Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Good morning. It is March 13 in senate judiciary. We have one hour to go through a long list of witnesses, but I do wanna make sure that, you know, folks have a chance to speak on this bill and the concept in general. So we're gonna have to stick to that one hour because we have a joint here at COVID Health and Welfare at TED. So starting us off is Jordan, and please introduce yourself and the floor is yours.

[Jordan Souder]: Alright. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. For the record, my name is Jordan Souder. You'll see it

[Unidentified committee/staff speaker]: with pronouns.

[Jordan Souder]: And I'm a policy advocate for the ACLU of Vermont. And on behalf of the ACLU, I am here alongside our partners in support of asshole reporting and act relating to second, local sentencing and compassionate release. We believe that no one should be judged indefinitely based on the actions of their worst day, and that each of us, despite any harm that we may cause, have the capacity to change our lives for better. And that is why we support S-one 140, as it provides an opportunity to recognize growth and self improvement and for the State to recognize when someone no longer poses a threat to the community. Despite Vermont's prison population having overall decreased since its peak in 2000 continue to rely on overly harsh and lengthy prison sentences, even surpassing the national average in incarceration length. Scores of criminological data show that reliance on long sentences produces diminished returns on public safety, substantially contributes to mass incarceration and perpetuates racial disparities within our criminal legal system. We also know that our prison population is aging and that a majority of the people serving a life sentence in Vermont are over the age of 50. Research tells us that criminal behavior is most common in youth and tapers off into adulthood, the phenomenon known as aging out of crime. And keeping people in prison well past the time they are likely to recidivate not only does nothing to promote public safety, but is a costly misuse of our state resources that will be better spent on community centered solutions that are proven to help reduce crime and promote rehabilitative efforts that produce safer and healthier communities. Furthermore, we know that increasing the severity of punishment has little effect on crime returns. Now I want to briefly go over what, the second legislation s one forty does and does not do. It allows incarcerated individuals to petition the court to review their case for a potential reduction in their sentence. It is not an automatic release from custody, and there are a variety of factors a judge may consider when deciding whether to grant the petition. This bill also seeks to protect the rights of the people harmed by ensuring that they are notified when a hearing for sentence reconsider consideration is scheduled, and codify the right to participate in the process, by making a statement should they choose to do so. And while there are still many considerations regarding implementation, S-one 140 is a step in the right direction that would help create a more fair and humane legal system focused on justice and rehabilitation. Now, don't want to take up too much more of this time and want to leave plenty of time for you to hear from the rest of our partners, but I just wanna thank the community for having this hearing and to I hope that you continue to consider sentence of legislation. By supporting Second Look, Vermont can reduce the number of people in its overcrowded prison systems serving out extreme, counterproductive, and costly sentences. And Vermont can once again lead the way in criminal legal reform. And with that, I will pass to Faris.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any questions? You.

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: Thanks. Good morning, good morning, Chair Esheen, Vice Chair Norris, esteemed members of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. For the record, my name is Doctor. Prashani Reese. I'm the Executive Director of Draw LWOP New England. I'm also a member of the Vermont Psychomotive Coalition. I'm here to testify today in support of S-one 140 law legislation. I hold a doctorate in forensic psychology and I have spent the last decade studying violence and dangerousness. While some of my colleagues today are gonna provide the data around why we should look at this, as a policy, I wanna speak to the human and systemic reality of why we need to address extreme sentences. A challenge that we have created for ourselves the last forty years. I came to this work not just through textbooks, but as a trained restorative justice facilitator, and more importantly as a survivor of attempted murder. Years ago, I almost lost my life at the hands of a romantic partner. It is an upsetting story. I was attacked. I was put in a show pulled, dragged by my hair and pistol whipped. As I was losing consciousness, I had a vision of my body in a river. The only reason that I'm here today is because the assailant decided to let me go. That event was my introduction to the criminal justice system. Instinctually, even then, I knew that I didn't want a life sentence for this person. I wanted him to be held accountable, which probably did include some prison times, but more importantly, I wanted him to change, so that he would never hurt anyone ever again. It turns out that I'm not

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: an

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: outlier. I've shared with the committee assistant, Emory, the 2022 National Survey of Victims' Views on Safety and Justice, and their findings are clear. Two out of three survivors prefer shorter prison sentences and more spending on prevention and rehabilitation over the longest possible prison term. By a margin of three to one, survivors prefer accountability options that are beyond just prison, such as required mental health treatment and drug treatment. Three out of four survivors support granting sentence reduction to individuals who have actively participated in rehabilitation, treatment, education and job training rather than mandating that they complete their full sentences as issued. I want to be clear, I do not speak for all survivors, but our current culture often assumes that victims rights means maximum punishment. In my case, the system told me that I was going to feel so much better once he was locked away for as long as possible. But his incarceration did nothing for the financial burden of having to relocate my entire life that very day. It did nothing for the insomnia or the night terrors that I had for a full year of alcohol violence. And it never brought a word of remorse or an apology from his lips. List right there provides some clues of what I actually needed as a survivor. But I understand that it is harder to facilitate healing and remorse and easier to lock someone up. But that isn't a strategy, it's simply a delay. And this brings me to the long term reality of our delay. I'll close by talking just briefly about our aging prison population. When we choose the longest possible sentences, we are choosing to manage a nursing home behind bars. And historically, a life sentence, even a life without parole sentence. Before I was born, it did not mean death behind bars. But today it almost always does. While Vermont doesn't have a formal truth and sentencing policy, it does have the practice. It has been handing out more life sentences frequently and reviewing long sentences than about it. According to a 2025 report issued by the Sentencing Project, Vermont increased the number of life sentences issued between 2020 and 2024 by 27%, which is actually the third highest increase in the country. Currently, we have 87 Vermonters who are over the age of 55 serving a life sentence. 55 is what's considered elderly in prison because of the extreme toll incarceration takes on the body. The physical and logistical challenge of incarcerating the elderly is a relatively new phenomenon in our history and it is a problem that we have the power to solve. I believe that S-one 140 is one of those mechanisms to help solve that problem. I'll close by saying thank you so much to the committee for having this hearing today.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Committee, any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Let's now, Beth, Curtis. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. We

[Beth Curtis]: went from 70 degrees to 28 in the apartment this morning. So You don't like the weather way. I wanna thank you all for providing me with the opportunity to appear here before you today. I'm gonna talk a little bit about the historical aspects, And I'll start out by saying there's very few people in Vermont who remember the name Donald Edward Demag. Mister Demag was the last person executed by the state of Vermont, that and was in 1954. A full eighteen years after Mr. Bang, Vermont ended its use of state sanctioned debt penalty in 1972. The punishment was finally completely abolished in statute in 1987 and here we sit almost forty years later with people continuing to die in our prisons while serving life without parole and extreme sentences. Vermont still has a de facto death penalty with life's life sentences. S-one 140 provides this committee and the legislature the opportunity to correct course and completely end any form of death by incarceration. In 2008, Senator Sears, may he rest, worked with the Council of State Governments to create the first just justice reinvestment initiative with the stated purse purpose of, and I'm using quotes here, using data to improve safety and justice, including advancing health opportunities and equity. SB 140 promotes all these points and more. In 2016, then Senator Beckett Ballant proposed the elder parole bill, which was an incredible step forward in the progress of helping those incarcerated Vermonters over 60. Glaringly, that bill in 2016 excluded people serving life sentences, people convicted of certain violent crimes, and those convicted of crimes that include sexual harm. When this committee passes S-one 140 the legislative process of justice reinvestment will be From 2009 to 2021, our small state saw an increase in saw decrease in those perpetrators. Of the number of those serving life sentences of one form or another. And extreme sentences continue to rise. As we sit here today, as Doctor. Bhushani said, one in five or 20% of those in our prisons are serving life or virtual life sciences. Is this the reputation that our Great Wall State wants to be seen as nationally? As people that ranks among the highest states proportionally to have people serving life sentences according to the Wilson Center. We must do better or can do better when s one forty moves forward. Vermont has a history of being ranked among the least racially diverse states in the country with 2% of the population identifying with as black or of color. And sadly those serving life sentences are made up of six percent of the incarcerated population. Meaning 6% of people who identify as black or African American are serving life sciences among the total LLOps. With a with a continuing trend with this continuing trend of disproportionately saddling people who do not identify as white with life sentences, Vermonters who are female are as deeply affected by life sentences, ever rising numbers of women being sentenced to death by incarceration is a disturbing trend that this committee has the authority to change in this legislation. And for the committee's consideration in 2021, your former colleagues passed the sentence reduction rule, which codified in statute those serving life and extreme sentences, many of who are ready to program or involved in educational pursuits and were left out of this reform to reduce the prison populations, creating an inequity in our laws. Leave you with the words of Senator Leahy. On the death penalty, he argued that it was cruel and unjust and that it fails as a deterrent. Now is your opportunity to end incarceration, death by incarceration with S-one 140. Thank you for your time. Are there any questions?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So a quick question regarding the sentence reduction act. Was the issue that it left out life without parole as

[Beth Curtis]: Yeah so it did this carve out where it said life life without parole even life with parole or violent crimes will not be accepted for a reduction of. And I guess logically, if you think someone doing a life sentence, the issue there becomes how do those what are the avenues for those folks to be able to reuse their sentence?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Good to see you.

[Meg McCarthy]: Nice to see you. Hello, my name is Meg McCarthy. I am a family member of an incarcerated person. I live in Malibu, Vermont. Doctor. Hashim is my senator, one of my senators, and I'm happy to meet you today speaking with you. My husband is mid fifteenth year of incarceration. During that time, I've been involved in efforts to create a path of sentencing relief for him and others like him. I've tried to put a human face on those who are able to appear here before you myself and appear to continue those efforts. I want to share with you a story from Southern State Correctional Facility. SSCF has the most equipped infirmary in the prison system, and is where incarcerated men go to die. Wellpath, the healthcare provider that EOC contracts with, has brought in professionals to train a few residents in hospice care and last summer in or early fall, my husband completed this training while with four other people who were part of the OpenAirs, OpenAirs Coordinator, Peer Mentors in the prison. The training took place over three days, meaning four hours a day. Then in December, a man was transferred to SSCF who was in the final days of his life. The five residents trained in hospice care were joined by another man who had been doing hospice work on the outside and they set up plans to vigil with the dying man. They created a schedule where there was always someone sitting with him twenty four hours a day. Eventually he became unresponsive and the vigilance still sat. They continued this way for nine days until the man passed away on 12/28/2025. The man who died was 68 years old serving a forty year to life sentence. After the death, a nurse and a corrections officer thanked the hospice team. There was no recognition from the administration of the facility. Likely the superintendent knew nothing about it, but the men didn't do the vigil in order to receive kudos. They knew they had nothing to gain for what they did, but they knew it was the right thing to do. They did it out of kindness, of empathy, and out of a sense of community. The six caregivers and the man who died all may have benefited from this bill. They are or were serving long sentences. Perhaps some of them will still benefit and be able to reenter our communities with the skills and desire to contribute. They and many others deserve this back at work. Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any questions for me? Thank you. Awesome. Heidi? Did I pronounce your last name? Yeah.

[Heidi Piet]: Which is rare because I usually get petted up high at my teeth. Thank you so much for having me here today. Bear with me because I just noticed I brought the wrong glasses, so might have to have the paper look closer to my face. Don't worry. Of all days. Okay. My name is Heidi Piet, and I am a mental health professional with over twenty five years of experience. I've been living in Vermont now for the past six months. Although it took me so long to get up here because it's so beautiful. I am a volunteer with the Massachusetts Promoral Prep Program. I am a justice ambassador for a Prison Fellowship And just really glad to be here to support this second female. In my professional experience, the psychological effects of long term incarceration have been misunderstood or overlooked. Throughout my career, I've worked with individuals experiencing trauma, depression, anxiety, PTSD, long term effects of difficult experiences. One issue that often receives too little attention is the impact of prolonged incarceration that can have on a person's health. Extended incarceration can contribute to depression, institutionalization, chronic anxiety, and what clinicians often refer to as Post Incarceration Syndrome, PICS for short. I'm actually part of the new committee that's trying to introduce PICS into the DSM-five because there's some different characteristics of it, just PTSD. People who live for many years in highly controlled institutions must constantly adapt to strict rules, limited personal autonomy, and heightened awareness of safety. In order to function and remain safe, individuals often develop survival strategies such as hypervigilance, emotional numbing, distrust of others, and heightened sensitivity to perceived threats. Over time, these adaptations can become deeply ingrained. When individuals later attempt to reintegrate into society, the coping mechanisms that help them survive incarceration can create real challenges when they do the communities. For example, many individuals who have spent decades in prison have very little control over daily decisions. Meals are scheduled, movements are restricted, choices are limited. When someone later begins preparing for reintegration, even simple decisions on how to structure their day to day life can be very overwhelming, It had a strict limitation for so long. Another common experience associated with PEDS is hypervigilance. In prison, constantly scanning one's surroundings to make sure that they're safe. While outside of prison, however, that same heightened awareness can be manifest as anxiety in publicity. So you can imagine somebody that comes out after spending forty years in prison and they go into Walmart after being fined, very stressful and anxious anxiety provocate. Importantly, these reactions are not signs that someone is unwilling to reintegrate. They are predictable psychological responses to long term exposure to highly controlled institutional and institutional environments. It's important to recognize that many individuals entering correctional systems already struggle with mental health. They have high rates of depression, anxiety, trauma related disorders, and that these are significantly higher among the incarcerated populations than in the general public. When these existing mental health challenges are combined with the psychological effects of long term incarceration, the need for thoughtful rehabilitation and review becomes even more important. From a mental health perspective, hope plays a critical role in rehabilitation. Hope. Hope is not simply an emotional concept. In behavioral health, understand that hope is one of the strongest drivers of personal change. When individuals believe that their effort towards education, treatment and personal growth matter, they're far more likely to engage in those efforts. Hope is very important. Second law reflects this understanding. It does not guarantee release nor does it remove accountability from past actions. Instead, it creates an opportunity for a judge to review a sentence, review that sentence after a significant period of time, and consider who a person has become since that offense. Have they been working on themselves? Who have they become? My perspective on this issue is informed not only by my professional work, but also my family experience. I've drawn this over ten years in multiple frivolous. My nephew is currently incarcerated in Florida and recently went to be transferred because of gang violence. I've seen firsthand how incarceration affects not only individuals but families and communities over time. As a mental health professional, I believe strongly in accountability. At the same time, I believe accountability and the possibility of transformation can exist again. Second, love acknowledges that people should be held responsible for their actions, but it also allows the justice system to recognize that individuals can grow and change over many years. From a trauma informed perspective, policies that recognize rehabilitation and personal growth ultimately support healthier individuals, stronger families, and safer communities. For these reasons, I respectfully urge that you support Vermont Second. It would be valuable. Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Committee, any questions?

[Heidi Piet]: I do actually have

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: a In your experience with providing mental health and preparation for for release in the prisons, My question is how does that work best? The reason that I'm asking that is because it is my understanding in our Vermont facilities, people only have access to programming if they're within one year of their release. Okay. And I'm wondering if that is the most effective way to show someone to heal and grow and do better.

[Heidi Piet]: Once they're out of prison, they only have that one year? No, they are not allowed

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: they don't have access to clean prison programming until they're within one year of release.

[Heidi Piet]: Oh, that's not good. I see. I'm just busy, I have six months. Learning these things. But I think from the minute somebody is incarcerated, they should look at preparing for release. To be honest with you, it's like when I worked inpatient at a psych facility, the minute that person arrives, you're already planning for what they're going to do when they leave. And so, again, it goes back to that hope. So when you're incarcerated, what does this person have to do in order to improve the quality of their life? They're not their worst mistake. And so we definitely programs, you know, education. There's a program called Level Up or Level. And it's free. A person can sponsor, but they have access to learning about different kinds of trades, meditation, all these skill building. They need skills long before a year. Because when you put them on there, that's why reciprocity happens. They have no idea. So it happens because now they don't know how to survive out there and they're going go back to what was comfortable. Even technology. Think about somebody who's been in for twenty five, thirty years. It's a whole new world. So I would say right away they need access to those programs right away. And if I could help with any of that, I would totally help with that. I would go in and teach. Thank you. You.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I to your point, Senator, I hope Steve there is maybe more helpful to get some clarification to what the programming is and what different options there are because at least one of the challenges that I've seen is there are, I mean this is for shorter sentences, but there's some programming that lasts for nine months or lasts for a year, and DOC decides whether or not the person is going to go through that programming. But there are circumstances where that person may get an offer for a sentence of six months or eight months. But if they're going to be going through programming for nine months or a year, that would obviously significantly lengthen their sentence, relatively speaking. But there's no way of them knowing unless they get sentenced. So it's a gap that's a problem that I've seen that's common.

[Heidi Piet]: Senator, can I add one thing? Yes. There's a college in Boston, it's Tufts University, and they put together a program where they go into the prison and help.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I mean, I'd be more than happy to get

[Heidi Piet]: you more information on that program. As a matter fact, I spoke with them yesterday and asked me if I would like to be a guest speaker on their Heartache or Mentoring Program. So I'm excited about that to help them with the education piece for incarcerated individuals. I'd be more than happy to get you that information.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Heidi Piet]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Brian Widenhouse. Is he on the Zoom?

[Heidi Piet]: He's on the Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Is he on the Zoom? Yeah. Okay. What city on Zoom? We can pause on Brian White house and then circle back around once we get to the other folks. Marta.

[Heidi Piet]: Hello, everyone. Can you can you

[Marta Nelson]: see me? Hi, I'm Marta Nelson from the Vera Institute of Justice. Thanks so much for inviting me to speak this morning. So I am the director of sentencing reform at the Vera Institute of Justice. We're a national criminal justice reform organization, helping to create safe and thriving communities for over sixty years, and we are in support of s 140. You've heard a lot this morning from people who, who, who hold, who have talked about how this bill both balances accountability and safety. And I would like talk this morning about what's happening nationally around second look laws and then really zero in on the safety as state legislators, you are, of course, concerned about what effect this legislation might have on safety in state. So looking at what's happening nationally, this the balanced approach of a second look bill in which people are eligible to petition for resentencing, as has been emphasized throughout the morning, this is not a guarantee of release, it's an opportunity to make a case for release. The this balances accountability with rehabilitation. This approach is popular with the public. National polls find close to 80% of voters supporting allowing judges to review and resentence individuals on a case by case basis after at least a ten year period of incarceration. And this is exactly what s one forty does. As of today, 16 states have passed legislation beyond, allowing for resentencing with juvenile life without parole that allows judges to consider a range of sentences based on rehabilitation and current public safety considerations. There is growing momentum for these laws. In 2025, two states passed bills that were really the most comprehensive to date. Maryland passed legislation allowing people who had committed crimes as young adults up to age 25 to petition for for resentencing after twenty years. And then just two months later, Delaware passed a bill in June 2025, which is the most comprehensive to date. It allows any incarcerated person regardless of offense or age at the time of the offense to petition for resentencing on the basis of rehabilitation after a period of time served. And notably, S-one 140 has a similarly broad reach with no age or offense based carve outs. Now, as to safety, I attached a memo that the Vera Institute just did on looking at studies of people who have been turned after recent, a variety of re sentencing mechanisms. And since these are fairly recent, there aren't that many studies out there, but we do mention studies for juvenile re sentencing in Pennsylvania and Washington State and Maryland. And then for people who were older at the time of the offense, there's a study that just came out in 2025 from California, looking at a variety of resentencing mechanisms California has created really over the last thirteen years. And most relevant to what I think people's concerns are that people who are most likely eligible for resentencing under s one forty are people who have been convicted of of violent offenses and in some case, you know, murder. The California case is really the study is really on point. The two instances of resentencing there, one was, for people who can been convicted of felony murder. California, changed their felony murder law and created a a resentencing mechanism for people currently incarcerated for that. And then the other resentencing were for people who are recommended by their Department of Correction for resentencing. And these again, people who are in for very serious offenses. And the recidivism rates are very positive. The felony murder group had a reconviction rate of only three point three percent compared to twenty one percent for the general population. And the corrections department recommended group, again, people convicted of quite serious offenses, had a reconviction rate of four percent. And all of those were for nonserious nonviolent offenses. So on from a safety record, I mean, you've you've heard people who are incarcerated, who commit crimes when they're younger tend to age out of crime. And then we know to the point that was just being discussed earlier, that people really benefit from quality programming when they're incarcerated to be able to work on the whatever it is that brought them into the system to begin with. So a second look mechanism would certainly look at who is this person now? What programming have they committed? What is their safety risk? And make a very reasoned calculation about whether it is safe to release them to the community. And we think the evidence will certainly support that. And with that, I end my testimony and I'll answer any questions you may have.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Committee, any questions?

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I did have a quick question. Yeah, was curious, I know you mentioned some statistics about serious felony crimes, whatever else, what does this show for recidivism in reference to child predators or whatever, do you have that data?

[Marta Nelson]: I don't have something specific to that particular crime. Are you talking about sexual offenses against children? There is no study that I'm aware of that looks particularly avowed in terms of people who are released under a re sentencing mechanism, but I can certainly look further and send you anything that I find.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: I would appreciate that one follow-up question. You mentioned 15 or 16 states presently have bills like this or similar to this. Do do we know how many states or how many states within New England have these these same bills?

[Marta Nelson]: In New England, and I'm I'm sure doctor Reese could talk about this well because she works right now, there are no second look bills that have passed in New England. No. I I take that back. Connecticut does have us have a second look bill. It's more limited than s one forty. It it, excludes people who were convicted under mandatory minimums from being able to petition for resentencing. But people who are not sentenced under mandatory minimums are allowed to petition for resentencing. So Connecticut would be the one New England state that has a a second look mechanism. Our opinion is that that is unnecessarily limiting because, again, people who are have been incarcerated for, serious crimes are capable of serious change and should not be excluded on the basis of offense alone.

[Heidi Piet]: Thank you. Sarah Rose.

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: I'm wondering if you have a I know you've mentioned a couple of states, but is what there a list of states that have passed second look policies? Because my understanding, I ask because one of the states I think has one wasn't in the states you named, which is Oklahoma.

[Marta Nelson]: Oklahoma is one of the states. Yes. It has a survivor's justice second look bill that is limited to people who were in because of serious trauma and abuse was related to their crime. So Oklahoma is one of the 16 states. Yes, I'm happy to share a list with those, but I think the the kind of second look bill that s one forty is, which is allows incarcerated people to petition as opposed to a prosecutor doing it. There are several states that have prosecutor initiated. California is one of them, Oregon, Washington State, Minnesota, Illinois, Utah. But allowing an incarcerated individual to petition is sort of is, in many ways, best practice because they are most aware of their own rehabilitation and of a allowing an incarcerated person to petition to petition themselves. Again, Connecticut has it, but it excludes mandatory minimum offenses. Maryland just passed it, and Delaware just passed it. And then the others are more limited in terms of a survivor of just of domestic violence. Georgia just passed that last year. Oklahoma passed it two years ago. And then again, these prosecutor initiated ones. I will note that, you know, California has a variety of resentencing mechanisms. Mentioned their Department of Corrections initiated Second Look, which is actually yielded far more petitions than a prosecutor initiated. And so that mechanism has actually been quite beneficial for currently incarcerated people.

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: Thank you. Chittenden, may I add something? Absolutely. So in New England, we have pending Second Look legislation in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and Connecticut just heard in their judiciary a survivor justice, which is form of second look. And we anticipate that

[Heidi Piet]: that will be moving for a floor vote in Connecticut.

[Unidentified committee/staff speaker]: Okay, good job.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. We, my understanding Brian is on the Zoom now.

[Brian Whitehouse]: Hello. Good morning.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Morning. Brian, I have to step out just two or three minutes. Senator Norris, vice chair, will handle things in my very short absence. But floor is all yours.

[Brian Whitehouse]: Thank you, sir. Good morning, honorable members of this committee. My name is Brian White house. I'm a state legislative affairs manager at FAM. FAM stands for families against mandatory minimums. We're a national nonprofit, nonpartisan reform organization. This year will mark thirty five years in existence where we support families, but also envision a system that is where justice is fair and individualized and that fosters an environment of rehabilitation and restoration to bring families back together in an expedited manner, protect public safety and the interests of justice. I know that you probably heard a lot of technical testimony today regarding the how this bill works, the semantics, the fiscal arguments, all those things. And I don't want to give testimony to repeat a lot of that. Today, I wanna take off my policy expert hat and put on a different hat. Today, wanna talk to you about what it means to be a recipient or a beneficiary of a second look bill like this. Shortly after my seventeenth birthday, I committed a violent, horrible crime, and was given a life without parole sentence. Just because I was 17, but that sentence was an adult sentence and I ended up serving thirty one years in incarceration in Louisiana. In the early twenty ten, the Supreme Court began a series of cases where they reviewed how children are treated in the justice system. Long story short, they outlawed mandatory life sentences with for juveniles and this triggered states who have to implement second look laws to review those who are sentenced under these. And in 2020 I was granted parole because of this. And I want to point out that this is probably the most catalytic moment that kind of pivoted our country in regards to second look. We went through a very long decades long time, when tough on crime policies were very popular. We've kind of embraced them for so long that we've lost sight of what second look could be. Our correction system, our our penal system really in its foundation was designed to be rehabilitative and to move people towards the opportunities for a second look, towards parole or, conditional release mechanisms. We kind of got away from that and we lost sight of what some of these, mechanisms might look like. But here I am today as an example of what this might look like. As a result of those Supreme Court rulings across the country through these second look mechanisms, twelve oh nine juveniles have been released from Life Without Parole sentences that they were given when they were adolescent. That may not be a huge number, but that is roughly forty five percent. My colleague, Ms. Martha from Vera gave a lot of, examples of other jurisdictions that have such second look mechanisms. I think legislatures approach this in a niche way. We've kind of seen an emergence from the Supreme Court ruling of what we call the emerging adult doctrine where jurisdictions and some courts have started to expound upon that Supreme Court ruling. The ruling limited to the second review look to those who were under the age of 18, but they relied on advancing neurosciences that said the adolescent brain is not fully developed until the mid 20s. And so courts and jurisdictions are starting to move that upward become more in line with the science. Some other approaches to second look that we see are judicial, I mean not judicial, geriatric and compassion release where we have review processes for those who are sick, disabled, incapacitated, or even dying. Some other examples are, as the Oklahoma law you referred to, what we call domestic survivors justice act. Georgia passed one recently as well where people who can demonstrate that their crime was, that, sexual abuse or domestic violence contributed significantly towards the commission of their crime that they could petition for review. I want to point out that also five states also have some type of review mechanism for veterans. So there is a desire or a move towards adopting second look policies. I think a lot of states take a very small step approach to it, nuances, cherry picking certain demographics, but I wholly believe that it is wise and prudent for states to adopt these broader second look mechanisms because the reasons that any one group should be afforded the opportunity can apply to all people. When the Supreme Court kind of mandated that juveniles had to have this second look review, their main basis, foundational basis for this is that one juveniles are, more immature. Their ability to think clearly and weigh the consequences is not fully developed as adults, but they also specifically honed in on the fact that juveniles have a higher capacity for rehabilitation. To which I say before you today, it doesn't matter how old you are. I think everybody has the ability to be immature, rash, and brash, but also it does not matter how much capacity you have for rehabilitation. It matters what you do with it. And we have seen people who have tremendous amount of capacity for rehabilitation, but they simply haven't gotten there yet. We've seen those who you would think have the smallest capacity for rehabilitation and they've made phenomenal changes in their lives and transform who they are and put them in a position where I don't want to say that they deserve second look, but they are worthy of it. And when they you become worthy of, second look, it's incumbent on us to at least review that. You know, I don't believe justice should be a static frozen mandate that once you reach a certain point of serving a sentence, then justice is served. Think justice is an ever ongoing process of evaluation of restoration. I think there should be more broader back and forth between what that means for all parties involved, not just the offender in his rehabilitated process, but also the victims in the communities. I'm happy to answer any questions, but I just want to stand here today to say that in addition to the juvenile libers who've been released, there are thousands upon thousands of people who have benefited from working in effective second look mechanisms across the country. And this is not a this is not a theory. These people are benefiting from this. They are now contributing to their communities. The recidivism rates are very, very low because once again, this is a review process, not a release process. We're able to to identify those who it's proper and just to reunite them with the community. The interests of justice has been satisfied. All, concerns for public safety are addressed. Again, I'm happy to answer any questions and I thank you for listening to me today.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Committee, any questions? Okay. Thank you, Brian. Next up we have Sarah Anderson who is on the Zoom and Sarah just so you're aware our committee does have a hard stop right at ten because we have a joint hearing with health and welfare, the floor is yours.

[Sarah Anderson]: Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Hashim and members of the committee. My name is Sarah Anderson, and I serve as Associate Director of criminal justice and civil liberties at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization focused on accountability, public safety, and limited fiscally responsible government. We have a particularly strong stake in building a criminal justice system that improves public safety while also ensuring that the justice system operates fairly, efficiently, and in a manner consistent with constitutional principles. A key part of that effort is ensuring that we hold offenders accountable for their actions, yet still allow for successful rehabilitation and an opportunity to truly leave mistakes behind when that is earned. For these reasons, we are closely following the legislature's consideration of Senate Bill 140 and appreciate the opportunity to participate in the conversation today. Second look policies have gained increasing attention across the country as policymakers examine the long term consequences of sentences imposed many years, often decades earlier. These policies create a structured process that allows courts to reassess whether continued incarceration remains necessary to protect public safety and serve the interests of justice after an individual has served a substantial portion of their sentence. Importantly, and as noted earlier today, second look mechanisms do not guarantee release, nor should they. These policies simply provide judges with the ability to review whether someone who has served a specified number of years in prison and who has demonstrated rehabilitation continues to pose a meaningful public safety risk. Judges can then weigh that evidence alongside the seriousness of the original offense and the perspectives of victims and affected communities. We are encouraged to see Vermont taking this initial step toward considering whether this type of policy makes sense for its population, both inside and outside of prisons, as well as what terms, parameters, safeguards, and practices will work best for the state. Second look policies are grounded in a simple but powerful proposition. People are capable of change and rehabilitation, and our justice system should allow for and encourage that possibility where appropriate. Public safety data consistently show that criminal behavior tends to decline sharply with age, and individuals who have served long sentences are also statistically among the least likely to re offend after release. These realities raise important questions about whether sentences imposed many years ago always remain aligned with today's understanding of rehabilitation and public safety. Second look mechanisms provide a way to thoughtfully incorporate those insights into our current justice systems. They allow courts to consider an individual's full record during incarceration, including participation in programming, disciplinary history, evidence of personal growth, and preparation for reentry when determining whether continued incarceration is still serving its intended purpose. These policies can also help correctional systems operate more effectively. Long term incarceration is extremely costly, and aging prison populations tend to drive correctional spending even higher due to increased health care and housing needs. In Vermont, incarceration costs are estimated to exceed $135,000 per person annually, and those costs rise significantly as individuals in the system age. Providing a judicial review process for people who have served very long sentences can help ensure that limited correctional resources remain focused on individuals who pose the greatest public safety risk. Additionally, the possibility of sentence review itself can improve safety inside of correctional facilities as well. When individuals know that positive conduct, participation in programming, and preparation for reentry may be meaningfully considered in the future, incentives to engage constructively with the system increase. More broadly, this discussion is about whether our justice systems should include a tool to reassess sentences when decades of evidence suggest that continued incarceration may no longer meaningfully advance public safety. As Vermont considers Senate Bill 140, this conversation represents an important opportunity to explore what a thoughtful second look framework could look like for the state. We appreciate the committee's willingness to examine these questions and to consider how policies like this might balance accountability, public safety, fiscal responsibility, and the recognition that people are capable of meaningful change over time. Thank you for your time, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thanks, Sarah. Any questions? Well thank you. I appreciate that. I know we have about six minutes left and I wanted to ensure and promise that there was an hour available for everybody. So I know things may have felt a little rushed but is there anybody any of the witnesses here who had testified earlier that want to add anything that you felt like you didn't have a chance to add to this? So and could you just state your name for the record again?

[Ken Burgess]: Ken Burgess. So there was a question early on this process about programming and I want to as a formerly incarcerated person who went through a year of programming inside A lot of that programming is mandatory on the outside especially for people who are serving furloughed parole sentences. I wanted the committee to be aware of those processes. Thanks.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Anyone else?

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: I guess I'll just add that this bill, if it were to pass as insisted from my calculations it would impact only two sixty six people. Yeah. Just so you know what

[Heidi Piet]: you're looking at in terms of population.

[Unidentified committee/staff speaker]: I guess one question.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Is anyone aware of the House Bill three seventy nine? Have you looked at that at

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: I worked with Brett McFire on that bill last year.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Where is that? Do you have any knowledge or how does it compare to spielable event today?

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: We were heard before House Corrections Committee last year, actually twice, and then we were moved to judiciary, wherein the judiciary wanted to, do a study and then it was at the last moment asked to be dropped from that study request. My understanding is that that came from somebody above above the committee that they wanted to drop for the moment.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: All right. Well, thank you all for coming in. Appreciate it.

[Dr. Prashani Reese]: Thank you. Thank you for having us. We really appreciate it. Yeah.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: So hopefully we've got four minutes to go on to join here, so we can take a quick break, and then we can join Healthy Wellcare from Home Depot. Oh, remotely? Yeah. Yeah. So we're able to get somebody from Wellcare.