 We're back with Eric Fitzpatrick and we have, this is S-18 at Senate Judiciary after the break on 2-10-21. S-18 is an act relating to earned time. So, Eric, do you want to go through the changes? We have, maybe a better post to share the screen with them. So, people can see it. And then we also have a letter from, or yeah, a letter from Chris Fennell at the Center for Crime Victim Services. And we'll try to hear from people who have comments after you've walked through the bill and after the committee's made questions or comments. Great. Yes, thank you. That sounds good. So, this is Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel here to walk the committee through the first proposed amendment to S-18. And as Senator Sears said, I think it makes the most sense for me to share the screen so that everyone can see the language while I explain what the changes are and what the new language is. So, let me take a moment and do that. All right. Does everyone see the data? Yeah. Yep. Yes. Nice. Okay. Great. So, as I mentioned, this is a strike all amendment since there were quite a number of changes. It certainly made sense to start fresh with a strike all amendment completely, which strikes out the first version of the bill as introduced and begins with this new proposal. The first section you'll see is entirely new. And this is based on language that was provided by Sarah Robinson. Remember, the issue here is notification to the victim of the potential good time, or I should say earn time. I'm going to take a while to rewire my brain on that. But you see the language. So, this is, you see, there is existing law. This folds new language on lines 19 and 20 into the existing law because there's already an obligation on the part of the prosecutor's offices to certain things that they must inform the victim about and provide information about. So, this sort of fits nicely in that sentence because it already says starting in line 16, in addition, prosecutor's office shall explain the significance of a minimum and maximum sentence to the victim, explain the function of parole, how it may affect the actual amount of time the defendant may be incarcerated and inform the victim of the maximum amount of good earn time that the defendant could accrue. They see it sort of logically fits in that place. So, thanks to Sarah for getting me started on this, but that's the proposal at this point as to where that would go. And remember, that's an important point that we'll see going forward since the committee made the decision to not make any changes or limitations on the earned time that an offender could earn in the future going forward. And that was based on this idea that because going forward, victims would have sufficient information about what the impact of the good time, sorry, the earned time program could have. And this language right here is where that loop is closed, and it's made sure that that information is provided to the victim. Does that make sense? Yep, it's seven days, right? Yes, per month, I think. So, they would just need to multiply seven times 12 and then multiply the number of years, correct? Yeah, I think that's how it would work. Ready to move on to the next piece? Yeah, okay. So, in a 10-year period, they'd get 840 days, which is like two years lost, right? Yeah, that sounds right. Does it also explain that it's, it is, and I think we need to make this clear. It changes the minimum at which point you're eligible to go before the probation, I mean, the parole board. It does not mean you're automatically going to be parole. Is that clear in there? All right, can we make a statement about that, Eric? I will double check on where that is. Because it seems like there's a lot of people who say, well, this ex-offender is going to get two years off of the sentence that I had agreed to. And I just think it should be clear to people, no matter what, there's no automatic that they're going to receive parole. And we did change. One of the reasons we went to good time, or earned time, excuse me, I did it myself, was to provide a number of things, but also to, but it was clear that it would not be automatic that somebody still gets paroled. Right, I think over, you see on page three, there's where it provides that it's a reduction in the minimum or maximum. But you're right, it does not mean that they're automatically get paroled. Well, I just wonder if we could inform the victim the maximum amount of earned time that the defendant could occur. And that it does not mean it automatically that they would be paroled. Yeah, sure. Something of that nature. Yeah, sounds good. I'm just noting that. Anything else on this section? No. All right. So moving on to section two, this is the earned time substantive section. You'll see throughout the statute, the word good is struck. So starting in line two in the title. So we're changing the program title to earn time. So you obviously see that a number of times as you read through the statute, but none of this has changed here in the beginning, other than the name of the program itself. So the first change you see though is a little bit further down here. And these are the standards that apply to the earned time program. And you see, there's already starting on line 12, there's already, and this is existing law, a list of which offenders qualify and which do not. So generally says line 12, available for all sentence offenders, including furlough provided that program should not be available to. And then we have this list of a few groups of offenders to whom it does not apply. First one being offenders on probation or parole, then eligible for reduction section 11. And the life without parole is the one that we've talked about it's existing as well. And then this is an added piece to the offenders who will not qualify for good time is those offenders sentenced to serve an interrupted sentence. Now, remember that was language proposed by Monica Weber and the department who have some experience with the rule as it's gone into effect and thinking about how the program would roll out, realize that it didn't make sense to have interrupted sentence folks qualify for the program people who might Eric, for example. Yeah, sorry. Just wondering, interrupted sentence, is that defined somewhere currently in statute? It is not as far as I know, but remember I asked Monica that when she testified as to whether that sufficed that phraseology and she said that that was the way that the department used the terminology and that that would do it. Okay. Yeah, I just wondered because if I remember her testimony, she said that this is, it was kind of like this is our shorthand for that. And I wasn't sure if that was going to be formal enough for a definition for a category of people who are being held out of this. But if you think it's fine, I'm fine with it. I'll follow up with an email as well just to see if what their thoughts are on that and whether there might be some benefit to defining the term. So I'll double check on that as well. Okay. I'm just wondering if there might not be some other unanticipated kind of sentence that all of a sudden later people are like, well, technically this is interrupted as well. So yeah, maybe just a double check on it. Yeah, it's a good point because you want to make sure weekends are included in the center, because they are interrupted and you're only going for the weekend. Yeah. It's a pretty commonly used term in the business. Is it? Yeah, but it's not going to hurt to have it defined if that needs to be the case. Yeah. Well, that sounds good. I'll certainly check in and see if there isn't a way to be more specific about it. So moving on, Eric, I neglected to ask you. I walked in late because I was getting a package from the postman off the front door. Did you see the word good is still on line three of page one? Yes, that's in the title. That was the title of the bill as introduced. So you could change the title of the bill. I'll leave that up to the sponsor. Okay. Fine. The reporter will fully explain that. Sounds good. So moving on here, you'll see. So this is unchanged. This language at the bottom of page two, this is just sort of general language that saying that when the disqualifying offense comes in, then that ability of an offender to participate earn time who's who's committed to disqualifying offense is going to be governed by these separate subdivisions. Oh, and there's a typo right there, actually. That reference to subdivision six needs to be deleted because subdivision six itself was deleted. That's the that was the provision that applied to situations prospectively going forward for disqualifying offenses. But since that's out of the bill, there's no need to have that reference here. Eric. Yeah. I'm wondering since we've made it going forward, no one will be disqualified. On line 19, it says when an offender is convicted, shouldn't it be when an offender has been convicted? Yeah, that's a good point. Because it would only be people in the past. Yes. Yes. Yes. Nice catch. English professor. I have one saving grace. Oh, I'm sure more than that. What is it? Grammar. That's it. No, I read an email yesterday in the period of where many saving gracious. Oh, I'm sure they love grammar. And I just want to say for the record, I am not on that bill. That guy is totally off base. I know. I, one that I'm on, he went on blah, blah, blah, blah. That's the, in the education committee I introduced. Getting information on suspensions and expulsions. And residential and substance abuse treatment is not eligible. What? That's from way back when, right? Where are you? I'm on page three of six that just, I shouldn't have even read it. It's nothing to do with current law. Okay. It's what we passed last year. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. We went through that a lot. On that page, Senators, here you'll see that earned time is inserted for good time whenever necessary. Got me to that. And then I looked at it and then I remembered. Right. So we go to page four, line seven is the next. Yes. And so that first paragraph on page four, you'll see the new language is on line seven, not with standing one VSA 214. That's the general provision about laws not being retroactive. So this is the place where in order to avoid the conflict with the general provision about laws being prospective. In other words, going forward into the future and not applying to retroactive situations. You have to not withstand this here so that you don't have that inconsistency since this is applying to this language is now only applying to offenders who have already been sentenced and who have already as of January 1st begun earning good time. Sorry, earn time. So this makes clear that it's not going to be a violation of that statute to essentially retroactively say to that group of people going forward. You're not going to you're not going to qualify for earn time in the future, even though as you see in lines 10 to 12, you certainly be able to keep whatever earned time that you've gotten up until the effective date of the act. So moving on from there, you'll see now we get to the list of disqualifying offenses. So if you fall within that group, if you're one of the defendants who's incarcerated, who has committed one of these offenses, this is the group of folks going forward that wouldn't earn any additional earn time. And this is where we settled, you recall, on these five, I think it was six, actually. Yeah, six. And the six are murder, kidnapping. And then the new language is in the L&L with the child provision. And this is modeled on the same language, very, very similar language that you have in the sex offense registry statute. That creates an eight gap. And so we make clear here that the offense shall not be considered disqualifying offense. If the offenders less than 18 and the child is at least 12, and the conduct is consensual. Now, note that the way this is phrased intentionally, it's not that the person who engaged in that conduct wouldn't necessarily have committed the crime. It doesn't say that that's not a crime. It just says that the offense shall not be considered a disqualifying offense. So in other words, this person could still be convicted. It's just that this collateral consequence wouldn't apply. They would be able to get the earn time. Correct. And that's a minimal group. We don't even know if there's people in that. But as I recall, if the child was 10, they wouldn't be obtaining this sort of. The actor was 19, they wouldn't be obtaining this. That's right. Has to fit within that narrow age range. So could I ask a question about that? Yeah. So what if you have a 15-year-old and an 11-year-old or a 13-year-old and a 10-year-old? How do we, I mean... Do we even, do we charge the 13-year-old and incarcerate him or her? So this leads out... I suspect it would be a delinquent act. I don't know. We could hear from the prosecutors to answer that or the defense bar who's here. I just would hate to see... Anybody under 16 definitely would be... Wouldn't be incarcerated to begin with? Well, I would imagine under the raise the age laws that they would be in juvenile court. There's a delinquent act. Yes. I could stand correct. I think that's right. Can I ask another question of Eric? With regard to when we say here... I understand what we're saying here and that we need to do this. But is someone going... When you say the child is at least 12 years old and the conduct is consensual. I thought, I mean, sort of like the standard is you can't consent unless you're over... What is it? Over 16 or older? Are people going to misinterpret this and think that now at least down to 12 that anything would be consensual? I mean, in other words, does it give people an idea that this is... I see why we're doing it here. We should do it, but how's that mesh with that? I think it's okay because the term is commonly used in this context to define and sort of delineate between something that is criminal and something that isn't. The lack of consent is a well-established term and concept for when someone's conduct would be prohibited by these statutes and when it wouldn't. So I don't think it would sort of inadvertently send the message that the consent was any broader than that. Okay. While is there a way of referencing the sex offender registry to make it clear? Yeah. I'm not sure you'd want to reference the registry here. The language, though, is virtually identical. So you have that... In fact, the conduct is consensual. That language is also in the L and L statute itself in 26 or two. And that's the age gap is less than 19 and over and the child is 15. Right. And the conduct is consensual, right? And the conduct is consensual. Right. I think that makes it even tighter in the sense that you're tracking the language that's in the underlying statute itself. Right. And... Okay. Okay. The last... Sorry, go ahead. Okay. Go right ahead. The last one is on page five. Yeah. At the top of the pages. Okay. All right. Now we're now moving on. So that takes care of the earned time piece of this. Yeah. You'll see now this is... There's a new section. This is the compassionate release section that I think had passed the Senate last year in Justice Reinvestment 2. And so this is identical language to that. I... So Chattaboo Brand pulled that language from that bill. So this basically is... It's a concept related to... I'm sure the committee's talked about this before... A parole consideration when a person is going to be eligible for parole and sets up a different... Earlier eligibility for parole. If the inmate is 65 years of age or older, that's in line 14, they're not serving a life without parole sentence. And they've served at least five years, even though they haven't reached the minimum yet, because ordinarily you have to get to the minimum before you're eligible for parole, but they've served at least five, then they will be eligible for parole consideration unless there's programming requirements that haven't been fulfilled or they've had a major disciplinary rule violation within the previous 12 months. So if you fit those criteria and you're 65 years or older, then you could be eligible for parole. And again, that's, like you said, Senator Sears, with respect to good time. Being eligible doesn't mean you're granted parole, but you can be considered. Senator Sears? Yep. I really appreciate getting this in here, because I think it's really important. I just had one question about the programming requirements. Oftentimes, they don't start programming, even let people be eligible for programming until the very end of their minimum. I mean, I've heard that. I'm not sure that that's actually true. So, and sometimes I believe that there is programming on the outside that it could be availed if it's there. So I wondered if there could be a way of indicating that. I'm just worried that they might not, people might not be given the opportunity to participate in the programming until the end toward the end of their minimum. So then they wouldn't be eligible, but not because of their own actions, but because of the corrections policies. And then if they could continue have the programming on the outside. That's my question. And that's probably a question for corrections, because I don't know the answer. Yes, I don't either. But that's a good question for Monica or someone from DOC. Well, it would be interesting to know this, because if someone is going to be taking sex offender treatment and as same as Jeanette has heard, I've heard you don't start that until you're so many such a period of time before you're actually going to be getting out. So you'd want to make sure they did have it. Having those people take sex offender treatment when they get out. Yeah. And there are some programs that are available on the outside that's a continuation of ones that were done in prison. And I know in one case, for example, the person is still considered non-compliant because the program that he's supposed to be taking isn't available in the area where he lives. It's hard. We didn't. I thought we discussed there would be a debilitating disease. I thought that, too. They had to have some kind of illness, not just. Right. Discompassionate release. They have a debilitating disease, not just because they're 65. They're two different things. Yeah. I think we had, as a part of the larger discussion, we did talk about disease. But I don't remember us conditioning the language that we passed out on that. Yes. There already is, I believe, some ability for somebody who has a debilitating disease and can't get treatment inside. But we did not put that on here. But each... All right. It's pretty... Just because you're... Well, and we had this exact conversation because 65 seemed young to the committee. But again, it's only for consideration of probation. Or parole, I'm sorry. Is there eligible for parole consideration? They're eligible to have a hearing. That's all. There isn't. I'm not big on this, of course. Yeah. I'm thinking of Bernie Madoff. Well, fortunately, he's not under our jurisdiction. No, but there can be. Get a jerk just like him. Well, and I... Let's take the worst case scenario. You have an aggravated murder, and the person commits it when they're 62. They serve five years, and then at 67, they'd be eligible under this. I'm okay with that because I don't think a parole board's going to let them out after five years of incarceration. On the other hand, somebody who committed when they were 30, and they're still serving at 65, they deserve to be able to go before the parole board. So if it was automatically letting people out, I'd have a different idea about it. But this is just like getting rid of life without parole. We're just giving people a chance to make their case. And then the parole board's going to do what they do. And they are going to look at things like their risk assessment and do they have an appropriate place to live? And what's the harm to the community? They're going to look at all of that. I just got burnt. I feel like the reason this bill is here in the first place is because certain victims feel victimized. I just saw a guy who was 72 or something just charged with child pornography in the Bennington area and sentenced to a fairly long term. I guess my concern about not doing something like this is that it indicates that we really don't have faith in the parole board to make decisions. All we're doing is saying this person can go before the can ask for a hearing. That's all we're doing here. And letting the parole board decide just as they do with all other hearings. I think there's the same problem with this that we had when we did the bill last year. If you're talking about people who are already incarcerated, changing the rules of the ballgame in the middle of the screen, I didn't realize this till I see it. I cannot support this without some qualifier, debilitating illness or something of that nature. Oh, this is exactly as we passed it last year. I realize that, but when we passed the earned time bill last year, we made it for everybody. And the reason that we're back here now is that victims weren't consulted in this. And I'm sure you don't want to make this prospective, not retro perspective. So we're going to make this retroactive people that are already sentenced, which it is. And I have a problem for the same reason that we're here right now. Well, we could make it prospective only. I mean, that's in keeping with what we're doing in the bill as a whole. So I could vote for that as well. I am with Jeanette. I would also be fine with passing the language as we passed it last time. But I think Dick makes a good point that the bill itself is trying to deal with the retrospective nature generally. So I could vote for that. Well, I'm going to have a, I will tell you, I'm going to have a hard time because I didn't agree with the bill in the first place, the entire bill. And I know it's been narrowed down some. So I felt a little better about that. But if, if we put, if this is only going forward, I'm not sure I can support the bill. Understood. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of people can't, but I don't think I can support this provision. Unless the, unless the 65 year old or has a debilitating condition, or it's prospective. So that everybody knows the rules that they're dealing with at the time of sentence. That I, I went into Springfield, Sarah, a kid that I used to have clearly has a debilitating condition. Walker is no longer in my opinion. He couldn't even outrun somebody who, he was trying to, he wasn't a sexual offender anymore. He was a, so I, you know, I think he might be eligible given his state. Then the problem becomes finding a, then the problem becomes finding a facility that will take, believe it or not. Right. That's a reality, but that's where I'm at right now on this. So you see, so that I see, just to sort of close the end of the walk through there that you see, it takes effect on passage. Yeah. Leaving aside the compassionate release question for a moment, I think I have a handle on the other as a handful of other revisions to make as we went through, you know, the some language stuff that Senator Baruch had spotted and perhaps ask DOC whether a definition of interrupted sentence would be helpful. And you mentioned also Senator Sears in the victim's notification provision, something about clarifying that it's not automatic parole. Right. I, Eric, I think this draft looks really good. I think you did a great job. Thanks. Obviously, we have that final question to dope out on compassionate release, but other than that, I think it, you know, it's come a long way. I wonder if we could hear from some of the witnesses who would like to speak. Monica, do you want to go first? I certainly can. I think I can be quick. Good morning, everyone. Monica Weber, Administrative Services Director for the Department of Corrections, just wanted to come back to that conversation around the interrupted sentence. And if you wanted to add a definition, I mean, it's pretty clear to us. It's a sentence that has not served continuously. So if you if you wanted to add that language, that that may help. Additionally, if you wanted to add specifics around the types of sentences such as work crew or weekend, you could do that. But I'm just offering those as options for you. Interrupted sentence works fine for us at the Department of Corrections. I think it would be good to have a definition so that more people understood what that meant. Right. Right. So we're offering a sentence that has not served continuously. Exactly. Continuously. Correct. And then if somebody asks it's weekend, the work crew signs in at the correctional facility, but they're not incarcerated. Many times if they're just in the community, they're going to sign it at a field office. Oh, OK. All right. Thank you. Any other comments, Monica? I don't have any other comments. If somebody has a question for me, I'm certainly available. Chris. I apologize for the sun. That's OK. You're lucky to have it. You're lucky to have it. I know for the record, Chris Fennell Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. I think at this point, what we're most concerned about is the compassionate release. And I know that I've heard and people say, you know, this isn't something that is an automatic thing, but it means that early on, victims are going to potentially have to go and present again. And while it seems like it shouldn't be a big deal, it actually is a big deal for victims. And they often get revictimized at that point. The other thing I was wondering about is if it's not based on health, but just on age, does that mean sort of, I mean, all I kept on thinking of was those commercials for new medications that then have that little running thing at the bottom? I mean, does that mean that older people who are convicted at sentencing the state's attorney's office is going to talk to them about earn time about if they turn 65? I mean, that's a lot of things to pack into a sentence. And at some point, I believe that what I would like to see in life is money going towards the support of services, and I know the state is doing this, and services within facilities so that there is actual change. Because managing populations, getting people out, saving money that way is great for some people, but it's not really great for victims. So that's all I've got to say. Thank you. David Scher. Excuse me. Thank you, Senator. For the record, David Scher with the Attorney General's Office. We appreciate the work on this bill, support most of where it is now. I had just three concerns that I did want to bring up. One is fairly technical and just would want to work with the department to make sure we get that interrupted sentence definition. I know people have already mentioned it, but I wouldn't want to catch up in that the split to serve sentence where it's like a three-year sentence split where it's one year to serve x years of probation with two more years hanging on at the end. I think the idea behind this is to make sure that people who are incarcerated in prison are getting the earned good time. So just want to clarify that people who are inside are eligible, I should say, to earn time, not earn good time, earn time. So that was just a technical point. We can work on that. I think two more substantive points that I wanted to note. One I've already noted, and I won't harp on it again. I think other witnesses can talk about it more. I did just want to note for the record our belief that manslaughter is in fact a very serious offense and worthy of belonging in the disqualifying crime that's not accidental behavior. It's a criminal act that resulted in the loss of somebody's life. It's an extraordinarily serious consequence, obviously, for the person and for their loved ones. So it's a loss forever for that person and for the people who love them. And I just wanted to note that for the record again, although I know I spoke on that. I think some other witnesses may be able to bring some more light to that. The other piece that, and so we would support manslaughter being included. I understand the committees had a discussion on that. The other thing that is new in this draft that I did want to really emphasize is this compassionate release provision and the problems it presents. One of the witnesses of this committee heard from, or two of the witnesses rather, were the winter bottoms. Without this bill being passed, Gerald Montgomery, the offender in that case, would potentially have been able to get out seven years earlier than his sentence otherwise would have required. I think the winter bottoms spoke very powerfully and effectively about the trauma that that presents to them, that that induces in them, even though they understand and we understand it's not an automatic release. It's eligibility for parole. The fact that that could happen and that they may have to make a case to a parole board and to officers is something that's incredibly concerning and feels like a promise that was made to them by the state is being broken. If this provision were to pass, Gerald Montgomery would be eligible for release 11 years earlier than he is currently. So if this provision were to pass, the winter bottoms would be in a worse position than they would be if there were no bill at all. So I want to really emphasize that this is presents a serious problem. The Attorney General does believe in compassionate release, especially in the circumstances where there's some sort of illness involved. The current statutes do contemplate that and we'd be open to, but I should say we'd be open to a discussion about an amendment. I think it's 502A in Title 28, something maybe we reworked that, maybe make it more usable, but we don't believe that this is the vehicle for that. We don't believe that this type of provision unconnected to any illness provision is appropriate and it's going to have, again, it places the winter bottoms in particular in a significantly worse position than they would be if this bill were not here at all. And I think when you think about other offenses that may happen even in the future, a release after five years, there's cases recently with relatively older people and very serious sexual abuse violations and this is a really consequential provision, unconnected to any illness and we think it deserves serious and separate consideration from this bill. Again, if we do want to look at 502A Title 28, if we want to look at that provision, which does contemplate releasing cases of serious illness and maybe open that up a little bit, think about how we make that workable, we're fine with that, but we don't think that this is the bill and we certainly don't think that this is the provision. So I wanted to make those points about that. Thank you. I want to make clear that I would not, I don't think we're moving this to retroactivity. Just so in case people are listening in and I would prefer it to be debilitating the disease, but then the problem becomes what do you do with the many people that passed away inside? Any other comments, questions for Pepper representing the Mont State's Attorneys Association? Hey, yes. Thank you. James Pepper, Department of State's Attorneys and Sheriffs. We would agree with some of the victims groups in the Attorney General's Office about the exclusion of manslaughter from the disqualifying offenses. I mean, manslaughter really covers so much conduct from the kind of simple criminally negligent killings to very intentional killings, but because of an evidentiary or witness problem, they have to be charged or put into manslaughter. I think oftentimes our state's attorneys are in the position of telling the survivors of victims of manslaughter that the last person standing gets to tell the story because sometimes there's only one witness and that witness has passed away. I think that that's reflective in the sentences that you see for manslaughter. One of our state's attorneys recalls having a probated sentence for manslaughter because it truly was kind of this criminally negligent killing, not unintentional, and yet sometimes there's the maximum term that the judge imposes based on the individual facts of the case, the full 15 years. I think some of the very notorious offenders in Vermont, I could go through a list of some of them, are very intentionally killed people, but because of this evidentiary issue, we're pled to manslaughter or we're sentenced or convicted of manslaughter. We think that it's internally consistent to keep manslaughter on the list and let the judges or the truly unintentional killings to reduce the sentence at the time of sentencing. This is only retroactive, so they wouldn't be able to, it's not prospective. Well, I think, you know, I'm thinking of some of the people that are serving right now for manslaughter, and I think that the judges, you know, parsed through that kind of, the facts of the case and chose the longer sentences for the people that they truly feel were the... Let me do that. I have a great deal of sympathy for what you're saying. This is whether or not they're eligible for earned time off their sentences. And the committee went through quite a process and there was compromise and there was a lot of happy to revisit this issue and see if the committee wants to revisit the manslaughter, but it was kind of a compromise that got us to where we are today. So that's my response. I mean, obviously, if this passes in this current form, we all know the process. You could all go to the house and say, I learned about it, and that's fine. That's part of the deal. But I'm happy to reopen the discussion next week, whether the... I don't think we'll have enough time today to finish this 45 or S18, so we'll schedule it next week. And I think we can... I'm happy to reopen any of this. That's fine. I think I felt like we got to a compromise in the committee on what would be disqualifying offenses. I didn't mean to disrupt the compromise. I understand. No, you're doing your job and that's fine. You and David Shurer and Chris Venner are doing your jobs, that's fine. Well, yeah, thank you. I just... I hadn't had an opportunity to talk about manslaughter specifically, so I just wanted to make sure that our position was clear on that. Now, if you had a comment or a question. Was a 3-2 vote, and you'll recall we had the discussion about voluntary or involuntary, and there didn't seem to be a way to separate one out from the other, it seems. But the vote in the end was 3-2 to take it out. So, for what it's... that was the discussion. Is there a way to separate them? Is there a way to separate them? You could certainly say one and not the other. It would... why don't you give us some craft language that does that? If that would be okay, Senator Sears? Yeah, yeah. We could look at it tomorrow. We have... Peggy's reminded me we have open time tomorrow, and I... as important as the probation bill is, I would like to get this one out as soon as possible. Yeah, I would agree with that, and that's why I don't necessarily want to disrupt a compromise. I'm just... I'm glad Senator Nick has her notes on the vote on that. I had forgotten that vote. Thank you, Senator Nick. So, we have time tomorrow. Does Eric have time tonight? Yes, thank you for checking, Senator Benning. I appreciate that, but the changes are pretty minor, so it won't be... The Yankees aren't playing. The Yankees don't have anything going on. They're not even signing free havens right now, so I think... I was thinking the same thing. What do I do Sunday afternoon? I'll share it and open. I'm sorry. Anyway, moving right along. Can I ask a quick question? Sure, please. When you talk about looking at tomorrow, I just want to make sure I don't include something I shouldn't. All of these changes we discussed in the next draft, right? Not just the new language on voluntary manslaughter. No, no. The idea of better defining interrupted sentence. Yeah. Striking on line 21, page two. The referent, Senator Fender, has been convicted on line 19, changing 21 to removing where to make it subdivision five. Yeah. The subsection. Okay. Looking at what the qualifying crimes are, and I think we'll be continuing to debate the compassionate release. And I don't think... Maybe you could look at... You could get us a copy of 502A, title 28, that word is. Yeah, I think that's right. What we... I can send that to Peggy so you can take a look at it. Yeah. And then for disqualifying events, as it sounds like you want to have it just be voluntary manslaughter, correct? Well, I think understanding the difference between voluntary and involuntary would be helpful. You can... I can go over that again. Remember, that is in the chart that I handed out. Okay, I'd have to look through it. We can look at it again, but that is described. Oh, okay. Good. Yeah. All right. Who else would like to speak on behalf of somebody? All right. I did want to mention something about compassionate release, but maybe now is not the time. No, no, go ahead. The state's terms were opposed to this portion of the Justice Reinvestment Bill last year, and it was really about the finality for victims. And when you think about kind of a complex felony case, one of the murder cases that eventually played down to involuntary manslaughter, actually, out of Wyndham County, it took three and a half years to actually make it through the trial, and the individual was detained the whole time. He was not 65, but when you think about a complex felony taking three and a half years to resolve, that would only leave one and a half years under this provision that the individual would have to serve before they became eligible for a parole hearing. And again, I understand that the parole hearing is no guarantee that the individual will receive parole, but when you think about the victim's experience with the criminal justice system, first they're traumatized by the event, then traumatized by testifying a trial, and then testifying at the sentencing hearing, and then within a year and a half, potentially having to testify at a parole hearing is just a lot to put on an individual. So that was our primary concern, and we do believe that there are other avenues available through medical furlough and 28VSA 502. It does say five years. Yeah, it's someone who gives time served for the pre-trial detention, which is very likely for some of the more violent cases. Pepper, I take your point, but in the example you gave, it was pled down to involuntary manslaughter, so that's a decision that the prosecutor made. So this would just be another factor that prosecutors have to consider, and whether they offer that as a possible plea deal. So it seems like it's still in the discretion of the prosecutor not to put someone in this category. So for instance, knowing that they've already served three and a half years detention, the prosecutor might well say, okay, I don't want to go down as far as involuntary manslaughter. So I take your point overall, but it seems to me less a problem with the language than with the decision made by the prosecutor in the example you give. Well, the example I gave is actually slightly more complicated because they actually got a conviction for second degree murder that was overturned, and then the person subsequently pled to involuntary manslaughter. But that's not really the point. I mean, this individual case, I don't see how if the facts were right that a prosecutor could prevent irregardless of the plea agreement, this parole hearing. You know, at 60, if they met the, if the offender met the underlying criteria. Who else would like to speak? I didn't mean to cut you off. No, thank you. No, I'm finished. Jessica and then Matt. Hi, all. Thank you so much. We, Jessica Barquist at the Vermont Network, and we appreciate and support the earned time sections of this bill, but like others who have come before me, we have significant concerns about the compassionate release section, even if it is prospective only. Well, it is true that evidence indicates that individuals age out of many criminogenic behaviors. That's not necessarily true when we talk about domestic violence or sexually based offenses. And so it's not uncommon for individuals in later adulthood to commit crimes such as lute and lascivious behavior with a child. And it's also not uncommon for it to take several years for victims to report such offenses. And the legislature, you all have acknowledged this unique dynamic with the work that you've done on statute of limitation reform. So when an individual is sentenced to incarceration, we know that it doesn't repair or fix the impact or damage of their behavior for victims. However, it can give victims that period of time for healing and restoration without that concern and vigilance and additional involvement with the criminal legal system. So for those most serious and egregious crimes, you know, we just don't believe that serving five years without reaching a minimum provides that adequate amount of time for victims before they have to engage with the system again through the parole board process. So if the sentence included, like Pepper was saying, that time served through the criminal proceeding, this provision could potentially allow someone to be eligible for parole within just a few years of a trial. So we would definitely be supportive of some narrowing of this provision or removal of it entirely. All right. Thank you. Matt, I'm sorry. Any questions of Jessica? Matt, please. Always mindful of the fact that there's five people on one side ahead of me and one of them to carry the load for. I think that was Jim Douglas's speech one year, one against one 80 or something. That wouldn't surprise me. I recall those years. Nevertheless, I will reiterate, of course, my objection and dismay that regarding the reference to one VSA 214 and we believe that in fact these this statute is actually constitutionally based and based on long standing as you can as it dates back to the early 70s, expo's facto decisions that have been set forth over a long period of years. And we're looking forward to if it passes dealing with it in the courts. And we'll make the same point if the bill passes with that in it as it stands. I appreciate the committee's work on Luton-Lucivia's conduct with a child. This doesn't, of course, match up to the so-called Romeo and Juliet provision in the L&L or sexual assault statute, as Senator Sears brought up earlier. That portion of the statute for L&L with a child in for sexual assault on a minor addresses individuals who are under 19 years old and not under 15 years old. So this has a different time frame attached to it. I appreciate this concept. I am concerned that it will create litigation around things within the justice system that were not congruent to the prior litigation that you had in the criminal case. You're going to be looking at things that are different than what the criminal law provides because that age gap is different. That's a six-year age gap. And so I still think we need to take a look at at some point those provisions in the criminal law to make sure that they do what I think reflects the reality of behavior of young people. At some point, it's probably not going to be this bill. I understand that. I'm not injecting necessarily to this. I do think this can cause some confusion at the parole board because it's not the same as what somebody might have been convicted of when they were originally charged because the age gap is a couple of years greater. But as I'm not going to object to it, I'm just trying to point out that I think there's going to be a difficulty kind of litigating or discussing these things in front of the parole board. Yeah, I don't have an objection to at some place, maybe the miscellaneous bill asking the sentencing commission to look at the age gap once again. And I believe the Senate was 13 and the House insisted I'm 15 and we ended up somehow compromised on the section funder of the industry. That's my recollection. Well, yeah, I mean, I'm talking that's true as to the registry. I'm talking about the crime itself. Yeah, right. So, you know, one of the one of the things most or a lot of jurisdictions do is they create like a a four year floating age gap. So it might but no, you know, no lower than 12. So you got to be 13 and it, you know, it might be 13 to 17 and 14 to 18 something like that or four or five years, whatever it is, but it's a floating gap. It's not for this bill, but it is. I think it's something we need to address. And I think it's important. Well, I'm wondering if we could work with Derek on something for the miscellaneous. I'm sure we could be, you know, this the issue that keeps being brought up about manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. It's actually a difficult area of the law as a whole, because there are really three different things going on. There are voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter cases that are the true negligent or reckless causing the death of another. And then there are the second degree murders that have provocation that results in somebody dying. So it ends up reducing it from a second degree murder to a voluntary manslaughter because of the provocation. Provocation can take a number of different forms, but it is the response to the provocation that reduces the crime from a 35-year minimum to a 15-year maximum. The law recognizes that there is not the same culpability for the actions due to the provocation or the negligence or the reckless acts of the people who are involved who may not have intended to cause death, but death did occur and it recognizes that by the sentence and the sentence with a maximum of 15 years. We have burglaries that have higher maximum sentences. And I think it's appropriately off a list that is addressing your eligibility under this statute. I understand that the state's attorneys don't like it because there are victims involved who have, whether it is negligent act or not, have lost a loved one. And that's a difficult thing to deal with. But it is the law recognizes that there is a difference between first and second degree murder and manslaughter. And so should the statute here. I can break in, Matt, and we can pick up here tomorrow. Is that okay? That's okay. I want to make an amendment to the agenda for tomorrow. So we go from 9 to 9.30 with Sarah George, then 9.30 to 10, committee discussion of S7, then 10 o'clock to 10.15 a break, 10.15 pick up on S70. I mean, that's clear. This bill, good time. I mean, earned time. And then at 11.15, take up S45. Is that okay, Peggy? Yep, got it. And committee, is that all right? Can I pick up with that tomorrow? Yes, we'll start with Matt talking about manslaughter. Okay. Thank you, everyone else. Okay. So thank you all very much.