 Good morning. It's Senate Judiciary Committee. It is Friday, January 15, 2021, and we're meeting via Zoom. Many of you may be watching this on YouTube, and that's great. And the issue today is S18, which is an act relating to good time, which is a process whereby offenders are able to earn time off of their sentences through good behavior, and probably should be a better word than good time. And maybe we... Earn time. Yeah, earn time might be better, because I don't think that it has connotations that aren't intended and does, is somewhat passionate to some victims, I'm sure. So with that, I turn it over to our first witness this morning, Sarah Robinson, who has to leave by 9.15. But I don't think we'll be more than... We don't think we'll be 45 minutes. But Sarah, thank you for your patience and holding up your original schedule earlier in the week. Thank you for having me. For the record, Sarah Robinson, Deputy Director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Good to see you all this morning. And thanks again for the opportunity to say a few words on the Earned Good Time program and the language that you're considering today. I just wanted to... As a brief bit of history, the Vermont Network, we didn't serve on the original committee which developed the legislative recommendations for the good time law that was passed last year, although we certainly have been engaged in related and broader conversations about victims' rights and criminal justice reform efforts. And in almost all cases, we believe that these are complementary efforts that just require some careful balancing. And in concept, we're very supportive of Earned Good Time. As you've heard from other witnesses, we do believe that incentives play an important role in encouraging growth and change in people who are incarcerated. We think that's a good thing and that an Earned Credit Time is one way to achieve this, or Earned Time program is one way to achieve this. But as you heard from Chris Fenow and the Attorney General earlier in this week, since the legislature passed and enacted this law last session, we've heard from victims all across the state with real concerns about the one-size-fits-all approach to the applicability of good time to individuals serving sentences for every possible crime. And we very much understand that the state's previous good time program was overly complex. It relied on the discretion of DOC staff and ultimately led to disparities and inaccuracies. So very much support the intention to move to a system that removes discretion about good time accrual and promotes a more simplified approach. But we do agree with the Attorney General's office that for certain crimes where there is a death resulting and for the worst forms of sexual violence, that the impact on victims and surviving family members of those crimes ought to be given weight in the state's good time program. And so to this end, we support the language that you are considering today. And I wanted to also lift up a second concern that's not necessarily addressed in this language, but that's related to victim rights and notification related to Earned Good Time. And this past last year, we testified at length in House Corrections and Institutions about the importance of a victim-centered notification process for Earned Good Time. And you do see a requirement that the Department of Corrections notify victims at the onset of the program about the new statute. But we've heard really major concerns from victims about the plans that the Department of Corrections has for the notification process. I'm sure you can hear more about that from the Department of Corrections, but both the frequency and the mode of the notifications that the Department plans to use. And our current understanding is that the notification plans would require an opting in to all notifications related to this or an opting out of all notifications on behalf of victims. And we would love to see some additional options available to victims in terms of how they hear about Earned Time accrual and when they hear about Earned Time accrual. And on victim notification, I wanted to address something that Senator Baruth raised in the discussion earlier this week about moving forward victims being notified about the potential impact of Earned Time on sentences. And we are concerned that there is currently no standard process in place for prosecutors communicating the impact of Earned Good Time to victims when potentially seeking their input on plea agreements or informing them of the status of sentencing conversations. And there's no required notification to victims about the potential impact at the sentencing phase. And we do feel that victims deserve the right to be informed at this stage of the process about the potential impact of Good Time on a sentence. So they can be prepared really for an accurate length of incarceration. Their expectations can match what is possible. And when sentences are finalized, it often provides this sense of closure for a given period of time for victims to heal. So we would ask that the committee consider including language in the proposed bill to ensure that this notification does take place around sentencing. This is also an important moment for victims because that's the place where they're able to offer a victim impact statement. So we feel like that would be helpful language to include. And with that, I am happy to take any questions that you might have. I guess I have two questions. And one is the way the language is structured, those who would be sentenced after the effective date of the bill leave it sentenced, not sentenced, would have an opportunity to petition for receiving Earned Good Time. And wouldn't that involve the victim as well? We just talked about the victim notification. I'm sure the victim's concerns would be taken into account under the petition to receive Good Time. If they didn't petition under the under the way this is drafted, they'd have the normal input that they have in a trial. If you put your language in, I'm not sure where it goes, maybe it's part of a petition. Yeah, I think at a minimum, I think ensuring that victims have input in that petition process would satisfy that. Because if they didn't petition, they wouldn't be eligible for Good Time. The second question, thanks to that same, we have a subset of people who were convicted prior to January 1, 2021, who are now eligible for Earned Good Time, moving forward. They're not getting it retroactive yet. I'm not sure that that message that it's not retroactive. That was one of the discussions we had last year when we passed the bill. So I hope that there's not confusion about that part of it. That at best, they would only be receiving it moving forward if this bill doesn't pass. I think there is why a good understanding about that among victims. I think initially there were some questions, but I think at least the victims we've heard from fully understand that the Good Time accrual only began after the law came into effect. What I will say is that it still has the potential, obviously, to change sentences that over time. And so I think for some victims, it felt like they had a promise around a certain length of sentence and that that promise had been changed. And there was concern about that. But the other, I guess the other more question, I've divided this into two separate groups. One is those that are sentenced after the effect of this bill. I'm worried that we, because everybody would know what the good time is, it would be back the way it was years ago when everybody was eligible for it. And should we just do have it affected for that small, the smaller group that have had not been earning good time and are eligible starting this January 1st and not and just focus on that. Since everybody know what the rules of the game are moving forward. I will defer to the Attorney General's office and attorneys on that and whether that poses any legal concerns, but it would certainly simplify the program and the expectations for victims, I do believe. Okay, other questions for Sarah? Sarah, thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Our next witness is Matthew Valerio, Attorney General. Good morning, Matt. Good morning. Thank you for having me. You know, as I'd expressed on other occasions regarding the potential for this bill, it's obviously some backtracking from what the work that had been done with the Justice Reinvestment II and the proposal that was brought originally by the Department of Corrections to reinstitute good time after a decade of not having it and the pressures that that put on other methods of release from the Department of Corrections, the corrections budget and obviously the inmates and other people involved in the system. We all know why I think good time is something that has been used around the country. There are multiple reasons, but just briefly, of course, it's in part a way of modifying behavior with a positive reinforcement that if you do what you're supposed to do when you're in a facility, you're going to get out sooner. It is also a fiscal tool to aid the state in reducing the cost of the prison population. And it also in the long term seems to have good rehabilitative results for the individuals who are going through the system. I've not seen a study that says that good time has a negative impact on rehabilitation. The interesting thing that this bill does is selects out a few crimes that all end up with life in prison at the end of the sentence except for one. And makes them a disqualifying crime for purposes of good time, absent a petition to the court. And then the court has to make a finding whether or not at that time it would serve the interest of justice for that individual's participation in good time for that to occur and that it wouldn't unreasonably affect public safety. The thing that I find about that is that it's the wrong time to make that determination. What you end up seeing one way or the other is it clearly a change in the way people think and act and approach their lives once they have been incarcerated. The determination at the beginning of the case, really at the beginning of their sentence case of whether or not somebody is going to be an unreasonable risk to public safety is probably not the right time to do that. Because you don't know what a person is going to be 20 years down the road with some of these life in prison sentences. I'm mindful of an individual who I represented in a murder case in the early 90s and he was 18 years old at the time. And went through the court process and ultimately he was not convicted but if you saw that individual when he was 18 years old and what his life was like whether he was sentenced or not you would deem him an unreasonable risk to public safety. He ended up joining the Marine Corps, he was in for a number of years, he got out, he started a business, he now is living on Long Island and owns a private investigation firm and is five times richer than I am. The bottom line is that when a lot of these folks come into the system and we are dealing with a lot of young people it's very difficult to make the determination about the reasonability of somebody's effect on public safety at the time they're sentenced. I'm concerned that and I also want to talk about a little bit about some of these individual crimes that are listed as disqualifying offenses but it seems to me whenever you have a life sentence type case effectively a judge is making a good time determination at the beginning of the sentence by virtue of the length of the minimum sentence. The judge is accounting for the effect on public safety and the just interests of whether an individual you know how long basically they're supposed to spend in jail before they have an opportunity to get out that's what minimum sentences are for. What these, what good time is supposed to do is give somebody an incentive to reduce that amount. So if a judge in any of these life and prison cases feels that that person needs to spend 30 years in jail and good time might reduce that to 25 or 20 years depending upon what the what the case may be they're going to impose a 35-year sentence and we have seen this time and time again when over the years at least when judges are making accommodations for for good time and when release dates might be. The I have a question about so to me the factor of that the court is considering in whether or not somebody would take part in good time is something that they take into account when they are deciding what the minimum sentence is to begin with. I do have questions about why manslaughter in violation of 2304 title 13 is on this list. That's a 15-year felony with a one-year mandatory minimum that could can be suspended. You know burglaries have higher sentences than the manslaughter and I understand somebody lost their life as part of this but it's a negligent it's a negligent death which to me stands out starkly in this other in the in the rest of the list it doesn't have a life sentence attached to it and it's relative to the you know spectrum of crimes that's out there to include on a list like this it is one that stands out as not consistent with any of the thinking that went into the other ones and so I would suggest that you probably should take that one if you're if you're going to go forward this if this is going to pass I would take manslaughter off the list. I also have concerns about the lascivious conduct with a child. Vermont has in my in my estimation in my looking at this over a long period of years an area of law in its sexual assault statutes that is not fair and not consistent with reality and I'm not talking about I'm talking about where you have minors engaged in activity that gives rise to criminal liability under the lute and lascivious conduct statute with a child where you might have a 16 year old having relations of some variety with a with a 14 year old or a 17 year old with a 14 year old as as you know we have that provision where there's basically a three-year bill but the negotiation I was there when it occurred you know in the early 2000s that you know there was an as it often is in the legislature negotiated age limit between the houses right and you know the line was drawn at the age of 15 but if that doesn't take into account the reality of kids being involved with each other when they're 16 and 14 16 and 13 and 15 and 13 and and you know basically kids who go to school together have the potential to get involved in particularly with lute and lascivious conduct as opposed to sexual assault on a minor but the same issue goes for sexual assault on a minor as far as I'm concerned and until we until we address that I would not want to disqualify kids who are engaged in in that kind of activity which I think we can all agree occurs somewhat regularly from from good time I mean it's another one that sort of stands out to me as being inappropriate for this list and it and it's one that in of all of these you know we have a general thing where we tend to have a lot of youth in the system but this is a one particularly where the the impact on youth would be inappropriate and disproportionate clearly the you know what you're doing when you're 16 17 18 years old is not what you're going to be doing if you end up spending you know two or three years in jail you know I I to me it it rings as an inappropriate crime to put on the list similarly with sexual assault while that sexual assault includes a lot of different activity but I'm concerned about the age gap regarding minors and how that impacts individuals one of the other things you're going to want to do with sexual assault cases to be honest and this is getting out of the whole youthful offender arena that I don't mean that in the big youthful offender I mean that in just young people engaged in activity that's illegal of a sexual nature but you want to have people to be encouraged to participate in programming particularly if they're sex offenders treated sex offenders have a relative to the total recidivism rate that we have have a very low recidivism rate untreated sex offenders it's it's quite the opposite and to take away a an incentive is I think inappropriate now I understand that the counter basically is that a judge can override that by virtue of a hearing and I get back to the issue of this is what judges do when they sit set minimum sentences I understand obviously with that it may be appropriate for cases like first degree murder aggravated sexual assault aggravated murder and the like but this seems to dip kind of deep into the uh into the kind of serious crime spectrum even even arson causing death is for the most part a unless it's intentional usually a negligent act situation the arson might be intentional but the cause of death may not be and that's uh you know again one of those things that it's it's very difficult to just stick it on a list and say we're carving these out I would also note from a logistical standpoint nobody likes to hear this part this is going to depending upon how it is dealt with by the department of corrections if it were passed going to end up in a bunch of litigation involving who gets what and how and when because the the statute went into effect on January 1st we're 15 days into good time for everybody or I guess that we probably excluded it was probably excluded aggravated murder I think something was excluded the first time yeah I think we excluded those with a life sentence without anything with life without parole as a was excluded yeah but uh you know there's gonna there's a gonna be a class of people who are previously sentenced who are entitled to good time post January 1 there's gonna be a class of people who are going to be sentenced post January 1 and all of those have they have vested rights as of the 1st of January and then there's going to be this other group that comes if this gets passed that will have other types of rights and I'm not even sure how those will will work particularly you know the question is they're gonna be issues of retroactivity and ex post facto application um and we're gonna have to deal with all of that you know the last time we sort of trued up the system basically everybody who might be entitled to good time just got their good time and it was an easy way to deal with it but at that point good time was going away completely this time there we will have created three different classes of good time participants and so I unfortunately see work that really the prisoner's rights office which they'll be doing but and our appellate division going to um something we'd rather not be doing to be honest we'd rather not be kind of litigating that nuance but it is what we do yeah no I understand so you know I I don't see that what is in place currently is an egregious violation of anybody's rights I don't think that the victims groups were excluded from participation and the process that went into this and I was in the house as the testimony came in from all sides and this was not a major issue until the rule was promulgated by the department and some victims who didn't feel that they had a voice in the process made their voice known I had an individual from the prisoner's rights office present at the public hearing or one of the public hearings and she was it was her and there were 20 victims folks who had showed up and acted like it was the first time they'd heard of it and I understand that it's easy to miss things if you're not you know me deep in it from the beginning but this was not done under the radar and I think trying to unravel it to identify a small group of crimes that I think are already addressed through the sentencing process where by the way the victims and victims advocates have the right at sentencing to comment on the appropriateness of the minimum and maximum of the sentence and whether it's suspended or not and and the like that's where the appropriate impact or appropriate input is how how somebody reacts to their incarceration and what position they are in um you know in participating in their programming in not causing problems and serving their time that is not something that is known at the time of sentencing and it is appropriately left to an administrative good time system like is done in almost every other state in the nation I appreciate the testimony Matt um and uh I don't know if there are other questions from that from anybody on the committee or any questions I'm your senator Bruce this is not a question but I just wanted to say that I think Matt makes a very good point about the hearing uh and the petition if that's occurring at the same time as the as the sentencing if I'm a judge it doesn't seem like I have very much to go on I have what seems to be the legislature's intent that good time not be given to this person and then I have victims there saying don't give it to this person I don't know how successful those hearings would be at that point so if if the bill does go forward maybe that's something we should think about is selecting a time later on down the road to have those hearings well I don't know senator white to have a question or comment no I was just going to say that I agree with uh senator Bruce I think that it doesn't make much sense to do it at the time of sentencing well I think that you know as I recall all this discussion about good time being um retroactive was the major discussion and uh I really have senator white and I've got a quiet marley is uh so I guess I misunderstood what you said there senator sears and I'm sorry that but just because it happens later on doesn't mean it's necessarily retroactive I mean right I'm not sure that um they're they're connected in any way it could the hearing could be unless I completely misunderstand this the hearing could be later but still not be retroactive but could be going forward and they're or or it could you're me or muted dick senator white I was paying attention to marley I was talking about the process we used to draft the bill the last time when we dealt with the bill we we heard um I believe saris correct she wasn't there but the I believe that we heard from uh Chris Meadow and others that we did not hear objection that's what I was talking about I I understand um I'm hearing several concerns about the way the draft is currently in one of us that's not what I was wasn't talking about that and to be clear I'm not asking that there be a hearing down the road to me the application of good time whether somebody gets it or not um is the application is the application that's the decision that department is making as to whether or not an individual is doing the right thing to what is what is really obvious here is that that um some folks think that there's not enough punishment relative to these crimes and that as a result they should be excluded uh from good time um but to accommodate folks there's this out with this hearing at the beginning I don't think that it should be it's it's not the appropriate time in my view for that type of hearing and the good time system itself is the process to determine whether or not somebody is amenable to treatment and and the like and is um would not unreasonably affect public safety down the road as is referrals to um for uh parole um or for furlough well assuming for a minute we passed this law with some changes um and we only did it for those folks who have were sentenced prior to the passage of this law um with that and so in the future I mean the judge would know everybody would know what the person was eligible for at good time and be part of the sentencing process oh so you're still you're the issue is here for these types of crimes or some group of them the concern is the folks who prior to January 1st had already been sentenced yep well I will I will say that that clears up some of the some of the some of the concerns for sure you know I'm not gonna I'm not gonna say that uh individual inmates are not going to want to litigate it and that would mean we'd have to pursue that for them understood um but um it clearly does sort of give the folks who were involved in whatever the prior plea agreement was um what they expected yep senator white um I'm I'm uh showing my ignorance here but just because you're eligible for good time and you may even doesn't isn't there some kind of a system set up in doc that then decides whether you're actually going to get it or not just like of course you said parole I mean you're eligible I think that commissioners is scheduled shortly after so I just I guess if that's the case why would we prohibit anybody from being eligible I think that the issue that I've heard loud and clear from several victims of some horrific crimes some of the most horrific crimes that are committed in the state is that this is going against what they had understood the sentence to be for that individual by providing them with extra benefits so you're essentially let's just for the um just for the sake of argument let's say you're taking five years off of a sentence of someone who committed a horrific crime and the victims that agreed to that sentence and now you're taking up five years that's where the what I've heard as the complaint what I was suggesting was that down the road after this bill is effective there will there would be the knowledge that the person is eligible for good time during the sentencing process and the judge if the judge wanted to or the state could argue for a longer sentence and they might otherwise because they would know everybody would know what the rules of the game are what we did was change the rules of the game mid-stream for those that have already been sentenced I think one important thing to note though is that just because you are eligible for release doesn't mean I'm going to release you or that they have to release you when you know as a result of the good time I'm trying to make this mad I'm trying to suggest that there are two separate categories here the other people who've already been sentenced under a system that did not include good time right and those who were sentenced in a system that did provide this I understand could I just add one more concern here that and hopefully I'm not really misunderstanding this but when somebody is sentenced and the victim is part of that hearing that sentencing hearing and then say they're sentenced to 15 years but they're eligible for parole at some time don't don't isn't that couldn't that also be seen as a violation of the if they're given parole couldn't that also be seen as a violation of the kind of agreement that was made with the victim and and when when there is a parole hearing I believe that victims appear and if they're and so I think that it it's kind of the same system but I may be wrong I wanted to Matt if you want to respond to that I guess it was to you it's it's just another way for us to get people back out into society and we use very similar criteria you know with the board and and you know I'm sure that victims are not always happy with the decisions the parole boards make and D.C. the DOC isn't at times either but it's just one of the other tools that we have to get people out of this place well I went before I turned to Jim Baker who asked to leave I just want to mention that that's part of what justice reinvestment was is limiting the number of furlough options because the furlough was without victim as I understand it so people would be out in the community without that the parole provides that Jim if I know you have to leave right away and we'll jump to you for any comments and then go to black oh yeah senator Wilson I did email commissioner interim commissioner senator thank you for that clarify the record but senator I did just email Peggy to let her know that I was going to stay on I canceled my other commitment so if you've got other orders that you wanted to follow I can wait or I can go now it's your your call sir no why don't you go ahead right now then we'll go to black oh and John Campbell for the record I am in from commissioner Jim Baker commissioner corrections look I want to say clearly that corrections our position is is that we have supported justice reinvestment to we support good time you know the one thing that I get concerned about as I listen to this conversation and other conversations is that somehow this always ends up being corrections is good time program and it is it's an unfair burden to put on corrections I mean this is the justice system good time program and some of the feedback we got from victims when we put the rule out was all over the charts and you know this work this work came out of justice reinvestment to and you know we all supported it and then you know there was a realization about the victims that we've talked about before in in corrections and as I continue to hear the dialogue about the the rule notification in the use of bans to do that you know we took criticism for that and I understand it but we have 15 000 victims in dance and ironically some of the victims who were victims of record didn't want to be notified about the rule change and we actually had a situation with one of the individuals who became very hostile towards staff so the point I'm trying to make is is that whatever we decide to do the more complicated this becomes the more difficult it is for us to implement it following the directions of the legislature and creating more than one system for us to manage victims creates a situation with four staff numbers who deal with 15 000 victims um the more complicated we make it the more chance that we're going to make errors in that process so my position as the commissioner is is that you know I understand what happened here and I understand that people are weighing in back and forth about victims and how we ended up in this conversation now looking to try to modify the work that came out of reinvestment too um but all I'm urging is whatever we decide to do make it as clear as we possibly can because uh you know the defender general and I agree on quite a bit and one of the things I'll agree on them today with is that um I don't need more litigation in in corrections um we get litigated to death in corrections uh you know as I as I said I've been the commissioner for a little over a year I think I'm named now in 120 lawsuits uh so we get we get litigated to death so we we as an organization have a high level empathy for victims we want to work with victims but we don't want to be seen as the only person in the system um holding the bad news when it comes to victims so I'm I'm I'm urging that whatever we do upfront victims understand at the day of sentencing exactly what good time means that should not be corrections as an obligation to explain to victims um at that point in time that should be the judge the prosecutor defense attorney people understand exactly what it is and then we manage that system so as far as the process is inside I do have dale crook in monica weaver with me today um they know the system much better than I do I'm just trying to um make sure we're clear where correction stands on this and we'll do whatever we're directed to do by the legislature but remember the more complication it goes into with the more difficult it is for us to manage so that's that's my message senator thank you that that was part of the problem when we why we just continued time because it was so and look you're always senator you're always going to have the situation where and I agree with with the defender general on this um you're not always going to make people happy but I heard you know you know the the one call that I took that I you know we both got emailed on um those victims matter and I know you're trying to all work through this system but I just don't want to be in the position where it becomes complicated and we're the ones that are seen as this is corrections it's good time for it right that's that's the message I wanted well and clear thank you commissioner questions for commissioner baker interim commissioner senator beruth uh commissioner thank you for what you just said I'm just wondering if we could go back to the basic management tool idea um that's what I find myself coming back to I remember when we were working on this and the idea was that um this was helpful inside the institution it was perceived as as a positive tool regardless of who it was being used with is that still your sense it is senator and I think you know again I haven't read the studies but I think my staff tells me that most of the work that's out there academically on good time indicates that it is a good tool and I do think it's a good incentive for folks you know the the vast majority of the people that we have incarcerated follow the rules do what they're supposed to do to work on their issues but we have folks in the system that don't do that so I think good time also offers the opportunity for incentive especially when case workers are working with them to move them towards transition back to the community I think it does give us a tool to do that with that said I fully understand what I heard from victims about what that means when they agree to a plea agreement and then all of a sudden find out there's a significant amount of time shaved off that sense that makes that cool thank you you're welcome sir thank you uh commissioner all right um why don't we jump to uh flacko shilling from the american civil liberties morning I guess you've been very busy lately there's been quite a lot going on as with many other folks on this call so I know we're all doing a lot of a lot of good and hard work so thank you for allowing me to testify this morning my name is falco shilling I'm the advocacy director for the ACLU of vermont and I want to come and speak before you today to actually to oppose s1 s18 for many of the reasons that folks have already heard so far I'm going to echo many of the things that the commissioner actually just said so we also are big supporters of justice reinvestment too this was one of the top recommendations from the justice reinvestment to working group I think it's recommendation one c and when we heard from the the folks from the justice center the implementation of good time was one of the most effective tools we had at reducing our prison population so this is something that um when you look at those recommendations and the recommendations that have come out and reports both from 2019 and 2018 um show that good time is a positive program positive management tool for within side facilities and we also believe that we should be incentivizing good behavior for everyone who is incarcerated by the department of corrections and that also applies to people who have committed some of the most serious crimes that we want to have those incentives for good behavior and we also want to have those program management tools available so one of the discussions that has come up in both this testimony and the testimony previously is the idea of whether or not this credit should be applied to people who were previously incarcerated before this change went into effect and this is something that's been talked about at length both through the committee's process last year and also there's a full report that was put together prior to last session and this was a report put together by the by DOC the center for crime victim services the judiciary sheriffs and state's attorneys the attorney general the defender general and the consensus recommendation from that report is that good time should be applied to everyone who is currently incarcerated and moving forward they give a number of reasons for this in this report if you look at so the report was delivered on December 15th of 2019 the recommendations revolve around program impact and I'm going to read quickly from that that report if you if you may if I may so it's before you if it's possible for Peggy for Peggy to get a copy of that report and post it on the committee with age yep happy to send that over and this was a report that was discussed I know a great deal in house correction I got the copy of the report but it's sitting in my Montpelier call cabinet yes and it's I'm sure buried somewhere on the legislative website and happy to help resurface that but what the report in basically says increased participation will have a greater impact on morale and behavior if many people are left ineligible for the program the effect on the facility environment is diminished it will also create disparity and confusion confusion among the incarcerated population so one of the main reasons to have this applied to everyone is the impact within the facilities and the others that is noted in this report is the administrative impact which and in the report says including previously sentenced inmates eliminates the potential for mistake delay and processing paperwork and allows for clear communication as to who is eligible to receive good time and awards the DOC sends computation unit is responsible for his activity any additional burden on requirements to track the various populations would lead to uncertainty and complexity and this is really important because as we're having this conversation last year around good time one of the things that was was raised over and over again was that increased complexity in the system that that existed before was one of the things that brought that system down that level of complexity made it difficult to administer generated lawsuits it was one of the reasons that it was was revoked and I guess in the early 2000s so that's something that we want to raise this discussion of who should be included everyone who is currently incarcerated should be included in this program and we oppose carbats that program also just want to note that there's broad public support for reducing sentence lengths in a poll we did last year with lake research 70 percent of brahmaners supported reducing sentence lengths for people who are incarcerated here in brahman and also I just like to bring up the fact that making this change at this time is definitely going to be putting more of a burden on the department of corrections within the last year we have asked them to do not just an emergency rulemaking but a full rulemaking on this this program and this would be asking them to do a third rulemaking possibly within the span of one year and it's not like there's been new facts brought to light about this program and how it might impact people these were discussions that were envisioned through the process last year so in short we just I'm happy to have the opportunity to come forward today and say we oppose this legislation we'd like to see the law stay as it currently is and this is one time when we're basically asking you to do nothing so that is my testimony for today and I'm happy to answer any questions thank you um questions I think pretty clear from me my perspective any thoughts on the discussion about those that are currently sentenced to work and some of the most heinous crimes in the state and they made plea bargains to avoid life without parole since um and that that really is one of the groups we're talking about there are and I'm curious if there's any comment on a small that small group so we think this program should be applied uniformly throughout the system um almost 99 of all criminal cases within the state of Vermont are resolved through plea deals so that's not unique to people who have committed these crimes and we have to understand that this is being applied to everyone who's had a plea deal and there are victims of many of those crimes as well but also we want to look at our criminal justice system and say we need to be providing these incentives especially for the people who've committed some of the most serious and heinous crimes because almost all of them are going to be re-entering their communities and it's in the best interest of all of us to provide those supports and those incentives as well as the program management tools and the facilities to help make them safer for the people and who live and work there senator white thank you oh so falco thank you um my question I guess is that just because someone is eligible for earned time just as they're eligible for parole doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be awarded it I mean they may be in when it am I right about that or am I wrong you are correct about that that just because someone is eligible for good time does not mean that they'll necessarily earn that time or that they'll be released any earlier once they reach their minimum sentence based on a number of other factors okay thank you and I'm sure monica I saw monica chime in or come up on the screen I'm sure she could correct me if I accept anything correct monica did you want to comment good morning everyone it's monica weaver I'm the administrative services director at the department of corrections and I did I know senator what you've asked that question a few times and falco yes you were very accurate the awarding of good time again relies on the offenders behavior if they're not adjudicated of a major disciplinary action they will receive the good time so that there is that trigger and as you've all mentioned once someone reaches their minimum release date it is not an automatic release there are lots and lots of factors that come into play there certainly if you have more questions about that dale can answer all of them is sort of the expert in that area so we just wanted to let you know that we were here to give you that information if you need it I think I am going to hopefully call on dale at some point in the near future to maybe this morning or later but the basic question is us better understanding the process and how erin good time would affect the person and I'm going to just try to frame the question I think the committee is asking is how does erin good time impact the actual date of release off of the minimum so that's why I think we need to better understand why that person wouldn't be necessarily released just because they took you know whatever a year's worth a good time accumulated would mean off the sentence looking at that for an example is that it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to get out and I really need to understand how good time impacts the furlough system moving forward because we had a confusing system of letting people out on furlough without any victim as I understand and then they're out on furlough but they're not on parole they're still sentenced so it's a different category part of what we tried to replace with if I'm not mistaken with good time was to eliminate many of the furlough statuses yes there were so that that has to be taken into consideration I know in one particular case that we're all familiar with where the the guy escaped on furlough um the word that the families of the victim who was murdered in the bennington area um contacted me helped me to continually get out on furlough there was no parole process so I those are the questions that I have back to you sorry I was going to say quickly one other thing that I'd like to note is all the changes that were made in justice reinvestment too there was the institution of a presumptive parole program but anyone who was convicted of the crimes considered in this bill would not be eligible for presumptive parole so it's one of that is not anything that's interacting with what we're talking about here they would go through the normal process none of those changes would actually apply to these people senator benning and I jumped ahead of us and I apologize to you no but you did you did bring up a reason for me to ask this question now one of the desires of this legislation is to empower corrections with a management tool and it makes perfect sense to me which is why I'm supporting the bill but I'm curious to know from all of you and commissioner baker especially why shouldn't the same process be available for someone on probation it seems to me there is a logical connection that probation ease and probationers could have another management tool um that might decrease the length of time that they are on probation and clogging up filing cabinets and I just asked that we hold up on the probation issue until next week when I'm trying to schedule the justice center to come in and talk about the Minnesota model and why credit for probation may not be the best thing to do to accomplish the same goal um I there is a full report that I'm trying to schedule for next Thursday and Brennan's in the midst of drafting that commissioner baker and others are probably familiar with what went on and justice reinvestment to working group on this issue so I would ask if we could hold off until next week Joe I'll withdraw the question thank you um Blacko any other comments or questions no I think that's all I have for today but I'll send along that study along the polling results that would be much appreciated um we're asking for um to get sent our files that were there from last year since we're right now dealing with three bills that are connected to last year expungement competencies and trial and this good time well thank you so much Senator White so this may not be the time to ask this but um I was confused by what Joe said about because he sees it as a good management tool in the in the facilities that he supports this bill so is this the time to ask him that or should we do that later I think during committee discussion would be a better time to figure out why we're doing what we're doing um the next witness is James Pepper from the Department of State's attorneys we'd originally had John Campbell but he likes to leave the top stuff this number thank you uh for having us here uh for me having me here yeah this is my first time in the committee this this year and it's great to see all of you back pick up kind of right where we left off in September um so uh for the record James Pepper from the Department of State's attorneys and Sheriff um our department has served on several good time study committees over the last two to three years um the state's of state's attorneys uh many of whom have lived through the prior iteration of earned good time had certain criteria that they wanted to be accomplished in any earned good time program moving forward um the first was that they wanted earned good time to be an evidence-based program that can promote rehabilitation reduce harm and reduce recidivism and then the second criteria was that it has to be easily administered with clear criteria for earning the time so that victims and prosecutors understand all of the potential accrual at the time of sentencing uh this of course is important for uh truth and sentencing so that victims can establish that sense of finality um that's so critical to their healing process and prosecutors uh just need to know what the potential impact would be so um there's sufficient time for programming and supervision would ultimately pass in Act 148 uh satisfy this criteria to our satisfaction um you know we heard plenty of testimony from the council from state government who was looking at the impact of earned good time on other states to satisfy the kind of evidence-based harm reduction promote rehabilitation aspects certainly um this program is easily administered or at least has clear criteria i mean at times almost it seems like it's too easily administered the criteria is too clear um you know there was an earlier bill with earned good time that uh required offenders to to kind of work through a merit-based programming system to earn good time and that was removed and i understand the reasons for removing it um but this certainly does make the kind of calculation of earned good time at the time of sentencing very easy to understand um so then the question of course uh has turned to whether earned good time should apply to the currently sentenced population or just move prospectively to people that will be sentenced after the implementation of the rule and then also secondarily whether to exempt certain categories of crimes from earning good time uh Falco mentioned a report um that came out uh that uh our department and the center for private and services participated on we we grappled with that issue um we heard strong arguments both foreign against applying it i think some of the rationale for um accepting uh the kind of it's not retroactive but applying it to the currently sentenced population um uh there's some of the arguments in support of it um ultimately though um we believe that because it implicates finality that really the victim's voice living the victim's advocacy group um should uh we were going to defer to them and we continue to defer to them today uh so um you know for us the program makes sense but if there are victims concerned in the center in the network and other advocacy groups support s118 then we will support it as well um i would just uh mention a few things um that have come up today um one is around the meaning um of earned good time you know so much of how people react to hearing about good time um is dependent upon you know how they think about sentencing and the purposes of sentencing and rehabilitation and being able and really victims need to have their voices heard and i think at least some of this thing around the announcement of earned good time in the victim's communities could have been avoided if we had the time to make those personal notifications to victims um or hold public forums um and really discuss the benefits of earned good time um and what it can offer uh of course you know the bill wasn't passed until September of last year and the program was required to be implemented on January 1st and so i just don't think that we had the time to do those that kind of work if they could have been done um i think i think that's an important point that this bill was done during um remote work it was an example of some of the issues that when we're trying to absolutely if the bill had passed you know we had a few more months it has passed in a normal course of business um you know and we had a few more months i think a lot of you know and we had a chance to reach out to victims individually especially those serious crimes um i think you know the rollout could have been uh less painful for the victims of time um but again with respect to the name specifically you know it feels it feels it just you know i think something like earned credit accrual or something along the lines that kind of really doesn't suggest to folks they like you know people are i mean i i recognize some of the arguments we've been hearing about um with respect to the question about is sentencing the right time for people to file petitions in order to approve a good time to become eligible um i mean essentially this is the time where you know we have the most direct conversations with safe attorneys and the victim's advocates with around this question of finality um and so whether it's the right time or not it's still it's the best time for victims to know all of the potential impacts of the earned good time program you know when we're talking we're talking about um the petition only for kind of a subset of the quote-unquote big 12 crimes or or some of the more serious offenses and um you know judges will have some sense at the at the time of sentencing issues often take you know years years to litigate um there are almost all eligible for a hold without bail not all of them but most of them are so you know these people are being detained pre-trial or if they've you know been awaiting trial for a year or two years you know there is some information that a judge will have at the time of sentencing to see how they've been reacting responding to your provisioning program so i don't have much more than that um but if there are any questions that you have two questions one one is um maybe eric can answer this but my recollection of our september meetings was we were looking also at what did other states do and i believe there's a number of states that have provisions that um single out certain crimes that are not eligible for earned good time um and maybe eric has that or you have that do we have a document on that eric no i can check with brin covered that issue in the fall with justice reinvestment okay i i think somebody might have a document that shows what other states do when you get down to specific crimes that are not part of the earned good time and i so which was my way of asking about uh matt's testimony regarding if we're going to do this should um c3 manslaughter violation of 13 vs a 2304 and c5 loon lazish lascivious conduct with a child in violation of 13 vs a 2602 should they be included um if that's a question for me i mean i would he yeah it is yeah those are of course incredibly serious crimes manslaughter you know there is a person who's dead um there's a there's a so i mean i wouldn't want to get instant negotiating here in this forum over which crime should or shouldn't be included like i can tell you that those crimes that you have included are some of the most impactful for victims um in victims families so i think that was part of the motivation for including them um i'm you know i would again you know both of you to hear from some of the victims i know you've done a good job of hearing from the victims aggregate well we're going to try to get some victims in the next week and a half or so to testify we've got a couple who volunteered to testify for some others um other questions for the state's attorneys and jane's uh upper thank you very much for being here you should thank you all thank you um the next witness is dale crook and dale um thank you for being here we're excited to hear from your position and what how this will complicate your life well i mean i think it was mentioned uh previous testimony uh for the record my name is dale crook i'm the director of field services for the vermont department of corrections um you know this is a really difficult uh decision point that that folks are trying to kind of weigh through good time works um there's there's tons of evidence that good time works um but there's also the the rights and the needs of the victims uh to have their concerns heard uh so you know i think the commissioner brought out like our our main concerns is make sure it's a straightforward system um the system that's proposed adds a few layers of complexity uh one for one we're looking at at certain charges um and then um post 2000 uh now it would have to be looking at a um a letter or um the judge's decision to earn or not earn good time so it just adds layers um we're not arguing one way the other but the more layers and complexity adds it does open us up for um for concerns and issues and grievances and litigation um there you know there are multiple options that have been kind of brought around here what we do understand the concerns of the victims and and having um pre 2011 2011 2021 excuse me um individuals earning i can see the concerns from the victims um you know the when you start having carve outs and determining if things do or do not get good time if you do a pre that date or post that date when the bill becomes effective um you will have impacts on on the projected savings from jri that that's just a fact on that um not arguing one way or the other is just it will cut into the savings um but good time is you know if you look at good time as part of the entire as a component of the entire package of jri um it is an incentive based um system and the department is working on incorporating incentives and into how we supervise and how we maintain our facility population um as far as furlough i'm trying to remember some of your questions uh senator here look how would we change the furlough system with some of the understanding that people who may have committed some of these listed eight nine crimes we're eligible for furlough which did not involve the victims did not involve the parole process um and had been getting furlough so now we've eliminated that opportunity will that further complicate any type of relief for those individuals no for for offenders coming up to their minimum sentences they're eligible for furlough and parole um if someone is registered in our victim notification system and they're coming up on release they will get a notification if they're registered in the system so all victims that are registered do get notified so the problem is sometimes the victim isn't registered in the vins correct sometimes that's an issue and that and that sometimes gets on the front end of the system uh where we try to have good coordination and collaboration with the state's attorney's victim advocate so to make sure that all the information is presented um it's a it's a it's just information sharing um and and i think the more that we can work on that understanding the better um as far as sorry sorry so somebody who was convicted of murder in violation of 13 vsa 2301 the victims would have a voice in any parole hearing should a parole hearing occur correct because they received good time that parole hearing might come up sooner there's still when there's not a guarantee that they would be so so an individual at their minimum will be eligible for furlough or parole so um they'll have their statutory requirement for the parole review um victims will be heard um if if they're called upon and that's a parole process that can occur and the victim will be heard for for the department to release someone on furlough they have to meet certain it's the presumption that they will be released unless there's reasons for the department not to release individual someone not completing uh their required risk reduction programming someone that poses a risk to an individual or the community um institutional behavior that um brings concern that there could be a public safety of the individual release so we have certain um criteria that we follow in order to be called a delay of the release so we delay a release of someone at their minimum um if if someone comes in and they don't pose a risk and they complete all their risk reduction needs and programming and they do everything they're supposed to do um and they have a residence and an approved release plan they will be released at their minimum um and we will notify the victims of the release um that's the system that's kind of geared for that um the presumption is that an offender will be released the presumption is that the offender will be released at their minimum unless there's a reason for the department not to release them um and sometimes those reasons that we have um the defender general may argue against and sometimes um litigations can occur from that does that answer your question yeah i think it does help it does other questions for dale monica or commissioner baker was still online monica has her little hand up i don't know if that means anything oh i can't see her hand usually wave monica oh okay i'll i'll wave i'm so i'm just trying to follow the rules but i'll i'll wave i i did want to add one one thing to what dale um brought up and you know in the example senator that you gave you used the crime of of murder and we also do have a process where we identify very sensitive cases um where we do a much more sort of personalized outreach in those in those particular cases to the victims our victim services specialist staff will you know work with people on uh release plans and and safety plans so that you know there are some people who get a notification through vans um and then there are um another subset of people who who get a little bit more uh engagement with the victim service specialist thank you for bringing that up monica we as as the commissioner said we have 15 000 individuals registered in vans um but there is only direct victim services for we assigned big our victim services specialist only to the more serious cases and why they're kind of presented in this bill and more of the listed ones that that could have a major impact i'm going to that raises another question this is where i think we get confused sometimes and i'm confused about individual is convicted of one of the crimes that's listed on this list and also a crime that's not on this list will they be receiving good time on the crime not on the list i i think you i think the legislature should make that clear how they want certain things like that applied if if you're going to have two different systems for example you have anyone before the the the start date of the law will not earn good time and people post will what happens if someone that is in one category crosses over and picks up a new offense so yeah my specific question was somebody convicted of murder but also convicted of um burglary and occupied dwelling which is not on this list that may have been part of another crime and they're convicted of both of them what what do we do if we have two sets of rules well we what we would probably do is we'd have to make a determination work with with our legal staff but i would indicate probably we would not award the individual good time if they have one of those disqualling offenses that would be clear in the bill that would be good that would be very helpful the clear you are about what you want the department to do and how we apply good time the better it is for everyone so the more things not clearly defined the department will try to interpret it in one way and others may interpret it another way so if it's clear and statute and language it's easier for us to apply and it's and it's more easily defendable by the department thank you but i i didn't mean to complicate things but it's many times it's a series of other questions for dale commissioner baker or monica thank you very much um i think it's a good time to take a short break on maybe 15 minutes and come back hearing from uh vinson illusi and judge greerson and anyone else that i missed on the list so if we can come back a quarter after 10 our next witness is vinson illusi i believe representing the vsea and not the states well thank you uh welcome back everyone one of uh one of my successors here in esxsor leans is a new member of the senate and i can't imagine how a freshman legislator or frankly any person just starting out as a lobbyist or as a um even a staff person just any any interaction it's so hard without developing the relationships and get a sort of the feel and flow of the building so i'm pleased that the committee remains unchanged with you know with you folks and i'm glad to uh to be here i as far as good time um in before i left the legislature corrections was overseen by by senate institutions and in 2000 we passed a good time bill supported in part by former governor dean because of the inability of folks to know what would be the effect of a of a sentence and so that was kind of a a line in the sand in 2000 and you know it's been 20 years since then and and you know the rules have changed a number of times at that time there was a real shortage in correction so the department would loosely use the furlough process and uh there was a lot of pushback public pushback and that's why that statue was passed in preparation for today our vsa organizers reached out to members of our organization and uh we represent among among all the corrections uh staff we also have within the department of corrections uh victim service specialists who are victim advocates if you will accept they deal with once the case has been handed over to the department of corrections and the the most comprehensive response was really a response about the general uncertainty that the legislation created when it was enacted and i i know that the purpose of the bill is not to revisit the entire question but rather to uh fine tune it and and uh and make modifications that you feel are necessary and so uh i just wanted to suggest that there are a lot of lists that have been created over the years i think the first list uh when i was there that was created was the listed crimes bill which highlighted some of the offenses which were considered either the most egregious or the most violent and in looking at this draft legislation the it's a unique list and i may have missed you know a prior summer meeting in which you know one through eight were put together so uh the the the input i would have to kind of give some finality to individuals who are interacting with the system would be one to suggest that there be to the extent you can do so a reference to existing offenses which have been identified by the legislature as as being particularly egregious or ones that you know stand out from the others like the listed crimes legislation that was passed i think back in the late 90s or early 2000s and um those are those are that's a thought the other thought is it's it's like when you give a a speech someplace and you want to recognize all the individuals who have either you know participated in some activity which is being recognized they're honored and you always worry about leaving out the the one person who played a key role and deserves recognition and as you as you structure the bill in addition to you know considering some of the lists that the legislature has already included particular crimes or offenses another thought would be to take a look at the title 13 and look at the chapters and sub chapters which break down the offenses for example there are a number of offenses here which you know there's there's certain categories of of homicide there's one particular offense for for their sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault but as you look at the at the there are a number of other offenses which by omission without being listed perhaps should be considered and for example if you look at sexual assault it's it's chapter you know 72 of title 13 and then there's you know human trafficking there are a number of offenses which the state through its criminal justice system has identified as particularly egregious offenses against other persons so that might be a thought as far as how the bill is structured because if you look through the the chapters there are certain categories and of course in those categories you may wish to make exceptions but nonetheless just the thought there over the last several years the workload for our members who work at the Department of Corrections has increased dramatically and you know from perhaps other committees that there are a number of vacancies there's mandatory overtime there is you know the the COVID impact with I think last week there were four facilities on lockdown and I think one rule should be to make the legislation automatic once you come to terms with which offenses apply or and receive good time versus those who don't it has to be you know a statutory credit because the staff is overwhelmed with all of the duties and tasks that they have within the system I know as a state's attorney that these days I would say in 95 to 98 percent of the cases that are resolved the goal is to ensure that the sentence if it's a to serve sentence includes sufficient time for completing programs that are offered in the facilities as opposed to out in the community and sentences often are structured after conferring with the DOC sentence computation unit and the goal always is to ensure that the sentence imposed is one which will enable programming to be completed and give the department sufficient leeway to address those who do not complete those sentences and so it would be a good idea to the extent that already has not been done to build in some provision that allows programming contemplated by the sentences to be completed before the good time legislation would result in the release of a particular individual again most sentences these days even though they are do include a punitive component the punitive component often tracks the necessary time that it will take for a person to successfully complete programs offered inside the facility so overall that's those are the suggestions that I have in light of the draft and we we we did not have a chance to hear from a lot of folks but the ones who did respond in particular the victim services specialist who sent a relatively long email did bring up the concern that folks really need to know what the plan for in their lives when someone is sentenced particularly in crimes in which there are victims so that's that's pretty much all I have today thank you are the questions for Mr. Lucy senator white in terms of making it less complicated for for staff and easing the burden on them wouldn't it be less complicated and more straightforward if everybody was eligible and then the determination was made at the time of just like parole or furlough that they would be released unless there were circumstances I mean wouldn't instead of having many different categories wouldn't that make it easier on the staff well there was suggestion about litigation you know the commissioner said that the the department is often involved in litigation and unless it's an automatic statutory triggering of when the good time kicks in it then requires some discretion on the part of the department and we have a large DOC contingent that we represent and one of the recurring themes is that it's simply a overwhelming task to comply with all the different you know dictates and mandates not that they object to them philosophically but from a logistical standpoint it has to be it has to be by rote more or less and to do otherwise they feel is simply just going to set the department back further and you know cause more turnover because they will be viewed as not meeting the expectations of the of the department which is attempting to meet the expectations of the statute so it's it's difficult at this level without looking at a you know a final version of the bill to offer any more thoughts on kind of presenting themes to keep in mind as you craft subsequent iterations of this legislation I guess can I follow up on that yes I guess one of the things that we heard was that if they were trying to do more things individually as opposed to doing them just by rote and by having one rule apply to everybody and I I just um wondered about one of the things that falco said was that having different systems will create disparity among the prisoners and if if that's the case will that not increase the the complexity for the people who are working with the population because you're going to have some people who are eligible some people who aren't eligible some people are getting some people aren't getting and I I just um I just wondered about that well the only thought I have there is is perhaps refocusing on my comment that a lot of the sentences you know with the exception of the more the more serious offenses the listed crimes if you will you know homicide and sexual assaults and kidnapping and the more serious luden lascivious cases by and large I'd say you know senator bennings in the in the same business I would say that by and large sentences are structured with programming needs in mind so the minimum is sufficiently long so that if the person is expected to complete a rehabilitative program while incarcerated the minimum sentence is tailored to ensure that that sentence will be done if you for example make this retroactive that may have an adverse impact on on the goal that you know the and most cases are resolved by plea agreement that would have sort of an unintended consequence on sentences which were agreed to by all parties including the court and now you you automatically apply good time and so the person may be three quarters or two-thirds of the way through a rehabilitative program and they're released as a matter of law so that's a consideration as you look retroactively if you look retroactively make the law retroactive so I guess I'd have to I'd have to give more thought about how to structure but those are just some concerns I might have misunderstood but I thought when monica was talking about it she said that it wouldn't necessarily be automatic because when they come up for the for the release it's going to depend on whether they've had serious infractions and whether they've completed their programming I think that's what it's called programming so that it isn't just automatic that there will those other things will be taken into consideration well looking at the bill as I did it you know it's not adjudicated of a major disciplinary violation not reincarcerated from the community and maybe it's embedded in the rule which I have not seen but if it's if it's addressed then that's I guess one less consideration but just suggesting to the committee to take a look at that okay other questions for Mr. Luzi thanks very much um now go to Judge Greerson a good morning everybody morning judge for the record brian greerson chief superior judge and thank the committee for inviting me to comment on this this bill I I was struck as I was listening to the testimony from the various witnesses this morning no matter what perspective they came from you you were hearing some common terms inconsistency disparity um and as I look at this bill and I want to make sure I understand it in its present form beginning with section 18 everyone was eligible for good time this bill then in paragraph five carves out certain offenses that are later listed in the bill as to be that the folks that are presently serving sentences of those offenses would be disqualified from any further good time but then section six allows individuals who are charged and convicted of those same offenses may become eligible for good time depending on how the court views that so that creates at least one layer of disparity between individuals convicted of the same offense I think the more and I've been trying to get some input from more judges as I was preparing for this today the concern is and you've all heard from the as part of the justice reinvestment sessions that about 98 99 percent of the cases are resolved through plea agreements and so you have to ask yourselves as you look at section six what is that going to do to plea agreements is and that will certainly vary from county to county which I think adds another layer of inconsistency in other words someone may reach a plea agreement that is a conditional plea agreement and I'm sure senator benning and others who are practicing in the court have experience with those that in other words the state's attorney defense attorney agree to a certain sentence that they want the court to accept but it's conditional perhaps from the state's attorney's perspective or the defense on how the court rules on good time so you actually go through a hearing on this one perhaps on this one issue and the only criteria as I read section six is balance of in the interests of justice and public safety and so in effect it appears to me that the way it's presently structured is you are looking at creating more the possibility of more inconsistency among sentencing for similar types of offenses now I will say that every case no matter if it's the same type of offense the sentence is individual and it's it's wrong to compare one sentence to another of a similar offense because there could be any number of factors that influence the judge's ultimate decision but there's a big difference between a contested hearing a sentencing hearing and a plea agreement or uncontested sentencing but this would seem to then open the door for more contested sentencing over this issue and conditional sentencing the paragraph six also talks about if the defendant petitions for this I cannot imagine any defendant whether you narrow this list or expand this list every defendant will file that petition and if not that would probably create an issue down the road for ineffective assistance of counsel so you can anticipate that for every offense on this list the defendant will petition for a good time and and depending on how the plea agreement is structured it may come in as a conditional agreement but I can see between state's attorneys between counties and between individual judges you know we hear repeatedly particularly in this committee and house judiciary about the inconsistency among counties and sentencing the way this is structured it seems to just lend a further argument to that and ultimately you're asking the court the judiciary to be the arbiter of whether or not an individual is eligible for good time that eligibility and how they qualify for it would seem to me to be more of an administrative decision a decision for the legislature you're leaving it then up to an individual judge on a given day under given circumstances to determine whether this person is eligible for good time over a sentence that they may be facing of anywhere from 10 20 whatever we're talking most serious offenses so we're talking about a decision that's made on that particular day that's going to impact that individual obviously for the whatever time they're in in the facility and then the question also comes into play is what if they they agreed to the underlying sentence but they the court's ruling on good time are they entitled to appeal that at that at that point in the process so some some other witnesses talked about litigation this could create that additional litigation I think and I think in an attempt to I think an attempt to create perhaps more consistency I think the bill at least in its present form seems to do the opposite from the judiciary's perspective it opens up a lot of doors that are not not there now I think you're pretty clear and whether I like it or don't like it it's you're clear and that's I'm I think the particular concern that I heard from victims was not about somebody that's sentenced to the Y1 of 2022 somebody who was sentenced to Y1 of 2018 for a rather heinous crime and is now after all of that process that the victims went through some victims feel revictimized by the fact that this individual is now eligible to get time off of his sentence for her sentence between now and whenever that minimum comes up that's what I'm hearing as the egregious problem because of the sentences that have already been imposed right so I did not hear although I might now but I didn't really hear about somebody who in the future might be sentenced to more of these crimes because by then you will know what the rules of the game are do you have any reaction to that well you know I guess senator I have to go back and and look at some of my notes from the previous hearings I understood that and I know this goes back a while so I'm not prepared for today actually September I think but well my memory is really faded with COVID I was under the impression that this particular bill I thought I was in hearings where I understood the the victims advocates were supporting the bill in its then form and so I've had to look back at now what is proposed legislation I understand that issue and maybe revisiting that issue as opposed to going going forward you could leave the good time in place for the offenses going forward but then the issue really is what do you do with these eight or 10 offenses of people that had already been convicted and that may be the appropriate focus for this bill but I would I would have to give that part of it more thought my concern I don't want to say my concern now my the issue that the judges were responding to was a section six which is talking about going forward and so creating a new a new yes process yes within the hearing about whether or not the person right should be eligible for good time and that jumped with all the other decisions that the judge has to make an acceptable agreement so setting aside that section six which is going forward I understand the committee's real struggle is with what do we do with this population that had already been sentenced under existing rules and then this the good time provision came into effect I will revisit that issue I'm glad to offer any I think during the markup of the bill certainly that would be one of the issues that I haven't heard from all the victims yet and I think that we're next week or the week after we're going to try to hear from some of the folks who either are victims or family members were murdered as part in that how they feel about the way this new law has been thrust and I understand ultimately even with section six it's a policy decision on the part of the legislature so we're not advocating pork on one or another as opposed to I understand that right but I think that the judge has raised an important consideration now you're adding a new element to the sentence right and how we look at somebody next July versus how we might look at them 10 years later as Senator I think Senator White said people have changed so I'll be glad to answer any questions committee members may have but that's are there questions thank you judge thank you committee this is time to we are going to continue our testimony on this issue but keep in mind as we talk about probation next week next Thursday we're going to get a report from the justice center folks uh guarding their work on justice reinvestment too and specifically the probation sections and Senator Nicker and I will be introducing a bill on probation but it'll be a little different than just credit but you'll hear more of that during that discussion and I'm sorry to help Joe off on this for the week but I appreciate his patience and needs on Thursday so I think once you hear the report it'll be a better understanding and I'd love to see your your proposal and if you're looking for co-sponsors I may join you okay well um Bryn has that and Eric if you could let Bryn know that anyone actually anyone's welcome to join in on the bill we'll we'll talk about on Thursday I don't think it'll be introduced until after Thursday we're going to um as I said I may not be here Tuesday morning for the I may be in part of the meeting they said to hold 90 minutes for this meeting with the person so I'll I'll do that and I believe we're taking up the competency issue we have several witnesses scheduled on that um Peggy's done a terrific job as usual on putting together an agenda for next week I was surprised that the marijuana bill came here um frankly and I'm glad to have Senator White pick a part of that and take it into her committee um but we will be taking that up sometime the week of the 20 we we are Michelle is coming in I believe on Tuesday to talk about the opt-in opt-out um section and I don't know what other things in there that she thinks we should look at as opposed to judiciary you're talking about S-25 yes I'm still trying to figure out how I ended up as the lead sponsor of that because your name is in embedding and my name is Sears and Pearson's name is Pearson and White's name is White and Michelle said how should I do this and I said just do it alphabetically I guess I should flag that for future purpose maybe in the future you want to do it by reverse medical order that would have made White the front sponsor yep now needless to say I'm I'm receiving some interesting flak from the the right I'm sure you are but you're able I have thick skin and a thick skull yes so we'll also have a Harley yep can I change the subject here just a little bit I see Commissioner Baker isn't with us anymore but um we took could you rephrase that please he's no longer on why he's no longer he's no longer in the committee right thank you thank you but on two on Wednesday or third Wednesday our committee wrote a letter to um as a committee we all signed on to it wrote a note to the administration and to the to Mike Smith asking them to um put the corrections facilities both the inmates and the staff hire on the list of priorities for vaccines you which committee did that government operations okay uh because we we don't schedule for next Friday the same issue oh I I think it's good if they hear it from two separate I guess that's fine but yeah well we just did it because we were supposed to hear from the deputy secretary or deputy commissioner or whatever uh today but she was not available today but has agreed to meet with us next Friday we go over the issue of uh those prisoners as well as prison staff as well as judicial um and maybe we should change that turn Peggy on the agenda um it's really the judicial uh staff and others who are in the judicial system and I don't maybe Eric can help you with how that should look yep and we didn't deal with that judiciary system at all just ours was just around yeah but the the issue was how do you get back to handling and I think Joe raised the issue until there's vaccination for the judges the court reporters the lawyers the secretary how do you get back into um holding jury trials so Friday we have civil trials that we're going to talk about the impact of the delay on those as well as the judicial um and the uh a lot of the vaccination I'm getting a lot of calls about the vaccination I don't know about the rescue yeah calls and emails about vaccination well just from teachers well I'm hearing it from citizens who are concerned that they're not getting the information and they see what New York is doing what Florida's doing and what other state the governor is on at 11 with a press conference talking about the next round of vaccinations such as 10 59 a.m and unless there's somebody else who has a comment maybe we should adjourn and go to the governor we could listen in for half an hour until the floor now I've got some work to do outside