Committee debates rewrite of 'earned time' rules, members split over safety, victims, and administrative burden
Loading...
Summary
A proposed amendment to replace the state's 'earned time' provision drew a prolonged debate: supporters described earned time as an incentive management tool for DOC, while critics warned of added administrative burden, victims' concerns, and potential effects on facility safety. Several members requested more testimony before acting.
Members of the House of Regents Institutions Committee aired sharply divided views after an amendment was introduced to 'refill' and rewrite the statutory earned time section.
A committee member who introduced the amendment framed earned time as a behavior‑incentive tool and said it could reward participation in programming, rehabilitation, or sobriety. "If they choose to participate in a program that allows them to learn a skill... I would be happy to give some earned time for that," the member said, adding the current label 'good time' had been changed previously to avoid confusion.
Opponents — including members who cited victims' testimony and DOC operational concerns — warned the rewrite could undermine sentence finality, create uncertainty for victims, and impose heavy administrative work on DOC. One committee member said earned time calculations had been "consuming so much... DOC staff" previously and that subjectivity in approvals had led to grievances and additional processes.
Members debated carve‑outs and disqualifying offenses; staff referenced existing lists that exclude homicide, certain violent offenses, and other enumerated crimes from eligibility. Several lawmakers said more frontline testimony from DOC staff and corrections officers would be necessary before altering the statute.
By the session's break, multiple members indicated limited support for a blanket repeal or immediate rewrite in the miscellaneous judiciary bill; instead they urged a fuller, standalone process with targeted testimony, victim‑notification safeguards, and clearer definitions of eligibility and exclusions.
The committee took no vote on the amendment and scheduled further work during subsequent meetings.
