Senate Judiciary reviews H.410 to tighten recidivism definition and reporting

At a January meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee, members began reviewing H.410, a draft bill that would revise how the state defines and measures recidivism. Legislative Council lawyer Michelle Childs walked the committee through the draft and flagged multiple unclear or inconsistent terms that need policy direction before the bill can move forward.

The draft replaces the existing statutory definition and adds a series of classifications that measure a subsequent conviction occurring within 1, 3, 5 or 10 years from an initial sentencing date. Childs told the committee the draft often anchors calculations to different events—sentencing, arraignment, disposition or release—and said the relationship among those choices should be clarified. "For a person sentenced to a term of incarceration, recidivism shall be calculated from the date the person is released from a correctional facility," Childs said, recommending clearer, active phrasing in the text.

Jake Birch Johnson, identified on the record as legal counsel to Governor Scott, told the panel the current statewide recidivism standard is limited in what it reveals. "Right now, the state standard measures individuals sentenced to more than one year of incarceration who return within three years and serve at least 90 days; that provides some information but not what most people think of as recidivism," he said. Johnson urged the committee to consider broader metrics—rearrests, arraignments, returns for probation and parole violations, and subsequent convictions—that would better capture people who cycle in and out of the system for low‑level but frequent offenses.

Members and witnesses focused on several policy choices the draft leaves open: whether the predicate offense for a "repeat violent offender" must itself be violent or whether any prior conviction should count; whether to count arrests or only convictions; whether to anchor the time window to sentencing, disposition, arraignment or release; and whether furlough or split sentences should be treated as release for calculation purposes. Childs emphasized that terms like "disposition" lack a clear statutory definition in the draft and should be spelled out.

Committee members asked about feasibility and cost. Witnesses recommended consulting the Department of Corrections (DOC), the contract research group referred to in the hearing as CRG, the attorney general's office, the defender general's office and other stakeholders to determine what data are already collected, what can be produced within current resources, and what would require new funding. Johnson noted federal reports that track recidivism across multiple states and suggested the committee consider those models when deciding which measures it wants to require.

Several members raised juvenile data as a separate issue. Witnesses and staff said juvenile records are treated differently—largely confidential and housed in family court systems—and the adult-focused draft does not currently address juvenile recidivism.

No formal motions or votes were taken. Committee members said they expect further testimony that afternoon and additional drafting sessions; the chair indicated multiple revised drafts will likely be needed before any bill is finalized. The committee will also consider who is required to prepare and publish any requested reports and whether regular or ad hoc reporting best serves legislative oversight.

The committee paused its review to continue with other business and scheduled further public testimony and drafting.