 Good morning, Senate Judiciary, February 9th, 2021. Welcome. We have with us this morning to deal with S18, three witnesses scheduled, and then we'll have committee discussion. It looks like we're trying to crowd all three into 15 minutes on the agenda, but that was a little typo. We have former Senator Debbie Angrum of Chittenden County and Fran Carlson, a volunteer with Vermont Interfaith Action, joining us first. And then we'll hear from Monica Weber, who works for the Department of Corrections and is director of administrative service. Welcome back, Debbie. Nice to see you. Thank you very much, Senator Sears. It's very nice to see you, and I appreciate the opportunity in my new or my return to my old role to be able to speak to you. It's good to see all the senators. Thank you. I have been the executive director of Vermont Interfaith Action for 14 years. So even during my four years in the Senate, I continued in this role. And our organization is about working with everyday folks at the grassroots level to try to affect systemic change around certain issues. So I've been working with a group of people, mostly from St. Paul's Cathedral, the Episcopal Church in Burlington, around corrections reform for several years now. And it's come to our attention. We've been speaking with especially women who've been at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility in Chittenden County about their experience being incarcerated. And we're actually currently in conversation with a woman who is at CRCF now. And we've spoken with others who have been released. But one of the things that they have really asked for is compassionate release for those who have had serious medical conditions, those who are advanced in age, and have served most of their sentences. So that's what we went to Senator Bruce and spoke with him. And he indicated that there might be an amendment to this particular bill about earned good time that would expand compassionate release. I know there's one bill that was passed in 2018. And there was an attempt last year in the Senate to expand compassionate release. And we are hoping, for modern faith action, is hoping that you'll take this up again and show some compassion to these inmates who have served most of their sentences and have had very serious medical problems and are now older and would really benefit from some compassion from society. So Fran is going to read a statement that it's on behalf of our whole group. VIA represents about 15,000 Vermonters all over the state. And so I'll just turn it over to her. OK, thank you very much. So Vermont Interfaith Action would like to speak in support of expanding the opportunity for those who are incarcerated to be released through parole or furlough if their combined age and medical condition warrants such a release. Vermont Interfaith Action VIA is a faith-based grassroots coalition of 68 member and affiliated congregations throughout Vermont that work together to affect systemic change around issues of social justice. We represent about 15,000 everyday Vermonters who care about their friends, families, and neighbors and try to make compassion and justice a reality for those who are most in need. Our congregations are from Protestant, Catholic, Unitarian Universalist, and Jewish faith traditions. And we have individual members who are Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist. One of our local organizing committees composed mostly of Episcopalians and Presbyterians in Chittenden County has been advocating for compassion and justice in Vermont's correction system for the past six years. In addition to our longstanding goal of trying to improve preparation for release for those who are incarcerated, it has come to our attention by speaking with currently and formally incarcerated individuals that Vermont's current provisions for early release for those with medical conditions could also be improved. Persons who have or have had cancer, heart disease, or other serious and chronic illnesses, and who are at an advanced age are at low risk to public safety if they are released so that they can continue treatment or simply convalesce among supportive friends and family in a home setting. In addition to showing empathy and humanness to these folks, this practice has the added benefit of freeing beds in our facilities for riskier inmates and of saving the state money for their care. Debbie Ingram, who has spoken so wonderfully there, our executive director has been corresponding with one of these incarcerated women over the last couple of months. This woman, whom we'll call Sylvia, had a bout with lymphoma during her 17-year sentence and was at first hopeful that Act 91, originally H-150, enacted in 2018, would help her. She was disappointed that it did not. Then last year, Sylvia was hopeful that this Senate proposal for compassionate release would make it through the House as well. She was disappointed that that did not. Now she's once again hopeful that she can get a chance at compassionate release. She wrote this to Debbie recently, quote, DOC made a plane that since I am functioning and in remission from the cancer, I am fine. Maybe on the surface, but as an elderly inmate, uh, with 85% of my men served and an uncertain medical future, I think age, time served, low risk language is needed in a bill. I am sure there are males in this category and others. Both male and female will be in the future. It could save the state money and free up beds for inmates out of state. This was the original purpose of H-150 in 2017 and according to an article in the Free Press at the time, there was no opposite opposition and even the commissioner of corrections at the time, Lisa Menard, concurred. This is what I hope to see introduced and passed, unquote. As people of faith, we at VIA respectfully ask that you find it in your hearts to show compassion to those who have made terrible mistakes but also suffered from illness and advanced age. We believe that everyone is more than the worst mistake they have made in their life and that when they are no longer at risk to others and are suffering themselves, it will reflect better on our society to show them some compassion. Thank you so much for listening. Thank you. Are there any questions for either Fran or Debbie? Senator Nick. What is the advanced age that you are recommending? 65 is what was in the original H-150 that I believe represented Molly Burke introduced back in 2017 and that was what we were thinking. Thank you. I think that was the age of the amendment we passed last year in justice reinvestment, you know, by the house. Six, five, but I could be correct. Senator Benning has a question, then Senator Wayne. So Fran or Debbie, I'm not sure which one of you would answer this, but a 17-year minimum sentence for Sylvia indicates to me as a criminal defense attorney that was a serious charge initially. You had indicated that the commissioner was okay with it. You said somebody else, I'm wondering if the victim in that particular case or victim's family, depending on what the actual crime was, was involved in that conversation. I'm not aware, Senator Benning, whether the victim has been, victim's family had been contacted. You're right. I mean, I know that's the difficulty of your decision is balancing the needs and the rights of victims and their families and making sure that justice is served for them with the age of the victim. For them with the, you know, the compassion towards these folks that have done terrible things. So, you know, certainly you've put your finger on what's the really difficult balance to strike here. So what is your thought process about the victims actually becoming involved in that conversation where a compassionate release might be subject for discussion? Well, I mean, they would sell the folks that we were talking about in this legislation, but still have to go before the parole board. So I would hope that there will be a time in that process to contact the victim's family and to get some input from them. Senator White. I don't have a question. I just wanted to apologize to Debbie for being late. No, that's all right. Good to see you, Senator White. I appreciate both of you coming forward. I think we, I spoke with Eric. We would probably consider the amendment to pass the Senate last year as I don't remember all the details of it. I mean, totally honest with you, but it seemed to make sense to this committee and to the Senate last year, but the House refused to concur. It was part of the Justice for the Investment too bill that passed. So we had already kind of discussed this. Senator White, she's been pushing for this for years. And I think your points are well taken, Fran. I appreciate it. You have a copy of your testimony that Peggy could post on the committee website. I sent it to Peggy. Oh, okay, I checked earlier Peggy and I didn't see it. So, thank you. Any other questions or comments for either Debbie or Fran? Thank you both for joining us. Good to see you again, Debbie. And good luck with all that's going on with both of you. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. I know. Bye Debbie. Our next witness is Monica Weber, Chief, your title, Monica. I'll give you my title, sir. Thanks. Director of Administrative Services for the department, but it's kind of a catch-all phrase to somebody who provides us with guidance and helps throughout the Justice for the Investment process. So Monica, you had some... Yes. Thank you, Senator. Good morning committee for the record. Monica Weber, Administrative Services Director for the Department of Corrections. Yeah, I have a different topic that I wanted to bring to your attention. As you all know, we are implementing good time based on the emergency rule. And I think I might've mentioned in previous testimony that as we go through implementation, we may come back with some minor suggestions or requests around how we could modify and make some of the statutory language a little bit more clear. And so the request that I have for you today is coming in that vein. And we are asking that language be added to this section around who is eligible and who therefore would not be eligible to exclude people who are serving an interrupted sentence. Meaning they might come and they might be on... In this example, I'll be really clear. There are people who are sentenced exclusively to serve a number of days on work crew and they may come and serve a day and then come a week later and serve another day. That's what we're referring to as an interrupted sentence. Those people are not under our continuous supervision. They are supervised for that day, for that time period. And in our previous version of earned reduction of term, which maybe some of you are familiar with, I was not with the department of corrections at the time. I understand it was a complicated system. This group of people were excluded from receiving and earned reduction of term. Again, the way it's put together, it's you serve for a month and you get credit for whatever days you served during that month. But most people are under the continuous supervision. In this case, it's a little bit different. So I'm happy to answer questions about that, but that's our request to you at this moment. Well, actually a couple of questions arise. If we do this, there's some people that get sentenced for weekends. Would they be in that category as well? Technically they would be in the category if you said interrupted sentence and it is our request that you would include them as well. We are having a, our main issue was around people with work crew, but if you said interrupted sentence, it would include those weekend sentences as well. Does this impact, and another issue that we're bringing up the certain statuses, does this interrupt anybody who's on work crew? I don't know if we still have much left at St. John's very of those that work outside, but anybody who has shown to them. So there's a difference between work crew. They've been getting a week all along. Yeah, so people who are at the work camp and may, and if it's non-COVID times, be leaving the facility and going out on a work crew with a work crew leader, but they come back to the camp. They get work camp good time. And that's a different set of good time. They get day for day, right? And that's in, that's in 28, 8, 11. The group that I'm talking about are people who are in the community. They would only be under supervision for the day they would show up to one of our field offices or to an actual site, perform their work crew. And then at the end of the day, they go back to their homes or wherever they're living and they proceed with their lives until they come back to the next day of work crew that they serve, right? So it's a different group of people. So, yeah, okay. Is this well-defined? Is it, yes. Well, I mean, you could even make it much more clear around specifically interrupted sentences for people who are sentenced only to work crew. I think it depends on how you wanna put the language in there, but it could be very well-defined. Are there many of them right now? I don't know the answer specifically how many people because of course, the work crews are not really operating the way they are at the moment. However, if you're, technically they're eligible to serve and, you know, if there are people who- Well, the argument has been made that somebody that's already sentenced is eligible for good time starting January 1st. Correct. And then the defender general is made clear that he plans to, whatever, if we pass a bill, he plans to sue on it. And I'm just wondering if they're collecting the credit now and we have an issue there as well. That's a good point and we'd certainly have to look into that. People aren't able to serve those work crew days at the moment because there's, we aren't putting work crews out in the community. So it made me, nobody getting it right now. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Eric, is it clear to you in terms of drafting something? I think so. It wasn't till the very end there when, and I can certainly run the language by Monica, but did I hear you right that at first, just looking at what you had mentioned, I think in an email as well. In an email, yeah. Yes, something along the lines of, it will add to that exclusion list, you know, offenders who are sentenced to serve an interrupted sentence. Yes, that's what we were asking. Yes. Okay. So it doesn't necessarily have to be specified work crew. It does not and work crew is technically not a sentence. It's a program, there's their sentence to a treatment for a low. So yeah. So interrupted sentence is a language that would work for us. Thanks. Senator Nittke, did you have a question? Just trying to figure out the exclusion of those persons, but I was wondering with regard, so Monica, you said they show up and work one day and then they show up again the following week. Is it that they're not showing up for the days they're supposed to show up for, or they just simply are scheduled to come one day? I'm sorry, yes, I can be more clear. Sometimes the schedule is that it's one day a week. Sometimes they'll have five days and they'll go five days a week. Oftentimes it's just the schedule and how many days that they have to serve. Thanks. Yes. You're welcome. Senator Bruce. Thank you, Ms. Weber. I'm wondering on an unrelated topic, I'm taking the opportunity to ask corrections folks when they come in about the status of the driver's licenses for parolees. And when we had Dale Crook in, I asked him if he could give me an email update. He said he would, but none has surfaced. Can you tell us anything about that? Yeah, well, one thing I can tell you is that the person who is our lead in the program was out last week and she is aware of your request and we're working on a response to provide back to you. So I do apologize for the delay but we have not forgotten about your request and you should get some information soon. Perfect, thank you very much. Yes, you're very welcome. Further questions or comments for Monica? Thank you, Monica. Thank you very much. I'm gonna. Can I just thank Monica for always being so kind of clear and concise and not adding a lot of words that don't need to be in there. Thank you. Yeah, that's great. I do my best, Senator. Thank you. That's 18. Why don't we start the discussion, Eric? If you could join us. Yep. There's been a couple of, been a lot of suggestions, but I believe we've got about four or five amendments to consider. I'm gonna run upstairs and get my folder. Okay. Yes. One of those amendments would make clear that notwithstanding language. Right. That's the notwithstanding one VSA 214 which is the retroactivity. Right. Provision of the Vermont statutes. The idea there being that you wanna ensure going forward that the change, assuming that it goes forward with the change to the folks who are already incarcerated, their ability to earn good time going forward, that that doesn't, that that isn't inconsistent with the language and that you already have in one VSA 214 and that's something that it's not uncommon for the legislature to do when they want something to apply retroactively. Remember you did it last year with respect to the child sex offense crime. So yeah, you'd wanna have that now with standing section 214. As you mentioned, Sander Sears that there still might be constitutional issues going forward but I think the committee's already heard about that. Sorry, I just wanted to ask, on page two, we already not with stand subdivision one. So I understand you could have more than one not with standing in a bill. I just wanted to be sure that in my own mind about how those two would interact. I think you're right that it would be not withstanding both pieces. Yeah. Okay. So it would be not withstanding this other preexisting section of the Vermont statutes that's elsewhere as well as not withstanding anything that's previously said right there in that subparagraph one. Okay. Could you put the new not withstanding in that same section? I think so, yeah. Okay. The second amendment that we discussed was changing the name to something like earn time, dropping the word good. Yes, that's right. So each time in the existing statute will change the name entirely to the earned time program. Yep. Okay. Third amendments have to do with victim notification, I believe. Yeah, I haven't heard from Sarah on that yet. And I see her on the witness list. I think they were going to send some language on that. I think they may have, I think I got some. Dick, can I ask you a question? Yep. If we come to a decision about which crimes are going to be disqualifying? No. Okay. That was my next. Oh, I just, I didn't want to, okay, thank you. I had proposed that, I think I proposed it and there was some confusion about it. I had a number of emails from people on the 2602 Luton and Sybius conduct with a child. I had proposed having A2, little A2. The section shall not apply if the person is less than 19 years old, the child is elite. Somehow that people who were convicted of that crime of statute, this will be statutory rape, correct, Eric? I want to discuss how to deal with that group. Right. The age gap group? Yeah, I don't know if we really want to change the age gap and get into all of that, but is there a way of exempting? That was the sole reason for that. Yeah, I think that that age gap, again, you still have the policy decision of whether to conclude L and L with a child, but assuming you do, then that age gap kind of goes along with it. So a person who falls within the age gap limitations that you just mentioned, Senator Sears, that if the person is the offenders, less than 19, the child is at least 15, that person couldn't be charged with L and L with the child anyway. So- I wanted to expand that to- To a broader range. For the purposes of this. Right, and you mentioned too, and I'll just, because I followed up on this, you do that same thing. You expanded a little bit for purposes of the sex offender registry. So for the registry, for example, the age gap is a little broader. And I believe, let me just pull that up for you. It's, it's the child is at least 12 with respect to the sex offender registry. So in other words, the person could still be charged with L and L with the child, let's say if the child was 14, would still have the criminal offence as a possibility. Right. But they would not be on the registry. So in other words, it's almost like you've, you've widened the gap for purposes of a collateral consequence, not for purposes of the underlying offense. And that- I would like that same- Yep. Gap being there for the purposes of earning good time. So a person was 30 years old and had a sexual relation with a 14 year old. I don't think they should, but if the person was 17 and had a relation with a 12 year old, 13 year old. This is only for the purposes of earned time. Right. Right. It doesn't change the underlying offense. Is, is if somebody, if you have a 22 year old who exposes himself on a playground with a bunch of six year old kids, that's Luton Lassivius, right? It does not qualify for this offense. No, not the way I read it. That is Luton Lassivius conduct, which is a separate offense. This is Luton Lassivius for the child. Inter, it would be considered Luton Lassivius conduct under 2602. No, I don't, I don't think so. Because of the language in 2602, which is different than your straight Luton L and L statute says, if you're looking at the language now, says upon or with the body or any part or member there of the child. And the cases seem to require some physical contact between the offender and the child. Now that's, if it were a straight L and L charge, which is different, that's 26, I think 2601, I believe. But yes, you would be right. That person exposed themselves. They could be charged under that different statute, but not this one. Okay. This requires some physical contact. Thank you. Yeah. But then obviously the compassionate release would be an amendment, and then the amendment that Monica just posed. The compassionate release as it passed the Senate last year? Yeah. Right. Are there any other that I missed? That's all the ones I've got, other than the list of offenses itself that we were going to get to last, but I think that's everything else. Well, we hadn't settled the question of whether it would be retrospective, prospective, or both. That's right. Thanks. How was last year's, was that retrospective? Good time. Yeah. Yeah, we wouldn't be here if it wasn't. Okay. I mean, the section that allowed person to were already convicted of these crimes to begin curing good time. So we can start anywhere you want, but maybe we should start with an easy one first. Can I ask a question first? Yep. So when they were charged, that was retrospective, but they didn't earn good time for all that time until January 1st. Isn't that right? Yes. Yeah. So the crime itself was retrospective, but the earned time didn't start. They don't get a true one. Yeah. Okay. That's what I meant. So that, I mean, that's a big issue. Do we want to continue to have it prospective? Do we want to build it all? I mean, trust me, I guess the argument, one of the, you know, one of the, but assuming you had a bill and we did this bill, should people who are sentenced after the effective day of the bill be subject to, what should they be able to earn good time or should, no matter what the crime? No. Unless the sentence is late enough. One answer. Senator Baruth. I would say yes. And that would be with the understanding that in making plea bargains, state's attorneys and others would communicate, victims' rights advocates would communicate the possibility for good time to reduce an offender's sentence. So we wouldn't have the problem that we've had with the victims who gave testimony, where they believe their agreement with a state's attorney was being abrogated by the legislation we passed last year. So I think that is a way to make sure that the system retains this, you know, whether you want to frame it as a humane piece of legislation or a practical one that helps us manage behavior in the system. I think those are both true. They're both reasons for me to support it going forward. And then that obviously leaves the question of what to do with people who were sentenced prior to the bill. Other comments? I don't know. If Phillip said what I think, which is that going forward, there would be no qualifying crimes. No disqualifying crimes. I mean, no disqualifying crimes. Then I agree with him. I would love to hear from both the attorney general's office, perhaps from the victim's community on this one. Anybody who'd like to weigh in flack or shilling, you're welcome to judge state's attorneys. But maybe we start with the attorney general. Thank you, Senator, for the record, David Chair, with the Vermont Attorney General's office. With respect to this issue of whether there should be any disqualifying crimes going forward, we would have no objection to the suggestion of Senator Baruth that we simply have all crimes be qualifying in the future. The reason for that is that I think the interest we're trying to embody, the heart of this bill is really a notice and fairness issue and making, you know, let's for now state as a given that we believe that earned time is a good policy. What we're trying to correct here with this bill is a real unfairness and harm that resulted from not having fair notice to people who were victims or relatives of victims of very serious offenses in the past. We think that the bill with its list of disqualifying crimes helps correct that, but going forward, notice will be there because the law will be present. People who are being sentenced will understand that this is a possibility. Victims in cases will understand that this is a possibility and we will include language, I believe, or there will be a proposal to include language about specific language about notice that prosecutors offices will be required to give. So I think it makes sense to simply have it be for everybody going forward. And frankly, I also think it clarifies and simplifies the bill in a positive way to simply have the focus of this bill be correcting a mistake for those who, I would say, you can argue a mistake in terms of fair notice for those in the past, let's keep it simple, keep it focused on that. And going forward, everybody will have notice and there's no need to have a separate petition process for any category of offenses. So we'd have no objection to that change. We'd like to speak next to anybody. Flacco? I'm glad it'll go. Well, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. We submitted in writing the testimony provided earlier and our general, we have a general objection to moving forward with this bill in any form, having any disqualifying crimes. And based on that, if this bill moves forward, it would of course be supportive of making sure that anyone who is sentenced in the future be able to have the ability to earn time. One of the major objections that we raised to this piece of legislation comes from the reasoning provided by all the stakeholders and the Department of Corrections in their reports on the effectiveness of a good time program where they came down very strongly in support of including everyone in this program, both because it makes it more effective facility management tool, it makes it easier to incentivize good behavior from everyone and within the facility. And then also there's the complications of administering a program where you have carve-outs, which we have heard was one of the reasons that previous programs got a little too unwieldy and unable to end up being repealed. So just on this point, I think if this bill moves forward, it's important to include people who are sentenced in the future for all the reasons the Attorney General just stated. Judge, did you want to? Thank you for the record, Brian Greerson, Chief Superior Judge, if moving the bill forward by eliminating the petition to the court of time of sentencing, I think makes a lot of sense. Leaving that procedure in there, I think could lead to inconsistent results for similar offenses. And I think if good time or earned time is an effective tool for the Department of Corrections, then I don't think it makes sense under the circumstances to leave it to the discretion of an individual judge, whether or not someone gets or is entitled to that earned time. And as I said in my earlier testimony, the process as it's outlined in the bill as introduced would result, I think in certainly contested sentencing over that issue. And so I think by removing that petition process would make sense from the court's perspective. Sarah Robinson, do you have a comment? Yes, certainly most of the witnesses that you all have heard from and most of the victims that we have heard from are victims of people who have already been sentenced. And their primary concern was really the lack of notice and their feeling that they had a promise from the state of Vermont about the length of sentence. So we would be comfortable with that sort of proposal moving forward as long as there was robust victim notification moving forward in all cases. And we have testified that we do feel like good time is good public policy. And it's important to have incentives in place. And so we would be able to support that. You've provided some amendments to make sure that the victim notification would be clear how much time they might potentially earn. I did, yes. In the underlying statute, it currently states attorneys are required to inform victims of the existence of good time. And so our proposal would be to ensure that victims are informed of the maximum amount of good time that could be accrued in the sentence. So I sent that language to you, Senator Sears. Apologize, Eric. I didn't send it to you. I didn't copy you, but I just forwarded it to you. I think I forwarded to Peggy. So I don't remember now. I'm getting so many emails daily that it's hard to keep track of what I do. You got it now, Eric. I did. Thank you. And thanks, Sarah. Okay, Chris, did you have a comment? Senator Sears, you mean me? Yes. Yes, I do have a comment for the record, Chris Fenno with Vermont Center for Crime Victim Services. I understand all of the fairness and how to manage large populations. However, I still would think that there were some crimes that would not, that it would be a fixed sentence that in fact time could not be earned. And in part so that even if at sentencing the victims were told, okay, this is this, but if they earn this time, it could be that. I think that's confusing to victims. I mean, I think they would understand, but I think part of the understanding is really, like why is your sentencing like this then? And I think victims really aren't that keen on the reasons why everyone should or could be involved in this and that it's management, it's an incentive, it's how to control people. They're concerned, especially with violent crime, they're concerned that the person who harmed them is not gonna be able to do that for some amount of time. And I do think it's kind of strange. I understand and I do support the language that Sarah referred to, but it's odd, I guess. And I don't know how else to say it. It's odd that somebody who committed a very violent crime when they're sentenced, the victim is told, okay, they're gonna have 37 years. But if they earn this time off, then the sentence really is whatever the math would be. And I haven't done the math. I find that confusing. I think that's all I have to say about it. I just find it confusing. I understand why you would wanna do that. It would be easier and management-wise. But I would say that people who commit really violent crimes shouldn't be able to earn time off. Others would like to speak on this. Martian. Thank you, Senator. And I'll just start by, excuse me. I'll just start by apologizing. Matt Valerio had to duck off to another hearing. So I've jumped in to fill in for Matt. We certainly would support ensuring that people are eligible for good time going forward or earned time going forward, regardless of the offense they've committed. When it comes to the idea that this would be confusing or somehow out of the ordinary, when it comes to victims' perceptions of these sentences, I mean, I think you don't need to look further than any of the many jurisdictions that already have a system like this, including the federal court system. The federal court system has a system of earned good time that's in a lot of ways similar to the system that we have in Vermont now. And that applies to all manner of very violent, very serious offenses. And that's been in place for many, many years and it has not presented a problem. In fact, it's a very workable system in the federal system. And if anything, the system that we have in place is actually easier to understand than the federal system. The federal system has a few oddities around minimum sentences, but that our earned good time system doesn't have. So I think if anything, there's earned good time systems have been in place in other jurisdictions for a long time. They haven't presented a problem with in terms of victims' understanding of the sentences or the administration of those systems. And if anything, this new system we have is simpler than the federal system, which is the most well-known of the earned good time systems. So with that, we certainly support the proposal to ensure that it is made applicable to everyone going forward. Anybody else? I have a question on 2602, Eric. If we were to go with allowing earned time, in 2602, is there a problem there with the minimum of at least 10-year imprisonment or five-year shall not, shall be served and may not be suspended deferred or served as supervised sentence? 2602 C1. Yes, I'm looking at the mandatory minimum there. It's an interesting question. I think that you're right. The question would be, would they not, would the good time only be available to reduce their earned time? Sorry, would the earned time only be available to reduce their sentence after the minimum has been served? Right, I think it's pretty clear in that. And I actually, I remember when we wrote that under Act 1, 2010, actually I would hope that that would remain. There was good reason to feel that there needed to be a minimum. It was other than murder I think was something else. It's the only place we put a mandatory minimum. Yeah, I think that you're covered by that second sentence, Senator Sears too, says the defendant shall not be eligible for probation parole. So they're not gonna be able to get parole until the expiration of the minimum. Yes, Senator White. I just wanted to, Judge Geerson mentioned the removing the section there about doing it at sentencing. And I just wanted to remind us that Matt Valerio also had that concern. Well, we wouldn't need it. If you don't do it prospectively, you wouldn't need it. You wouldn't be petitioning if the individual would get it anyway. Okay, I misunderstood. I thought the language said they had to do it at the time of the sentence. Well, everybody would qualify. So you wouldn't have to. The proposal was to strike that entire subdivision six, it would be gone. Right, okay, yeah, yeah, okay. I'm gonna ask you a question of the, those that do this all the time, the Defender General and the State Attorney and maybe the Attorney General. If somebody knew that somebody was gonna get, let's say they had a 20 year sentence for, minimum sentence for first and second degree murder, 20 years in a maximum term of life. And they weren't sentenced to life without possibility of parole. You knew that they were gonna get at least 20 years. Would you add on when you're fashioning the sentence enough time to make up for the good time? Would they then get a longer sentence? For the record, James Pepper from the Department of States and attorneys and sheriffs, I don't believe, I know there's data out there. I don't believe that happened when earned good time was originally introduced. It might be a good thing to track moving forward, but there's nothing in this bill that would prevent that except to keep in mind that judges have to approve any plea deal or any, and then they're of course in charge of just open sentencing. So it's a possibility. It's one that we actually identified in our earned good time report as a potential possibility. But I don't think that historically there's data to support that, but it's something that again, would probably be a benefit for the legislature to know and track moving forward. Marshall, any comment? I think that the question is, there's no real way to answer it. I think it's speculative. I am 100% sure that there will be cases where either a prosecutor argues for a longer sentence and part of that argument is based on the amount of, the fact that the defendant is eligible to earn good time or that a judge fashions a longer sentence and does so in part on the basis that the defendant is eligible to earn good time. And then I'm sure that in a lot of cases, hopefully a majority of cases, hopefully a vast majority of cases that sentences will be handed down exactly the way that they are today. And that good time will have the effect that it's intended to have, which is to say that it's to provide an incentive to provide a lower sentence in return for good behavior. But I think that it's, I think you can be sure that there will be examples of people who are given longer sentences or who at least longer sentences are argued for in order to account for the potential that they'll earn good time. But I don't think that that will be, it certainly won't be in every case and hopefully not even in most cases. My only, yes, Judge Grisham. Senator, I would just add to Marshall's comments that the committee should keep in mind that the Justice Reinvestment Group found that 90, I think it was 99%, 98, 99% of the cases are resolved through plea agreements. And those plea agreements then presented to the court are obviously fashioned by negotiations between the state and the defense. And so I think it would be hard to track the kind of question you've asked, but at the same time, there's not going to be that many cases where the court will have complete discretion in fashioning a sentence. I would say that in those, let's call it the one or 2% of cases where it's truly a contested sentencing, no agreement. If part of the, if earned time is part of the equation, it would be taken into consideration and to suggest that it wouldn't be, would not be accurate. But I think the important thing is to remember that so many of these sentences are by agreement of the parties and that's where the real negotiation will take place between the attorneys and some. On my side, Chris, Beno's comments regarding the victims and how they might see this or perceive it. They've been the victim of an extremely violent crime. I believe all the disqualifying crimes are extremely violent, as I said with that one exception, I don't know. So I'm corn here, but with the Attorney General's recommendation, and I said from the beginning that I was carrying the Attorney General's water on this one. So I guess I would tend to go with the Attorney General and support not going for it. And support what? I couldn't hear you. And support the proposal that Senator Baruth made to not go for it. I think it was Senator Baruth to have this, it solves a couple of problems. One is this idea that it's sentencing the competition to have it. It was taken away. I can see that as a protracted battle. People would know about it upfront. I would think we would add the language that the network Sarah Robinson provided to make sure that victims are well aware of what the potential good time is moving forward. I would be comfortable with Senator Baruth's motion. So his suggestion though, was just about prospective moving forward. We haven't talked about backwards yet. Well, am I right? If you don't do the go backward, then there's no reason for a bill on frankly. So that's why I haven't, I mean, people may vote against the bill, obviously, but there wouldn't be a point of having the bill if we didn't do something about, I mean that the outrage was that people who had already been sentenced were going to receive good time for very violent offenses, abominable offenses. And so that was the, that's the impetus of the bill. So. Right. I guess my question is even retrospectively, if you, if we had any bill, I'm not sure that I would, and looking backwards, I'm not sure that I would agree that all of these eight things should be disqualifying. Okay. That I, okay. That could be the next subject is what's qualifying crimes. Didn't we? If we've all agreed, if we've, Senator Nica voted no, I believe, you're muted, Alice. I voted no on the bill from last year. Okay. I'd like to, I'd like to fix it as I think this bill proposes, but going forward. So in other words, would those people that were previously sentenced still be earning time? Other than for the period between now and the effective date of the bill, if the bill passes in its current form, people who are sentenced after, let's say it passes April, May 15th. After May 15th, people that are sentenced would receive during good time, but everybody would be aware in fashion that sentence that they were eligible for the earned time off. People who were sentenced prior to the effective date of the bill would not be eligible if they committed any of these crimes unless we decide not to include all the crimes. So those that are sentenced prior to May 15th, that's the date would be earning, would earn good time between January 1st and May 15th. We can't take that away. I think that's really much established. But going forward, they would not be eligible. Going forward, they would not be eligible for. Those that were sentenced prior to May 15th, I'm using May 15th just as a date. Between January 1st and May 15th. Right, they would earn it. And then after that, they would not earn it. After May 15th, it would stop. If the bill passes. Okay. In its current form, which is that it's not available to those individuals. Well, if I could- I don't know the numbers. And it doesn't, I don't know that it's important to know. I don't think the numbers are that high. Right. But it may be higher than we think because we have moved an awful lot of people out of criminal crimes that are not in this category. Okay. Senator Bruce. I was just gonna say what I hear Alice saying is she could support a bill that disqualified this list of crimes going forward, but wouldn't support the bill if it didn't disqualify those crimes going forward. I have some flexibility there. As long as the, well, anyway. As long as, I would say that the easiest way to look at this is we're not changing them other than for a period of time when the January 1 and the effective date of the bill were not changing the rules of the game. We're not changing the what? Rules of the game. People were sentenced to 45 years to life. They would still serve the 45 years to life minus whatever they accumulated between January 1 and May 15. Okay. So I think for some reason I feel that we've gotten into the weeds somehow. And my understanding is that going forward, we are not going to have any disqualifying crimes. Everybody is eligible for earned time and then they will appeal at that point in time and then the parole board or whoever will determine whether they get it or not. They're not eligible, but they're not guaranteed. Yeah, it produces their minimum, but they still have to go through the parole. They can still be rejected. Right, so we've made that decision. And then there's the decision about the last year when we passed it, everybody was also eligible, but this bill makes some people ineligible in the past, who were convicted in the past. I would like us to talk about which crimes should be on that disqualifying list for going backwards because I don't see that some of these make any sense, but so, because I can't support a bill that has all qualifying crimes. We did have a discussion last time where it seemed to me we did a straw vote on a couple of them, like the arson charge, I thought there was agreement to get rid of that. Yep, manslaughter. Yeah, I don't know, Mr. Chair, if you want to formalize those votes now, but... We could, I'm gonna leave in 20 minutes. Yeah, we could. I mean, I think there's general agreement. Was it arson causing death? Yeah. And voluntary manslaughter? And involuntary. And involuntary in there as... Somebody's dead. It's too bad. What? Okay, all right, so those two we've agreed to. Agreed to, you want me to reiterate what I have in my notes, Senator Sears? Yeah, please. We had gotten through the first four on the list. And what I have in my notes is that the committee decided to strike number one, arson causing death, to include murder number two, to strike manslaughter number three, to include kidnapping number four. And we were on number five, L&L with a child when the committee time expired last time. And I would propose keeping L&L with a child with the exception that those who would not be on the sex offender registry under A2, 20602, A2 not be included. That group, that small window that we created for the sex offender registry way back in Act 1. I'm good with that. So what is the, what are the age difference? What is that range? I can read it to you right now if you want to hear it. It is, if the perpetrator is under the age of 18 and the victim is at least 12. And the sex was considered. Yes, thank you Senator Sears, right. So it was a 15 year old. Conduct was considered, a conduct. Before a teen year old and a 17 year old. It's the exact, we debated this at length and decided it was part of the compromise that led to Act 1 where they also refused to go to 14 or 13, I can't remember which. Senate had passed it. I'm having a hard time hearing you, Senator Sears. I don't know if you- The Senate had passed a larger age gap. Can you hear me now? Yeah. And the house objected to anybody under 15. So when we did the sex offender registry requirements, we changed that for a certain subgroup of those who were under 18 and the victim was over 12. That was part of the compromise. All I'm suggesting here is if somebody is actually, I don't even know if there's anybody even convicted on that. But if somebody's actually incarcerated on that, they'd be able to earn good. If we decide, they would didn't need to be on the sex offender registry. Hey, that makes sense to me. Okay. And then would leave the rest of 2602 intact. Is that agreeable to everybody? I'll agree to it. I don't like it, but I mean, I just, I'm not sure we should be incarcerating my kids, but it may be that I'm on my fourth Zoom conference right now. And that's why I'm willing to agree with Phillip. Cause otherwise we'd probably be in disagreement. Maybe that's my case too. I like the way the implication that no one in their right mind could agree with me. I want to jump over sexual assault, go to aggravated sexual assault. Is there any problem with aggravated sexual assault in an assault in there? Well, I personally would like to have no disqualifying. So just in the spirit of compromise, I'm going along with some of them, but I would like to have no disqualifying, even in the past, because I don't think they're. But we're only doing retroactive. I know. Aggravated sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault of a child, I believe should be included. I agree. I agree. Yeah, okay. And then we come to the only one outstanding is 3252 sexual assault. And can Eric read the definition of that? I don't know if anybody hears that, but we have a dog with pneumonia we're dog sitting for and she's got a terrible cough. So he might have heard her just now. She's doing okay. She's on antibiotics though. She's hanging in there, but but the sexual assault is only you'll see this is subdivision. There you go. There she is. She's doing okay. Sounds worse than it is. The subdivision six is the sexual assault. When you say it's only two parts of the sexual assault statute that are listed here, A and B. And that's so the intent of that is not to include any portions of the sexual assault statute where it's based on a sort of the statutory rape situation to use sort of shorthand language that I know isn't necessarily the way we refer to it now but just for the sake of brevity. So it only includes A and B, which means it's only situations where you can see if you want to look at the language in the handout it's either based on lack of consent, threat or coercion, sorry, or placing the other person in fear that they'll suffer imminent bodily injury or, and this is a moving on to be now, impairing the ability of the person to appraise or control conduct by administering or employing drugs or intoxicants without their knowledge or against their will. So it's only those situations of sexual assault that would be covered here. Anything else that's based on age or the sort of care-taking relationship between the two people which are other variants of sexual assault are not included within the ones that would be disqualifying offenses. It has to be a situation where there's lack of consent, threat or coercion, placing the person in fear of imminent bodily injury or essentially using drugs or alcohol to deprive them the ability to consent. So those categories are carved out for purposes of the disqualifying offense. That's the proposal anyway. They're carved out meaning they'll be. This would be dis- This would be dis-behavior would be disqualified from earning current time. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with it. Well, I think we've completed the qualifying crimes. There was a letter from some group about another crime they wanted added. I don't have that available right now. Is all my darn vials. I think we all got it. I'm gonna, so we're changing the name to earn time. We're notwithstanding one VSA 2014. We got the age graph gap. We're gonna have language on compassionate reliefs for the next time we take it up, Eric. Yeah, I just got that from Brent just now I emailed her. And Eric Amon. Monica Webri's language regarding and Sarah Robinson's regarding notices. Yep, got those two. What Monica's is the language regarding interrupted sentences? Yep. There anything else that I've missed that we're gonna look at tomorrow? Well, Jess, you're gonna strike the whole piece about applying to future court cases that whole subdivision sex. Except that there will be something about the notice to the victims, correct? Yes, exactly. I think that's it. That's what I have. And we're scheduled to take this up again at 1045 on tomorrow. Tomorrow at 1045. I'm, do you wanna continue to discuss this or I don't know that we've got anything to discuss at this point? Realize I'm trying to get out of here to get my teeth cleaned, but... This isn't on that, but I finally, the Department of Health got me a COVID vaccine appointment for tomorrow at 920 at Grace Cottage. So I will be gone for a period of time. Okay, well, thanks for letting us know. I had mine yesterday. It was relatively painless, but I wasn't able to make a public hearing. Why isn't Alice getting hers? Too young. She's too young. No, I'm getting one. She's being too youngster. Okay. Friday afternoon. Just wanna make sure we're all covered. After this is over, we'll have a discussion about kidney drugs. And the state making deals with kidney... Well, it's the federal government that's doing the Walgreens, but it's the state making deals with kidney drugs when they're not available statewide. I don't know that the state even knew that. They didn't. Or Bennington and Wyndham and Windsor counties and Rutland counties get left out again. Yeah, but we have places down here now. We do. That's only because you spoke up some. We met with Dr. Levine. Our delegation did. We did too. And you got more places. Yeah. Well, enjoy the day. Thank you all very much. We'll pick up here tomorrow on this bill at 1045.