CONCORD, N.H. – Late last month, the New Hampshire House of Representatives Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety heard testimony on a bill that could impact parole access for prisoners that have made a genuine effort to rehabilitate themselves.
Introduced by State Representatives Linda Harriott-Gathright (D-Nashua), Suzanne Vail (D-Nashua) and Charlotte DiLorenzo (D-Newmarket) as well as State Senator Rebecca Whitley (D-Hopkinton), the proposes to change New Hampshire RSA 651:2 by allowing individuals with sentences of more than five years to apply for parole at the halfway mark of their sentence.
However, those prisoners are not eligible for parole if they have committed “A level” disciplinary violations while incarcerated, haven’t completed all court and Department of Corrections required programs and treatments, or has demonstrated they are likely to re-offend when released.
The change would not apply to anyone who committed a violent crime against someone under 18 years of age, committed a sexually-violent crime, or committed a crime with a sentence not allowing them to be paroled.
The New Hampshire Adult Parole Board believes there are 915 inmates currently incarcerated that could be affected by this bill if it becomes law. The New Hampshire Department of Corrections indicated that it could not determine the fiscal impact of the bill, but stated that the average cost of incarcerating an individual for the FY’ 21 Fiscal Year was $64, 233 and the average cost to supervise an individual on parole is $688.
Harriott-Gathright, the bill’s prime sponsor, said that the bill is a reaction to “Truth in Sentencing” legislation brought forth in the 1980s that has unnecessarily grown the state’s prison population. Former New Hampshire House Speaker Donna Sytek (R-Salem) defended her efforts to pass New Hampshire’s Truth in Sentencing related-bills and criticized several elements of the bill.
Sytek said that overarching parole allowances undermine the role of judges, who often have the latitude to provide sentence reductions in certain circumstances. She said it would also harm the concept of mandatory minimum sentences.
Sytek also added that the definition of “violent” under New Hampshire state law is more limited than what many people might think it means, as people convicted of strangling, human trafficking, robbery and other various offenses would be eligible for parole under this new provision.
“Are these the people who you think should have their parole hearing after they’ve service 50 percent of their sentence?” she asked.
She also added that applying this provision retroactively could impact plea deals made to impact sentences.
Representatives from the Merrimack County Attorney’s Office asked why this this bill was necessary given the current parole laws in the state and also questioned the significance of violent crimes against 17 year olds versus 18 year olds. They added that eight of the ten county attorney offices in the state opposed the bill. Representatives from the Adult Parole Board also provided circumstances where parole boards can make the wrong call and paroled inmates can re-offend, but also noted circumstances where some inmates clearly deserve parole.
Christie Kim, a representative of the National Council on Incarcerated Women and a former inmate, said that the majority of women take plea deals fearing longer sentences and many have also been victims prior to committing their crime. She added that many have sentences that last so long that they lose their child-bearing years or cannot reintegrate into society due to advancements in technology that occurred while they were incarcerated.
In response to a question from Amanda Bouldin (D-Manchester), Kim also said that prisoners who have rehabilitated themselves while incarcerated but cannot obtain parole often regress, citing one situation where an inmate that was on track to become rehabilitated backslid to the point where she wrote “get me out of here” on her cell walls with feces and menses.
Several individuals testified to male inmates as well that are incarcerated for longer sentences but have shown remorse and attempts to rehabilitate themselves but are not eligible for parole.
Joseph Lascaze, an organizer for the ACLU New Hampshire and a former inmate, said that many parole requirements are limited to certain segments of the population such as inmates without a high school diploma seeking a high school diploma for example.
While he agrees that he deserved to serve time for his sentence, he also believes that there were many people like himself who were worthy of parole for the efforts they made to rehabilitate themselves but could not obtain it because they did not meet any of those specific criteria points needed for parole or another parole condition set by a judge.
“All this bill does is say, ‘hey, take a look to see if I am ready to re-engage in the community’,” he said to Manchester Ink Link. “People who fit that criteria, often are ready.”
No current schedule is in place for future action on the bill as of Feb. 5.
NOTE: Amanda Bouldin has been a contributor to Manchester Ink Link.
