With 102 days until the trial date, supporters of Pa. criticize the delay in voting on the murder bill

Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave lawmakers 120 days to find a legislative solution after ruling that mandatory life sentences for second-degree murder were unconstitutional under the state’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling is likely to trigger the largest expression of regret ever undertaken by the Commonwealth, although the timing will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

In Pennsylvania, someone can be charged with second-degree murder even if the prosecutor cannot prove that he intended to cause another person’s death. In some cases, charges can be brought without actually killing someone. Prosecutors only need to prove that someone died while the person accused committed a crime. The charge carries a mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole, which the state Supreme Court ruled last month as unconstitutional.

Last Thursday, lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee were scheduled to vote on a bill that would address the issue by giving people serving such sentences the opportunity to apply for parole after 25 years and creating a maximum sentence of 50 years for future second-degree murder charges.

However, as the panel’s meeting began, its chairman, Rep. Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery), announced that he was withdrawing the bill from consideration.

“These people are serving long, unconstitutional sentences, and I will not put them in a worse situation than I think the Supreme Court would put for them,” Briggs said of people currently serving life sentences without parole on second-degree murder charges. “I am sure that if we all work together, we will present a bill that we will all be proud of.”

Briggs said he and other lawmakers on the committee sought information from people and organizations such as public defenders, district attorneys and victim advocates.

While some groups took issue with elements of the proposal, the move irked criminal justice advocates who have long sought to eliminate mandatory life sentences for people convicted of murder.

“We are deeply disappointed that on Thursday, April 9, Democratic leaders in the House postponed a vote to remove important legislation, House Bill 443, from the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee and introduce a vote by the full House,” he said joint statement was released on Monday. The idea comes from Straight Ahead, the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Amistad Law Project, the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Dream.org, the Public Defender Association of Pennsylvania and the Youth Sentencing and Reentry Project – all organizations that advocate for the rights of incarcerated people.

“HB 443 provides a remedy that is fair and equitable for all Pennsylvanians,” the statement added. “For this reason, the program enjoys broad support from key stakeholders in the fight to end mass incarceration and incarceration-related deaths and promote true public safety in Pennsylvania.”

Speaking to reporters after last week’s committee meeting, Briggs and GOP Minority Judiciary Committee Chairman Rob Kauffman (R-Franklin) made clear there is still work to be done to reach consensus among lawmakers of both parties.

While the state House is narrowly controlled by Democrats, Republicans have a 27-23 majority in the Senate.

“We don’t know how to deal with this,” Kauffman said. “Two weeks ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court challenged us, and I think that’s why Chairman Briggs wisely stepped back and said, ‘Let’s talk.’

While the House bill, sponsored solely by Democrats, would have called for a maximum sentence of 50 years for murder, the bipartisan bill in the state Senate would have introduced a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison and would still allow for life in prison in some cases.

The measure has not yet been considered by a Senate committee, but Kauffman told the Capital-Star that he would prefer a bill that would give judges maximum flexibility while also providing “extremely serious, long-term punishment” in certain circumstances.

But some supporters, including one mentioned by Briggs as someone he wanted information from, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, said he would prefer a bill that would completely eliminate life sentences without parole for murder.

“We’re talking about $60,000 a year per person for unnecessary years of incarceration,” Krasner told the Capital-Star. “There are many unnecessary years of imprisonment that have already been served and will be served in the future if the legislature does not act within these 120 days… And since [detainees] get older, it could cost a lot more than $60,000 a year. “It can cost up to $200,000 a year in medical and other expenses.”

Although Krasner’s office sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee asking for amendments to the bill – lowering the penalty for second-degree murder from the proposed 25 to 50 years in prison to 15 to 30 years – he said he would prefer if the panel moved the issue.

“Strategically, when you have a good bill, you usually want to get it out of committee and put it on the floor. Then amendments will be made,” he said.

Sean Damon, director of strategic partnerships at Straight Ahead, the advocacy arm of the nonprofit Abolitionist Law Center, said he was also disappointed in the decision to withdraw the bill and cited the potential impact of the legislature failing to act on people serving life sentences.

“It is very urgent at the moment,” he said. “We have over 1,000 people on our watch who are serving unconstitutional sentences. So while we really need to make sure we get this right, there is an urgent need for action.”

If the legislature fails to act, decisions will effectively be sent back to the courts. This would likely result in the punishment of all those currently serving mandatory life sentences on second-degree murder charges. This would take much longer than allowing them to go through the parole board – which is what murder bills currently implement in the House and Senate.

Damon pointed to the fallout from the 2016 ruling in Commonwealth v. Batts, which found life sentences for juveniles unconstitutional.

When the legislature failed to take action to determine what should happen to people who were sentenced to life in prison as juveniles, it launched the largest expression of contrition in Pennsylvania history. And some people serving life sentences handed down as juveniles still haven’t had their day in court.

Moreover, Damon said the results of these hearings varied significantly by jurisdiction, with judges and prosecutors in some parts of the Commonwealth more likely to uphold harsher sentences and others being more flexible.

This is something lawmakers could address through legislation.

“If this goes to the courts, it will lead to very different outcomes in counties across Pennsylvania,” Damon said. “If you look at the experiences of juveniles sentenced to life in prison, in Philadelphia, for the most part, people received very reasonable sentencing offers and many people returned home to our communities. If you look at the outcomes of people who were sentenced in counties across Pennsylvania, we find that in counties where prosecutors were tougher and judges were tougher, in some cases they sentenced people to life without parole or to sentences like 50 to life.”

Damon also said the House bill, which would create a 25- to 50-year prison sentence for murder, would put Pennsylvania on par with neighboring states.

Sara Jacobson, executive director of the Pennsylvania Public Defenders Association, agreed that, as it stands, sending inmates through the parole board would allow more people to potentially gain parole more quickly.

“I think it can happen faster and bring the most good the fastest,” she said.

But she added that if lawmakers actually send convicts to court, it will require funding for public defenders and the justice system.

“It will take a lot of resources to ensure that public defenders’ offices are able and ready to provide people with the mitigation assistance they will need,” she said. “Only 20 public defender offices in Pennsylvania out of 67 counties – only 20 have social welfare offices that do any type of mitigation work.”

But Briggs, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he is not opposed to taking the case back to court if lawmakers cannot find an agreement. That puts him at odds with many of the state’s leading criminal justice advocacy organizations.

“There needs to be a really honest conversation about what 120 days looks like,” he said. “If we get a bill that achieves a good result, is good for justice and good for the victims, and allows people to be released, I would support it. But if we get a bill that doesn’t do that or takes a step back, then I will trust the courts to resolve this issue.”