House Corrections Committee Hears Testimony on H.379 ‘Second Look’ Sentence‑review Bill

The House Corrections and Institutions Committee took testimony April 16 on H.379, a proposed second‑look sentencing bill that would let judges review long prison terms after a set minimum period — 15 years in the draft under discussion. Representative Eric McGuire introduced the bill and called it a “balanced approach,” and clinical psychologist and restorative‑justice facilitator Dr. Roshani Rees gave the committee the presentation and evidence underpinning the measure.

Second look, as described to the committee, authorizes a judicial review of a sentence after an incarcerated person has served a lengthy term; under the Vermont draft the earliest eligibility would be 15 years. “This is not a get out of jail free card,” Representative Eric McGuire said, adding that the draft requires a substantive process including assessments and demonstrations of remorse and rehabilitation before a judge could reduce a sentence.

Dr. Roshani Rees told committee members that the bill responds to a growing national problem: an aging population of people serving very long or life sentences. She cited national figures compiled by the Sentencing Project showing sharp increases in life sentences since the 1990s and said Vermont now has 212 people serving long life‑range sentences — 170 serving life with parole, 14 life without parole and 28 “virtual life” terms — and that Vermont’s lifer population rose about 27% from 2020 to 2024 (about 57 additional people by her estimate).

Rees and other witnesses stressed two recurring rationales for second look: public safety research showing that people “age out” of most criminal behavior, and fiscal pressure from the high cost of incarcerating older people. Rees summarized a widely‑cited case study, the “Ungers” in Maryland, in which roughly 188 long‑term prisoners were released and tracked; the Justice Policy Institute follow‑up reported a roughly 2% rate of return for new offenses or technical violations among that group, she said.

On cost, Rees told the committee the Vermont Department of Corrections’ fiscal‑year‑2022 per‑person figure was about $95,292 and that a national aggregator (USA Facts) reported roughly $134,218 per person in its calculation; using the DOC figure, she said 212 people at about $95,000 each would cost just over $20 million a year, and at the USA Facts number would be roughly $28 million annually. Rees cautioned both figures should be treated as a floor: medical and chronic care needs increase costs for aging incarcerated people.

Committee members questioned practical details the draft leaves open. Page 3 of the draft, Rees said, is intentionally broad on petitioners: the incarcerated person may petition the court, and the draft also allows for petitions filed on behalf of an incarcerated person (guardian, attorney, or others), though participants discussed whether DOC or prosecutors should also be able to initiate reviews. Rees said practices vary by state and recommended retaining multiple pathways to petition.

Members of the committee asked how second look would interact with Vermont’s existing “off‑ramps” — furlough, medical furlough and parole — and whether it would simply replicate a change in minimums. Rees and others told the committee that Vermont’s sentencing system (minimum/maximum ranges) already provides more off‑ramps than many states, and that second look is designed to review sentences earlier than compassionate release and before persons become elderly and infirm.

Survivors’ perspectives were a recurring topic. Rees, who identified herself as a survivor and described restorative justice as part of her own healing, said surveys of crime survivors show many support rehabilitation‑focused paths when survivors have input and when reallocated savings fund victim services. Tim Burgess, co‑chair of Dropout Law New England and executive director of Vermont Cure, and Meg McCarthy, who testified on behalf of a family member who would be eligible under the draft, urged the committee to consider survivor services and family supports alongside sentence‑review authority.

No formal motion or vote was taken. Chair Emmons closed the testimony by saying the committee would take a brief recess and then decide whether to pursue further work on the bill and to arrange additional, targeted testimony from DOC and other agencies. “We’ll spend time,” Emmons said, “and take a quick 10‑minute break for the committee and then come back and just see where the committee is at in terms of wanting further work.”

The bill as drafted includes eligibility thresholds, a judge’s discretion to accept or deny a petition for review, a list of factors the judge may consider (including survivor statements and prosecutorial objections), and a statutory path for sentence reductions or conversions that would still require any applicable parole process to be followed.

The committee indicated interest in data the testimony left unclear: the committee asked DOC to provide conviction‑level breakdowns of the lifer population, recidivism statistics tied to furlough/parole outcomes, and more detail about how DOC would implement placement and medical care if a sentence were reduced but no immediate placement were available.