Proposed ‘second look' law would allow some lengthy prison sentences to be reviewed

Yahoo

22-04-2025

"This is not a get out of jail free card," said the bill's sponsor, Democratic Assemblymember Erica Roth. (Legislative stream screengrab)
In the last few legislative sessions, Nevada has seen reforms to the criminal legal system to ensure certain crimes, such as low-level drug offenses, don't lead to lengthy sentences.
State lawmakers should also consider a process to review the sentences of those who have already been incarcerated for a prolonged period of time, says Democratic Assemblymember Erica Roth.
Assembly Bill 91, deemed 'second look' legislation, would create an avenue for those incarcerated to have sentences reviewed by the State Board of Parole Commissioners after they've served extended periods of time.
'We as a body and legislators have realized that placing somebody in prison for extreme amounts of time does not necessarily meet the public policy goals, especially when they have been rehabilitated,' Roth, a Reno Democrat, said during hearing on the bill earlier this month.
AB 91 passed out of the Assembly Judiciary Committee April 11 in a party line vote but hasn't been heard in the Assembly.
It has until Tuesday to receive a vote in the Assembly. Except for bills declared exempt, legislation must be passed in its house of origin by then to move forward.
Lawmakers in previous years have sought to address the growing prison population by revising sentencing guidelines and bolstering diversion programs. A 2019 bill that passed with bipartisan support reduced penalties for non-violent theft and drug crimes while increasing access to speciality court programs.
Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo has tried to roll back those provisions, but with only limited success. He's proposing more punitive measures this session that include increasing penalties for drug dealers and curtailing early discharge from probation for gun violations.
Lombardo's efforts to pass tougher actions come as the Nevada Department of Corrections faces a $50 million budget shortfall during a session in which lawmakers are growing more and more apprehensive about the prospects of reduced revenue as a result of a slowing economy. The bill is also likely to face challenges from a Legislature controlled by many of the same Democrats who passed the criminal justice reforms Lombardo has targeted.
Meanwhile, state lawmakers in the interim session voted to pursue a 'second look' authorizing sentencing review boards to re-evaluate some sentences.
The legislation's proponents note it not only addresses the far-reading societal harms inflicted by mass incarceration, it is also a way to reduce the prison population, which could alleviate financial strains.
There have been 13 states along with the District of Columbia that have passed similar 'second look' review policies, according to the Sentencing Project, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization.
The Nevada legislation also allows the parole board to 'grant a second look review' for people convicted of Category A offenses, which include murder and sexual assault, provided the incarcerated person has served 25 years. For category B felonies, such as robbery and assault with a deadly weapon, they must have served at least 15 years.
Lawmakers were told during interim legislative hearings last year that of the slightly less than 11,000 people incarcerated by the Nevada Department of Corrections, 1,888 were sentenced to more than 15 years, and of those, 1,272 people currently incarcerated have already served 15 years.
Those serving life sentences, sentenced to death or deemed as 'a significant and articulable risk to public safety' wouldn't be eligible for consideration.
The bill also expands opportunities for parole for people convicted of crimes before turning 25, opportunities currently only extended to those who committed crimes before 18.
'Research shows individuals tend to age out of high crime years as they mature, making extended incarceration less effective in reducing recidivism,' Roth said. 'Second look policies also recognize the developmental difference between youth and adults, aligning again with national reforms that provide greater opportunities for youth offenders.'
Republican Assemblyman Ken Gray, of Dayton, questioned why the state needed to provide additional ways for inmates to attempt to reduce their sentences.
'There's a lot of different avenues you can go through with your attorney,' he said. 'It just seems like we're just adding more and more ways to challenge what, at the time, is a fair sentence.'
While there are ways for people to challenge the constitutionality of the case or any issue associated with the trial, there aren't many ways for people to challenge or review the sentence itself, Roth said.
The bill was supported by public defenders throughout the state.
'Twenty five years, 15 years, is a long time,' said Angela Knott, a public defender with Washoe County. 'AB 91 reflects the belief that people shouldn't be defined by their worst actions. It gives those who have truly changed, who have grown up and matured, a chance to prove their potential for a positive contribution to society.'
The prison rights advocacy group Return Strong and the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty, though not opposing the bill, said it falls short.
'Building mechanisms for people to have an opportunity and hope for freedom is a huge motivator for change,' said Nicole Williams, a board member with Return Strong. But the bill, she said, doesn't go far enough since it excludes people serving life without parole sentences.
'This exclusion fails to account for individuals who were sentenced under outdated policies, extreme sentencing practices, who were targeted by racist law, or those who have demonstrated remarkable rehabilitation while incarcerated,' Williams said.
District Attorneys and law enforcement agencies opposed the bill.
Jennifer Noble, a lobbyist with Nevada District Attorneys Association, specifically cited provisions allowing a second look for those convicted of sexual assault and murder.
She agreed it's not a 'foregone conclusion' that those convicted of such crimes would win release, the process itself could come at the expense of victims.
'To ensure victims will be heard as required by the constitution … they have to be notified, they have to decide whether to participate, they have to relieve these events and they have to be retraumatized,' Noble said. 'Lawful sentences should not be second guessed every two years each time an offender can file a new petition under this bill.'
Roth said there is nothing in the bill that prevents the parole board from considering the person's crime and the impact of victims. It simply asks the review board to consider 'how old they were, how much they've changed, what they've accomplished', she said.
'At the end of the day, this is not a get out of jail free card,' Roth said. 'This is an opportunity for the board, who already makes these reviews on a daily basis, to consider a human being and who they are holistically.'