The bill, which cleared its first legislative hurdle Thursday night, is nearly identical to one that died in the House last year. It would prevent convicted murderers, kidnappers, child molesters and people convicted of first degree assault from accruing any more time off for good behavior. They would be allowed to keep the time off they have already earned.
The bill is the result of a public outcry over the near-release last year of Michael Woodmansee, who got 12 years shaved off his 40 year sentence for the murder of five year old Jason Foreman. Threatened with involuntary commitment to the state mental hospital as a danger to the community, he voluntarily checked himself in. But the episode was an ordeal for the family, according to Melanie Foreman, wife of the victim's brother.
"What happened with us represents any mother's worst nightmare," Foreman says. "It's been very emotional for us. It's been very difficult and to think it could just keep happening to other victims with the current law the way it is...We appreciate you taking this into consideration and looking ahead."
State corrections director A.T. Wall took no position on the bill but warned that it would carry a price tag because inmates would be locked up longer.
"Five hundred inmates could be affected by the legislation," Wall says. "At the point it takes effect those of them who are still incarcerated will see their sentences extended and that will inevitably involve longer terms of incarceration."
Carolyn Medeiros of the group Alliance for Safe Communities urged the committee to put public safety ahead of monetary considerations.
"I would like to ask each of you to close your eyes and imagine this horrific crime just happened to someone you care about," Medeiros says. "How would you look at this so-called good time program? You wouldn't think it's worth the money it supposedly saved."
The most forceful argument against the legislation came from Steven Brown, director of the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. He said the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down a nearly identical Florida bill because it violated the constitutional prohibition against increasing penalties after a criminal has been convicted.
"It really is from our perspective no service to either crime victims or the public to pass a law that is only going to be struck down as unconstitutional," Brown explains. "We really do not see any way around it."
Attorney General Peter Kilmartin says his constitutional experts see things differently.
"We have vetted this through what I consider the best attorneys in the state - our civil division, our appellate division," he says. "We consider ourselves on solid constitutional grounds on this."
Concerns about the law's constitutionality prompted State Senator Rhoda Perry to cast the only no' vote.
"There may be multiple substantial litigation cases that are going to come from this population that are affected," Perry says. "That concerns me in terms of the amount of money that is going to be spent by the state in trying to deal with that."
Kilmartin responded, saying the cost would be negligible because the attorneys who would defend the law are already on staff.
The Foreman family left satisfied that the bill was on its way through the legislative pipeline. But mindful of how it failed to gain House approval last year, they know they still have a long way to go before it becomes law.
Do you have insight or expertise on this topic? Please email us, we'd like to hear from you. news@wrni.org.
© Copyright 2012, RIPR
