crime

End of Biennium Report – Judiciary Committee

lalonde

Public Safety

One of the priorities of House Democrats this Biennium was public safety, a concern raised by Vermonters across the state. In the last Biennium, the legislature made substantial investments in the judicial system to address the court backlog. Reducing the backlog will improve the timeliness and certainty of consequences for criminal behavior.

This Biennium, House Judiciary again prioritized proper funding to ensure that our judicial system continues to have the resources it needs to move cases to a speedy and just resolution. Beyond funding, House Judiciary also passed the following legislation aimed at addressing public safety concerns.

Juvenile Justice. In general, when a person is charged with an offense in Vermont, the court system they enter depends on their age and the severity of the crime. Before passage of Act 4, with some exceptions, if someone age 10 to 18 is charged with a crime, their offenses are addressed in delinquency proceedings in Vermont Family Court. If they are charged with one of the most serious crimes such as murder or arson, their case will commence in Vermont Criminal Court. 

Act 4 addresses the ways our juvenile justice system handles the supervision, care, and rehabilitation of juveniles accused of criminal acts. Among other changes, the Act raises the minimum age of juvenile jurisdiction from 10 to 12 years of age.This change would mean that 10- and 11- year-olds accused of crimes are not subject to any delinquency proceedings. Instead, their behavior may be addressed through a Children in Need of Care and Supervision (CHINS) proceeding in Family Court. The Racial Disparities in the Juvenile and Criminal Justice System Advisory Panel (RDAP) recommended the change based on data connecting racial disparities and disparate outcomes for youth of color. All testimony before the House Judiciary Committee supported this change.

Youthful Offender Law. This law provides an alternative to adult criminal court for youth ages 14 to 22, allowing their cases to be handled confidentially in Family Court if certain criteria are met. A court can place an individual with YO status on juvenile probation, under the jurisdiction of both the Department of Children and Families and the Department of Corrections.

The focus of juvenile probation and YO status is rehabilitation with services like education, treatment, and job training. The goal of YO status is to prevent long-term collateral consequences for the youth and allow them to avoid having a criminal record based on actions taken before their brain has fully developed. If the youth violates their probation, however, a court may revoke their YO status and transfer the individual back to Criminal Court for sentencing. 

Act 140 would change Vermont’s YO law by strengthening provisions related to accountability and by expanding victims’ rights. The law would extend the jurisdiction of the court’s Family Division beyond the youth’s 22nd birthday if there is a motion pending to revoke their YO status. This extended jurisdiction would last either until the court revokes the youth’s probation and sends the case to the Criminal Division or until the court discharges the youth from probation. This new provision addresses the situation where youths have “timed out” of their juvenile probation because they turn 22 while there is a pending motion for revocation of their YO status.

Act 140 also clarifies the factors a court considers when ruling on a motion to revoke YO status; confirms that if a youth fails to appear at the probation revocation hearing, the court may order an officer to pick up the youth and bring them to court; and expands the right of victims to be heard at YO hearings.

Accountability Docket. To deter crime, there must be a real risk of being caught committing a crime and certain and swift consequences for criminal activity. A pilot rapid accountability docket in Chittenden County focused resources on the second deterrence requirement, ensuring certain and swift consequences. The pilot program, which helped clear a backlog of repeat-offender criminal cases, brought together judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and human services staff to resolve cases faster and connect offenders to the services they need.

In Act 165, we defined a structure for expanding this accountability docket concept to other Vermont counties. The law sets forth the goals of an accountability docket, including: (1) accelerating court proceedings of repeat-offender cases with consistent and timely availability of judicial, prosecutorial, defense, corrections, and human services resources; (2) connecting individuals with treatment, housing, and social services to reduce the circumstances that may contribute to recidivism; (3) reducing the number of pending criminal cases that involve individuals with multiple pending cases by providing targeted resources for a limited period of time; (4) improving accountability for those individuals by providing immediate follow-up and a court schedule that makes it more likely they will appear; and (5) improving collaboration among law enforcement, prosecutors, and social workers to provide faster resolution of repeat offender cases.

For those counties that will employ an accountability docket, the law requires the county’s State’s Attorney to convene stakeholders to develop a plan to implement the program that meets these goals. It also requires the courts, prosecutors, defense counsel, and the administration to provide resources for 90-day accountability dockets. And it mandates data tracking and reporting to measure the effectiveness of these dockets.

Criminal Justice Data. Act 94 provides current criminal justice data to inform the work of the legislature. The law creates a standardized definition of recidivism in Vermont law. Recidivism rates measure how often individuals previously convicted of a crime commit a new offense. Currently, the definition of recidivism in Vermont is outdated and arbitrary, focusing on a narrow subset of individuals. Act 94 brought stakeholders together to improve the definition, making it relevant and useful in future studies and legislation related to criminal justice in Vermont.

The new law defines recidivism simply as a new criminal conviction following a prior conviction. The relevant period for counting new convictions begins when an individual is released from incarceration or sentenced to a non-custodial sentence. 

Act 94 also establishes a number of annual reports from the Vermont Statistical Analysis Center. The reports will include bail rates and information on individuals held pretrial in Vermont correctional facilities; recidivism rates calculated over three- and five-year periods; arrests and clearance rates organized by offense type; and information on the twenty crimes with the highest number of convictions, including sentencing data and total years of probation and incarceration imposed. The reports are to include demographic information, when available. Act 94 improves consistency in how Vermont measures recidivism and provides clear, comprehensive data on trends in our criminal justice system. 

Forensic Facility. Act 147 directs the Vermont Agency of Human Services (AHS) to establish a plan to develop a forensic treatment facility for certain incarcerated individuals with significant mental health challenges or cognitive disabilities. The law will address longstanding gaps in Vermont’s behavioral health infrastructure. It creates a plan to develop a therapeutic, secure setting designed to provide competency restoration, stabilization, treatment, and care while also maintaining appropriate public safety measures.

The facility is intended to better serve individuals whose needs are not met in typical correctional settings, while improving outcomes for those individuals as well as victims of crime and the broader community. The law primarily applies to two groups: Individuals charged with serious crimes punishable by life imprisonment who are found incompetent to stand trial and individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity for life-sentence offenses. The anticipated population is small —approximately six individuals annually for competency restoration cases. The facility would be operated by AHS, not the Department of Corrections (DOC), except for limited perimeter or intake security functions by DOC.

The Act establishes who can be committed to a forensic treatment facility, the process for committing individuals to the facility and keeping them there, and the paths individuals can take to end their time in the facility. The House Judiciary Committee focused on relevant court processes as well as ensuring due process and equal protection for those who qualify for commitment to a forensic facility in Vermont. The law also sets forth the requirements for the facility’s operation and requires AHS to provide a feasibility plan related to the details of the facility, including where it will be located and who will operate it. The Committee on Corrections and Institutions worked on these aspects of the law and the Committees on Health Care and on Human Services also provided input. The facility is expected to be available by July 1, 2029.

Act 147 also provides an interim competency restoration and forensic program to work with individuals currently in our system who need this treatment while the State develops a permanent facility plan. Because the interim program will be provided within DOC facilities, the Act allows DOC a broader role in providing security for the interim program, including increased involvement monitoring individuals released under supervision. DOC will focus on ensuring public safety while the AHS Medical Director will oversee competency restoration and any other clinical needs.

The inclusion of this interim program recognizes that the status quo is doing a disservice to victims and those charged but found incompetent to stand trial. The alleged offenders are languishing in prison, often for months, receiving no competency restoration treatment and limited mental health services. They are not getting their day in court or other resolution of their case, and the victims are not receiving closure or any sense of justice. It’s important to improve the status quo while the State implements a more permanent forensic facility solution.

Addressing Domestic and Sexual Violence

Act 46 revises Vermont’s civil protection order statutes to provide better relief to victims of domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking. Protection orders, also called restraining orders, are a critical legal tool for victims. This legislation will help victims of domestic violence obtain the protections they need to get and stay safe.

Act 12 establishes procedures to ensure access to orders against sexual assault after regular court hours or on weekends. Currently, survivors can only request a sexual assault protection order during regular court hours, leaving them at risk when assaults occur on evenings, weekends, or holidays. By ensuring that victims can access orders against sexual assault outside of regular court hours, the law allows for swift action whenever it is needed.

Act 89 modernizes Vermont’s laws addressing image-based abuse and digital exploitation, in part by expanding the statute of limitations for some cases and by recognizing that not all harm from such crimes is physical. These updates follow a Vermont Supreme Court decision that highlighted limitations in existing law related to nonconsensual recording in private spaces.

Act 89 also creates a new criminal offense prohibiting sexual extortion, or “sextortion,” a form of online exploitation that disproportionately impacts young people. Together, these reforms strengthen accountability for digital forms of abuse and provide clearer legal protections and recourse for victims.

Government Accountability and Transparency

Another priority for House Democrats this Biennium was responding to the ever-changing federal landscape due to the actions of the Trump administration. Vermonters across the political spectrum have been concerned about the administration’s orders and decisions related to undocumented and immigrant members of our Vermont communities, as well as the erosion of respectful political discourse and targeting of our most vulnerable communities. 

House Judiciary passed several bills that aim to protect targeted communities and restrict how Vermont law enforcement may cooperate with federal law enforcement. 

Through the establishment of standby guardianships, Act 31 clarifies a process that allows immigrant parents to identify trusted adults who can step in as temporary guardians if the parent is detained or deported. This proactive step can provide some measure of comfort to immigrant parents and their children because they will know in advance who would care for the kids in the event their parents are detained. This process helps ease traumatic separations or confusion in emergency situations. It also avoids the necessity for the Department of Children and Families to take legal custody of the children in these situations. 

The confirmatory adoption provision in Act 31 provides a clear and expedited process for Vermonters who became parents through the use of assisted reproduction technology (who are already parents under Vermont law) to obtain a court order declaring their status as parents. This change provides a necessary level of protection for families who may travel to destinations that do not recognize the legal parenthood of LGBTQ parents and others who have used assisted reproduction technology.

Vermont law had allowed an exception to the Governor’s exclusive authority to enter into certain agreements with federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE): State and local authorities could consent to such an agreement if there was a declaration of a state or national emergency. Act 28 eliminates this exception and keeps the Governor as the sole authority in Vermont to enter into ICE delegation-of-authority agreements. This change will keep the State accountable to Vermonters regarding how our law enforcement interacts and cooperates with ICE. Currently no such agreements exist in Vermont.

Act 8 expands Vermont’s hate-motivated crimes statute. It more accurately captures the conduct that such a statute is intended to penalize by expanding the scope of who can be considered a victim of a hate crime. Hateful conduct is not acceptable. Act 8 helps ensure that such conduct can be named and prosecuted effectively. 

Act 87 creates a legal claim for damages against a state, local, or federal official who violates the U.S. Constitution. Under the law, any resident of the State of Vermont, or any other person within the jurisdiction of Vermont, could sue to allege a constitutional violation that infringes their rights. They could bring such a suit against a person acting in an official capacity if that person deprives someone in Vermont of any of their federal constitutional rights, or if they cause someone in Vermont to be deprived of those rights.

For example, under this law, individuals could bring claims for violations of the Fourth Amendment related to unreasonable searches and seizures. Such claims could cover police brutality, excessive force during arrest, false arrest, and unlawful searches of homes or property. Claims may arise under the First Amendment if government officials attempt to suppress the right to free speech or the right to peaceably assemble. Claims could arise under the Fourteenth Amendment for violations of due process or equal protection. These violations could involve deprivation of life, liberty, or property without proper legal procedures. 

Act 150 expands protections against civil arrests without a judicial warrant in sensitive locations across Vermont. Prior law protected individuals attending or traveling to and from court proceedings. This new law broadens those protections to include individuals accessing educational institutions as well as those present at healthcare facilities, polling places, and government buildings, to name a few.

The Act addresses concerns related to civil immigration enforcement actions conducted pursuant to administrative warrants (versus judicial warrants) and seeks to ensure that individuals can safely access essential public institutions and services without fear of warrantless civil arrest.

Act 126 provides that no one can intentionally or recklessly intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce others for the reason of obstructing their right to cast a vote or their right to choose who to vote for. It imposes possible criminal penalties for such interference. The Vermont Secretary of State and town clerks strongly supported this part of the law, which originated in House Judiciary.

Other House Judiciary Work

Act 118 provides comprehensive reforms to Vermont’s animal cruelty statutes and procedures. The law expands and modernizes the definition of animal cruelty, updates criminal penalties to better reflect the seriousness of abuse and reworks the civil animal forfeiture procedures to improve protections for animals at risk of harm.

Act 118 will also streamline the process for removing abused animals from dangerous conditions while helping reduce the financial and logistical burdens placed on shelters, humane organizations, and volunteers assisting with animal protection efforts – something that is currently a significant issue in Vermont.

Act 134 is a firearms storage and safety law that improves the system for ensuring compliance with court-ordered firearms surrender. It does not create any new restrictions on possession or ownership of firearms.

Firearm injury is the leading cause of domestic violence-related homicide in Vermont. But all too often, protection orders requiring firearm surrender are not effectively implemented. When firearms are not properly relinquished, survivors’ safety is at risk. Uncertainty about whether an abusive partner still has access to firearms can prevent survivors from feeling safe enough to return home, go to work, or continue daily life. A court order (such as a relief from abuse order) can only protect survivors when its conditions are clearly communicated, consistently followed, and reliably enforced. Act 134 provides practical updates needed to make that possible. The process created by the law also applies to relinquishment as part of an extreme risk protection order, which may be issued when a person is shown to be a risk of danger to themself or others. 

Act 60 takes key steps to modernize the system for criminal record clearance in Vermont. Record clearance is an important part of our criminal justice system as it addresses significant barriers that exist for those with criminal records, barriers specifically related to housing, employment, and educational access.

Act 60 creates a uniform, simplified system of sealing – rather than completely erasing or “expunging” – criminal records. It allows criminal records for certain crimes to be sealed automatically if the offender receives no additional criminal convictions over a defined time period. The individual would no longer have a criminal record, eliminating overly punitive obstacles to obtaining housing, employment, and education. Sealing rather than expunging these records would also ensure access to them for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes as well as for background checks necessary to ensure public safety.

Public Safety Update

lalonde

Public safety continues to be a concern for many Vermonters. In his January budget address, the governor noted that Vermonters do not feel safe and incidents of certain types of crime have increased. He correctly noted that “one solution is more accountability.” The governor also said that taxpayers “made it clear they want us to fix broken systems, not just fund them.” 

The governor’s suggested fixes were contained in a so-called omnibus public safety bill. The bill was not introduced until late in this Session, but based on a preview of what it would contain, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees were able to start work on proposals in that bill in early January.

In the House Judiciary Committee, we tackled concerns related to juvenile justice, including the “raise the age” initiative. Vermont was the first state in the country to treat 18-year-olds accused of most crimes as juvenile offenders rather than adults. 

Based on research showing that young people’s brains are still developing into their 20s, the reform was set to gradually increase the age that youth could be sent to family court. There, cases remain confidential and offenders receive rehabilitative services aimed at helping them avoid future criminal behavior. Young adults accused of serious violent crimes, like murder and a handful of other felonies, would still be charged in adult court. 

In 2020, the state brought 18-year-olds into the juvenile system and 19-year-olds were set to follow in 2022. However, the Legislature has had to repeatedly extend the date for adding 19-year-olds, most recently to April 1, 2025.

After extensive testimony, it became clear that the administration, through the Department of Children and Families, was again not ready to proceed with raising the age to 19. In part, this was due to difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. It also stemmed from the challenge of holding 18- and 19-year-olds accountable when they are resistant to treatment and unwilling to change their behavior. In light of these concerns, the administration proposed repealing the law that would allow 19-year-olds to be treated in family court rather than criminal court.

Our committee agreed that adding 19-year-olds to DCF’s workload at this time would stretch its already over-stretched resources. But, given the recognized benefits to public safety of addressing most youth in family court and providing them with rehabilitative services, last week the legislature in H.2 instead delayed the addition of 19-year-olds to July 2027. The delay will give the administration and the legislature additional time to develop approaches to improve accountability for those treatment-resistant individuals in the older age group.

In the second half of this Session, the House Judiciary Committee will work on bills received from the Senate that also address provisions in the administration’s public safety bill. S.12 would create a uniform, simplified system of sealing – rather than completely erasing or “expunging” – criminal records. It would allow criminal records for certain crimes to be sealed automatically if the offender receives no additional criminal convictions over a defined time period. The individual would no longer have a criminal record, which would eliminate overly punitive obstacles to obtaining housing, employment, and education. Sealing rather than expunging these records would also ensure access for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes as well as for background checks necessary to ensure public safety.

The House Judiciary Committee will also continue to work on amendments to the State’s extradition procedures, bail revocation, and the definition of recidivism, also among the administration’s priorities.

I support these initiatives and some of them might bring additional accountability. But they won’t “fix” the system, despite the administration’s claims. True accountability for criminal offenses requires additional funding for the criminal justice system.

Our court system currently faces a backlog of cases and recently experienced a number of judicial vacancies, which exacerbated the problem. These vacancies have since been filled and the legislature approved three additional judges in the FY 2025 budget. The increase in judicial resources will help, but without additional resources for pre-charge diversion, as well as additional resources for prosecutors and public defenders, it will still take years to clear the backlog. And due to the backlog and a lack of resources, criminal cases are not being processed in a timely manner.

Funding programs to divert cases out of the criminal justice system and thus reduce pressure on the courts is a top priority of the House Judiciary Committee. The governor’s budget contains no funding to divert cases from the courts through the pre-charge diversion program. Pre-charge diversion occurs when individuals who commit low-level crimes are referred to community providers of restorative justice, such as community justice centers, instead of to court. Over the past three years, an average of 698 cases per year have been diverted from the courts prior to being charged. Act 180 of 2024 established a state-wide pre-charge diversion program, which should divert even more cases from the courts. But this program requires funding.

The governor’s proposed budget does not provide the resources the criminal justice system needs to ensure the public is safe. Accordingly, the House Judiciary Committee recommended that the budget include the resources necessary to enable cases to be resolved in a timely fashion. Only by doing so will individuals be held accountable for their actions as soon as possible after offending – a key to ensuring public safety.

This is admittedly a difficult budgeting year, with many needs but reduced resources. Nevertheless, to improve public safety by ensuring more expeditious resolution of criminal cases, it is critical that we find a way to provide the entire justice system with sufficient resources.

H.2 Raise the Age Bill report

lalonde

The following is my report that I delivered in the House Chamber on H.2.

The juvenile justice system handles the supervision, care, and rehabilitation of juveniles accused of criminal acts. Vermont’s juvenile justice system has several goals: To protect public safety. To connect youth to age-appropriate services that reduce recidivism. And to shield youth from the adverse impact of a criminal record, helping them become responsible and productive members of the community.

The system helps to prevent the taint of criminality from the juvenile offender. To this end, unlike in criminal court, juvenile delinquency proceedings are confidential. In addition, the juvenile is not saddled with a criminal record. While rehabilitating the juvenile is a focus, the system also seeks to ensure protection of the community and accountability to victims.

In Vermont, juvenile offenders are brought to Family Court instead of Criminal Court. In general, when a person is charged with a criminal offense in Vermont, the court system they enter depends on their age and the severity of the crime. Currently, with some exceptions, if someone age 10-18 is charged with a crime, they are processed as juvenile delinquents in Family Court. One of the exceptions occurs if they are charged with one of the most serious crimes such as murder or arson. In that case their case will start in criminal court. If the offender is over 18, they are processed in Criminal Court. But for individuals 18 to 21 years old who are alleged to have committed a crime, there is another path to the family court called Youthful Offender. H.2 does not deal with Youthful Offender, but it is good to have the whole picture.

H.2 addresses several issues related to the treatment of juvenile delinquents. The bill primarily amends the age range for individuals who initially appear in Family Court in a delinquency proceeding.

I will now take you through the bill.

Sections 1 and 2, starting at page _ of Today’s Calendar, concern the age range of children who can be subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings in the Family Division of the Superior Court.

Under current law, a delinquency proceeding can be brought against a person who is at least 10 years old and not older than 18. If a person younger than 10 commits an unlawful act, the behavior might still be introduced in another type of proceeding, such as one to terminate parental rights, but it could not be the basis of a juvenile proceeding in Family Court. The only exception to this is that a juvenile proceeding can be brought against a child under age 10 for murder.

Section 1 of H.2 proposes to change this structure in two ways. First, the bill proposes to increase the minimum age, so that a child would have to be at least 12 in order to be subject to delinquency proceedings. The effect of this change would be that delinquency proceedings could not be brought against 10- or 11-year-olds. Second, H.2 proposes to repeal the exception for murder, so that children under 12 could not be subject to delinquency proceedings for any offense.

This change was prompted by a recommendation in a 2024 report from the Racial Disparities in the Juvenile and Criminal Justice System Advisory Panel (RDAP).

This change recognizes that children are fundamentally different from adults. Their brains are not fully developed. Young children, regardless of the misconduct, do not have the legal capacity to form criminal intent or the competency to comprehend basic legal principles.

The Vermont Defender General’s Office provided testimony in support of this change and stated that it would be very challenging to find a youth under 12 years old to be competent to stand trial. Witnesses also noted that, in the past 25 years, the exception for ten-year-olds related to murder has not been used.

There are other, better ways to handle individuals in this age group who break the law. Courts are empowered to order a broad range of services designed to support a child and their family to address any behavioral concerns without criminalizing young children.

While about half the country has no minimum age for juvenile court jurisdiction, many of our neighboring states have a higher minimum age. For example, New York and Massachusetts both have a minimum age of 12 for children who can be brought into Family Court, and New Hampshire goes even further with a minimum age of 13 (with certain carve-outs).

No witness opposed this section of the bill.

Moving to section 3, found on page _ of today’s calendar.

Generally, jurisdiction over a juvenile ends at age 18. But current law permits a court to extend its jurisdiction if the person committed the offense as an older teenager. For example, if the person was 16 or 17 years old when they committed the offense, the court can extend jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 19th birthday. This permits the Department for Children and Families to supervise and treat the person for a longer period.

Section 2 of the bill adds one year to this authority, so in the case of an offense committed by a 16 or 17 year old, the court could extend its jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 20th birthday. In the case of an offense committed by an 18 year old, the court could extend jurisdiction to 6 months beyond the person’s 21st birthday.

During testimony on H.2, witnesses shared that there are missed opportunities for accountability when a juvenile ages out of the system and full adherence to case management plans can’t be achieved. When a juvenile ages out of the system, court supervision ends and all intervention regarding that specific case stops. To address this, H.2 extends the opportunity for court supervision so there is more time for the juvenile court supervision process to provide rehabilitation and accountability.
Turning to sections 3 through 9 starting on page _ of Today’s Calendar.

Sections 3 through 9 propose an additional 2-year extension, until July 1, 2027, on the further implementation of the Raise the Age initiative.

Prior to this initiative, most youthful offenders age 17 or younger could be charged as a juvenile in the Family Division.

Upon passing the “Raise the Age” law (Act 201) in 2018, Vermont became the first state in the country to treat 18-year-olds accused of most crimes as juvenile offenders, rather than adults.

Based on research that shows young people’s brains are still developing into their 20s, the reform was set to gradually increase the age that youth could be sent to family court, where cases remain confidential. As discussed earlier, through the family court process, offenders receive rehabilitative services aimed at helping them avoid future criminal behavior. Young adults accused of serious violent crimes, like murder and a handful of other felonies, would still be charged in adult court. The state brought 18-year-olds into the juvenile system in 2020. 19-year-olds were set to follow in 2022, but the Legislature extended that date by one year, to July 1st of 2023, as a result of the COVID emergency. Two years ago the Legislature extended that date by another year, to July 1st of 2024, and last year the Legislature extended it again to April 1st of this year.

With the last extension, this body added a reporting requirement to monitor progress by the Department for Children and Families in moving toward the implementation date. Although reports showed some progress on this measure, DCF’s last report asked lawmakers this year to pause the move indefinitely.

Since the start of the session, House Judiciary has taken extensive testimony focused on understanding the processes involved with juvenile justice, and specifically with the long-delayed Raise the Age initiative. The committee heard testimony that covered a range of perspectives on this topic. The Department of Children and Families, Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs and Department of Public Safety called for a repeal of the act raising the age to 19 year olds. The Office of the Child, Youth, and Family Advocate testified that we should proceed on April 1st. Still others, including the Office of Racial Equity and the Office of the Defender General testified that raising the age to 19 is the right approach, but we should only proceed when the change is likely to succeed. And currently, due to staffing, programmatic, and infrastructure inadequacies, DCF is not ready to proceed to this next step.

Based on this testimony, and on the reporting of DCF, your House Judiciary Committee concluded that now is not the right time to expand Raise the Age to 19-year-olds.

Adding 19 year olds to DCF’s workload at this time would stretch already over-stretched resources. DCF’s ability to supervise and serve the youth already in the juvenile justice system would be hampered. DCF, and specifically the Family Services Division that oversees juvenile delinquents, is already having difficulties with recruiting and retaining staff. In FY24, the vacancy rate for Family Services Workers rose to 11.4% with a turnover rate of 16%. Expanding to 19 year olds at this time would exacerbate this problem by putting additional stress on Family Services workers.

Also, working with 18 and 19 year olds in this context presents different challenges than working with those who are under 18. Different interventions are needed when individuals in this age group are resistant to treatment or otherwise opposed to changing their behavior. DCF needs additional time and experience to get those interventions right while working with 18 year olds.

The delay will give DCF additional experience in adapting more effective interventions for 18 year olds before adding 19 year olds. It will also give the administration and the legislature additional time to develop approaches to improve accountability for those treatment resistant individuals in the 18 year old age group before adding 19 year olds.

In short, DCF has inadequate capacity and experience to expand Raise the Age at this time. More time is needed to make sure the system is ready for the expansion.

So, sections 3 and 4 delete the April 1, 2025 implementation date, and Sections 5-9 reenact the language changes necessary to permit 19-year-olds who commit certain offenses to have their cases start in the Family Division. These are offenses that are not part of what we call the Big 14 – murder, arson, and similar serious offenses. These language changes become law on July 1, 2027 under the Effective Date provisions in Section 11. This extension gives DCF more time to increase capacity and experience for the expansion.

But to check on whether necessary progress is being made, Section 10 of the bill, starting on page _ of Today’s Calendar, outlines clear reporting requirements to monitor readiness.

Section 10 requires the Agency of Human Services to provide the Joint Justice Oversight Committee (as well as several other Senate and House Committees) with two progress reports on the requirement that the Raise the Age initiative be implemented on July 1, 2027. These are very similar to the bimonthly reports that AHS provided over the past year. They must describe the steps taken to achieve such specified goals as establishing a secure residential facility, expanding capacity for nonresidential treatment programs to provide community-based services, and improving recruitment and retention of staff.

This year a new provision was added to the report requiring AHS to provide data on the Red Clover Treatment Facility, including the number of youths who use the facility, their length of stay, their treatment needs, and their racial and gender demographic data. Section 10 also makes clear that the failure by DCF to meet one of these progress report goals cannot be a basis for extending the implementation of the Raise the Age initiative beyond July 1, 2027.

Section 11 contains the effective dates. A particularly important part is subsection (b), which has a March 31, 2025 effective date for the sections that repeal the Raise the Age provisions scheduled to go into effect on April 1st. This is necessary to ensure that the provisions are repealed before they go into effect.

The Committee heard from the following witnesses:

H.2 provides important updates to the age of individuals subject to juvenile delinquency proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings. It also pauses the next step in Vermont’s Raise the Age initiative given the reality that more work is needed before we take that step. If we do not pass this bill, that next step will occur on April 1 of this year, less than three weeks from today. DCF is simply not ready to properly supervise and serve a population of 19 year olds at this time. And by further taxing DCF’s resources, we will be dis-serving those youth already under their supervision.

The Committee vote was 7-2-2 and I ask for your support.

Statement from Public Safety Press Conference

lalonde

Even though Vermont is a very safe state, Vermonters are feeling less safe. Indeed, data has shown that over the past few years, some of Vermont’s crime rates have increased.

To tackle this issue, it is most important that we address the root causes of crime. These include insufficient resources to address the instability in people’s lives that may be caused by substance use disorder, mental health issues, homelessness, and poverty. Strengthening Vermont’s infrastructure in these areas continues to be a top priority, but the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction lies at the end of the line, the criminal justice system, when people have committed crimes. So, that will be the focus of my comments today.

Last year, the legislature passed a package of initiatives to improve public safety through the criminal justice system.

We targeted crimes that have specifically impacted our state, such as retail theft in Act 128, auto theft and trespass into an auto in Act 129, drug trafficking in Act 125, and the proliferation of ghost guns in Act 120.

In Act 138, we tackled issues related to conditions of release and bail. We clarified that when a court is determining whether a defendant presents a risk of flight, it should consider whether that defendant has violated conditions of release. And if the court finds a risk of flight, it is no longer limited to a $200 maximum bail if the defendant is a repeat offender. Act 138 also established a pretrial supervision program that includes electronic monitoring to ensure that people are complying with conditions of release as they await resolution of their cases.

We also provided additional resources to the state’s courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates so that our criminal justice system will work more effectively. And we passed Act 180 to expand restorative justice throughout the State as a vital part of our public safety package.

Some of these laws are already helping, including the changes to bail.  But it will take some time for our other initiatives to have an impact. For example, the three additional judges that we approved are only now taking the bench. Also, the pretrial supervision program is starting as a pilot in Orange and Essex counties.

Nevertheless, as the administration recognized when it unveiled its proposed omnibus public safety bill, there is more to be done. I appreciate that the administration is engaging in continuing to improve public safety. I applaud the Governor’s proposal to provide more rehabilitative help to Vermonters suffering from substance use disorder.  

The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have already been working this session on questions raised in the administration’s proposal. For example, House Judiciary has been taking testimony to understand issues related to juvenile justice and how we can improve accountability in that system. Senate Judiciary is taking testimony on sealing and expungement, starting with a bill that the House passed last year but the Senate did not. That bill does most of what the Governor now seeks in his proposal on that issue. We will evaluate other proposals in the administration’s bill, including bail revocation and modifying the definition of recidivism.

But there is an important element missing from the administration’s proposals. And that is a focus on ensuring that our criminal justice system can deliver swift, certain, and fair consequences.

To deter crime, you need two things: first, the risk of being caught committing a crime and second, certain and swift consequences for criminal activity. 

These consequences do not necessarily have to involve incarceration. They can include probation, community restitution, deferred sentences, diversion, and mental health or substance use treatment. The key is that the consequences for offenders must be certain and swift.

But in Vermont, consequences for criminal activity have become uncertain and slow. Deterrence has therefore declined. Why has this happened? There is one major reason. Over the past several years, Vermont State courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates have lacked the resources to resolve criminal cases expeditiously.

How do we fix this?  How do we get our criminal justice system running more expeditiously? We can approach this problem in three ways. First, we can provide resources to the actors in the criminal justice system so that cases can be more swiftly processed. Second, we can take pressure off the courts by diverting more cases away from the criminal justice system. Third, we can examine other procedural or sentencing fixes to expedite court processing.

As to the first approach, last year, we did provide a boost in resources and we should see the impact of that investment in the coming year.  But additional resources are needed for prosecutors, defenders, and community justice centers. I am hopeful that the administration’s budget will recognize the primary importance of providing sufficient resources to Vermont’s criminal justice system.

As to the second approach – to take pressure off the courts, last year, we established a state-wide pre-charge diversion program to have certain types of cases resolved through restorative justice practices in community justice centers before ever reaching the criminal justice system. A well-functioning, well-resourced restorative justice system can ensure certain and immediate consequences, often with better outcomes for victims and offenders than the criminal justice system. Diverting more cases pre-charge will take pressure off the courts to allow the criminal justice system to take care of the current backlog and speed up case processing. This year, we must make sure that this program gets off the ground and is appropriately resourced.

As to the final approach, examining other fixes, last year we re-established community restitution, also known as work crew, which the Department of Corrections had ended. This was a tool that prosecutors, defenders, and the courts had used to quickly resolve many cases, but similar cases now languish. This year, we need to make sure this sentencing option is appropriately implemented.

We will keep working, including with the administration, to improve public safety in Vermont through responsible, holistic, system-wide solutions with the best interests of all Vermonters front of mind.

Looking Ahead to Upcoming Session – Public Safety

lalonde

On January 8, the Vermont General Assembly will convene its 79th Biennium. Based on what we have heard while reaching out to constituents, the legislature’s priority will be affordability, primarily as it relates to education and health care. I hope to continue to serve as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, where we will resume our work addressing concerns related to public safety.

In the last session, the legislature passed several initiatives to address public safety concerns. We targeted crimes that have specifically impacted our state, such as retail theft in Act 128, auto theft and trespass into an auto in Act 129, drug trafficking in Act 125, and the proliferation of ghost guns in Act 120.

We also tackled systemic issues. In Act 138 we established a pretrial supervision program that includes electronic monitoring to ensure that people are complying with their conditions of release as they await resolution of their cases. We re-established community restitution, also known as work crew.

The legislature also provided additional resources to the courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates so that our criminal justice system will work more effectively. And we passed Act 180 to expand restorative justice throughout the State as a vital part of our public safety package.

The criminal justice system has several important goals: rehabilitation of individuals who have committed crimes, incapacitation of violent individuals who pose a threat to society, and deterrence.

Effective deterrence relies on two factors: (1) the risk of being caught and (2) certain and quick consequences for criminal activity. The consequences do not necessarily have to involve incarceration. They can include probation, community restitution, deferred sentences, diversion, and mental health or substance use treatment. The key is that the consequences for offenders must be certain and swift.

In Vermont, consequences for criminal activity have become slow and uncertain. Deterrence has therefore declined. Why has this happened? There is one major reason. Over the past several years, Vermont State courts, prosecutors, defenders, and victim advocates have lacked the resources to resolve criminal cases expeditiously.

To get to a point where cases can be promptly resolved, the Vermont criminal justice system must address a significant backlog of proceedings, which pre-dated the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic, fewer cases were filed, but those that were filed were not being processed. After the courts fully reopened, a surge in new filings left the courts falling even further behind.

The courts use several metrics to track whether they are making progress on reducing the backlog. One of those metrics is clearance rates – the number of new filings compared to the number of cases the courts dispose of each month. Cases in compared to cases out. If the clearance rate is over 100%, that means the backlog is being reduced. As of the end of October of this year, the courts have achieved a clearance rate on criminal cases of 111%, an improvement over last year’s clearance rate of 106%. But our goal is to achieve a rate of 125%, which would allow the system to substantially decrease the backlog in the next four years.  

Due in part to the court backlog and a lack of resources, criminal cases are frequently not being processed in a timely manner. The Vermont courts track the time from when a case is filed to when the court disposes of it. They set forth disposition goals: for example, 98% of standard misdemeanor cases should be resolved in 180 days and 98% of standard felonies should be resolved in 365 days. Currently, approximately 50% of cases are meeting disposition goals. That means that, for many individuals alleged to have committed criminal offenses, the consequences are far removed from the offense, diminishing any deterrence value.

How do we reach these goals? There are two primary solutions. First, we can provide the resources to the criminal justice system so that cases can be more expeditiously processed. This past year, the legislature provided additional resources to the State’s courts, prosecutors, defenders, victim advocates, and Community Justice Centers.

Second, we need not rely solely on the courts to provide expeditious consequences for criminal activity. A well-functioning, well-resourced restorative justice system can also ensure certain and immediate consequences, often with better outcomes for victims and offenders than the criminal justice system.

Restorative justice is a community-based response to crime that focuses on repairing harm and making amends. It holds individuals accountable for the harm they have caused in a manner that centers on the victim and the community that has been harmed. 

For years, Vermont has successfully used restorative justice through its established court diversion program. Under this program, defendants charged with crimes can be sent to the diversion program as an alternative to being prosecuted. 

Some communities in Vermont also successfully use what is called pre-charge diversion. In these communities, for low-level crimes and first-time offenders, law enforcement or prosecutors can send an alleged offender to a community justice center before they are charged with a crime. They are diverted from the criminal justice system earlier, with better results for victims and the community and quicker accountability for the alleged offender.  

Pre-charge diversion had not been available or uniformly applied across the state. There was no pre-charge diversion program like there is for court diversion.

Act 180 corrected that problem. It establishes a state-wide pre-charge diversion program that will be overseen by the Office of the Attorney General, which currently manages the court diversion program. It sets forth standards for program implementation and access across all counties. It requires uniform data collection that will allow Vermont to more precisely evaluate program effectiveness and overall cost savings. Critically, diverting more cases pre-charge will take pressure off the courts to allow the criminal justice system to take care of the backlog and speed up case processing.

It will take time for the work of this past Session to have an impact on public safety. The pre-trial supervision program will start as a pilot in Orleans and Essex Counties before rolling out to the rest of the State. As to the courts, in May we approved the addition of three judges; in early September the Judicial Nominating Board recommended to the administration twelve candidates for the judgeships; and on November 27 the administration appointed judges from this list. Filling positions takes time, and there will be a learning curve for these new judges and for additional prosecutors and defense attorneys. 

Looking to the upcoming session, the House Judiciary Committee will monitor progress in addressing the backlog and will evaluate additional resource needs, including for the pre-charge diversion program. We will also consider other initiatives to ensure that our communities are safe.

Vermont’s Under-resourced Criminal Justice System

lalonde

Vermonters are concerned about public safety. I have heard from constituents and fellow representatives from around the State, who share stories of individuals who have committed crimes, who are arrested, arraigned, and released, and who proceed to commit additional crimes. Why, I’m asked, aren’t the courts locking these individuals up?

Under our legal system, individuals are considered innocent until the State proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Or, as happens in most cases, a plea agreement is reached between the defendant and the prosecutor, usually after a trial date has been set. It is after conviction or a plea agreement that individuals face the consequences associated with their crime, including potentially incarceration.

Individuals can only be detained before their trial in limited situations. Chapter 2, Section 40 of the Vermont Constitution provides that “all persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties.” This means that a judge must release the defendant either on “personal recognizance” (a promise to return for the next court hearing) or on an “appearance bond” (bail). The purpose of bail is not to punish. It is not a method to detain a defendant. If a judge decides to set bail, they may set bail only at an amount that will reasonably ensure the defendant’s appearance in court and not higher. It should be an amount that the defendant can post and that will act as an incentive for the defendant to show up in court. Judges are not supposed to set bail at an amount that will prevent the release of the defendant simply because the person is unable to post the amount. If the defendant does not appear, they forfeit the bail amount.

Under the Vermont Constitution, individuals can be held without bail only in a few circumstances. They may be held if they are charged with an offense for which the punishment is life imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is great. They may also be held if charged with a felony involving an act of violence against another person, the evidence of guilt is great, and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person’s release poses a substantial threat of physical violence to any person and that no conditions of release will reasonably prevent the physical violence.

Most offenses charged in our criminal justice system do not involve such offenses that allow courts to hold the defendant without bail. So the large majority of alleged offenders will be released pending their trial. They may be subject to conditions of release, such as restrictions on their travel, people they may associate with, or place they can live during the period of release. But they will be in the community. And some of these individuals will commit additional offenses and may violate their conditions of release while they await their trial date.

But that trial date may be far in the future. And this, in my view, is the crux of the problem. The Vermont courts continue to face a significant backlog of cases. Even before the COVID shutdown, the courts had insufficient resources, resulting in delays in cases being heard. This problem was exasperated by the pandemic and the courts are still catching up.

The courts have been open post-COVID for a while now. But with the courts focused on addressing accumulated felony cases, misdemeanors are also not being processed expeditiously.

In the criminal justice area, it is understood that the best deterrent to crime is a heightened risk of being caught and the certainty and immediacy of the consequences. The risk of being caught depends on the availability and visibility of law enforcement. The certainty and immediacy of consequences depends on judicial, prosecutor, and defender resources.

What is needed, then, to help address the community’s concern related to crime is a fully resourced and functioning criminal justice system, including law enforcement, courts, State’s Attorneys offices, and the Defender General’s Office.

Of immediate concern is the fact that of 37 state judge positions in Vermont, seven are currently unfilled. When judges retire, it is taking four to six months on average to fill the positions. In the upcoming session, the House Judiciary Committee will likely consider a bill to expedite the nomination process and expand the pool of applicants for judge positions.

Even with a full complement of judges – hopefully by year’s end – courts will still need additional resources, including yet more judges and court staff, to ensure a speedy process for resolving criminal cases. In the upcoming session, the legislature should ensure that the courts, prosecutors, and defenders receive the necessary resources.

In future columns, I will explain other bills that the House Judiciary Committee will likely consider next session to reduce the pressures on the criminal, as well as civil, justice system. The best way to reduce crime, however, requires solutions beyond the Judiciary Committee’s purview. These solutions involve addressing social determinants of crime including underemployment or unemployment, housing instability, food insecurity, untreated substance use disorder, and poor access to health care. I will continue to support other committees in their work to address these underlying issues.