 Folks, this has corrections in institutions committee. We're picking up again, S18, and we have with us our legislative counsel, Eric Fitzpatrick. As I stated earlier this morning, there is a clarifying and we may need clarifying language on one section of the bill that the attorney general picked up on this and connected with Eric Fitzpatrick. Our legal counsel and Eric has been working on the clarifying language. So I'm gonna turn it over to you, Eric, and we do have the document it is on our webpage and it's listed under Eric Fitzpatrick. So Eric, I'm gonna turn it over to you if you could just identify yourself for the record. Yes, thank you, chair. I mean, this is Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel here to talk to the committee as the chair indicated about some clarifying language on S18, the act relating to earned time. I'll say right away that I still call it good time sometimes. So I hope, I mean, hopefully I'm not the only one continuing to make that mistake. But I think everyone knows that the bill that we're talking about anyway. So as the chair indicated, the attorney general's office got in touch with me yesterday and noticed a technical fix that potentially ought to be made. So I reviewed it myself and considered the possible language and what the issue was and agreed that given what the language is trying to address here that the technical fix did make some sense. So I can explain that for a moment and I guess it sounds like everyone has the language, right, then is the document that you see, you see where the yellow highlights indicate what the changes would be? Yes. Great. All right, thank you. It's on our webpage for folks to go to and just click on the Eric Fitzpatrick. Great, perfect, thanks. So just a moment to explain why this amended language makes sense. You can think about the way the earned time proposal is working for this universe of folks who have committed disqualifying offenses. I know the committee's been talking a lot about that but remember, the idea is that if you've committed one of those seven disqualifying offenses then after the act goes into effect you wouldn't be able to earn good time anymore. I'm sorry, everybody remembers that we're familiar with that idea. However, if the person is already incarcerated has already been convicted and sentenced then if they had, because remember the good time program went into effect on January 1st of this year already. So someone who's been sentenced for one of those disqualifying offenses had already earned good time, right, before the effective date of the act that is not taken away, that can't be taken away. So anything they had already before the act becomes effective, they keep but going forward after the act's effective date they wouldn't earn any additional good time. So that's the idea. And there were two reasons for that I think. One reason was more of the policy grounded reason which I'm sure you recall as well was that the idea for that change that as it came out of the Senate was that for people that had already been sentenced years ago for one of those offenses, crime victims had been involved in that conversation or could have been involved in the conversation about plea bargaining and what that sentence ought to be but there was no notice to them at that time that there might be a good time system instituted later on that would result in reductions to the persons to the defendant's sentence. Whereas going forward after the date of the act there will be notice to those victims. In fact, notice, there's a notice piece added to SA 18 so that it ensures that they get notice so that you wouldn't have that issue in the future going forward after the act of victims potentially not being aware that a person's sentence agreeing to what a plea bargain should be without any knowledge that a person's sentence could be reduced. So that's the one reason for having that that operative date of whenever the act becomes effective is that it after the effective date those folks don't earn any more good time but anything they earned before that they get to keep and that's one of the reasons is the victim notice piece but there was a second reason for that date and that reason you may recall is the potential constitutional argument about whether or not there's a constitutional issue with under the ex post facto clause which is this idea. The concept behind that is that you can't penalize somebody in retrospect. You can't increase their penalty looking back for something that's already been done. You can retroactively enhance the punishment or penalty for something. And so again, the idea was that and I think the committee probably remembers there are different points of view about whether this proposal does create that kind of retroactive ex post facto problem. You know, the attorney general thinks it does the, sorry, complete reverse. The defender general thinks it does. The attorney general's office thinks it does not. And of course, you know, it would be a surprise that that doesn't get litigated in court at some point or different points of view and that would happen. The basis though of the AG's view that the ex post facto clause isn't a problem is that if you think about it, what was going on for people who had been sentenced for a disqualifying offense, if you look at it retroactively, if those folks were then being told, okay, going into the future after the effective date of the act, you can't earn good time anymore. The AG's position on that was that, well, they weren't having, they were simply being, because you remember before January 1st of 2021, there was no good time system in effect. A person could not earn good time at all. So the AG's position was, you're not taking a benefit away. You're not taking something away that a person always had. You're simply returning them to the status that they were in prior to the change that was made in Act 48, which was to institute this good time program. So that's different than penalizing somebody kind of looking backward for what happened before, increasing their punishment retroactively, because you're not increasing punishment at all, you're just returning to it, to what it was before. So just giving you that grounding to understand why this technical change is necessary. However, it became apparent, if you think about it, that's all well and good, what I just described, the constitutional point, if you're talking about people who were sentenced before January 1st, 2021, before the good time program went into effect, if you think about it, someone who on the other, because that person, remember, there was no good time program in effect before January 1st, 2021. So anybody who was sentenced before then, that argument that I mentioned from the AG's office applies perfectly well, that again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's gonna be up to the court to decide, but the argument makes sense in that that person is being returned to the situation they were in before, which is when there was no good time. However, let's say someone gets sentenced on January 2nd, or sometime between the good time program being going into effect just a few months ago, and the effective date of the act. So could be January 2nd, could be February 1st, could be March 1st, whatever that date is, that person is sentenced. Well, if you think about it, because the good time program went into effect already, that person is able to participate in the good time program at the time of sentencing. So if you then say to that person, no, you can't earn good time anymore after this new bill goes into effect, then you are penalizing that person retroactively, because that's not someone who's going back into a situation they were in before, when they never had good time at all, that person wasn't sentenced before. They might not even have committed the crime. I mean, they probably would have, because these things take long, especially during COVID, who knows how many of these situations have actually happened, but according to the AG, there are some people who have been sentenced since January 1st, who, as you think about it, are being sentenced under a system in which good time is available. They're not being sentenced like that other group under a system when there never was any good time at all. It is available now. So if going forward, you say to that person or people in that situation, defendants in that situation, okay, you get to keep the good time that you earned after, you know, since you've been sentenced on January 15th or whatever, but once this act goes into effect on July 1st, you don't get to earn it anymore, well, that is a retroactive change in that person's situation, because they're not going back to some previously existing status where they couldn't earn good time at all. They're being removed from a program that was available to them when they were sentenced. So that's the reason for this change, to clarify the constitutional point, so that be sure that those particular defendants, because the constitutional argument for them would be quite strong that they are being penalized retroactively because, you know, the program was available to them when they were sentenced and they acquired a right to participate in that program and that rights being taken away, as opposed to somebody who the program was not in existence when they were sentenced and their right to participate isn't being taken away, they're just being returned to that status. So that's the distinction. And the language does that by saying that, okay, with respect to those disqualifying offenses, the person, the offender who's serving on a sentence for disqualifying offense on January 1st, 2021 isn't gonna earn any future, earn time reductions for one of those disqualifying offenses. So again, just change the operative date. It's not the effective date of the act anymore. It's as of January 21st, because if you think about it, that's the logical point of demarcation to use because it's the folks who were sentenced prior to that, that arguably are not having a constitutional ex post facto problem by not being able to earn any in the future, but the people who were sentenced after, very likely that would be a constitutional ex post facto problem to then take that right away from you. So go ahead, Eric, I'm sorry. No, I was, that's it. I was just gonna say that's it. Well, there may be a few cases after the good time program became effective because the rules were effective January 1st of this year. And once those rules became effective, then folks within the judiciary when there was a plea bargain or negotiating on the sentences, they knew that the folks that were then going to be sentenced would be able to earn time. So the thinking is those sentences would have been adjusted accordingly. The victims would have been aware that the person would be receiving earn time going forward. And with those plea agreements, that would be incorporated. So if we don't make that clarification that we're intending for folks who were sentenced, currently sentenced and serving that sentence on January 1st, that's the group that can no longer earn good time for these offenses. And those that were sentenced after January 1st can continue to accrue their earn time because the program was in place and people were aware that the program was in place and that got calculated within the sentence possibly. Yes, exactly. So those folks who were sentenced post January 1st even for disqualifying offense would be able to continue to earn good time into the future, exactly. Because to take that away from them would to take away something that they had as a right when they were sentenced. And that's where you get into the real constitutional issue because you are taken away or right. Yes, yeah, exactly. Where prior to January 1st, they had a sentence good time or earn time was not available. So by losing that earn time going forward for those folks, the thinking is you are not taken away or right because you're going back to the original sentence. Yep, you've got it, exactly. And this is all going to be litigated in the course. Yes, I think we can be fairly certain of that, yes. But those folks who were sentenced and are serving a sentence prior to January 1st of this year. Right. Okay, so we have some questions. Scott and then Karen. Yes, thank you. Well, this clarification, I must have been misreading this the first time because the clarification is exactly what I thought we were doing in the first place. And I think it makes it much, much clearer. So it's great. I guess I'm wondering if you were talking, Eric, I was thinking about making it yet clearer. So where it says, let's see, serving an acceptance for disqualifying offense on January 1st, 2021 shall not earn, shall not earn any earned time sentence reductions under this section. And I wondered whether there should be some reference to going back to the original sentence, to their original sentence. So saying something like shall not be eligible for the earned time provision enacted after the date of their sentence and something along those lines. That's not worded right, but that's the idea. Does that make sense? I mean, if we're gonna make an amendment. Difference. Should we try to clarify that it's not changing anything for those people, it's just not giving them a benefit, I guess, that was enacted after their sentencing. Eric, I think it adds confusion. Yeah, the only thing I'd say to that is that that is absolutely the consequence and of this language, but that adding it into the actual statutory language. Yeah, it sort of disrupts the sort of, as much as possible, trying to I think keep it as simple as possible. Sure, absolutely. And I agree with you 100% that that's exactly the result of the language, but that hopefully the result is clear enough with what you have, you wouldn't even have to expressly, explicitly state it. Okay, just thinking out loud. Thanks. No, I appreciate, the more eyes the better and I always appreciate suggestions, so thank you. Thanks. Karen and then Michael. Yeah, so this is helpful. I agree that this provides further reinforcement and clarity to kind of what, at least I was assuming was the intent and the goal of this. A question I do have though is, and I'm not sure, Eric, if you're gonna be able to answer this is, so it sounds like this would be relevant for what is likely a very few number of cases. It's whoever has been convicted since January 1st. And S18, part of S18 is basically codifying that victims will be notified of good time, earned time at sentencing. So I guess we're working under the assumption that for these few cases that have been convicted in sentence since January, that those victims have been in the loop about this earned time piece. That's something I just would want to make sure is done that the victims in the small number of cases know what the sentence is going to look like and that these folks are indeed eligible for earned time. And I don't know if that is, like I can just assume that or if that needs to be part of this. That's a good question. I don't have the answer to it. It would be something I would think that either David Chair from the AG or perhaps, I think the folks have heard from the crime victims, folks on this or perhaps the state's attorneys that any one of those folks who have experience in a practical day to day experience with the plea bargain situation would have a better idea, whether that information is being communicated right now. Since as you said, the program went into effect on January 1st, that certainly the idea is that notice be given and although the express notice that we have in S18 isn't effective yet, but nevertheless, if the program was in effect, so what's being done on the ground in response to the rules going into effect, I'm not really sure, but it's a good question. Michael? Yes, Eric. So going forward, and maybe I've misread this on our break, going forward, let's say the effective date becomes July 1st, hypothetically, which probably it would be, I would guess ish. Someone goes to trial on July 25th and they're convicted, they choose to go to trial, there's no plea bargain, this still would apply to them then, they would not be eligible for good time on those offenses forward as well, because maybe I'm misunderstanding it, it sounds like Scott had some confusion there too, or am I, or is that no? No, I think in that respect, let's assume they were sentenced after July 1st, whenever it was, like you said, however long it takes, if they're not sentenced until then, then they would not earn good time going forward. Right, that's what I was asking, they would. Oh, okay, yeah, exactly, yeah, yeah, that's right. So I've been, I'm rereading, I think I've misunderstood it, so that is in there, and so that's good in my opinion, and unless a plea bargain to a lesser crime law obviously, then that's a whole different story. Correct, that's right, if they pled to an entirely different crime that's not in that list of seven, then they couldn't earn it, yes. Yeah, so that puts me in a whole different position, and it makes me feel much better about what I see here then. All right, thank you, sir. Thank you. So Michelle? Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I really don't understand what the change is, I mean, it seems like my colleagues are feeling like this clarified things, but when I look at it, I don't really understand what the difference is in the marked out language compared to the replacement language, and also where that fits in in the context of the whole bill that we're gonna be voting on. So I don't wanna delay the process, but I don't understand what this is doing. So if Eric or somebody else, if you could please explain it again, because I'm just, I'm not really clear what this correction is doing. Sure, so, and it is a little bit confusing, so it took me a little while at first too. So the difference is between what you're looking at now, the proposed change, whereas what the language was before that is that the person who was sentenced for a disqualifying offense, whether or not they were able, they would be able to earn good time. The date between which whether they could earn good time or they could not, that date was the effective date of the act. So let's just say, you know, that the act is signed into law and it becomes effective July 1st. So it's just for the purpose of... Eric, keep it shorter than that, because the bill is effective upon passage. The governor passed, got the signs this by May 1st. Right, so let's use that as our hypothetical here. It's effective on passage, governor signs it on May 1st. So that's the date that everything goes into effect. So May 1st, because of the existing language, if you look at the existing language in the amendment that struck through on line 10, it says it's an offender who was sentenced, who was serving a sentence for a disqualifying offense on the effective date of this act, right? If they're serving a disqualifying offense, which as we just said, hypothetically, we'll say it's May 1st. So if they're serving a sentence for one of the disqualifying offenses on that date, then they are not gonna earn any good time sentence reductions in the future, right? Starting on May 2nd, say, right? They're not gonna earn any more good time for, if they've been sentenced for one of those seven crimes. Anything they've earned in the past, they get to keep. But going forward, they're not gonna earn anything after May 1st. The proposal here is that May 1st is not the date anymore. It says January, anyone who's sentenced for disqualifying offense on January 1st, 2021, that becomes the point of demarcation. So anyone who was sentenced as of that date, not May 1st, but January 1st, 2021, anyone who was sentenced as of that date, isn't gonna earn any good time reduction after the act becomes effective. So theoretically, people that could have earned five months of earned time between January 1st and May 1st, under this correction, they would not earn those five months of earned time. No, that's interesting. They would still get what they earn. They would still get that. The difference is that in the bill prior to the amendment, prior to this change, they would get to keep that amount that they earned during the five months, but they wouldn't earn any more going forward in the future. Whereas under this amendment, they would still get to keep what they earned during the five months, but they would continue to be able to earn good time in the future. See, so if you were sentenced, let's just pick another date on February 15th of 2021, you're sentenced and you're sentenced for one of those seven crimes that's in the list. Under the bill, you would not, I say under the bill, under the bill, as it came out of the Senate, under the previous language, you would not earn any more good time after May 1st, after the act became effective. You could keep what you earned until then, but once the act became effective on May 1st, you wouldn't earn any more. On the other hand, under this amendment, if you were sentenced on that same date, February 15th, you would keep what you earned and you would get to keep earning for however long you were incarcerated. So that's the distinction. Anyone sentenced between January 1st and May 1st would get to participate in the good time program under this proposed change, but they would not get to participate under the language as it came from the Senate. Right. Because good time program went into effect January 1st. So this is clarifying language to help the courts when this gets litigated, because if we kept the languages in the version from the Senate, for those folks who are now being sentenced for these disqualifying offenses, the program of good time is in effect. So people know within the judicial system, the prosecution, the defense, the victims, the judge, that good time is a program. So in that sentencing, it would be very clear that those folks were sentenced between January 2nd and when the bill becomes law that good time is in effect. So the question then is if we don't do this clarifying language for those folks, which may be a very, very small number because we really haven't had much judicial activity, those folks, if we don't do this clarifying language would then get sweeped in to the folks who were sentenced prior to January 1st. And they would have their good time going forward taken away from them, which then takes away a right because they were sentenced when good time was in effect. Does that make sense to folks? You're taken away a right because the thinking is that that sentence that they were given from January 2nd to when the bill becomes law say May 1st was clear that they incorporated what they could earn, the thinking is, what they could earn on earned time for the length of that sentence. So you've given them a right. You've given them a right in their sentence to earn good time. And then if we keep the language the way it came from the Senate, it says they could lose earned good time going forward because they were serving a sentence when the bill became effective. So this just puts a line in the sand and says, prior to January 1st, if you're sentenced and serving a sentence for these offenses, when this bill becomes law, you get to keep that earned time that you've accrued from January 1st to say May 1st. You get to keep that. But after May 2nd, you don't keep accruing earned time for these offenses. If you were sentenced after January 1st, you earned good time up to the time that the bill became law May 1st, but you can continue to earn your good time because you were sentenced when the good time program was in effect. And if we didn't have this clarifying language for those folks who were sentenced after January 1st, you have given them in their sentence the knowledge that they could qualify for earned time because the program is in effect. And in the courts, when this is litigated, we don't make this clarification and we wanna take their good time away going forward, you're taking away their rights because their sentence would incorporate, the thinking is it would incorporate what they could earn in good time. Where prior to January 1st, those sentences didn't entail those folks earning good time. Does that make sense, Eric? Yep, I think so. Yep, I think maybe it's an oversimplification but one way to think about it is just to think of someone sentenced on March 15th because we know that it's not in effect yet. So let's say it's gonna go into effect May 1st, think of someone sentenced on March 15th. That person sentenced on March 15th under the bill as it came from the Senate can participate in the Earn Good Time program. I'm sorry, under the bill as it came from the Senate, someone sentenced on March 15th would not be able to participate in the Earn Good Time program in the future. Not saying anything about what they earned already but in the future that person would not be able to participate. Under this amendment, that person can participate in the future. So this amendment is expanding the opportunity for a good time for the people that are carved out prior to January 1st. After January 1st. After January 1st. And there's probably just a handful. It's after because good time went into effect January 1st. So the courts, the prosecution, the defense, the victims knew the lay of the land was different. But the defendant, once their sentence could earn good time. And then the victims would be aware that that minimum maximum sentence might change because the person might be earning good time. Because the law went into effect January 1st of this year. Right. The amendment doesn't change anything for the people sentenced prior to January 1st. It only changes something for the people sentenced since January 1st. And the change it makes for them is it says, okay, you can earn good time in the future. And under the Senate bill they couldn't. And that's taken away right. Right. It's confusing. We know it gets better. It gets better as you become a legislator longer and longer and longer. Scott and then Sarah. All right, all that makes perfect sense. But Eric, I think you answered a question from Michael earlier that confused me. It sounded like Michael was asking whether someone who commits one of these carved out offenses after July 1st say, or whenever, sometime after the bill becomes enacted, would not be able to earn good time. But that's not so. Anybody who is convicted of any of these crimes, except for the life without parole, which is carved out elsewhere, is eligible for earning, earned time. Yes? Yes, I may have misspoke then. Yes, in the future, going forward, the idea is that you don't have the same issue with notice to victims. Right. For offenses after the bill is passed, because it's not. That's all entirely a separate issue. That's fact 148, that's water over the dam. What we're talking about here is just the universe of people who were sentences for these, were serving a sentence for these crimes on January 1st. And because they were sent to a previous regime without earned time. Exactly. Yeah, okay. I'm gonna make sure that's clear. And these are the folks that the intent of the bill from the get-go was to deal with. It's the way the language was drafted was confusing. Yeah, yeah. Okay, thanks. So, Sarah and then Michael. So, Madam Chair, I just wanna make sure that committee members, the newer committee members understand our process. Cause as a committee, we've only worked on committee bills up until now. So I wanted to make sure that what I think I might have heard from Representative Voslin was a question about what we're looking at. And maybe you can explain how this bill has come over from the Senate. And if we make changes like different from when we in our committee bill where we're making the changes in the draft, that this is the way that our legislative council is presenting is a little bit different because it's we're at a different stage in the process. I just wanna make sure that people understand some of those moving, how we do this. Did Michelle, did you have a question about that? I just wanna make sure I might be... Honestly, I'm still confused. I'm rereading that paragraph like from line nine to 14. And the language just, it just doesn't make sense to me if it's making the carve outs carved out or if it's making the reductions apply. The language just feels very legalese to me. And I mean, I feel like I've heard people describe it, but when I look at the words, it doesn't seem like that's what it is. And so I just feel very confused. Like, and also it feels very strange to vote on an amendment before we vote on the other bill because they're all intertwined. So I'm just feeling very confused about this right now. So maybe Eric, you can help with the process. Legal language is very difficult sometimes to comprehend. Sure. But that's why we have our legal staff to help us with this, to help the interpretation. Number two, when you have a bill that has been sent to the committee, what Sarah was saying, this is different than what we have been working on creating the bill with the corrections bill that we did and then with the capital bill. We create it. This bill has already been created. This bill's been gone through the Senate. This is the version that passed the Senate. If you do an amendment, this is an amendment to that bill. It's an amendment to page four, number five to clarify what the intent of the bill is. It's clarifying language. That's what it is. It's a technical correction to the draft, to the bill that came over because as you keep working with it, the attorney general's office said, wait a minute for those folks who are sentenced between after this good time is in effect, good time became effective January 1st. So anyone who's sentenced after that, our intent is not for them to not earn good time going forward because good time was in play when they were sentenced. The intent is for those who were sentenced prior to good time being in play, that they could no longer earn good time going forward after the bill became law. So this language is to clarify that section five and those disqualifying offenses only apply to those folks who are serving a sentence and their sentence was given prior to January 1st of this year. That's the intent of the language and it's drafted in a legal form. In the way that we have amendments, this is amending one particular section, one particular sentence. And it's being presented to us by the attorney general's office, brought it to our attention, that brought it to our legal staff's attention for our legislative council to weigh in on their interpretation. Legislative council agreed with the attorney general's interpretation. And I said to them, then work up some language because the bill S18 has to be amended to correct this. So we're not, it's not doing a whole new bill. It's just clarifying that one sentence and this is the legislative process. It may be that the highlighting, is that confusing possibly to people understand that when the yellow highlighting is there to indicate where the changes are being made between the existing language and the proposed amending language. So if you think of how this language would look after the amendment, again, so you look at lines nine and 10, that means the highlighting shows you that the way the language would look afterward, the word is because it's struck through would be gone. And in the next line, line 10, the words the effective date of this subdivision five, those would be gone. So the way it would read at the end, and this may have been the source of the confusion a little bit, the way it would read after the change, it would say an offender who was serving a sentence for a disqualifying offense, sorry, on January 1st of 2021, shall not earn any earned time sentence reduction after the effective day of the act. So that yellow highlighting in the struck through words won't appear in the amendment. When once the language is amended, that will be gone. And that's that way, that may make the sentence sound more cleaner and more understandable if you think of it that way. And that sentence just very clearly says, hey, anybody who was serving a sentence for disqualifying offense on January 21st doesn't earn any good time after the act becomes effective. Simple as that. So maybe it's simpler when you think of those words not being there. So wherever you see words being crossed out, that means it's being deleted. Right. And wherever you see any underline, well, that's not all I'm gonna confuse it. I'm not going there. So any words you see crossed out means you're deleting it. And then what we're adding is January 1st, 2021. And what is it may be confusing the effective date of the subdivision five that's being crossed out that refers to the effective date that's in the last section of the bill. The effective date is upon passage. So that's how you got to read legislation. You're constantly moving back and forth between sections. So Michael and then Karen. All right, Eric, I hate to circle back on you but Scott asked the question and now you got me confused. I thought I was clear with what I've got back for me maybe I misunderstood it. Going forward, let's say it's May 1st, May 25th, there's a trial. Person agrees to go to trial. They get convicted of one of those seven crimes, no good time, correct? No, that may have been me who misspoke on that one. I don't think it was your confusion. It was probably, I misstated it. Going forward, those folks who are sentenced after, let's again, let's assume May 1st is the effective date of the act, but any time after May 1st, someone is sentenced for one of those seven crimes, then that person can earn good time because it's based on the idea that at that point there's notice that there's a good time program in effect and there's language in the bill that requires victims to be notified that good time exists and may have an impact on the offender's sentence. And that way the victim can take that into account when they communicate with the prosecutor about whether they wanna agree or not on a plea agreement or what they think the sentence should be. So, okay, I'm back to where I was then. And so I was, I had read everything right from the beginning, as I thought then. So I can't support this then because these are crimes to me that don't, these people don't deserve good time, in my opinion. But thank you. But that's a different bill. That's not this bill. What this bill does, what this bill does. It talks about just mostly, I know, I'm sorry, you're right about it. It goes back to the parent bill. Stop. The S18 has a carve out for those folks who have been sentenced. And we're clarifying that it's January 1st if they've been sentenced prior to that. For these disqualifying offenses, they would not earn good time going forward. That has always been the case with this bill. The intent of the bill was for those folks after the bill becomes law, for those folks that are convicted and sentenced for these offenses would be able to earn good time going forward because we're not changing the rules of the game in the middle because the prosecution, the defense counsel, the victims and the judge would know that good time is being implemented. And that is being taken into consideration when a person is sentenced or when there's a plea agreement. So we're not pulling the rug out from underneath the victims because they're well aware that they can earn good time. We made that policy decision over the past two years. The committee made that policy decision. The governor signed the bill and it became law. The department of corrections promulgates rules and they're implementing this law. So we're allowing the law to be carried out for those folks who are going to be sentenced and convicted of these disqualifying offenses going forward because everybody's on a level playing field. Prior to that, people were not and that's why we have the car valve for those folks who are sentenced prior to January 1st. That's been the intent of this piece of legislation from the get go, okay? So we have some more questions here. Karen and Marcia. Sorry, I thought Eric had his hand up. I don't know if he wanted to follow up or if I should go. I didn't see you Eric. Yeah, sure. That's okay. I was just gonna add one more bit context that could be helpful there is that if you think about what the law is current, leave this bill aside for a second. What's the law currently? All those folks in that list along with everybody else, they can all earn good time right now. As long as it's not a life without parole offense, that was the car valve that you made. But other than that, those folks can all earn it. So the effect of this bill, if it were to pass, would be to reduce the availability of good time for those folks who were sentenced before January 1st. It's true, it would keep the same availability for them if they were sentenced afterward. But overall, it's a reduction in the availability of good time, even though it's true also, that for those offenses, they can still continue to earn it in the future the same way they do now. So I don't know if that helps kind of put it all in context, but obviously whether to do that or not is certainly a policy decision for all you folks. So Karen and then Marsha. Yes, so I saw that David joined us. And so I just wanted to ask my question again with David here in case he has more information on it. And the question was with this change, it just really highlights that there probably are, I don't know, guessing a handful of folks that have been sentenced since January 1st. And that's what this change is affecting. And I'm looking for confirmation that the victims of these cases have been notified about the earn time process. Since S18 is where it is kind of codifying it that victims will be notified in the plea agreement or sentencing process. So I don't know, David, if you can add to that. I'm just looking for assurance that we have dotted all the I's and crossed the T's before we do this. So David, if you could identify yourself for the record first. Sure, David chair or the attorney general's office and my apologies to the committee for not being here earlier. I was scheduled to be done with earlier testimony much sooner than it ended up happening. So my apologies, but to answer your question, it is current law, it is already in current law that when victims are notified about plea deals and potential sentences that earn good time has to be discussed with them. So assuming, and I think we have hardworking good faith victims advocates in all our offices, assuming they are following those rules and I think that's a reasonable assumption, then people would have been notified because it is current law that they have to be notified about earn good time. What this did was it sort of added to that a little bit by saying there has to be an estimate about the total possible that could come off of a sentence, which I think is important information. And I could not tell you, you know, I couldn't sit here and tell you whether that was conveyed to victims or not, but it is the law that they at least have to know that this is there. And I would guess that in that notification, I'm guessing if questions were answered some estimates were probably given, but at the very least, they have to have been told about it. And this bill shores that up from what we did in Act 148. This bill is more explicit. So it gives strength to the victims, community and the advocates. It gives them strength. So it strengthens what we did for good time before. So if we don't support this bill, then we're undermining victims area because we were clear in the previous legislation, but this is adds another layer. So if we don't support the bill, we're not adding that extra layer for our victims. So Marsha. So anyone that was sentenced as of January 1st is earning good time now with these carve outs. But after we pass this, they will, that good time ends for them. That's what this does, right? If they were sentenced prior to January 1st, right? Marsha. If they were before January 1st, they just still continue to get good time? No, I'm trying to figure out what your question is. If they were sentenced prior to January 1st for that group, this bill says, when it becomes effective, you can, with these offenses, if you've been sentenced for these offenses, you were sentenced prior to January 1st. When the bill becomes law, you will no longer be able to receive earned good time. Okay. That's what it says. Going forward for those folks, you can no longer earn good time. You don't lose what you've earned. No, but you can't earn anymore. You can't earn anymore. So the longer we take on this bill, the more they're earning good time. Right, okay. So that's why I'm trying to push this along so that it can get signed by the governor so that we don't have this gap that we're trying to deal with here. The shorter that timeframe, the less people you're gonna have involved. Makes it more confusing the longer we drag this out. Questions? So I'm gonna ask David and I'm gonna ask Eric. Has this amendment been passed by Senator Sears? Not by me. No, it hasn't. I'm happy to have a discussion if the chair would like. I would like that because for the new members, what happens is this is the Senate bill. And if you make changes to it, it goes back to the Senate and the respective committees over there that it went through. So it would go back to Senate judiciary. And if they agree with the change, they accept that there's a legislative process they go through, has to be brought up for action on the Senate floor and they move to concur. And then it gets moved up to the governor. If they find that they don't agree, then we got more time lag because then we have to enter to negotiations with our colleagues in Senate judiciary. So I'm trying, because I know that people really don't want folks who are currently sentenced to receiver in good time. That's clear. I am trying to get this bill done and on the governor's desk. So the governor can sign it so we can start this process. That's what I'm trying to do. So the longer we take in here, the more we're gonna delay this bill becoming effective. I'm just laying it out. So if you don't want these folks to continue earning good time who have been sentenced prior to January 1st, the longer we delay, the more good time they're earning and the more the victims are getting upset. That's the lay of the land. Good time is a program that we in the legislature and the governor has signed into law that is a program that's not gonna go away. We may not like it. We did a lot of work for two years and I can have the reporter of the bill, the member from Pittsburgh, Representative Shaw, who supports good time and worked really hard on it, come in and testified to us. He was the reporter of the bill. Good time is the law and the land. And we're doing a carve out for some of those folks that committed these offenses and have been convicted because the victims have reached out and the victims are supporting S18. Do we wanna undermine what they support? Cause that's what's before us. And this language is to clarify when and if, if and when, but it will be litigated. It is to clarify to the courts what the legislative intent is. So that's where we are as a committee. And if there's a no vote for this bill, that is saying to the victims, we don't support what you've done cause the victims are supporting this bill. They've testified to that. They want S18 and I'm not gonna turn my back on them. So I think before we move forward here cause we're gonna vote on this bill. If David and Eric could reach out to Senator Sears and have a conversation here cause I don't wanna make any more changes to this bill. It's, it's tenuous as it is. But this is clarifying language. And if you could reach out today within a few hours or so to pass this by Senator Sears and then get back to me, would that be possible for you folks? Certainly reach out within the next hour. And I can't promise when the Senator will get back to me but I will reach out right away and report back as soon as I hear it. David, feel free to, when you reach out to Senator Sears to let him know that we had talked about this and I agreed that the clarification made sense sort of and that he can follow up with me as well. Great, thank you. I'll reach out to you and we'll get it figured out. Thanks. Great, thank you. Okay. Before they talk to Senator Sears, I'd like to suggest again that the name be changed cause they could make that change and ask Sears about it. So what is, can you explain that to David and Eric and maybe they can pass it by Senator Sears? What is it? In the change that they've recommended in the amendment that they've proposed as 18, they say to change earned good time to earn time, to me does not make any sense if people are talking about that and say, so do you have any earned time? That, what does that mean? So I would rather the name were changed to earned sentence reduction so that as, which to me is more meaningful. So instead of- So anywhere where it says earned time, it would be changed to earned sentence reduction. I might add that somewhere in here it almost says that already. Online 11, it says not earned, not earn any earned time sentence reduction. So anyway, that's what I would suggest and would like to propose as a change so that Sears can look at it and say, ah, it doesn't make any difference to me sure. And then we can make the change. Can you just pass that by Senator Sears and see? Sure. If the committee wants to, maybe the committee doesn't want to change the name. I think the committee is struggling with enough things right now without having to deal with the name change, to be honest with you. I think it's a little bit more than the bandwidth at this point as well. I think they can handle it. So can you just pass that by Senator Sears and just see and then get back to me? Yeah, sure. So we can figure out what to do with this bill. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, also. I appreciate it. So it's quarter after 12, we're on the floor at 1.15. I think we may be on the floor for a little bit, for a while this afternoon. So we'll see where we are on the floor and where we are with hearing back from the Senate. We then have the joint assembly. Yeah, that's a two, but we've got some issues that are coming up that may be controversial on the floor. The joint session isn't gonna take long. I think that's gonna take five minutes, probably at the most. Right, no, I know, but I know I was just saying on top of being on the floor, that was all I was saying. Okay. So Karen? Yes, so just anticipation of us maybe doing some votes. I'm guessing it'll be part of the conversation, but who's gonna report it or how do I write out the amendment and stuff? That'll be part of it though, when I fill out the forms. Yeah, we're not there yet in terms of who's gonna report it, because this is gonna be, we need someone that really understands this issue and has worked through. So there's only a few members in the committee that have been here for good time. So I'm not gonna put a new member on the committee to report this on the floor. But we'll decide that when I'm filling it out. I just don't have that information yet. At this point, I'm processing it through and having conversations with our vice chair and our ranking member to figure it out. And we'll go from there, but we'll have to see where we are on the bill and the vote and conversations that occur between that. So just be on the lookout for a text from Sarah and we'll just play it by ear in terms of when we get off the floor and when we hear back from the other body for that. And then, so we got an hour for lunch. So for folks on YouTube, we are through for this piece and then we hopefully we'll be back this afternoon.