Senate Judiciary hears broad support for S.140 "second look" resentencing bill

MONTPELIER — Supporters of S.140 told the Vermont Senate Judiciary Committee on March 13 that a "second look" resentencing mechanism would allow judges to reassess whether very long sentences continue to serve public safety and the interests of justice.

Jordan Serouns, policy advocate for the ACLU of Vermont, told the committee, "We believe that no one should be judged indefinitely based on the actions of their worst day," and said S.140 would let incarcerated people petition the court for sentence reduction while preserving victims’ notification and participation rights.

The bill drew testimony from a mix of advocates, formerly incarcerated people, mental‑health professionals and national experts who framed the legislation as a measured, judicially controlled review rather than an automatic release. "This is not a guarantee of release," Marta Nelson, director of sentencing reform at the Vera Institute of Justice, said. "It's an opportunity to make a case for release." She and others cited studies from states with resentencing mechanisms showing low reconviction rates among those approved for resentencing.

Dr. Bashani Reese, who identified herself as an executive‑level forensic psychologist and a survivor of attempted murder, described survey evidence and survivor perspectives that, she said, often favor shorter prison terms and investment in rehabilitation. "Two out of three survivors prefer shorter prison sentences and more spending on prevention and rehabilitation," she said.

Several witnesses emphasized the changing demographics and costs of incarceration in Vermont. The hearing record cited a 2025 Sentencing Project report that, according to testimony, found Vermont increased life sentences by 27% between 2020 and 2024 and noted that 87 Vermonters over age 55 are serving life sentences. Sarah Anderson of the R Street Institute told the committee that long‑term incarceration is costly for the state, saying Vermont’s incarceration costs are "estimated to exceed $135,000 per person annually." Committee Q&A included an estimate from a witness that S.140, as currently drafted, would affect roughly 266 people.

Family members and providers described human effects of extreme sentences. Meg McCarthy, who said she is a family member of someone serving a long sentence, recounted hospice care training inside a correctional facility and a nine‑day vigil caregivers held for an incarcerated man in the final days of his life. Mental‑health witness Heidi Piet described psychological consequences of long confinement — hypervigilance, institutionalization and what she called "post‑incarceration syndrome" — and urged earlier access to programming.

Several presenters and committee members discussed policy design details: whether to limit eligibility by offense or age, how to measure rehabilitation and what programming should count. Witnesses referenced other jurisdictions: the testimony listed 16 states with second‑look laws of various kinds and noted Connecticut has a more limited model that excludes some mandatory‑minimum cases. Committee members asked for data on programming access and for follow‑up on recidivism for specific offense categories.

No formal vote or motion was recorded during the hour‑long hearing; the committee paused to join a scheduled joint session with the Health and Welfare Committee. Committee members said they would seek additional technical information, including comparisons with prior bills such as House Bill 379 and the 2021 sentence‑reduction statute, and requested follow‑up materials on recidivism by offense type.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to continue consideration of S.140 in future meetings and to review follow‑up materials requested at the hearing.