Last month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court gave lawmakers 120 days to find a legislative solution after ruling mandatory life sentences for second degree murder charges are unconstitutional under the state’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments.

The ruling is likely to kick off what could be the largest resentencing effort the commonwealth has ever undertaken, though the timeline will depend on decisions made by lawmakers.

In Pennsylvania, someone can be charged with second-degree murder even if prosecutors can’t prove they intended to cause another person’s death. In some cases, a person can be charged without actually killing someone. Prosecutors just need to prove someone died while the person charged committed a felony. That charge comes with a mandatory life sentence without parole, which the state’s high court ruled unconstitutional last month.

Last Thursday, lawmakers on the state House Judiciary Committee were set to vote on a bill that would have addressed the problem by making those serving such sentences eligible for parole after 25 years, and creating a 50-year maximum sentence for future second degree murder charges.

But as the panel’s meeting started, its chairman, Rep. Tim Briggs (D-Montgomery), announced he would be pulling the bill from consideration.

“These people have been serving long, unconstitutional sentences, and I will not put them in a worse position than what I believe the Supreme Court would order for them,” Briggs said about those currently serving life sentences without parole on second degree murder charges. “I am confident that as long as we all work together, we will come up with a bill we can all be proud of.”

Briggs said that he and other lawmakers on the committee were seeking input from people and organizations like public defenders, district attorneys and victims advocates.

But while some groups had issues with components of the proposal, the move rankled criminal justice advocates who have long sought to eliminate mandatory life sentences for those convicted of felony murder.

“We are deeply disappointed that on Thursday, April 9, Democratic leadership in the Pa. House postponed a vote to move vital legislation, House Bill 443, out of the Pennsylvania House Judiciary Committee and to a full floor vote,” said a joint statement issued Monday. It came 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 just for all Pennsylvanians,” the statement added. “For that reason, it is broadly supported by key stakeholders in the fight to end mass incarceration and death by incarceration and promote true public safety in Pennsylvania.”

Speaking to reporters after last week’s committee meeting, Briggs and Republican Judiciary Committee Minority Chair Rep. Rob Kauffman (R-Franklin) made clear there was still a way to go to gain consensus among lawmakers in both parties.

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

“We’re struggling with how to deal with this,” Kauffman said. “We were thrown this curveball by the Pa. Supreme Court two weeks ago, and I think that’s why Chairman Briggs was wise in stepping back and saying lets have a conversation.”

While the House bill, sponsored solely by Democrats, would create a 50-year maximum sentence for felony murder, a bipartisan bill in the state Senate would implement a 25-year minimum, and still allow for life sentences in some cases.

That measure has yet to go before a Senate committee, but Kauffman told the Capital-Star that he would prefer a bill that allows maximum flexibility for judges and still implement “extraordinarily serious, long-term punishment,” in some circumstances.

But some advocates, including one named by Briggs as a person he wanted input from, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, said he would prefer a bill that would wholly eliminate life sentences without parole for felony murder.

“We’re talking $60,000 a year, per person, for unnecessary years of incarceration,” Krasner told the Capital-Star. “There are a lot of unnecessary years of incarceration that have already been served and will be served going forward if the legislature doesn’t act within this 120 days … And as [detainees] get older, it can cost a hell of a lot more than $60,000 a year. It can cost in medical and other expenses up to $200,000 a year.”

While Krasner’s office sent a letter to the Judiciary Committee requesting amendments to the bill — lowering the penalty for second degree murder from a proposed 25- to 50-year sentence to a 15- to 30-year one — he said he would have preferred if the panel moved it along.

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

Sean Damon, the director of strategic partnerships at Straight Ahead, the advocacy arm of the nonprofit Abolitionist Law Center, said he was also disappointed by the decision to pull the bill, and cited the potential impact on those serving life sentences if the legislature doesn’t act.

“Right now, there’s a lot of urgency,” he said. “There’s over 1,000 people who are serving unconstitutional sentences on our watch. So while we do really need to make sure that we get this right, there is really a need to move with urgency.”

If the legislature doesn’t act, decisions will effectively be moved back to the courts. That would likely result in resentencing for everyone currently serving a mandatory life sentence on a second-degree murder charge. That would take far longer than allowing them to go through the parole board — which is what both the House and Senate felony murder bills would currently implement.

Damon pointed to the aftermath of a 2016 ruling in a case called Commonwealth v. Batts, which found life sentences for juveniles unconstitutional.

When the legislature did not act to address what should happen to people who had been given life sentences as minors, it kicked off what was the largest resentencing effort in Pennsylvania history. And some people serving life sentences given as minors then have still not had their day in court.

Moreover, Damon said that outcomes in those hearings varied greatly by jurisdiction, with judges and prosecutors in some parts of the commonwealth more inclined to uphold stricter sentences, and others being more lenient.

It’s something lawmakers could address with legislation.

“If it is handled by the courts, it’s going to lead to very disparate outcomes in counties across Pennsylvania,” Damon said. “If you look to the experience of juvenile lifers, in Philadelphia, people got very reasonable sentencing offers for the most part, and a lot of people returned home to our communities. If you look at the outcome of those resentencing in counties across Pennsylvania, counties with more severe prosecutors and harsher judiciaries resentenced people to life without parole in some cases, or resentenced people to sentences like 50 to life.”

Damon also said the House bill, which would implement a 25 to 50-year sentence for felony murder, would bring Pennsylvania in line with neighboring states.

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

“That can happen, I think, more quickly and do the most good the fastest,” she said.

But she added that, if lawmakers do end up sending convicts through the courts, it would have to come with funding for the public defenders and the judiciary.

“It will take a lot of resources for public defender offices to be able and ready to provide the mitigation help that folks will need,” she said. “Only 20 Public defender offices in Pennsylvania out of the 67 counties — only 20 have social service offices to do any kind of mitigation work.”

But Briggs, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said he’s not opposed to kicking the issue back to the courts if lawmakers can’t find common ground. That puts him at odds with a number of the state’s leading criminal justice advocacy organizations.

“There has to be some real honest conversation about what 120 days looks like,” he said. “If we get a bill that is a good outcome, good for justice and good for the victims and good for getting a path for folks to be released, I’d support that. But if we end up with a bill that doesn’t do that or takes a step backward, then I’m going to put my trust in the courts to figure it out.”

——

Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Tim Lambert for questions: info@penncapital-star.com. Follow Pennsylvania Capital-Star on Facebook and Twitter.