State Representative Rick Krajewski (Philadelphia) talks about criminal justice reforms during a news conference at City Hall on February 18, 2026. (Emily Previti/Capital-Star via Pa. House Video)
Over the past 15 years, just 54 people have been released from prison under Pennsylvania’s system to release incarcerated people with stern medical conditions.
A bipartisan measure would change the process, increasing eligibility and saving the state millions of dollars.
Currently, candidates for compassionate release cannot survive for more than a year. This would change under the proposal to include prisoners suffering from a terminal illness, stern medical conditions that prevent daily activities, life-threatening illnesses that are better treated outside prison, or stern cognitive/functional impairments.
Under these criteria and documentation from the state Department of Corrections (DoC), as many as 700 people incarcerated in prisons in the commonwealth would be eligible for fiscal note.
Listen to Emily’s audio summary:
Legislators drew attention to the need for reforms in connection with, among others, report on Pennsylvania’s compassionate release system 20 years agonoted Roxanne Horrell, legislative director of the decarceration nonprofit Straight Ahead.
“Nothing has been done since then. And the number of elderly people in prison has more than tripled,” Horrell said. “Current law does nothing to reduce the prison population [or] allow this kind of help for people who are looking for it… because the criteria are so restrictive.”
She spoke during press conference on Wednesday at Philadelphia City Hall with elected Democrats and supporters who worked on the criminal justice legislation that recently passed the House.
“Creation PA Justice Alliancetransition [these] “Housing bills…are the result of years of commitment from our movements to organizing,” said state Rep. Rick Krajewski (Philadelphia).
As for passing the legislation through the GOP-controlled Senate, Krajewski pointed to the House’s bipartisan support for all three solutions. His co-sponsors of House Bill 150 for Compassionate Release Reform included former Republican Torren Ecker (whose seat is in special elections following Ecker’s election as judge of the Adams County Court of Common Pleas).
Increasing surveillance and awareness
Modeled after the federal First Step Act, HB150 It would also require courts to rule on petitions within one month, initiate compliance tracking for those petitions (including the number of approvals, denials, and the number of people who died while awaiting a decision), and standardize the victim engagement process by specifying who will be notified and setting deadlines for notifications and responses.
The legislation also includes a provision that would require the Department of Justice to post signs informing prisoners of their right to apply for compassionate release. If someone is diagnosed with a terminal illness while in prison, the DoC will be required to notify relatives within 72 hours and allow visits within a week.
Get our top stories delivered straight to your inbox every morning. Sign up now for the Pennsylvania Capital-Star Morning Guide.
John Thomspon of the Abolitionist Law Center recalled people he knew, including people David Leewho died after being refused commutation and could have benefited from the proposed changes.
“Death in prison is still a thing, and this … will help ease the pain of some of these people so they don’t die in prison,” Thompson said. “What’s more, it costs the state much more to keep them in prison. Medical bills fall off the chain. The older you get, the more medical care you need.”
Pennsylvania currently spends more than $400 million a year on health care for incarcerated people. However, not everyone is seriously ill and does not qualify for relief under HB150.
The proposed changes are estimated to save the Department of Corrections between $1.4 million and $18.9 million annually fiscal note. The amount will depend on factors such as the number of eligible individuals who successfully petition as well as the extent of their post-release supervision.
Improving alternatives for juvenile defendants
Currently, if children are held pending transfer to a court-ordered placement in a juvenile detention center or other institution, the waiting period does not count toward time served – at least in Pennsylvania.
This would change under the House Bill of 1936, which also aims to minimize such delays in the first place.
Death by incarceration still exists, and this… will assist give some of these people some relief so they don’t die in prison. Moreover, keeping them in prison costs the state much more. Medical bills disappear from the chain. The older you are, the more medical care you need.
– John Thomspon of the Abolitionist Law Center
Rep. Anthony Bellmon’s (Philadelphia) original bill included a maximum seven-day waiting period, after which a court hearing would be held to find an alternative. And if this cycle repeats several times without successful placement, the court will then release the child to community supervision (e.g., electronic monitoring) unless it is determined that the child poses a danger to the community.
The current narrowly adopted version of the bill does not include these requirements amendment just before the measure passed through the full 111-87 chamber. Instead, the legislation currently provides for a 20-day waiting time and the possibility of hearings every 10 days.
“I don’t think this change distorts the essence of the bill — and that’s why it had bipartisan support,” Bellmon said. “This is intended to clarify the hearing schedule so that cases are resolved quickly and… modernize the review and commitment process.”
Bellmon said he learned about children waiting up to 18 months for placement from advocates and people who were going through it themselves, and he later testified in Harrisburg in support of the bill.
House Bill 144 would codify alternatives to incarceration and parole for juveniles convicted for the first or second time of nonviolent offenses because The Capital-Star detailed when the Legislature approved the Judiciary Committee last fall.
At this stage, five Republicans voted against it. Two of them – Reps. Kate Klunk of York and John Schlegel of Lebanon – later supported the measure when passed the full chamber 153-45.
Meanwhile, Klunk introduced an amendment to expand the framework for engaging victims in the diversion process — including holding a court hearing to consider their concerns.
Also, The Indigent Defense Advisory Committee has published its first reportT. It included data on juvenile diversion rates, showing wide variation among counties. Supporters of HB144 have previously pointed to other data sets showing the same broad scope, a sign that uniform diversion policies and practices would assist ensure more equitable access across the state.
Republican Sen. Lisa Baker’s office did not respond to questions about plans to bring any of the three bills up for discussion in the Judiciary Committee, which she chairs.
