Pennsylvania lawmakers have less than two days to act on a state Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for second-degree murder convictions, a decision that district attorneys warn could leave courts without clear sentencing direction.
In March, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole for second-degree, or felony murder, convictions are unconstitutional. Lawmakers were given 120 days to set a new mandatory minimum sentencing framework, with the deadline set for July 24.
District attorneys across the state are urging the Legislature to pass a law before the deadline, saying the absence of sentencing guidelines could lead to inconsistent outcomes across counties.
“Well, if nothing is passed then it kind of becomes a free-for-all where you’ll have petitions filed in all the different counties in Pennsylvania, the judges will not have any specific guidance or authority to rely upon for what type of sentencing framework they should follow and you probably see a lot of sentencing disparity and by that I mean you’ll have some sentences that convert from life to people just getting out of jail and some sentences may remain close to life or life so there won’t be a lot of consistency.”
Clearfield County District Attorney Ryan Sayers said failing to pass legislation could force prosecutors to revisit old cases and locate victims’ relatives, depending on how courts proceed.
“If the bill does not pass and the house Democrats let this kind of become a free for all, and it goes back into the courts and appeal rights are reinstated, or the Supreme Court says yes, it is retroactive, then at that point, every district attorney is going to have to bring all these defendants back into their individual counties to have a re-sentencing, find whatever family members are around,”
Sayers said that could be difficult in cases that are decades old. “Because as I said, some of these have occurred 40 or more years ago. We might not know where the families are at or they might have thought this has been behind them and going to have to reopen these old wounds,” he said.
A bipartisan group of senators has passed legislation tied to second-degree murder sentencing. The bill, S.B. 1400, proposes a mandatory minimum of 35 years, with the potential for a life sentence depending on the case. The House has not yet voted on that bill or similar legislation.
Weeks said the House should consider a framework like the Senate bill. “I think that the House should certainly consider legislation similar to that,” he said. “Some framework like that would certainly be appropriate and it’s the adult penalty should certainly exceed the juvenile penalty.”
But House members remain divided on whether to pass new sentencing legislation or allow cases to return to court for review.
Rep. Mike Armanini, a Republican who represents the 75th District, said Tuesday that lawmakers had not been told whether the House would return to session before the Thursday deadline.
“Well, excuse me, as of right now, we have heard nothing from House Democrat majority leadership on to whereas if we’re coming back to session to vote on this, which today being Tuesday and the deadline is Thursday, they’ve got a lot of work to do in 48 hours if they are going to act on this,”
Rep. Scott Conklin, a Democrat who represents the 77th District, said some lawmakers support a 35-year minimum, while others believe cases should be reconsidered individually.
“So where the splits been, our more conservative members say minimum of 35 years, other people such as myself, and I agree with Supreme Court that now they have to come back and they have to be looked at For full disclosure as this is going on, I am not scheduled to go back into voting session in the next 48 hours.”
Conklin said that without legislative action, prosecutors would handle cases individually. “So now what you’re looking at is each county district attorney is gonna look at it on a case-by-case basis,”