 I think I'll just start with how to fix a jail. It's very interesting, meaning for at least the last night the commissioner did well. How'd you do it? I said, all right, I guess. I guess the biggest laugh for me is talking about just this re-investment one and how we got dead people off the probation. It's true. I mean, some people who were dead that were still on probation. Well, it's kind of like the voter list. And we had to pay their fines. I like to let them off. The voter list has some dead people, too. But, you know, I think I wanted to start off with Pepper, who we asked, or I asked him to, and John Campbell, to get some reaction from state attorneys about the bill. They're talking about an earlier draft, but some of their concerns just make me start with you if you don't mind. I don't know if we can accommodate you all. For the record, James Pepper, Department of State's attorney and chairs. With the outset, I'm just very supportive of this entire process. I think that CSG has been an incredible partner to the state. They've really done a deep dive. And honestly, it's hard to argue with their prior success of Justice Reinvestment One. So to that extent, you know, we're fully supportive of Justice Reinvestment Two. I think the primary concern that we heard from the state's attorneys was around earned good time and this possibility that there might be sentence inflation in order to accommodate some of the risk reduction programming. I think Senator Benning gave an example of how this is happening already, even without good time in place, where there's these kind of dead periods in people's sentences while they're waiting to get into risk reduction programming. That being said, it would really only impact the shorter sentences. The longer sentences would be an incredible benefit to the state and to the offenders to reduce their programming, or to reduce their sentences to get them back in the community earlier. So, I mean, that's the main problem that we heard. We've been supportive of good time in the past. We were supportive of the bill last year. We were supportive of applying it to the currently sentencing population, so kind of applying it retroactively in a way. So, it's just a concern that was raised by the state's attorneys. A lot of them were around the last time the good time was in place, and they saw these kind of crazy sentences being imposed because of it where you get, instead of one to three years, you get one year and a quarter to three years and three quarters in order to accommodate. And I just, it's just a concern that was raised. And I think that it's just something, I think you guys have, I wasn't here last week, but I think it's something that's been talked about already. So, I just figured it was. Well, we had a conversation before the meeting started with Dale, Helen, and Judge Grison about, like, a little dashboard that court and state attorneys, defense attorneys, and the judge, which would show what, if they wanted to fashion a sentence for the program, what they would need for programming at the time, so that, and I was thinking of having a report in this bill come back to, from that group with how that's going in an update, because it seems to me that everybody knew that it was going to take nine months to do a domestic violence program on probation. If they want to be genuine or something and add more time to it, they can, but they need nine months and the program starts on July 1, and this sentence is being handed down on March 1, they're going to need that amount of time, it was a minimum for probation, or in the facility, so that everybody would be on the same page and would also cut down the need for DSIs on everybody because you, and you'd already, I assume, I assume you'd know the risk for the sentence. I think that addresses the problem and also kind of what Joe, or Senator Benning, sorry, was discussing about programming that can begin in the facility and then continue in the community. I think it also helps address this. Well, as Dale said, and I don't need to speak to myself, but he said that, you know, if the program starts quarterly, so it starts on July 1, and, you know, if they know, and we wanted to sentence the person, if they're not on July 1, they know it's going to take a year for the programming and the minimum is often, at the end of the year, they would know then that that person, if they completed the programming, had, you know, it was eligible for whatever form of release, if they failed to complete the program, that's a different story. I think those concerns, just as we've been talking about today, can be addressed very easily. So if we put a section in the bill that, you know, formed that type of communication. We also, Dale, you can speak to yourself, but it also said, and I don't know how often it's used by state determinants, but the provision department is either a call away or just, in many cases, in the same building rank. You mean in terms of calculating the sentence? In terms of looking at, well, okay, so we've got this guy who's, you know, a two-time loser in terms of domestic violence, and it got to be some kind of a sentence, just to send a message of time to serve, but they also wanted to redo some kind of programming. I hate to turn anger management, because I don't believe that, but that's needed here and there, so they wanted to do an anger management program. The probation officer can say, well, that's going to take 15 months. So you do whatever else you want, but I need at least 15 months. I may be given five years, you know, minimum, but whatever the court determines is the right thing, but at least they know what the programming needs were. You wouldn't give them less than 15 months. But I mean, I think that's, you're absolutely right, you need some kind of a chart. Because that was always a problem, prison math, nobody could figure it out. I mean, the judge didn't know. I mean, they've said that, I don't know if that's the case now, but the sentence would be because of all the other stuff going on with the person. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I was just going to say, the good time program that's contemplated in this bill is a lot clearer than it used to be. And it's a lot less subjective than it used to be. So I think that calculating, making those calculations at the time of sentence, it would be a lot simpler. Okay, it was a month, you were going to ask you a question. A month. Is the good time calculated on 30 days or a month? 30 days. So, February is part of March. Well, I think the reason we're deciding on a day threshold and not a month threshold is because not everyone starts on March 1st or April 1st. So when they come in, it would be 30 days. You can just start that clock for everyone individually on their... So we should say for 30 days instead of a month. Because that's very good. It should be clear about that. It should be defined by number of days. Yeah. Seven days for every 30 days. Yeah. One thing that I would just... I haven't thought of this through all the way, so I'll just throw it out there. But I think it's 100% right to provide more information to everyone involved in sentencing as far as what's available and what length of time would be appropriate for everyone involved. The only thing that I think we would add to that is anything that you can give on risk is also really important there because it's very possible that someone says, well, this is a person who's been accused of... or is now going to be sentenced for domestic violence. Going back to where David D'Amour is, right, that he always throws out the percentage of 30% of people convicted of domestic violence have broader criminogenic issues that make them much more dangerous or risky. That's what we addressed. However, that 100% don't. And so, understanding that definition is really important when making decisions around anything related to length of sentence and then type of appropriate. Well, presumably, you've got that information before sentencing. But do they have it when they make the plea deal? Usually, right? Yeah. Yeah. Only of a piece. So, this is sort of like an under PSI to provide that information. That's how you're going to do with that. If the system's going to work, you need that information before you make a deal. If we do a pretrial monitor, I'm looking over at David's chair that, you know, trying to think that maybe there's more of a kind of union between the state's journeys and the pretrial monitor. The good news is we're going to vote this out on Friday night today. Okay. So... I'm going to figure that out. Brinde. I believe. He gets also something that might be a longer-term study of sort of how this all plays out and where there are opportunities to... Brinde needs direction to write it after the bill. The next subject is compassionate release. Are you finished? Well, there is a decision point, I think, on compassionate release. You've decided already about whether to bring in state's journeys or have the Department of Corrections represent the state interest in the compassionate release hearing. What's confusing here is there's a medical... there could be a medical furlough that the department could use if the person say has a heart attack that they need to put it in the hospital or a hospital. And that could be a minimum of... a maximum of 30 days for medicine or whatever. Compassionate problem is there's no minimum service. So a person could come in and say, well, I just got convicted of sexual assault on a child. I've got a serious illness that's terminal and so I want compassionate release today and they've served absolutely no time. I don't think the community would be happy with that. So I think there needs to be somewhere where corrections or somebody has to be the guardian there. I don't know if you have a minimum term you have to serve before you can be compassionate release or how we do that, but I would be really concerned about having that type of time happen. So I'm trying to remember which could ruin the whole bill. Yeah, I don't think there was ever any intention. Which section is it where there's a... Well, page 5 has the... Oh, I'm thinking of presumptive parole. Yeah. Page 5 is the one where you're concerned about, I think, C. There. Sorry? Well... We also have medical parole as well. So there are multiple, I guess, opportunities to release someone that is sick or whatever criteria you want to use before their minimum sentence. After their minimum sentence it's easy on the department but before the minimum sentence is medical parole, compassionate release and I guess compassionate presumptive parole for that group, where the language is needed to allow an enemy to release before the minimum sentence and how that is fashioned through well, there's four ways right now. So... And there's also the opportunity if they are medical parole then the parole early release statutes can come into place. We actually just had a case of an interstate contact that was in Florida that had debilitating medical conditions. Basically, she couldn't function and we really released her in the first sentence that was finished at that point so there was no threat to the community at that point, too. I would be happy taking out that section on page five, since we have these other things, but I do think that I would ask that we leave the rest of the compassionate release in there. I would like to talk the whole thing out. I think this is a great deal but that diminishes it. I... I mean, I don't... I'm not familiar with all the cases but I do know that the case I'm talking about the one we all know... Yeah, and he is not eligible. He is not Soviet. He's not eligible. How long has he served you now? Maybe we're trying to think of when maybe eight or nine years. But couldn't we make, as we have for presumptive rule, couldn't we make a floor for the amount of time served? Well, this... all of these the only one... the one that I thought was the biggest concern here was C on page five because that's the one that just suffers from a chronic or serious medical condition. That's the one that I thought we're referring to. Yeah, so I think that since there are other ways of dealing with that I'm okay taking that out but I don't think I wouldn't want to take out the whole rest of the compassionate. Okay, so if we require to think about that but there should be some minimum time served. Don't want to release people upon their interests. Right. Have to make a decision about whether or not they're terminally ill. Does it make sense to match presumptive parole? Well, they might have committed a listed crime or a crime of the Big 12 which are not eligible for presumptive parole yet. Well, I just mean matching the minimum time served. Well, it is... it says five years. I mean it is in here under the presumptive, yeah. That's what I'm saying. So could we import that number into this so that to deal with Senator Sears objection about a media release? But the current medical parole statute is on page 20 of this bill. It states that they can be released prior to the minimum. If they have who's diagnosed as having a terminal serious mental condition and so forth. I don't know if that... It's different than the minimum. This is another minimum. Like, correctly if I'm wrong, in presumptive parole we're not speaking about the minimum in their sentence. We're talking about the minimum established in the presumptive parole statute. No, it's both a long minimum. So a minimum sentence is when the department and the defender is allowed to be supervised in the community. So that's who has served five years. Are you talking about the age of 65? Yes. She's talking about page 20. I'm talking about page 24 if you look at the medical parole. It has to be pre-minimal because at the minimum the department can release. Right. So we don't want to have that burden to have someone dying at a facility that is incredibly sick. It's very costly. It's not human. We'd rather parole them, get them in a hospital. It's all limited on how much time people perform their minimums. Yes. So why would your, why does it just take care of impassioned care, by the way? Because it, that's if it's a, um, a diagnosed, um, what's it called, terminal illness. You wouldn't... No. It could also be a serious condition. It says a terminal or serious medical condition. So it doesn't say a terminal. It says a terminal or serious medical condition. Right. So then the question, you have to render the offender unlikely to be completely capable of getting a dangerous society. So the question would be why is medical parole about being used for your case? Uh, because he doesn't have a terminal illness. He has a serious condition. Um, he has medical conditions and he's been in the hospital in, at Springfield for many times. What's a serious medical condition? Oh, I, I don't know what the serious medical condition is. Great. Has he had a thought on something there? Well, um, but he's, he's been told he's not eligible to apply for parole. I'm just looking at an internal DOC memo that talks about what a serious medical condition is. Yeah. This helps. Um, an incurable progressive illness, um, or a person who's suffered a debilitating injury from what, from which they will not recover. So it's his turn. It's a serious fear. I know. What is a serious medical condition? Like to help us, it's a department and to help everyone. It's like, what is a clear definition of what you want is, is allowed us to operationalize it. Um, so I mean, that's what Commissioner Baker was talking about yesterday. We need, we need good definitions about what this body really wants us to do. Somewhere we ever define a serious medical condition? She just read it. Didn't you? Well, this is fine. Right, that's an internal piece. Yeah, but I'm talking about somewhere in law we're going to define what a serious medical condition is. I don't think there's any context for the Department of Corrections, but. No, I'm in the Department of Health somewhere. Yes, I'm sure there is. I'll just comment on one last section. If you don't mind, it's, it's, it's the report for with the Sentencing Commission because I brought this to the Sentencing Commission at our meeting last Monday and they, and I'm speaking on behalf of the commission as the secretary at this point, not as a representative of the state's attorneys. The Sentencing Commission has some very serious concerns around the report requires them to propose standardized sentencing guidance. They've spent the last two years trying to avoid doing that because they think that, you know, that I mean, this is someone editorializing but they think that that might actually increase the sentences overall if they propose guidelines for sentencing. They were very supportive of the second half, this kind of subsection B about looking at all the data and trying to determine kind of plea agreements and sentence lengths and what data is insufficient in the criminal justice system and criminal history, offensive airty but they were somewhat reluctant to come back to the legislature and propose sentencing guidelines. I've I've tried to resign from that commission. I've I've got rejected and I've commissioned my letter of resignation but I'm not coming up here on a Monday for a two-hour meeting when I'm going to be up here all weekend and it's national impossible and I try to call in but I was busy this Monday with doctors appointments and taking my wife to the dentist and doing other stuff so I apologize for no senator being there but it's not a fault. I've never resigned from anything before and been rejected. It's it's stuff for the Sentencing Commission is this is really the Sentencing Guidelines would be waiting very much in the policy. We're talking but the earlier conversation about having information for everybody about programming was not the Sentencing Guidelines because you're still able to fashion a sentence that meets the needs of the community. One thing that Commissioner Baker said last night and it really struck me how to fix a jail was the idea that communities need to be buying into this and I think to a large extent they haven't yet been buying to and that comes through the state's attorneys, the attorney general you know ACLU members, whatever else people need to the general support when they do a poll for this type of thing but some community members haven't bought in I know that I posted something about justice reinvestment somebody did on Facebook in my local area and the first thing was all of you liberals letting everybody out of jail and I wrote I'm doing the same thing and it strikes me as the community's need and I think he was absolutely right and that really comes from state's attorneys. In the second half of this charge which says during the 2020 legislative interim the chief attorney general, defender general, corrections state's attorneys and we would add CRG because apparently they have some federal grants and they're already halfway through this process they'll look at demographics sentencing outcomes what current data systems we have what we're lacking and how to propose measures to fill those gaps that's the part that was supported by the sentencing commission it was this idea that they would turn around and use that data to come up with sentencing guidelines which was for the most part somewhat reluctant to do so it would really just be kind of eliminating the earlier part of this charge and leaving the second half of the charge which is kind of creating the data structures that would allow the legislature to come up with sentencing guidelines that they so chose alright thank you we were talking about do we need it if this is written correct or should we provide thinking we maybe want to provide medical furlough and not do compassionate beliefs that you could come under medical furlough I realize you're concerned about your distinction it's hard to write a bill for one person but more than more than that one person I think that it just seems to me that if we have a lot if we have people in prison who are old and who are no longer a danger considered a danger to a public safety that why would we want to keep them there on page 15 it says if they've served 15 years I mean 5 years but not necessarily the minimum sentence but 5 years so they're 65 years old they've served 5 years they're not a danger to anybody there's an appropriate placement for them in the community in support why would we want to keep them and spend that money I guess is my I guess they run into the spouse of the person they murdered in the grocery store but that could always be the case even if they served their maximum I mean I don't want to discount victim rights but I think often victims are not going to be in favor of things that might alleviate the problem we're talking about in the system and in this particular case the victim's wife has absconded because she falsely claimed that they were married and cashed in on his life insurance policy to the dismay of his real life so she's not about to run into anybody but could you look at page 25 page 15 is that's medical parole what page is that page 20 that's about medical parole this is different from the medical parole this is the permission that says that if you're prior to your minimum department has the authority to release you prior to your minimum if you have a terminal or serious out of the condition that renders you no longer a threat to the public so I think that what I was just pointing out to the terrorists this provision has it specifically provides that because the department has access to the prisoners medical records I can give those medical records to the parole court there's like an automatically built-in function here for how a determination can be made about whether or not a person does have a condition that would render them less practicing the public could you put the on line page 15 line 19 this is that person lying if you're 65 or older could you put that in there or let that in satisfy everybody I don't know if that leads if you have it somewhere in there then four or five years but not sure of the minimum terms because that is the question for I think you call it the parole here the same thing over here on the medical parole then I think we have to define serious medical conditions differently than internally define them because didn't that define it as terminal we didn't define it no, no Brinn read the internal document, the DOC document that defines serious right so incurable and progressive if you have had three heart attacks is that an incurable and progressive it isn't so we need to define serious incurable illnesses that won't kill you right but a terminal illness the presumption is it's going to kill you right don't we all are on our way home tonight walking don't we all have a terminal illness my sister would give you an example 18 months is considered a terminal illness can you suggest me a perhaps I'm not sure a lot needs to be done with medical parole for a law I think those systems work if we're looking at something in the language where Senator White is looking at about someone that has 65 years or older this is a public you commit a compassionate parole where they're eligible for parole and we'll have a parole board will review and make all the risk factor determinations do they meet the criteria are they safe you know that so outside the department we have another board committee that reviews that and makes those determinations I would be okay I think it's going to be a small pool I would recommend the language that Senator Sears pointed out 19 through page 15 line 19 page 22 not be a round presumptive parole but just a regular parole piece and let it go through the regular hearing process call it some passionate parole but their criteria I don't know if we can name it I don't think there was ever any intent on making it art presumptive when will you do that and leave all those conditions at the beginning like that there's a place to live a place to that would all be required as part of the parole decision yeah okay regular parole decision uses those criteria we don't need that language because they're not going to send them out under the bridge so now if we made this change Jeanette's person would be eligible for parole but not guaranteed well no there's never a guarantee just saying he's told now he's in that was changed with it but it makes it more eligible you know when it allows the victims have an opportunity to be heard this is an open hearing that allows and all the factors can come out to play it's one of those where a hearing would be better than just a no that's fine I think that was always the intent of the original bill I'm going to take that out and pass that so we're all agreed we've come to a conclusion how can we go through the bill I'll read it and make sure that I read it I said I'll read it when we get it and make sure that I'm okay with it but I think I am I think you are thank you for your magnanimous support I just can I just make one something I just got it I mean in addition to this person that I really feel quite compassionate toward I was very distressed when I heard that at Springfield they're thinking they need to install more wheelchair accessible cells and facilities and I'm thinking holy Moses why would we want to keep people in wheelchairs in I know so aren't there better shouldn't all those people be able to say if I have a place to live you can put an ankle bracelet on me you can do whatever somebody can take care of me outside of here doesn't it make sense for us to anyway you tortured somebody to death well they should still they not they're not all torturers they're in that group well some of them may be but not all of them are torturers no do a blanket no I'm not doing a blanket shouldn't they be eligible to at least appeal to somebody to the parole board or somebody to say someone might go in when they're in a wheelchair that's true that's the reality of some people there or somebody might pretend they need a wheelchair that's right what's his name Harvey Harvey is a walker but he climbs up the stairs without the walker that's right he'll cause me to blind and couldn't walk it was a great movie about it anyway we've got a lot of decisions to make here um I need to focus we need to focus on where we need to make decisions we put brackets in places one of the biggest decisions we have to make is places where ever she's put yeah brackets and I can't remember where to put brackets the one I see right now from doing this page is on 21 is that the first correct I think the first one the decisions that have to be made through the bill in order are section 7 that the roll eligibility for parole and for them for parole that's starting on page 15 with that first section I think we've got direction on to that first section we also have page 4 I think page 4 we're taking out page 4 uh isn't that for us to decide I think that's what we're taking out because that's what's going to be replaced by that we're all gone okay got it we're no longer compassionate so but you do have this compassionate piece on the new compassionate page 15 whether you want to make that that listed for a page 12 where are you page 15 so this is what we were just talking about the parole um eligibility for a presumptive is over 65 this is not going to be presumptive this is going to be a regular so he wouldn't be eligible anyway my guy wouldn't because he killed somebody he shot somebody well that case if we limited to people who have not limited or big 12 then I mean I'm I'm fine with taking those two requirements out as long as we're taking them out only for the medical parole not for presumptive parole it's for it's a new parole eligibility yeah it's for medical but it's not for medical well it is part of the medical because age now it isn't necessarily medical if you're 65 and served at least five years of your minimum you would be eligible to apply for regular parole not presumptive I know but we're moving it that was the suggestion of the parole board to move it to regular parole you could apply for regular parole and then all those conditions would apply you would have to have no longer be a date the problem is we're referring to this as compassionate presumptive and something else no I understand but it's like the confusion is that none of the existing headings that we're using for this are we any longer using so I get a little backwards in terms of what this is now being called so you're referring to this now as compassionate we need to see it I think we do A the statute is broken up page between parole it's broken up into two sections right now A is regular parole and B is presumptive parole so this although it could be rewritten so it doesn't have that language about presumptive release right now it is an abortion of the statute that's just about regular parole so we could name it something else I prefer that we don't add another name to something then we're kind of branching off into our 32 legal status as I think it would just be eligible for regular parole at that point so it is where it will be under A it's going to be reworded so it's clear that it's not presumptive yeah so is the idea that we take out the limitation on I would take it out is that specific mm-hmm they're over 65 and they serve five years and then you don't and you don't want to they were not sentenced to life without parole they want to make that clear because we're dealing but that's only 16 people most people have just make it clear it's not life without parole because then you're really opening the door to something real and then I don't think communities I don't think you want the to refer back to the other sections because they have yeah okay the next decision is a presumptive parole now so page 17 the criteria that a person is not eligible for presumptive parole if they committed either with the defense or a big parole that's fine but we decide you want it to be committed to big 12 or well wait yeah I want I wanted the way they want for the next two years and then two years from then allow this to that way there gives the legislature time to be considerate gives the parole board to see how it goes with the smaller just the same as we did with raising the age to 18 it gives two years to the legislature the department can come back the parole board can come back and say if we do this we're going to have to we need all these kinds of resources so they can come back with something Are you going to add the provision in the law with the dates or is it going to be a report out prior to the year? I'll be in the law. If you want three years we can do three I don't care I want at some point have a statute that we're going to go to allow listed crimes to be presumptive for all I don't care about the big 12 ever being part of it but I think that there's a number of people who are convicted of listed crimes with very low risk that we're missing in this group and we're too offense oriented that's what my goal is is to move from an to a risk oriented system so that we're only holding people, somebody said it last night, that we're only holding people that were Professor Fox, we should be holding people we're afraid of and not people we're mad at the only way you're going to get there is at some point in looking at that listed crime and you committed one of the big 12 that I don't have as much sympathy but even then there's State Attorney Jordan said many of them are many murderers are unlikely to repeat the crime they've already taken care of it they can take care of it well I mean until we have another argument or something well it's like you don't have to worry unless you're married that's the guy that's already too wise you know you don't have any chance of being given that's not a joke actually it's a serious case so there may right now encourage statute on sex offenders the department has approved the release of all sex offenders from the Brooklyn case so that may actually you may have a conflict in statute right now and however I don't want to get resolved as fine that they could be presumably paroled but then you have other statute that says the department has to approve all the releases you know based on this other criteria so those two might not they may line up but there could be cases that don't line up and then why statute Trump well act one Trump's that is specific to act one act one is the Brooklyn and that the Trump if it's a sex offender the department would have to approve the release then that works that way we're fine with this our current process two years or three years I don't think two years should give us another time to see how things are how we're doing when this happened with race and age was there any language around contingencies but sort of formal updates or conversation points with the board they all with raising the age they come in every year we're going to deal with the bill pretty soon makes more technical amendments but people generally recognize it's coming so there are always technical amendments but nobody has nobody's come back and said let's not do it this year so obviously they can always come back and say you know extended another year but thus far they haven't they're prepared for it but there have been each year technical amendments to youth offender technical amendments to the juvenile statutes just Judge Pearson had one and other I think David sure had a couple and the defense bar had a couple so every you know people are getting prepared for it so there may be things that they need to do but we're small enough so I think people feel comfortable in approaching us about the technical the two pieces I can imagine that would need to have a conjunction with that movement or the movement in that direction would be making the board a full time board to and to increase resources generally forward to accommodate the workload and then also further cleaning up for that would be a consideration for the future legislature that's what it may be made you know they've got seven one staff member so it may take additional staff members or making one or two members of the board similar to the because the environmental board has part time and full time members they have one or two members that are full time and one remained or remained part time so it may be a combination right yeah is that okay with it? so I'm going to start with listed to take effect I mean with the men no no listed takes effect in 2020 I'm going to limit it to people so people who committed a list crime will not be eligible for presumptuous release and then at three years people who committed two years people who committed a big 12 not the other 12 right I'll let the future someone should put that on the ticker to make sure that's addressed well I don't know who's going to be here 12 years I don't know who's going to be here two years from now is Senator Kinchel said yesterday she may be lucky enough to share an ag in a new senate who's tired of a downer like leave me okay all right old wolves are leaving anyway what's the challenge old lions old wolves so page 21 can I just ask when Matt Valerio was here he did talk about clear convincing and presumptive parole he did talk about clear convincing and presumptive parole he had this problem with he felt that the burden of proof was being shifted or was placed on he spoke about an earlier draft okay okay okay I ran this by my colleague Carl and he looked at Pennsylvania's presumptive parole legislation which is more doubt even than from us considering but something he threw out there is that it could read something like the board shall release unless and then the DOC would meet the burden of proof would be on DOC to identify the conditions by which the person shouldn't be released but the language can kind of have that presumption built in that unless these things are present as identified by the department questions I don't know if that muddies the water but it actually helps it all but it just specifies what that there's clear and convincing evidence that there's a reasonable probability that he may cannot be released without a sense of community or is not willing or capable of fulfilling the obligations of a law abiding citizen whatever that means that means someone not wanting parole or someone not wanting to go out they don't want to go out they don't want to be released and I don't want any parole officer to hang over my head and I'm determined I'm going to drink my Budweiser as a matter of fact Michael Karpner could find Michael Karpner I know I forgot what you were saying and who cares if he drinks his Budweiser I said and who cares if he drinks well if it's on parole it's not on parole I know that was always connected to his domestic well if it's connected to that do you lie death resulting? no no no I know I said but if he okay I got it I should probably stop using him as an example but nobody drinks Budweiser really good kid time saved and he's just determined that and I try to talk to him I talked to him about it he lasts about 30 days out after he maxes out and is back to drinking and then unfortunately the guy of mine he was drunk he had a guy on his life he killed him and he was in he didn't want to get out he was going to go back to drinking no matter what so that's the next place we buy some alcohol this is the new community supervision scroll so he turned to actually the next page page 29 this is about the department interrupt and we have talked about this is a tough one explain to me exactly what this what this means because in my mind the shorter makes sense but I need to understand people got it correct so if I had to report this on the floor I want to make sure I know what I understand that we're talking about the interrupt in a furlough and when the interrupt could be up to a year as I understand it of the current law the interrupt means you go back you go back you're out on furlough you commend the technical violation we're going to interrupt you for a year and then you're going to go back out after going through the graduated section after going through the graduated section if you look at this part this one here so after you've done all this your interrupt could be up to a year the question is at what point does do you get your prisoner's rights or some other defense to say wait a minute I don't think I should be back for a year I shouldn't be back for 72 hours for what I did I don't think you should I'm going to be a good boy from now on I'm not going to be in any trouble I'll do everything you told me to do I'll serve my 72 hours well this says you don't get anything for 6 months or 90 days whichever you at what point do you get some kind of a hearing into your interrupt and this says when you're interrupted 6 months or longer or 90 days or longer that malaria is saying it should be 24 hours so let me ask can I ask the question when you there's an interrupt does DOC say we're going to interrupt it for 6 months or a year ahead of time and say that so what this is saying is if DOC says your interrupt is going to be for more than 6 months then they get it or if it's going to be for more than 90 days but that's defined up front this is just notifying the defender general of the interrupt they're not saying there's going to be anything happening and what Matt is saying I don't know if they're going to be interrupted 24 hours that may be a little bit of a short period we do have a process that happens so we do have someone is lodged and we have 7 days for a hearing so we do process hearing internally and at that point they're found in violation of their supervision and we continue to hold them then at that point right now there's a determination from the local site to the local office, local PO we'll make a determination how long what are we looking to do and what's the violation if it's over 90 days those ones over 90 days will come to central office only central office will approve anyone staying in more for 90 days unless it's like certain like automatics like someone's picked up a new felony charge it's an automatically revoked until the conclusion of the charge is if someone absconded that we change the escape law there's no more escapes until it's on a discussion and so how we address that is that there's an automatic 6 month interrupt if someone has absconded supervision and will have had a felony conviction prior to that so there are certain things that happen automatically for those rare cases but the shorter the time frame there's an immensely burden applied for both offices so I mean we can make either work at 6 or 9 anything only less than 90 it starts doing a lot more paperwork training I would say the absolute minimum would probably be 30 to 45 days because it takes time after the hearing especially it goes to the central office staffing to actually just kind of do the paperwork and have it reviewed sometimes medical or mental health assessments might need to be done so there's a time frame kind of built in just to get the determination point Matt's not here but he sent me an email and I don't know if other members got it I believe you had a comment on this yeah and when looking at Paul Goschilling advocacy director of the ACI when you're looking at the furlough mail reps which are of the prison admissions I believe it's 83% of those are for 90 days or less so if you set this at 90 days that would not be capturing the vast majority of furlough interrupts and since the interruption of furlough is one of those things that we've been looking at and saying this is driving the prison rate admission rates we would be in line with the dependent general or say there should be no patient anytime someone is re-incarcerated but then 90 days would be probably about 80% of the time I don't know if the dependent general would be about 80% of the time that someone has interrupted out of that furlough okay 38 of the Justice Center January 20th report what's shocking is that 2929 estimated individuals have furlough returns over the past four years with a total of 5,800 furlough returns on guns over a four-year period and 1,288 of those people have two or more furlough returns within the period frankly I understand what the department is concerned about if you have 2929 estimated individuals that comes out to dividing by four that's a lot of people who have a lot of returns each year the 1,288 or 44% of two more furlough returns I'm wondering if it would make sense to go to 30 days for everyone accept those within their first return which would be a shorter time frame because when you're returning somebody for technical violation it's their first time getting interrupted they've obviously violated all this wouldn't a shorter time frame be more appropriate in most cases so generally first returns are coming in for short sanctions generally we start talking about sanctions of 90 days or 6 months to a grade or they've already had multiple return episodes at a lower level for graduate sanction which is agreed upon by the offender so a short term graduate sanction is not the department putting someone in for three or four or five days it's agreed upon based on the violation that's the move of the formal violation process that's usually five days or less so as you violated these conditions and the move going down the formal violation process you're taking ownership and responsibility we'd like to resolve it with a short sanction to hear the requirements come out so they've already, that's agreed upon we don't impose graduate sanctions to agree upon resolution to a formal violation in lieu of a formal violation with the offender and an offender back when I used to do short term interrupts at Woodside for kids in 204 they married parents gave me like 72 hours to make something of that nature now again we were holding a bed open and the question was how long would DCI pay for the bed if the kid was at Woodside we had I think it was 72 hours or something like that so we understood the short term nature of interrupting somebody but this is when you're 30 days you've lost your apartment, you've lost your job you've lost everything in the community that you weren't there so a female for example some males I suppose they've also lost us later childs they've been working to gain to return so I definitely think 90 days was too long I don't know if 24 hours is too short and I don't know if Matt was saying that just to just to get attention or what the question actually it would be 30 days it makes sense then that it also I don't want to over complicate further but would that also have to kick it up to central office at 30 days I've been reminded that everybody needs to identify their sexual record unfortunately Peggy would prefer that people say Ellen Ellen will be with the Justice Center apologies we've been trying to be informal here but it's too informal right now central office is notified when the interrupt is recommended that 90 days are longer and so that becomes kind of the natural place so then also notified the defender general's office there's 30 days for notifying the defender general's office it feels like you all would have to know too and that's fine you would reduce the time frame that the local sites can make determination and the local offices they have the 7 day window to have their hearing and make their recommendation and if it is 30 days or longer it goes to the central office and the defender general's office or whatever I would just recommend whatever that time threshold is for notifying the defender general should also be going to central office too so that we don't have Dale and his staff blind to what's going out to other folks in time length spent furloughed before returning to central office and car curation was 4 months that happened in the first 6 months right 6 to 8 months usually you're getting furloughed after around 7 or 8 on average so people who went back inside off of furlough that typically happened within the first 4 months people who stay on furlough and they get to furlough that usually happens within 7 to 8 months it's the December presentation that has the length of stay for furlough returns and interrupts that Valgo referred to and it does show that 31% of people on furlough go back in going for 5 days or less which we had worked with DOC to say probably the graduated sanctions folks and then Valgo's right 83% of people on furlough are going in for 90 days or less so those are the shorter term but 3 months or shorter interrupts so if we can abide by the front loading also services I guess I could be comfortable at least it's a better than 90 is 30 that's the best we can do and that gives the Defender General's office right, the Personer's Right then gets to look at what DOC has as far as this is why we're recommending this and they have the option to decide if they want to work with their client to challenge that it doesn't trigger an automatic hearing so hopefully that comes down some of the administrative stuff but it does mean other eyes are on that consideration and it could leave there if necessary oh I'm sorry you don't have to do it every time just like the first time when people listen when they ask for the audio and they listen they want to know what's talking it's up to them to figure out to identify the voice the second time comments on this subject next so we're saying 30 well do I hear 10 agnostic I prefer a shorter time 30 but it may be administratively difficult to get below 30 so let's do 30 and next year or next year if it looks like it can be handled differently it can go to a lower number it would be a pretty significant this would be a big shift which I think is and there are other potential eyes on the decision ranking um so I think yeah can we go to the money or do we have any other issues why don't we take a break now and come back at a good break would that be good we came back a quarter of a whole hour break yes productive break well productive for Brent and Brent may need help from some of you in this so are you going to do it in the area well I'm trying to do like goal wise because Senator Benning is not here because I had well I might get as close as possible but I had sent a schedule for 10.15 on Friday the competency stand trial and insanity defense witnesses to be announced so if we can get so close on this bill that we can vote it out next Friday in an hour and 15 minutes then I would put it at 10.15 and not upset Judge Gerson and David Shures testimony on S234 the miscellaneous beneficiary bill that's my goal so that's why I want to see if we can get close now one Ellen from the Justice Center I'm speaking later today with Sarah Robinson and Karen from the network to sort of nail down pieces around the domestic violence stuff so that won't come until later this afternoon if that's okay well if we can get you know I would like to talk about money when we come back and I'd realize that you're going to talk to them later about that my idea is to beef up the community violence I don't know if 400,000's needed or what but maybe it's more maybe it's less but that obviously can come up during the appropriations process as well why don't we take an hour to get back I just have a question for you do I understand that you want to do that? I know it's going to take a while to get back I too we should get the copies they're really easy to do oh okay okay yeah what are you doing with them I don't know anything I'm just going to say that's right that's right that's awesome Matt we want to testify on the issue of the flow waiting for Brynda to come back with a copy we weren't able to be here we're not going to testify on that issue of interruption we're waiting for a redraft unfortunately we redraft at 30 days this was kind of kind of the elephant in the room that nobody was really seeing and I spoke to Susan's rights office about what you know whether we were getting towards the issue the bottom line is with furlough the way the statute was written if you remember this when good time went away furlough went in but at the time DOC and the committee apparently the legislator the whole didn't want anybody really challenging the furlough decisions that DOC was making so the statute was a sole discretion for administering furlough to the department of corrections so even though they have they have to have a due process hearing when you violate somebody's furlough which is basically a trained corrections officer who they say well you were drinking or you were or you don't have residents or whatever it is I find that you violated that's the hearing you don't have a person you don't have a right to counsel at it and and you don't really and you don't have a right to challenge it you then have you can grieve the decision but you're grieving into the same people who just decided it the next step is there's a staffing meeting to determine what happens as a result of your violation and I got more detail about this earlier which is I guess for 90 day or less interrupts that decision is made at the local level if the interrupt is going to be more than 90 days they do it at central office but that decision can be made at any time after that when they can get the people together they need to to make that decision but again those decisions are solely within the discretion of the department of corrections and they're not subject to review we early on sued a number of times and lost all of those cases as the supreme court and the crowd courts all held that the legislature had identified furlough as a effectively beating in jail while you're not in jail and the details of that incarceration are solely within the discretion of the department of corrections so whatever decisions are being made to violate people one way or the other are not reviewable and there's nothing in the bill that changes that I mean if what you're trying to do is get at making sure that people who are being violated for technical violations and the like have I thought that you're trying to get at trying to make sure that people have the ability to challenge that if necessary but maybe not nice question notifying your office doesn't do anything so in other words what you're saying is you want your office notified and then you go to court well the suggestion was what you're saying well there has to be an allowance that the individual has the right to have it reviewed as any other government action under rule 75 which means going to court would be going to court because right now we don't have the right to do that so even if they notified our office if you're triaging things you're not going to spend time on anything that you have to do for it so you let us know but it's not what you do legally take that out take the notification for yourself if it does nothing well didn't this whole thing identify an issue with Feroa I mean isn't that the point well I did but we're not booking much out of it that's for sure not at this point not at this point well do you want to comment for the record it's Ellen Ellen Wheeling from the Justice Center Act 75 it's rule 75 it's just a challenge to government action and this exists currently from probation it exists for any government action and it's in the rules of civil procedure any time you challenge a a decision by a government entity that you don't agree with you file a case in superior court in the civil division and ask that they review it I would answer your I was just going to say I wonder if this gives to a piece of what you have been talking about last week's senator about wanting some opportunity for there to be potential for court review of something so if this then if the notification happens at 30 days to central office the defender general's office prisoner's rights determines that there's something that they want to challenge can rule 75 can the furlough statute under this the way to allow hearing something that you'd be challenging either the finding that the person had violated or the staffing with the the interrupt that the staffing does later let me say a couple of things hope is that eventually other than compassionate furlough and presumptive parole and the medical furlough or furlough for a temporary visit we eventually end furlough and move to a system that has presumptive parole for the vast majority of those incarcerated so in another place in the bill is we have now non-listing crimes presumptive parole in two years there will be listed crimes presumptive parole eventually you lessen the need for furlough in the meantime how do we deal with an interrupt of a year which seems like why bother interrupting because putting it back in jail it's the short term 72 hours you know I understand and if this is accurate then they built a pretty good case to get to that 72 hour interrupt or whatever that sanction is but you know an interrupt of a year is a long time or 90 days even is a long interrupt and how do you provide some kind of somebody looking at that distinction by DOC we had even challenged these on abuse of discretion by the department because traditionally even if you don't have explicit ability to review you can always review the department or government agencies action for abusing their discretion and in this case the court is found in the case of furlough you can't even do it for abuse of discretion because they have 100% complete discretion whether it's abused or it isn't and you know that was I think part of I think honestly it's probably what you were intending when good time went away furlough became the means of release of choice is that you didn't want to have that the I understand that we're hoping at some point to get to something beyond non-listed crimes we tried to do a review on short notice of the number of people on non-listed crimes who would be subject to the the presumptive currently who are being the numbers are incredibly small based on what we understand I understand you got to kind of take tippy toes into this perhaps but you know we have grander ideas I guess well it took 15 years to get to this point to take some time to get away from that Ellen from the Justice Center you had just earlier pointed out that rule 75 applies for folks even when they're incarcerated for disciplinary rule violations right that's also kind of compelling argument in favor of what Matt is saying but if someone's incarcerated and they are you know accused of major disciplinary rule violation they actually right now have more recourse to Christina's rights than if they're on furlough so that's kind of I had not appreciated that until about 15 minutes ago we also use it with medical care cases and other types of issues that occur within the facility we did but it doesn't apply to furlough from a corrections point of view though I mean we don't want to at what point does this become are you do we annoy them too much well you wrote me 24 hours well because what that does is allow you if someone's going to get revoked on furlough I mean all it requires is an email that says hey so it's been revoked we're going to have a due process fairing on at some time like right now they don't have a right to counsel they don't have a right to review outside so I don't think it's hard to do but maybe it's hard to do damn as far as we won't have a due process considering until after they're lodged so it's not an immediate response sometimes you convert return to the same shape return we suspend their furlough the actions that notice the suspension of furlough while the due process is occurring do it as like they're detained at that point we detain them until we have hearing we have trained caring officers certified by the commissioner to determine if the province of the evidence is guilt or not and then they make a determination at that point if they're guilty the local site will make a determination on how to resolve that way of dating behavior and that's when Matt got into it was over 90 days and there's like sanctions under 90 days anything over 90 days of department of justice yes do you identify with the record please this is your first I apologize I was finding the doubt I'm sorry I thought you were I'm sorry I thought you were I'm sorry I thought you were actually asking Dale I was asking Dale but that's okay that might be a good question we're wanting to I've dealt with I don't know if I've said my name before corrections and the due process we do have a set time frame the time period when the due process has to occur I think having opening us up to judicial review is transparent and I don't it's done with other parts of our system having it done through the furlough violation system will probably be a big change I don't see any issues in I think it's going to be able to challenge what they want I don't think there's a lot of gross I think we're making good decisions so I'm confident that we having a due process it goes back to what it was I don't want to understand something that I might have missed with all these things going on and if a person's brought in for say 15 days you're not even going to have a hearing so that might be already out before you have the hearing I mean they're going to have a new process you're going to have a new process so sometimes for example so on a Friday night Saturday night our officers are out they pick up a violent offender who's been drinking he is kind of disruptive at that point we can lodge him we notify them that the furlough is suspended it might be Monday that we look at the case and say you know what we're going to give you a three to four or five day sanction and we'll kick you out on Wednesday so there would not be a due process it would be out again so so how do we write that that kind of stuff by the way it happens all the time we do rule 75 cases involving department corrections all the time and by the time we get to a hearing the issues move so we're asking for some kind of dental care that hasn't occurred and then we get you know once there's two into it they do the dental care cases over it happens all the time and you know something like this that we found out before we would even if we learned about it it would just be we don't have the time to mess with cases that are so the question is how do we write this into the bill right now it would be 30 days if the interrupt is longer than 30 days or that they would notify choose a number it would take us you know unless it was a discretion where we would have to go in with the habeas or something which right now we can't do on furlough's decisions we wouldn't even get to it we can act very quickly if we have to in certain cases where if we're a state judge we've done that before not on furlough because we're not allowed but we can act quickly if we need to the extraordinary exception literally a couple of years or that way you're right the issue will resolve itself before we get it by 30 days for the vast majority of it it's odd that this is coming up I had a client call me two days ago, an old client and I'm like jeez that guy is calling me I figured something was wrong with him and he said no my nephew a couple of years ago he got caught selling drugs a year ago he was furlough and he's been out and off and out on furlough two or three times the last year for various violations and you know we I think they're getting jerked around so what's the what's the problem he's like well you know he was in Dismas house and the people who were in his room before him got thrown out for using drugs in the Dismas house and during one of the times they came in I guess they found a needle in the drapes and they said you gotta go but you know it wasn't they didn't charge, no you can get charged possession of paraffin out of here violating any kind of drug things but he lost his furlough for lack of housing that was how it was written up now to me if everything is as it's purports to me he lost his housing but through no fault of his own and he ends up they're talking about a 90 day section before he can get out again I think it's a problem but we never have all the facts that these hearings are about I did send an investigator to check on it and it does seem like what he's saying seems legit and PRO actually thinks that he's getting messed with a lot of those points that I get come from Dismas Surgery by the way it needs to be a common denominator there and I had a conversation yesterday with an offline meeting with Derek Derek and I'm meeting in here that was an eye-opener but failure of many programs to evolve to meet what DOC needs and then last night I had people coming to me about Dismas Surgery and how they should be used more and they didn't want to get into a long debate about maybe the reason they're not being used is because you have rules that don't allow for any kind of hope so our suggestion is that we have the ability to challenge furlough violations by very convincing evidence same-standard right in that in the presumptive parole section that is haven't been reviewable and one of the suggestions that came in my mind about acidic air is if it's if there's an abuse of discretion within the 30-day period perhaps we could be able to challenge for abuse of discretion as opposed to just the standard it's a higher standard a very high standard but it would allow us to do that if that occurred well I don't even know that guy would be an abuse of discretion necessarily because but there might be other types of things that might be an unfortunate case and I don't know the rest of the history of the guy he might have a problem I don't know the whole story but that might be one if it went beyond 90 days we would want to say look I wasn't in charge of violating anything that was his fault he didn't have a place to stay then alright, thank you Matt thank you so you're planning on having a phasing in non-listed crimes after two years yeah are you doing some sunset on that or is it just going to be written in that just when you're written in that one actually just going to go over the new draft the latest draft if you have any questions I'm happy to hear them the new drafts keep flying so every time I turn around there's another draft well luckily luckily we're great staff we're going to change things in a moment so so we go over the new draft drafts it's actually getting smaller and across the page I think it is down at 34 pages now it's condensed justice alright, good morning committee, we're in here legislative council for the record we talked to you about draft 4.4 so the new sections that I've changed are in gray so we can sort of unhighlighted all the areas that we've already gone over so the first section that has the new language in it is page 9 and this is the probation section so this provides that this is the section that talks about credit for their minimum sentence do you have one from that? I don't that doesn't have an iPad that needs one do you want an iPad? so this is the section that provides that person can get credit for their minimum sentence while they're on probation so we added some language here that provides that the probationer doesn't, that credit stops approving the day that an arrest warrant for the probationer is filed so this was changed from the day a violation is filed to the day that an arrest warrant is filed and then there's a new sentence that are on lines 12 to 14 that provides that the court can determine that a person who's returned to probation after an arrest can again start to accrue that credit towards their minimum sentence so it's up to the court to decide when that is being done again any comments from anybody either well I guess we should go over the lines 15 to 17 I don't think this is new but this just provides that once the person accrues credit it's equal to their maximum term then they can be discharged anybody with any comments on that? they don't have the bill yet they don't have the bill yet they can't see it yet refresh is that working Matt? okay now they got him you got it now? wait oh he's got your iPad? oh you want it back? no I said make sure you got it so if there's that question would the court write an order saying that in other words how would the probation help you? right it would be an order I think they're all set that's how I learned how to use an iPad I always suggest that heading at the very end language to the effect when that accrual shall commence make it clear that the court has the power to either grant it and if so when that shall commence that is a big issue I often wonder when they have authority to grant you know the basic then they just say all the corrections figure it out and then everybody fights over so it's easier if you can just let the court say whatever the credit is the question about this section would be in the event that there is a probation violation and you suspended if the court finds that there is not a violation do they get credit continued from the time when it was originally ceased they should I think if you allow the court to choose what date accrual can get reignited so to speak they have the ability to make that call no matter what day or time it was if they have the authority to do it from that day if there is a fine they go no violation ever find no violation oh yeah sometimes it comes in as you get a violation because you have a new crime and then you're acquitted then there is no violation the other thing is if they note the violation I have one of those before it's not that I had six jurors this morning I bounced out because they just figured that my client was obligated to understand and explain their innocence anyway some people get charged with violation to get the court and then there's a decision made that the violation will be noted but they'll be continued on probation so the judge has to have some flexibility the judge has the ability to do the judge has the flexibility to determine whether they can start to approve credit and when the approval is able to be given back to them when that should start that's good it's just sometimes you can go months before you get an actual probation violation hearing and if you're finding your favor you don't want to be losing six months because you couldn't get the court we can put those the judge has authority to determine when it will be when it finds there is no violation and then the time will occur there's never been a violation I don't know how to word that and then you can use those language too to give the court flexibility yet I choose to talk six months you could say the court may determine that the person returned to probation after an arrest should not have been denied the approval of credit so is the idea that the court has the authority to determine whether any days are lost going in, going here when they found that there's no violation then you would go back to give full credit you want to make sure that that is what happens I'm sure that happens the second is after the hearing the court could decide to continue to give the person credit going forward to give them back credit the court would have flexibility when there has been a violation but the court may say no more violations if you come back here and take all your what you're trying to get to but there are two different things going on if the court determines there has not been a violation but there should be no no interruption okay the next new language is on page 12 now we're in the parole section so bottom of page 12 this is that unnamed compassionate parole section so this provides that if a person is 65 or older does not serving life that parole has served five years but not their minimum then they're eligible for parole consideration unless they have unmet programming requirements or have a major disciplinary violation in the last 12 months the only thing I want to flag for the committee is I know we're going to be talking about life without parole on Thursday and I know that the chair has expressed a desire if we move forward with that to have it be prospective rather than retrospective just want to flag my own feeling that there is a kind of you know cognitive dissonance there where we're saying there's a philosophical moral imperative to get rid of life without parole unless it's already being served so just want to flag that that will be a perspective I'll bring to the life without parole discussion I agree with that especially listening to the 16 people who are on life without parole and how some of them were decided and some of them weren't it's pretty fluky but that's they may have may not have been but the purposes of this draft and this conversion of the bill do you want something yeah no I'm just saying and I think it's like the majority of the committee was willing to take the whole thing out so this is what's left so the person is 65 they were sent here for all this this is a compromise provision I think you're welcome to argue it I just wanted to make sure I was in sync with the language the person is 65 and they're hit with a sentence of say 25 to 40 years they're automatically eligible after five years mm-hmm eligible they're eligible so they still have to I understand I'm going to just explain to them how that works politically well politically it may not work out I mean some people are going to be upset about it some people are going to be upset about it no they're going to have to meet all the requirements of they have to have a place to have some supports in the community maybe have to wear an ankle brace whatever it is they're eligible that's all it's not under presumptive parole it's just under regular it's under it's under the heading of presumptive parole but it's okay this section of law provides for who is eligible for parole and who is eligible for presumptive parole it's under one statute so A is just regular parole eligibility and then B is presumptive maybe there should be two separate because there's these two separate steps sure thing so it would be denied unless the person has programming requirements that have not been fulfilled or has received a major disciplinary conviction with the previous 12 months pretty easy no they have to meet the other parole requirements also is it that this just makes them eligible for a hearing not be a danger to the community right this makes them eligible for a hearing unless they have these two right so unless they have those two conditions they're eligible for a hearing they have to meet the rest of the criteria I don't understand that right no there are lots of criteria to get considered once you get to 65 to get considered to apply for parole technically they could apply the day after they were convicted no they have to have to be over 65 years right if you can serve five years in one day then think about your 99 year old guy think about your 65 year old this just makes an eligible to apply it doesn't say they're going to get it well it's clear that they're just eligible yes I'd like to have that highlighted it says parole eligibility under A I know what it says I know it says parole eligibility I know soft on crime it says shall be eligible wait mine 22 says shall be eligible for parole consideration it really says it online just consideration in the release Mary Jane Ainsworth's parole board director the other piece is down in the release on parole is where the hearing factors come into play of how you can deny a hearing I mean deny parole all courtesans over 65 have to accuse themselves for parole under let's see at least who's left this could be a path to power for me some of the people that we've seen when we've gone into prison though forgetting I know that Senator White has a particular individual of mine but some of the people that I've seen or heard about who are currently incarcerated that are fairly elderly you begin to wonder if they shouldn't at least have a hearing to consider whether they're going to take it of the 80 year old who sends worried about Donald Trump when he gets son's doctors won't be in Vermont eligible for parole because he'd be with yeah but my guess is that he wouldn't have any place to go he has to meet those other criteria also on page 14 so we're still in presumptive parole page 14 line 6 and 7 so this is the language that limits presumptive parole to people who have not committed a listed crime the next section section 7 is the same section of law if you look at page 15 this limits presumptive parole to people who haven't committed a big 12 offence this section doesn't take effect until January of 2020 and the other one it just overwrites I was 21 2021 is when the whole bill takes effect January of 2023 oh this bill doesn't make effect until January 1 the appropriation should start so the effect of the section is broken out so we've got the I'll let you explain we're better off than that we'll be reading that on myself we'll get there alright so this one takes effect in 2023 so it gives that's right here limiting it to people who have not committed a big 12 offence takes effect in essentially two and a half years the next change is on page 19 so this is the again we're still in parole this provides of the department has that clear and convincing has a burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that one of these risk factors is true to deny a the next change is on page 27 can I ask about that for a second where are you? page 19 I understand that the standard got stuck in there which is 5 that was your suggestion the standard yeah yeah if it's presumptive if it's presumptive parole everybody who reads the other criteria would be going to the parole board whether or not recommends them or not and if the department so if the department wants to argue against their parole the department would then have to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the inmate doesn't meet these other two criteria right so this is where maybe I'm getting too too word smithy about this but it doesn't matter what the department recommends under the presumptive parole statute because they're presumed to be paroleable by virtue of the other factors all they're doing is giving notice of those people to our office and the parole board and then if they support it or they don't they go in and they have a case before the parole board so it's not like regular parole where you are recommending somebody for parole or not recommending somebody for parole it's presumed that they're going to be parole unless they object so that's what I'm saying who's they department so the department shall recommend presumptive release it doesn't that isn't really what's happening what's happening is they are somebody who's being put on notice that these people are eligible for presumptive parole based on the other factors and then if the department would recommend but if we had proposed it the other way I could see you objecting that we're moving away from the presumptive one not the presumptive is my statute well no this says the department shall recommend so there's a statutory mandatory piece that says they shall recommend except in these cases I would rather have it be phrased like that than say if the department wants to recommend it does this review and then recommends a certain subset you know what I mean I would rather than presumptive parole be framed as everybody is recommended shall be recommended unless I think that the reason it's phrased this way and I can certainly think about a different way to phrase it is to distinguish that the department is doing that upfront work of screening people so it's identifying people up front but then it's also screening those people additionally for these two risk factors so the idea is the parole board doesn't have to do that initial work of identifying everybody who's eligible and that's where you see the language in sub three here they do their administrative review on everybody who's been identified by the department but then the department has to also make this other make this other determination about the risk factors and those are the people who are automatically shifted to a hearing for I don't know if that makes sense I don't see it that way to me this is about the inmate so the inmate shall be presumed to be released on parole unless the department proves by clear and convincing evidence that the person has not met the two criteria that are there but the parole board is still tasked with doing an administrative review of each person because they can then based on that administrative review deny presumptive release because they think that based on still has to be based on convincing evidence they have to make findings that they are not and that's not clear by this because they keep starting with the department and the decision maker is not the department on presumptive parole it's the and the board has to make findings based on standard of proof with the burden of proof being on the there's two things in sequence right yes and I think that it was the decision of the committee that people who met the who that the department flag is having risk factors wouldn't be eligible for presumptive parole because they would be going to have a hearing on that that was the understanding that I took away from the committee's deliberation on this yeah you have a person who wants to max out and says I don't want parole I don't want parole officers on me and I want to adjourn my verbalizing or I don't want to be told me I can so that person why should they have to go through that process why should the parole board go through that process that's B if for some reason the department corrections feels through clear convincing evidence that releasing this person will be a detriment to the community then they would have to prove that that clear and convincing evidence to a hearing that's how I read it I see what you're saying is they're saying they're opposing this person there should be a hearing to determine whether they can assuming a person wants to be parole the person doesn't want to be parole there's no need for a hearing I agree with that any kind of other contested hearing where evidence has to be presented the department's position is whatever the department's position is if you go to a hearing the person can otherwise qualify for presumptive parole that's what I'm thinking so even if the department makes that recommendation even if the department makes that finding about the risk factors there's still automatically a hearing there has to be a hearing can we come back to this either later on this morning or Friday morning I'm just curious if you guys want to think about this well I can explain it better I can write it out the way I would do it but if you folks have made other deliberative decisions about the argument that that's fine too well obviously the other body they may disagree or something can I ask a question before we turn page 17 the mind of the 16 the mind of the 16 the mind of the 16 the mind of the 16 the mind of the 16 the mind of the 16 the mind of the 16 the mind of the 16 notwithstanding good catch that's what they pay me they pay you there are probably other parts of the statute that doesn't work with you so okay page 27 so I think this is what you were talking about when I came in this is the community supervision furlough interrupt process so it's a new language here that provides any interruption that furlough technical violation will trigger on the 30th day of the interruption trigger a central office review and notification of the general that may have changed I thought that the testimony was that they knew from the get go that it was going to be a 30 day and that the notice went out there rather than waiting until the 30th day that's how I understood that it worked but I may have missed so we had testimony from the department that they know if it's going to be 30 days, 60 days, 6 months whatever at the beginning and I thought the committee was interested in having the notice go out at the beginning of that rather than okay that was the way I understood it but I may have been wrong it's when the determination of the central office how I would see it as a determination that it's going to be 30 days whatever the determination would be not on the 30th day not on the 30th day but we would make a decision for the 30th day so that's good you're going to change the process and this is where potentially there might need to be an update on this if we follow the land thinking that times rule 75 for the prisoner's rights office that should be able to do something with that I don't know that's what the committee wants to do right now it seems like the notification would just be news for you as you command on it the notification as it currently is really doesn't mean anything even with this change because we can't do anything about it we define that all violations are ultimately at the discretion of the department so I don't know how it would work Matt but looking at rule 75 and whether you can apply it all you have to do is say that this decision is reviewable under rule 75 got it so is that what we'd like to see in the next yeah is that what you'd like to see in the next draft yeah rule 75 or reviewable for ponderance doesn't have to go to people for ponderance I'm not even sure if it would be we would make a determination I think it's a problem the violation of the term of vital ponderance and then our case staffing is a staff that would maybe use evidence would just make a determination so it's you you're making various that your wife we violated you we're doing a 90 day interrupt it's not really the decision that might be is what would be challenged was that an abuse of power or is that an inappropriate what we would look at is basically whether they found their own policies I mean that's so it would be ponderance or clear it's fine as my opinion is at least it would be reviewed it'll reviewable now it's just not so huge for ponderance page 28 very good time we just changed the month to 30 days oh yeah let's make sure the person comes in on the 15th of February you're going to do their good time would be based on the 15th or 15th of the 10 or 15th of 15th the guy next to him could sit on the 16th and you're going to do is 16th I mean I'm just setting up the darn math problem so we're going to be doing rule I am not at the Senate conference and so we'll have to figure out how to I'm thinking for like but appropriate it I think that's how we're going to do we're not going to want to have 30 different start dates that's what I want to avoid just for you guys and for the prison math is embarrassing quite a bit now I'll introduce myself Monica Weaver Administrative Services Director at the Department of Corrections so right we're working on the rule and that is absolutely our plan so that we don't have these multiple start days each day of the month we're going to have to figure out what kind of new people the price they need if they come in sort of so the guy the woman comes in on the 15th she might get three and a half three four days something like that we'll have to figure that out but if they come in on the 20th they might get some percent of it let's do whole days it won't be a half day I remember where Jack used to let people out they'd bring them in at 11.59 let them out at 12.01 that's two days right there that's two that's better for two that's very good it still happens 12.01 that's it's hard to get a ride it's hard to get a ride so so anyway that would be you have the emergency rule making authority there so that should be the supreme place coming in okay good there are some changes to the racial disparities report requirements on page 32 it just provides that the group shall work with the administrative director of racial equity and the racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel and they have to work with the crime research group for the analyses and use the work with the crime research group to identify existing data and it also sets out that there's an interim report on December 1 to the justice oversight committee and a final report on July or January 15 to the standing committees what? and then section 20 of new this I attempted to to get at what we were talking about about the programming and sentence length so it requires the chief superior judge defender general department of corrections and department of state attorneys and sheriffs to work with council of state governments on identifying tools to assist in identifying offender risk factors that can be targeted with services and programming and to determine how to share information about risk assessments and programming among themselves to help inform plea agreement, sentencing and probation revocation decisions and then report to the standing committees the judiciary committees on suggested legislation by January 15 next year so there may this hasn't been nobody's looked at that yet so we anticipate some people might have back on Friday morning did we want to get did we have information on the appropriations that somebody Alan was going to meet with the people from the domestic violence and we're also working right now with language for that section could that get in tomorrow by tomorrow afternoon to bring I think for domestic violence, yes email something over to you guys later today so basically after that and then on the risk reduction programming I got to check with Ed and you might know better Monica kind of where everything's at but we really want to give you all some better information about what an expansion of that to more medium to high risk people focusing primarily on the community maybe immediately focusing on people coming out of prison instead of the entire community supervision population that might look like can we get some get us some numbers on the current number of people on probation parole and incarcerated status people on furlough and facilities for domestic violence I think so, yeah current currently Ed is not here now he has turned to 2019 yet he got to work, yeah you want to go just today like point of time can't look at that today how many people get it by sometimes actually assuming that it gets taken up in appropriation sometime that we could I don't know where I'm from just taking it up but I'd like to have an idea how many people that were dealing with obviously won't know the risk level at least in this idea how many people are on probation how many people on parole how many people on furlough have been incarcerated been used today as a date to look at and you want to know how many people have been invested in violence right chocolate conviction not necessarily those in the detained population