I oppose SB 137 because it will not prevent crime but will cost taxpayers up to $500,000 for every person sentenced under the enhanced penalties in the bill.   SB 137 could result in having to build another prison or/and more dementia units in state facilities.  I’d rather the legislature find ways to spend these millions of dollars on mental health care access, substance use treatment options, and early childhood services. This will not increase public safety.  If public safety is the goal, please increase funding for education and career programs for those incarcerated.  They will eventually return to the community.  The better the programs, the better will be the contribution of formerly incarcerated to the good of the community. Prison itself is a school for gang life and degrading human abuse of fellows.  Again, please work for public safety.

I oppose SB 137 because it will not prevent crime, but will cost taxpayers millions and could result in having to build another prison (or more dementia units in prisons). I'd rather we spend millions on mental health care access, substance use treatment options, and early childhood services.

I oppose bill 137….. if you are rehabilitated and proved yourself during your 20 years then you should be eligible for parole.

I oppose bill 137.  It is a waster of taxpayers money to keep people longer when they have been rehabilitated!

I oppose Bill 137..The WV Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation hence the name rehabilitation should be key when determining increasing ineffective prison sentences!  Ridiculous  to keep someone for more time when they are rehabilitated!  Change the name of your prison if you pass 137!  Disappointed with your reasoning and lack of ability to realize the importance of sending this bill to the finance committee . Tax payers on both sides of isle are against 137! Just read the facts for once and make the right choice!

SB 137 is literally the anti-Second Look bill and creates the most harm at the greatest financial cost with zero value-add in terms of public safety. I vehemently oppose.

To the Members of the Judiciary Committee,

My name is Crysta Black, and I am writing today not just as an advocate for justice reform in West Virginia, but as someone who lives every day with the reality of incarceration affecting my family and many others across our state.

Bills like SB 137 may appear on paper to strengthen accountability by increasing sentences. However, for families like mine, they represent something far deeper — the continued expansion of punishment without addressing the underlying issues that lead people into the justice system in the first place.

Longer sentences do not heal communities. They do not repair harm. And they do not create the conditions necessary for real change.

What families across West Virginia desperately want to see are meaningful investments in rehabilitation, education, mental health care, and personal development programs within our correctional facilities. When individuals are given access to programs that help them understand their actions, develop emotional regulation, learn job skills, and address trauma or addiction, we see real transformation happen.

I have personally witnessed how access to programs and personal growth opportunities can change the trajectory of a person's life. Growth is possible. Accountability is possible. Redemption is possible. But those things require resources, support, and the opportunity for rehabilitation.

Policies that simply extend incarceration without expanding rehabilitative opportunities ultimately cost taxpayers more money while doing little to improve long-term public safety.

Families like mine are not asking for the absence of accountability. We believe deeply in accountability and responsibility. What we are asking for is a justice system that also believes in growth, healing, and the possibility of change.

If our goal as a state is safer communities, then we must focus on policies that reduce recidivism and prepare individuals to return to society as healthier, more stable, and productive members of their communities.

I respectfully urge the committee to reconsider policies that increase incarceration without addressing rehabilitation and instead focus on solutions that strengthen families, support transformation, and build safer communities for all West Virginians.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Crysta Black

West Virginia Advocate for Justice Reform

I am apposed to SB 137.  It seems we spend a lot of money housing offenders, rather than the many other needs in WV.  We are near the bottom of so many health and education lists.  I don't see how locking more people in cages is going to help our people.  What if we tried focusing on treatment and prevention options for a change.  Locking more and more people up, doesn't seem to be helping us improve very much.

My name is Sara Whitaker, and I am the Criminal Legal Policy Analyst at the West Virginia Center on Budget and Policy (WVCBP). There are many reasons to oppose this bill, as detailed in this fact sheet: https://wvpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/SB-137-Overview.pdf.   But I want to share what I’ve seen firsthand. I spent a decade in the Kanawha County Public Defender’s Office, where I represented people charged with felonies, including the offenses contemplated by this bill. But it’s in my work at WVCBP these last four years that I have met and worked with dozens of people who were convicted of these offenses. Some have come home from prison; some are still incarcerated.   It has been eye-opening. If you are a public defender or a police officer or a prosecutor or a judge, you see this person in the immediate aftermath of the harm they committed. And, unless you are a defense attorney who works directly with them, you see very little of the person through the criminal trial process. If the person is convicted and sentenced to prison, the story stops there for those who work in the trial courts.   At the Center, I’ve had the chance to meet people 10, 15, 20, 30 years after they were sentenced. Naturally, these people bear little resemblance to the person they were during the trial or when the arrived in prison. They have gotten older and have grown up. They have taken classes to get earn their GEDs or even a college degrees. They are sober and have completed long-term substance abuse treatment. And they are finding ways within the prison walls to put their rehabilitation into practice.  

• One man co-created an arts program at his prison. The art created by him and others has been exhibited around this state, in this capitol building, and even in New York City. Because this artist grew up with folks who had suffered in the foster care system, he and other incarcerated men regularly donated art to fundraisers benefiting children in the system.
• A woman at Lakin turned her prison library job into an opportunity to teach other women how to read. For years, she has crocheted knit hats for babies born in a local hospital.
• A man at Mt. Olive facilitates a curriculum for men who want to become better dads, spouses, siblings. He does this to help men prepare for release – even though his sentence of life without mercy means he will never have that chance.

  These people are exceptional, but they are not the exception. Our prisons are full of people who have worked hard to do accountability behind bars.   I want to address one reason the prosecutors’ association has argued why lawmakers should increase these sentences. They argue that parole hearings are traumatic for the victims who lost loved ones.   I completely agree with this. I have listened to many parole hearings over the last few years and have seen how they are perfectly designed to produce that effect.   First, the state does not provide victims much information about the person in prison. The law requires notification of hearings and of release. But there is no information given to a victim about what the person incarcerated has done since the victim last saw them at the sentencing hearing. Nothing that may be able to answer the question many survivors have: Is this person a threat to me or anyone else?   Second, during the Covid pandemic, the parole board moved to virtual hearings. They interview the parole candidate by video, while victims and witnesses may only appear by phone. Because there are many hearings in a day and no specific times given, this could mean a victim waiting by the phone for hours on the hearing day. Even though the Covid emergency ended years ago, the parole board continues to rely on impersonal virtual hearings.   Finally, the hearing itself does not allow people to directly address the person who harmed them. In fact, they will be told not to do this and to direct their remarks to the board. This means that victims who have waited years cannot say what they’ve been waiting to say. Nor can they ask the incarcerated person questions that may be critical to the victim’s sense of closure and healing.   I agree that the current parole hearing process is not working for the people involved. The legislature has the power to change that. But that is not what this bill does.   Instead this bill contemplates an extra half million dollar investment, the cost of ten extra years, to incarcerate each person sentenced. Those costs will most certainly rise in the coming years. Especially as DCR must spend more on infrastructure and medical care to accommodate an aging prison population. Our prisons already have hospice units and dementia wards. Increasing mandatory minimums will only increase demand for specialized housing.   There is no fiscal note or finance reference so we don’t have official estimates as to how much of the state budget will need to be diverted to corrections if this is implemented.   But we do have research from dozens of studies that “increasing already long sentences has no material deterrent effect.” Experts have long known that people “age out” of crime. And research consistently shows that older people are less likely to re-offend after release from incarceration, while cost of incarcerating them can be significant.   This bill does not prevent violence, nor provide resources to help victims heal. I hope you will vote against it.

As someone who works in the criminal justice arena, I know first hand that adding years to people's sentences by extending parole eligibility will cost taxpayers a lot of money. Extending parole eligibility will add more burden to an already overburdened prison system which is struggling to house prisoners and provide fully trained correctional officers. Our parole board already does a good job weighing who should be released on parole and we should trust their judgment.

This bill is awful! Instead up upping the sentences, clogging up our system even more there needs to be a rehabilitative services to encourage redemption. Imposing longer sentences will not be a solution but more of a crippling status . Good People make bad choices every day in some way…please rethink this bill and Vote AGAINST IT!!

Enhancing penalties makes us feel like we are doing something to prevent crime, but there isn’t really any evidence to support that doing so has any impact whatsoever.  As was heard in House Judiciary committee on March 2nd, violence is often fueled by drugs, alcohol or untreated mental illness.    So if we as a state really want to be "tough on crime" then we need to invest in family supports and mental health treatment.   SB 137 will cost the taxpayers millions in additional costs to our prisons, while doing nothing to address root causes.

There is absolutely NO evidence that increasing sentencing deters crime. Increasing the minimum time only takes control from judges and parole boards ro give people a chance who have changed their lives,  if you want to i crease punishment Increase the maximum amount of time giving judges more discretion when sentencing.

As we look at the current cost of incarceration and we hope for rehabilitation the increase in time for eligibility to parole, would be negatively impacting the community in multiple ways the first is the financial strain it would take effect on this state which is already in a major issue with the conditions the prisons are in, multiple doors don’t work in many prisons the power and WiFi go out frequently and mass punishment already occurs within these facilities  due to the staffing shortage, so add to increased inmates your housing at over populated facilities and the food cost for an additional ten years the climb of cost would be astronomical for a state in which already can’t not afford the prison system we have. Then to take away a glimpse of hope of release would increase the risk of an inmate not rehabilitating, like inmates many of us do things based off what we would expect as an outcome to then change that expectations, decreases the drive to be productive. We strongly urge you to reconsider these adjustments in the moral , financial aspects of the prison system, I urge you to interview and process time with inmates of these statues prior to making decisions, as I have heard many CO talk about the change someone can make and often do make inside these prison walls in WV this won’t help the recidivism rate, it won’t help crime prevention it will have a negative impact in multiple ways ..

I do not agree with this bill, any offense after this one will give them a life sentence, even if just shoplifting. I am a prison wife, and this bill will ruin lives even the smallest offense.

Written Testimony of Celeste Trusty State Legislative Affairs Director, FAMM Opposition to SB 137 West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary March 2, 2026 FAMM would like to thank Chair Akers, Vice-Chair Maynor, Minority Chair Fluharty, Minority Vice-Chair Hansen, and members of the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee of the Judiciary for the opportunity to express our strong opposition to SB 137, which would drastically increase mandatory minimum sentences of incarceration and time served requirements for people with certain criminal convictions.  Mandatory minimum sentences contribute to over-incarceration, separate families, and divert resources from evidence-based strategies that work.  Increasing mandatory minimum sentences will undoubtedly cause widespread harm to West Virginians in the absence of efficacy. FAMM opposes SB 137 and encourages members of the House Committee on the Judiciary to do the same. FAMM is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that advocates sentencing and prison policies that are individualized and fair, protect public safety, and preserve families.  For more than three decades, FAMM has been on the front lines fighting against mandatory minimum sentences - and the data supports the validity of our work.  It has been well-known for decades now that mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime and are a colossal drain on taxpayer resources, yet SB 137 relies on these outdated and wasteful concepts in what would surely be an unsuccessful effort to protect public safety.[1] Mandatory minimum sentences like those increased in SB 137 require judges to impose blanket minimum sentences to every person convicted of a specific offense, removing a judge’s ability to consider the specifics of the situation, individual victims, the individual person they are sentencing, or any mitigating factors.  What results all too often is a sentence that is counterproductive, wildly expensive, and ineffective at protecting the public from the very concern the legislature is trying to address.[2]  FAMM understands the valid concern with the impact of crime on communities across the state and our country. However, increasing mandatory minimum sentences is simply not the answer.  This is supported by more than three decades of evidence showing that mandatory minimum sentences do not make our communities any safer. SB 137 would increase the mandatory minimum sentences for second degree murder from 10 to 40 years to 15 to 60 years and from three to 15 years to five to 25 years for voluntary manslaughter.  SB 137 would also increase the mandatory minimum time served prior to parole eligibility for people serving life sentences from 10 to 20 years, and from 15 to 25 years for people serving life who have two prior felony convictions.  People convicted of first-degree murder after July 1, 2026, would also be required to serve 25 years before parole eligibility, a 10-year increase from the current requirement. Incarceration is meant as a form of punishment and to protect the public, but also meant to rehabilitate, educate, and support people as they prepare for a successful return to the community.  FAMM believes that people should have meaningful opportunities to be released back into the community when their continued incarceration no longer serves any public benefit.  SB 137 runs counter to that goal and would increase incarceration lengths and costs for every person convicted of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter or serving life sentences, regardless of their individual rehabilitation and readiness to return to the community. West Virginians pay an average of nearly $50,000 each year to incarcerate each person, and those costs can drastically increase as people age and require increased medical care while serving longer prison sentences.[3] Legislating blanket increases on minimum terms of incarceration based on conviction or sentence will undoubtedly increase the fiscal burden on West Virginia’s taxpayers without tangible benefit to the safety of their communities.  Additionally, the provisions included in SB 137 ignore the role of the Parole Board who makes individualized decisions about readiness for release from incarceration, and whose decisions on granting release show that the populations of people targeted with increased punishment by this bill generally have much lower recidivism rates when released on parole.[4] FAMM encourages the West Virginia House of Delegates Committee on the Judiciary to reject SB 137 and instead focus on implementing evidence-based policies that serve to support West Virginia’s communities and protect public safety.  Thank you for considering our feedback, and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions at ctrusty@famm.org or 267.559.0195.   [1] FAMM Policy Briefing: Mandatory Minimum Sentences, FAMM, January 2024. https://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2024/03/Mandatory-Minimum-Briefing-Paper-Final.pdf   [2] The Case Against Mandatory Minimum Sentences, FAMM, April 2021. https://famm.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/04/The-Case-against-Mandatory-Minimum-Sentences.pdf [3] DCR Annual Report FY 2024, p. 43; DCR Annual Report FY 2025, p.43. Total prison spending increased from $271.7 million in FY 2024 to $348.2 million in FY 2025.   [4] DCR Recidivism Report, July 2024, p.2. DCR defines recidivism as anyone coming back to prison within 3 years – regardless of whether it was a new crime committed or a parole violation (e.g., a missed appointment). In other words, recidivism does not necessarily indicate a new criminal offense.

Like many West Virginians, I oppose SB 137. Increasing sentences may sound tough on crime, but decades of research show that simply keeping people in prison longer does not meaningfully reduce crime rates or deter future offenses. This bill would significantly lengthen prison sentences and expand mandatory minimum penalties in West Virginia without clear evidence that doing so will improve public safety West Virginia already faces significant challenges within its corrections system, including overcrowding, staffing shortages, and rising costs. SB 137 would place additional strain on taxpayers by increasing long-term incarceration expenses, including housing, medical care, and supervision, while offering little to no return in terms of safer communities. Every dollar spent on unnecessary prison expansion is a dollar not invested in strategies that are proven to reduce recidivism and prevent crime in the first place. Evidence-based alternatives such as substance use treatment, mental health services, career training, and structured reentry programs consistently demonstrate stronger public safety outcomes than sentence enhancements. Many individuals in the criminal legal system struggle with addiction, trauma, and economic instability. Addressing these root causes is far more effective than extending prison stays. Additionally, longer mandatory sentences limit judicial discretion and prevent courts from considering the unique circumstances of each case. This “one-size-fits-all” approach can produce unjust outcomes while failing to distinguish between individuals who pose a serious risk and those who would benefit more from supervision and treatment. Public safety should be guided by data, fiscal responsibility, and fairness. I urge lawmakers to reject SB 137 and instead prioritize policies that strengthen communities, support victims, and make smart, evidence-based investments in safety.

I am a professor of Criminology here in West Virginia. My husband and I moved here with our two adult children in 2021 when I attained my teaching position. We are now proud to call West Virginia our home. As a professor of Criminology, I believe this bill does not consider the null and even criminogenic effect of imprisonment in terms of reoffending, particularly long sentences as confirmed in Petrich et al.’s (2021) recent meta-analysis. This bill moves us backward, not forward in our understanding of what works in corrections which is not long sentences but rather restorative programs that holds the offender accountable for their actions while giving the victim voice with the goal of repairing harm. I am also a volunteer with Prison Fellowship and have been visiting Huttonsville Correctional Center for the past year and a half to assist with Prison fellowship academy which aims to help currently incarcerated individuals to make positive change from a Christ-centered perspective. I know one man, who was convicted of first-degree murder who is now attending Bible college with the hopes of ministering when he returns to his community. If the proposed legislation had been the law at the time of his crime, he would have to wait even longer to return to the community and minister to others. This is true of so many of the men I work with. What I see is men who are not simply remorseful but repentant. They are seeking life change, many with the understanding that this only comes about through faith in Christ. But, for many the hope of freedom, life outside of prison is what drives them to seek this life change. Please do not take away this motivation by lengthening sentences through this legislation. There are also many cases where men convicted of murder have returned to live productive and service-oriented lives. With this in mind, please understand that housing individuals in prison is expensive. According to DCR’s 2024 Annual Report the average annual cost per person in prison is $35,452. Instead of this bill, which adds penalties after a crime has been committed, I hope that the committee takes up investments that prevent violence – like parent education, treatment foster care, domestic violence initiatives, and trauma-informed practices in our schools. In addition, investment within our correctional facilities for educational, drug rehabilitative services, and trauma-informed treatment will help residents of these facilities be prepared to return to our communities as productive citizens. Finally, continued and increased volunteer programs like Prison Fellowship within West Virginia prisons should be advocated. As a professor of criminology and volunteer who works with men currently incarcerated, I ask you not to advance this bill. Reference: Petrich, D. M., Pratt, T. C., Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2021). Custodial sanctions and reoffending: A meta-analytic review. Crime and justice, 50(1), 353-424.

This bill would waste millions if not hundreds of millions in tax payer dollars that should be spent fixing roads, providing clean water, and funding schools.

As a retired correctional educator with 11 years of experience at a WV maximum security prison, I urege the rejection of Senate Bill 137,  knowing that punishment is only retribution, and not rehabilitation, and at a very high tax-payer cost, increases sentencing from 15 years to 25 years, at an increased tax-payer cost of $484,490 per person. .  A poll in March 2025, revealed that 2 out 3 people in the Mountain State support criminal justice reform (including 2 out of 3 Republicans) instead of penalty increases.  West Virginians support policies that would allow people to earn time off their prison sentences for their rehabilitation efforts.  Three out of four people support a Second Look policy.  Reject this bill and put the monetary resources into education or medical care or drug treatment or some other socially responsible organization, NOT in prisons or prison sentencing!    

I agree with this bill. Everything is not black and white. We should be striving for rehabilitation not unlimited incarceration. Our prisons are overcrowded, our prisons are understaffed, our prisons are not working. Each case should be taken separately and those showing remorse, and rehabilitation should have a chance at a productive life outside of prison, especially the ones convicted at a young age.

I oppose bill 137.  My brother is no longer a threat or danger to society. I have a job waiting on him in my floor business. Forgiveness is the pathway forward.

This bill moves West Virginia further away from rehabilitation and second chances, and instead deeper into a system that prioritizes punishment over progress. SB 137 increases barriers for individuals who are incarcerated to demonstrate growth, accountability, and meaningful change — even after years or decades of personal development, educational achievement, and therapeutic work. As a family member of someone serving a life sentence, and as an advocate working closely with other families impacted by incarceration across our state, I have seen firsthand what transformation can look like when people are given access to programming, mental health support, and the opportunity to take responsibility for their past actions. Growth is possible. Rehabilitation is possible. But legislation like SB 137 sends a clear message that no amount of change will ever be enough. Policies that remove incentives for rehabilitation do not make our communities safer. In fact, research consistently shows that when incarcerated individuals have access to programs that support emotional regulation, accountability, and personal development, institutional behavior improves and recidivism decreases upon release. By shifting focus away from these evidence-based approaches, SB 137 undermines the very tools that support long-term public safety. This bill will not only impact those who are incarcerated — it will also deeply affect their families, including children who rely on the hope that their loved ones can one day return home as changed individuals. Removing pathways to redemption reinforces despair, weakens family bonds, and places additional emotional and financial strain on already struggling households. West Virginia should be investing in rehabilitation, reentry preparation, and programs that encourage accountability and healing — not expanding policies that promote hopelessness and permanent exclusion. For these reasons, I respectfully urge lawmakers to oppose Senate Bill 137.    

I oppose HB 137!!! Are you ready to fund millions in new prisons ?? They are at capacity now!   If you continue to increase penalties all of our states budget will fund prisons because you are housing people who are rehabilitated and pose zero threat anymore they’ve aged out of crime.  All of an our border states have Second Look in some capacity.  They are not the same as they were at age 22!!

My name is Mary Lister the mother of a son who has been incarcerated for over 20 years. He has been a model Inmate, earned his college degree, participated and worked in numerous trade classes, mentored others and became the man our justice system says it hopes to create. We believe West Virginia needs Second Look sentencing law for people like my son Scott Lister for who they are today not decades ago. For that reason I oppose HB 137!

Dear Committee Members, I have been a constituent of Kanawha County my entire life. I would like to say I’m proud of my state, but proposed bills like these put a damper on that pride. The U.S. incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any developed democratic country on earth. The mass incarceration in this country prevents us from spending money and resources elsewhere, and the costs of incarceration are only increasing. Geriatric prisoners, in particular, cost more on average to imprison and house than other inmates, which will skyrocket if parole eligibility is increased so significantly. In research, there is no empirical data that establishes longer time served deterring re-offending; increasing parole eligibility lengths has no definite correlation with reducing crime rates or recidivism. More importantly, SB137 adversely affects individuals and families – tearing them apart for longer periods and delaying re-introduction to society to become self-efficient. An extra decade imprisoned (without parole) can mean the difference between successful reintegration into society or not – job & technical skills are outdated, networking contacts are lost, personal support systems have passed on, motivation deteriorates, and the society they once knew is gone. A longer sentence served without parole can greatly demoralize prisoners who wish for successful re-entry into society. If you wish to make WV safer, please invest in re-integration programs and policies that provide prisoners with the education, tools and skills needed to successfully become a productive member of society. Thank you for listening to a concerned constituent!

Recent studies have shown that West Virginians are in favor of crimial justice refrom instead of longer sentences for offenders. The cost of keeping a person in prison continues to increase year after year, while educational, SSI, and  SSDI funds are seeing cuts in funding. I urge lawmakers to take make changes that will benifit the residents of our state. Lets put our money into educating our kids and caring for our elderly population in a way we can be proud of.

Senate Bill 137 isn’t just something I read about in an update or hear mentioned at the Capitol — it shows up in the quiet moments of my life with Keith. It shows up at the end of a visit, when I have to let go of him knowing our entire future depends on whether the system believes people are capable of real change. It shows up in every plan we’ve made for a life together that still exists more in hope than in reality. Because what this bill represents is a shift away from second chances — a shift toward the idea that no matter how much growth or accountability takes place, it may never be enough to matter. Keith has spent years doing the work. Not just serving time, but using it. Taking responsibility. Learning. Changing the way he thinks, responds, and understands the harm he caused. The man I know today is not the same man who walked into prison — and that transformation didn’t come easily. It came through painful self-reflection, education, and a genuine desire to never be that person again. But SB 137 sends a different message. It tells those incarcerated that their efforts toward rehabilitation may never lead to recognition or relief. That growth might not change their outcome. That redemption is something the system isn’t interested in seeing. And it tells families like mine that the love, support, and belief we pour into our loved ones’ change could ultimately mean nothing in the eyes of the law. For us — and for so many other families across West Virginia — this bill doesn’t just take away opportunities. It takes away hope. It replaces the belief in reunification with the fear that no matter who our loved ones become, they may be forced to remain forever defined by who they once were.

As the wife of a man who is currently incarcerated, I am deeply concerned about the potential passage of House Bills 4761 and 4758, as well as Senate Bill 137, and the long-term consequences these measures could have on families and our broader community. While accountability is important, legislation that extends sentences and delays parole eligibility will not only keep families separated longer, but will also significantly increase the financial burden on the state as incarcerated residents age. My husband is more than an inmate number-he is a father, a grandfather, a son, and my loving partner. The longer he remains incarcerated without meaningful opportunity for parole, the more our family suffers emotionally, financially, and psychologically. Other incarcerated residents are more than an inmate number as well, they are parents, aunts/uncles, sons/daughters,and partners. Extended incarceration means higher housing costs within the facilities and dramatically rising medical expenses as individuals grow older and require more complex care. Taxpayers ultimately shoulder these costs and it is difficult to understand how expanding long-term incarceration for aging individuals promotes public safety or fiscal responsibility. Research consistently shows that people who age in-person present lower risks of reoffending, yet these bills could keep them behind bars long after they are no longer a threat. At the same time, children grow up without their parent, marriages are strained to the breaking point, and families lose years that can never be returned. Instead of investing in prolonged incarceration, our state should prioritize rehabilitation, parole review, and reentry support that strengthens families and communities. I urge lawmakers to carefully consider the human and economic impact of these bills and to choose policies that balance accountability with compassion, fiscal responsibility, and the preservation of families who are already carrying the heavy weight of separation.  

As the wife of a man who is currently incarcerated, I am deeply concerned about the potential passage of House Bills 4761 and 4758, as well as Senate Bill 137, and the long-term consequences these measures could have on families and our broader community. While accountability is important, legislation that extends sentences and delays parole eligibility will not only keep families separated longer, but will also significantly increase the financial burden on the state as incarcerated residents age. My husband is more than an inmate number-he is a father, a grandfather, a son, and my loving partner. The longer he remains incarcerated without meaningful opportunity for parole, the more our family suffers emotionally, financially, and psychologically. Other incarcerated residents are more than an inmate number as well, they are parents, aunts/uncles, sons/daughters,and partners. Extended incarceration means higher housing costs within the facilities and dramatically rising medical expenses as individuals grow older and require more complex care. Taxpayers ultimately shoulder these costs and it is difficult to understand how expanding long-term incarceration for aging individuals promotes public safety or fiscal responsibility. Research consistently shows that people who age in-person present lower risks of reoffending, yet these bills could keep them behind bars long after they are no longer a threat. At the same time, children grow up without their parent, marriages are strained to the breaking point, and families lose years that can never be returned. Instead of investing in prolonged incarceration, our state should prioritize rehabilitation, parole review, and reentry support that strengthens families and communities. I urge lawmakers to carefully consider the human and economic impact of these bills and to choose policies that balance accountability with compassion, fiscal responsibility, and the preservation of families who are already carrying the heavy weight of separation.

I’m writing to the members of the House Judiciary Committee regarding Senate Bill 137, as it comes before you for consideration. I’m writing as someone who has seen firsthand how a person can change over decades. One of my childhood friends and high school classmates (Keyser High School class of 1993) was sentenced at age 18 to life in prison and has now spent more than thirty years behind bars in West Virginia. While the rest of us grew up — building families, careers, and purpose — his entire adulthood has taken place inside a correctional facility. Over those decades, he did not give up. He pursued education, completed faith-based coursework, strengthened his communication and academic skills, and became known for discipline, leadership, and accountability. He accepts responsibility for the harm he caused and does not minimize it. He is not the same person he was as a teenager. Senate Bill 137 concerns me because it increases mandatory minimum sentences and extends the time people must serve before they are even eligible for parole review — including raising the minimum years served for life sentences. These changes reduce flexibility and delay meaningful evaluation of rehabilitation, even after decades served. Longer mandatory minimums may sound tough, but they come with serious long-term costs — increased prison overcrowding, higher medical expenses for aging inmates, and greater burden on taxpayers — without guaranteeing better public safety outcomes. Parole eligibility and review do not guarantee release — they provide a structured, professional evaluation of whether a person is safe to return to society. Preserving that review process supports both accountability and public safety. Justice should be firm, but it should also be wise enough to recognize growth and rehabilitation over time. I respectfully urge the House Judiciary Committee to vote NO on Senate Bill 137. Please support Second Look and allow people like my childhood friend and classmate to be evaluated for who they are today, not only who they were as teenagers. People can grow, accountability can endure, and justice should be wise enough to see both.

Dear Honorable Members of the West Virginia Legislature, Felony Murder Elimination Project respectfully submits this public comment in opposition to Senate Bill 137 and House Bills 4761 and 4758. These bills would dramatically increase sentence lengths and delay parole eligibility for homicide-related offenses in West Virginia, despite overwhelming evidence that longer prison sentences do not improve public safety and instead impose significant human and fiscal costs on communities.

1. Who We Are and Why We Are Commenting

Felony Murder Elimination Project is a national organization dedicated to addressing the harms caused by the felony murder rule and other sentencing practices that impose extreme punishment without regard to an individual’s actual conduct or intent. Our work centers on promoting fairness, proportionality, and evidence-based policymaking in criminal law. We are submitting this comment in West Virginia because these bills would significantly expand the use and impact of extreme sentences in a state that already allows people to be convicted of murder without having killed anyone or intended that someone die. That legal reality makes the proposed penalty increases especially concerning.

1. What Felony Murder Is, and Why It Matters for West Virginians

Under West Virginia law, a person can be convicted of first-degree murder under the felony murder rule even if they did not kill anyone, did not use violence, and did not intend for anyone to die. Prosecutors are only required to prove that a person participated in a felony and that a death occurred during that felony, not that the person caused or anticipated the death. For example, someone who agrees to act as a lookout during a burglary can be convicted of first-degree murder if another person involved panics and causes a fatal accident, even if the lookout never entered the building and never harmed anyone. Because felony murder allows people to be convicted of murder based on association rather than individual culpability, it often results in the harshest sentences being imposed on people whose actions bear little relationship to the outcome. Expanding sentence lengths and delaying parole eligibility in a system that already allows this kind of vicarious liability dramatically increases the risk of profoundly disproportionate punishment.

1. What These Bills Would Do

SB 137, HB 4761, and HB 4758 would increase minimum and maximum sentences for first- and second-degree homicide, attempted homicide, voluntary manslaughter, and “three strikes” life sentences, while also delaying parole eligibility by many years. In practical terms, these bills would add decades of incarceration to already long sentences and require West Virginia taxpayers to spend hundreds of thousands of additional dollars per person sentenced: up to nearly half a million dollars per individual in some cases.  Notably, none of these bills require a fiscal note or review by the Legislature’s finance committees, even though the cost of incarceration in West Virginia has risen sharply and now approaches the median annual household income in the state.

1. Longer Sentences Do Not Improve Public Safety

There is no credible evidence that increasing already long prison sentences prevents harm. National research has consistently found that sentence length has no meaningful deterrent effect once sentences are already severe. In West Virginia specifically, people released from prison after homicide convictions have significantly lower recidivism rates than the overall prison population, and parole eligibility simply allows for consideration of release (not automatic release) based on demonstrated rehabilitation and public safety assessments. At the same time, longer sentences have driven prison overcrowding, forced the state to consider costly prison expansion, and transformed correctional facilities into de facto publicly funded, multi-million-dollar nursing homes as the incarcerated population ages and requires increasing levels of medical care.  These legislative bills rely on increasingly severe sentences as a primary response to serious harm, despite substantial evidence that extreme sentencing does not produce safer communities. Lengthening already long prison terms does little to support meaningful or transformative rehabilitation, particularly when it forecloses opportunities for review and release based on demonstrated growth. Nor does prolonged incarceration, on its own, bring about healing or restoration for victims, families, or communities. Instead, it often entrenches cycles of harm while consuming public resources that could otherwise support prevention, recovery, and accountability in more effective ways.

1. Why These Bills Are Especially Concerning in Felony Murder Cases

When extreme sentences are layered on top of the felony murder rule, the result is punishment untethered from individual responsibility. People who never killed, never intended to kill, and never foresaw a death can still be sentenced as murderers and required to serve decades longer before even being considered for release. This approach undermines basic principles of proportionality and fairness and risks condemning people to spend the majority of their lives in prison for outcomes they did not cause. In a legal framework that already allows murder convictions without proof of intent to kill, these bills would further entrench punishment that is increasingly disconnected from individual conduct and public safety outcomes. Recommendation to Reject Public polling in West Virginia indicates bipartisan openness to criminal justice reforms that emphasize individualized review rather than across-the-board penalty increases. SB 137, HB 4761, and HB 4758 would move in the opposite direction by extending sentence lengths, increasing incarceration, and driving up costs without evidence of improved public safety. For these reasons, the Felony Murder Elimination Project urges the Legislature to reject these bills and instead pursue policies that promote accountability, proportionality, and long-term community safety.

I’ve been an attorney for over 50 years, was a prosecutor for nearly six years, law clerked two years for a judge who agonized over reaching the right sentencing decision and have represented many defendants accused of crimes. Due to increased penalties, prison populations over the last forty years have increased by 400% in this country and prison costs have soared causing severe budget issues. The simple truth is increased penalties do not deter crime —- period!