Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates, experts press to expand parole review for people who offended as emerging adults
Summary
Formerly incarcerated people, academics and family members told the committee HB5423 would align parole eligibility with developmental science by raising the parole review age to under 26 and removing an arbitrary 2005 cutoff; proponents cited low recidivism among those already released and potential state savings from reduced long‑term incarceration.
A coalition of formerly incarcerated people, academics, juvenile‑justice advocates and family members urged the Appropriations Committee to approve HB5423, which would expand parole review eligibility for people who committed offenses as emerging adults (raising the age to under 26) and eliminate an arbitrary October 1, 2005 cutoff that currently excludes hundreds of otherwise eligible people.
Speakers repeatedly cited neuroscience showing brain development continues into the mid‑20s and pointed to Connecticut’s and other states’ experiences showing low recidivism for people granted parole after serving long sentences for crimes committed as juveniles or young adults. Several witnesses gave personal testimony of education, community service and mentoring roles taken up after release. Academics who lead the state study of Public Act 15‑84 told the committee their data show modest recidivism rates among people released under the earlier reform and substantial potential fiscal savings if a portion of the long‑term incarcerated population were reviewed and, where appropriate, released.
Committee members questioned implementation details, fiscal notes and whether parole review would be presumptive or discretionary. Researchers and service providers offered to provide further data on projected costs and savings, medical expenses in prisons and likely re‑entry support needs. Advocates recommended a carefully phased implementation, clear parole‑board standards and funding for re‑entry services so that releases translate into stable employment and housing outcomes.
The committee did not take a vote at the hearing; witnesses agreed to provide written evidence and longer fiscal analyses for the committee’s consideration.
