for the connection. When I saw title 13 and section one, I was, wait a minute. I know recidivism's in title 28. And that's what I could see more focus on.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: If you knew that, a lot of people won't.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. I mean, that's where my eyes went right off when you said title 13.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: My misunderstanding may come from common usage or just because I'm me. But I think about a person getting out and how long after them getting out does something occur.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. And what triggers that? Is it a violation of conditions which doesn't trigger unless that violation is a crime?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Sure. If they're convicted and then sentenced for three years and then released, the clock starts. That's

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And you're

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: already beyond three years because of your conviction, because of your sentence.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah, that's how this apparently works. That's not clear to me. But what I'm saying

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: is if you want to accurately track crimes committed within a three year span of time, and you're using the start date as conviction date rather than release date, three years is already over. So then you're released.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why maybe they have the recidivism rate. Maybe that's why the recidivism rate shall be calculated using a three year and five year.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I get that, but the start of the clock

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: When the clock starts.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: A minute. No, that's on the second. That's variable y. But on the first, yeah, variable x is on the initial conviction, not the initial release. And you're not likely going to recidivate while you're incarcerated.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You could. You could.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: You could. But imagine what we're trying to measure is once I'm out, how quickly did I recidivate? Yep. And if you want that clock to start to accurately measure a three year span of time, I'm with Brian. I think you might want to start that upon release, not upon initial conviction.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: Is that what you want to measure?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's coming. I I I know. I agree with you're saying, the two of you. And I'm sitting here going, it's different worlds that the two committees are dealing with.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: I know.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're dealing with the front end. We deal with the back end. I wonder if that's something that should be brought up. Yeah,

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: you're getting up in their business, but yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, yes and no, because you're really talking, if they're incarcerated, that's our world, you're talking of when they were first convicted. And their sentence is three or four beat theaters. And the recidivism rate kicks in when they're convicted.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: You've already used up

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: most people. You've already used up your clock. And they haven't committed a new crime while they're incarcerated, which they could, but most people don't. Then when they're released, that's already gone.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So right. So they're released after let's say let's do this. They're released after a five year sentence. They served maximum. They served their entire five years. So their conviction date, five years. They've been sentenced the entire time. They get out. And five days later, they recidivate. That does not count as recidivism because you're counting the release date. You're not counting the release date.

[Rep. Brian Minier (Member)]: You're counting the eviction date. Precisely.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's a good point, Esther.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm looking at you, Brian.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: It's what you want to measure.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: That's exactly what you're

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: looking at because I'm thinking somebody we need some conversations with Martin.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: Oh, I love him. Homeboy.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know we have a in St. Yeah. I think this is Sounds

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: like something to ponder over.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can can the two of we gotta take a lunch break because we have to be back here. I hate to do this. We have to be back here for noon. Mhmm.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: It's it's almost break. We're good.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: John only had

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: to one thing,

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee)]: okay. We do.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And we got a 01:00 with it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You have a 01:00 with

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Gina, myself, and Brian.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So let's take a fifteen minute lunch. We have to get food back, turn it back. Okay?