PROVIDENCE – State lawmakers are once again weighing a proposal that would allow people serving long sentences to ask a judge for a “second look” at their punishment after 10 years.

Matching legislation has been submitted in the House and Senate that would give judges the latitude to reduce a person’s sentence after they’ve served 10 years, taking into consideration factors such as their age at the time of the crime, current age and rehabilitation efforts.

Sen. Meghan E. Kallman, D-Pawtucket, emphasized to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing last week that the measure is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. It would be up to the individual to provide evidence of his or her rehabilitation and other strides.

“It creates the mechanism for the conversation … The judge is still running the show,” Kallman told the committee.

Kallman noted that the cost of incarcerating an individual is more than $84,000 annually, meaning that the state would spend $4.2 million to hold someone from age 20 to 40.

“I do not need to tell you how expensive that is,” Kallman said.

Rep. Julie A. Casimiro, D-North Kingstown, is the lead sponsor of the House version.

RI judge calls for the power to review long sentences

It is the second year state lawmakers have fielded the proposal after state Superior Court Judge Daniel A. Procaccini last year called on the General Assembly to empower judges to take a “second look” at cases involving offenders who committed crimes when they were young.

Procaccini’s call came in the case of Gahlil Oliveira, who at 23 was one of five men charged in the shooting death of John Carpenter on Dec. 18, 1995 in Providence. The murder of 26-year-old Carpenter, the son of then-state Rep. Marsha E. Carpenter, was believed to be in retaliation for the killing of a friend three days earlier.

Now 52, Oliveira sought to reduce his sentence of life in prison, plus a consecutive 40 years. But Procaccini concluded that he had no legal avenue to grant relief as court rules specify that a person must petition for a reduction within 120 days of their sentence being imposed.

400% jump in prison population, revictimization concerns

The legislation stresses that the number of people imprisoned in Rhode Island had increased more than 400% from 1980 to 2020, and that long-term incarceration disproportionately impacts poor communities and those of color, at great societal cost. 

Evidence has shown, too, Kallman said, that older people are unlikely to reoffend and that extreme sentences do not deter crime.

Sen. Matthew LaMountain, D-Warwick, expressed discomfort that, if enacted, people could petition for a sentence-reduction hearing every two to five years, raising concerns about the impact on victims.

“I think we’re sending a troubling message to society … that you can take somebody’s life and be out on the street in 10 years,” LaMountain, a former state prosecutor, said.

Alexandra Bailey, of the Sentencing Project, spoke in favor of the measure, stating that the victims would have the opportunity to weigh in and that it would result in substantial savings for the state to reduce its elderly prison population.

A judge, she said, would not be obligated to hear a person’s petition.

The state Public Defender’s office expressed strong support, but voiced caution about whether it would have the manpower to handle people’s petitions given the high caseloads its lawyers are already facing.

The state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union also spoke in favor of the legislation.

Steven Parkhurst, who served 27 years in state prison after fatally shooting a man in 1992, at age 17, wrote in support of the bills, noting that he had grown up with many of the men the legislation would impact.

“They did the same hard work to become better people than the bad decisions we made as kids and young adults,” Parkhurst said.

“Everybody deserves a chance at redemption,” David Veliz, director of the Rhode Island Interfaith Coalition, said. “We cannot close the door entirely on hope.”

Pushback from state prosecutors 

Though Attorney General Peter F. Neronha did not testify at the Senate hearing, he voiced objections last year.

“If enacted, this legislation would deprive victims and the criminal justice system of any modicum of closure, when again there are already adequate and appropriate avenues for relief available to incarcerated individuals,” he wrote.

The office, he said, would be required to divert significant resources to old, previously resolved cases, instead of the thousands of new cases charged each year.

Savings would be reinvested

Under the proposal, 25% of any savings in incarceration costs would be dedicated to fund prison-based and community-based programs designed to counter recidivism. Ten percent would be designated to the attorney general and public defender’s office to provide representation. An estimate of possible savings was not immediately available.

While the state judiciary did not take a position on the legislation, Edward J. Cooney Jr., the assistant administrator management & finance, said in a memo that it would require the creation of four full-time positions, including a judge. A new list of court-appointed lawyers would also need to be established, with total costs estimated at $1.6 million annually.

National movement afoot

Rhode Island’s second look legislation is in keeping with national trends toward extending possible relief to people serving lengthy sentences. The Model Penal Code, standardized laws used to assist legislatures, recommends that judges have the ability to review sentences after 15 years of imprisonment for adult crimes, and after 10 years for youth crimes. The American Bar Association also calls for “second look” resentencing hearings after people have been held for 10 years.

The bills are modeled on sample legislation by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

A handful of states have enacted measures to allow sentences to be reconsidered, but typically after an individual has served 20 years. Many more states are now considering bills that would allow for sentencing reconsideration under varying mechanisms.