House Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Convening the Committee on Public Safety. Today is Wednesday, February 4th, 9:00am we are in Conference Room 411 of the State Capitol. Good morning to all who are here with us via Zoom, and also to those of us who are here in the room in order to allow as many people to testify as possible.

I'm not going to be holding a time limit, but I do ask our testifiers to be expeditious in communicating what their testimony is. We do have written testimony submitted to us. So Members, you do have it in your red leaf. You've had it for multiple hours, so please refer to further red leaf.

For those on Zoom, please keep yourself muted and your video off while waiting to testify. After your testimony is complete, the Zoom chat function will allow you to chat with technical staff only, but please use the chat only for technical issues.

If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting and if disconnected while presenting testimony, you will be allowed to continue if time permits. Do we have the zoom up? It's not on here. Just wanted to alert the staff to that.

Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the testifiers end and in the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. For those of us who are with us via Zoom.

Please avoid any trademark or copyrighted images. So with that, just a little bit of housekeeping chairs practice in this Committee is to hold decision making at 11:30am if we have a interpreter, we will move accordingly. But otherwise we take questions after the. End of each Bill.

But I don't also want to hold people here if you need to leave. We do typically do decision making at 11:30am all right, so getting started right away. Let's jump into House Bill 1913 relating to veteran mental health services.

This establishes within the Office of Veterans Services a mental health coordinator position at the Akaka State Veterans Home and provides a mental health coordinator to serve at the pleasure of the Director of the Office of Veterans Services and appropriates money.

First up, we have testimony in support from John Alamodin of the Hawaii Office of Veterans Services via Zoom.

Not present.

Okay. We also have support from Mr. Sean Sonata of Oahu Region HHSC via Zoom or in person.

Yes. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, committee members Sean Sonata. On behalf of the Oahu region, we stand on our written testimony in support. There are some... I guess there's a deference that we have to the to OVS, because this position would, you know, be situated under OVS, and I think they wanted to request some modifications.

But for us, we support the intent of this bill and we defer to the OVS as to the modifications.

Thank you, Mr. Sonata. Testimony from Mr. Tom Driscoll, who is individual, testifying as an individual, but with a lot of experience with the Veteran Service Centers.

Chair, Vice Chair, members, Tommy Driscoll, retired Colonel, US Army Medical Service Corps. I've been personally either responsible or deeply involved in the construction of the first Pipton's home in Hilo, the second one in Kapolei, and now in the development of this program for our third home on Maui.

But in reference to this particular bill, thank you, Rep. Souza, so much for putting this bill in. The intent is fantastic. We totally embrace it. Lord knows we need more mental health services for our veterans across the state, especially in the neighbor islands. My testimony stands, ma'am, other than I would only add that the opportunity now presents itself for us to take this and broaden it a bit so that we're not just focused on one location on Oahu, but we take the same idea and broaden it to expand a statewide position in OVS off of the veterans services to look at all of our veterans.

Thank you for your consideration. Happy to respond to questions.

Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. We have testimony in opposition from HGEA Executive Director Randy Perera. Testimony in support by Mark White, an individual. Testimony in support by Brett Colbus, individual. Testimony in support by Mike Gollu Sr., individual, and testimony in support by Ohana Unity Party and Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands, Mr. Shelby Billionaire via zoom.

Okay. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Members, questions?

I'm here.

Oh, Mr. Shelby. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Shelby.

Hello, everyone. Can you guys hear me out there?

Yes.

Okay. Wonderful. Yeah. So, I want to send support for all of you guys because we do have some mental health issues to address these. With these things, I know you got more bills come up - purple heart - so, I'm support of all the bills on the agenda today to say save everyone's time. There's a lot of mental health issues that's going on in the world because I got sent into war to September 12, 2001.

So after September 11, we all got little nuts and we had to go fight these wars which we did not cause, about oil, gas, and we start studying about Iraq and Saddam Hussein and all these things. The government lied and used us to go fight the wars go destroy other stuff for their own objectives.

Mr. Billionaire, can you please stay on topic and stay on the, on the bill, please?

Yes. So that's why I'm in support for the mental health. So you guys can address these. And that's why I'm in support for this. And you guys can figure out the details, make out the amendments so you can support the mental health. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Billionaire. Seeing any other testifiers?

Yes, I would like to testify.

Can you please identify your name and whether you're testifying in support, opposition, or comments and then go ahead.

Okay. Angela Melody Young, testifying in strong support of the Daniel Akaka Veterans Home Policy to support our soldiers and veterans mental health. And so I went to go on a tour for honoring the Nisei soldiers, the Japanese second generation soldiers of World War II who defended our freedom, the Japanese American soldiers in Italy, in November.

And I got to learn so much about the soldiers and veterans and their mental health. And there are approximately 82,000 veterans living in Hawaii, representing 7.5 to 8.3 percent of the adult population in Hawaii.

And it's important to honor veterans because they sacrifice their time, safety, to defend our country's freedom and to protect our way of life and to serve a cause greater than ourselves. And so we must provide support for veterans transitioning into civilian life to educate future generations about the importance of active duty military service.

And honoring veterans strengthens our community's relationships with the military and our country. And so basically, I think that in the legislation you should put something more specific like an amendment for coordinated care, such as with organizations that are very involved in providing resources like ambed, in other teachers.

And also if you could, if you could wrap it up and then we'll allow folks to ask questions.

Oh yes, sure. Yeah. Just want to be supportive of our veterans that as they have defended our freedom for our country. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Okay, any other testifiers? Seeing none. Members, questions? Representative Shimizu and then Vice Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Sonata.

Mr. Sonata?

Yes, I am here.

Mr. Sonata, I'm not sure if you know the answer to this, but I was wondering: does this have any funding from VA or any support?

Can you repeat the question? Funded from where?

From the Veterans Administration.

Oh, okay. So the funding for this, at least the way I read it in the bill that's currently drafted, is that the funding would be appropriated by the state.

But it does run into a little bit of complication because all of the services that are provided at the VA. They're not - none of them would be paid for directly, you know, by the VA, like any positions or whatnot.

What happens is all of the care that's provided in the state veterans home is provided with federal requirements, so whoever is able to be admitted. But once they're admitted, it's like a privately run operation. And our reimbursements come from the VA and CMS, but there's no additional funding for any positions or whatnot.

It should be derived from the revenues for any positions that the operator uses.

So, it will be reimbursed or it won't be reimbursed.

I think the coordination services are just a part of the - would be a part of the regular business.

But if I could just clarify the roles and duties that are in the original, in the currently drafted bill, they're already covered for Daniel Kahikina Akaka State Veterans.

So, there is a position that Ohana Pacific, you know, the management company that they employ, you know, for all screening and there's also a clinical team that follows the residents that are admitted.

So in terms of this position itself, I mean, we support OVS and their recommendation that the position not be dedicated to the veterans home, but be open more widely to the community. So in the position that currently exists with the veterans home, there is no reimbursement that we seek for the admission services.

They're just ancillary to the overall long term care services that are provided at the home.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

That was very helpful background information about actual funding reimbursables. So if we deliver a service, we're able then to kind of invoice the feds. It becomes part of the overall invoice that we get reimbursed from the feds, basically. Right? Is that my, is that a correct understanding?

Yes, that's correct. So, the full arrangement was there was a federal match. It's the same thing is going on with the proposed Maui Veterans Home. But the feds paid a big portion of the construction. You know, the state did a match and then those funds went to construct the facility.

But once the facility is constructed, it's a state veterans home and all monies that come after that are not from the feds unless it's for VA reimbursement. But it's, they're just a peer source.

Got it. Thank you. But in your testimony you mentioned that it would likely, the bill as it's currently written, would be likely to be duplicative of services already offered to patients. So, I'm hoping that the committee will consider amendments. So, it's not duplicative, but an actual value, important resource. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice chair.

I have a question for Tommy. Thank you, Tommy, for being here for all that you do. I know that you're obviously a huge part of what goes on there at the veterans home out in Kapolei. My question to you is, can you just expand a little bit on.

Well, first of all, can you address the question as to whether it is duplicative? Because my understanding is that there is a screening position, but it doesn't actually encompass specifically mental health and what you envision for the position as a whole across statewide, not just at the veterans home, and how we can incorporate those amendments.

So, just explain a little bit more.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. To your first point, in terms of the provision of services at the state veterans home, we're speaking now just Capital A, but conceptually, it's the same for all of our state veterans homes.

The home has a medical director and it has physicians who are aligned with patients and it has a medical clinical staff, as Sean said, meeting all of the federal and CMS centers for Medicare, Medicaid services requirements and surveys, certified across the board.

What the home doesn't have, it doesn't have specialists in the context of an obgyn, an internist, a psychiatrist, et cetera. It does not have those specific specialties in the home. Rather, what happens for any of those, mental health being a big part of it. What happens when any of these specialty requirements are necessary?

The staff refers that may bring the physician into the facility to see the patient. It may take the patient out of the facility to see the provider or the physician, or we may use telehealth as a means of communicating all three of those work.

Often it's going to be with the VA Pacific Island Healthcare system; that is our primary system here in Hawaii. So, with that concept in mind, yes: that is the way we provide service. No: there's not a psychiatrist on duty, in duty in part, but yet the services are available and used quite a bit. Indeed.

As far as the position itself in broader context that we're advocating here for this, John Alamodin, our Director of VA, I know he was trying to get in on the VTC and it didn't quite work. Today he's out there. I talked to him on the phone.

We do not have a dedicated position on his staff for mental health considerations. If you look at our veteran population, and with all due respect, the numbers are in the holding, the VA says they're just over 100,000 veterans: vet pop here living in Hawaii, a lot. Over 40,000 age 65.

When you look at his staff and what he can do, he's trying to do everything for everyone from cemeteries to benefits, plus manage the state veteran home. A person, a clinician, not serving in a clinical role, but serving in an administrative role. That's what we would advocate. On John Alamodin's staff, located at tripler with a statewide mission, would, A: be able to go out? No one's doing this right now. For the state veterans perspective on mental health. Look at all the gaps. There are a lot of gaps out there across our state.

Identifying the gaps, we look at the resources that are available to try and reshuffle, bring help, fill those gaps and down the road with justification, if there's no other way to address a gap that's a serious need, come back and speak to more, perhaps allocation of resources.

Bottom line, we don't have enough licensed practitioners mental health to serve our veterans in Hawaii, especially on the neighbor islands. So, a position like this can at least reach out not just with those resources from state hospitals and Catholic charities, but bring them all together to try and fill those gaps.

So, mission not being dealt with right now. And oh, by the way, although John Alamodin is a behavioral health specialist himself and he is in the National Guard, the chief behavioral health officer in the National Guard for Hawaii, he won't be there forever.

This position on the staff would have permanence and we have mental health for foreseeable future on that step. Thank you so much.

Okay, if you can just remain there. Any other questions? And I just want to confirm Mr. Alamodin isn't on zoom or is not present in the room?

Sorry, ma'am. I know he was trying. I apologize.

You actually answered the questions that I had for him and I wanted to highlight in his testimony that there isn't a requested amendment to maybe expand the scope of this and then move the position from the Akaka home to OVS, which is something that the committee can consider.

And we have full support for this initiative. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Thank you, Mr. Driscoll. All right, we're going to move on to House Bill 9, designating Hawaii as a Purple Heart State. First up, we have testimony and support from the Military Affairs Council. Testimony in support from Mr. Carlos Santana, Veterans Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii.

Testimony in support from Mr. Michael Yu. Sr., testimony in support from Mr. Paul Wheelis and testimony in support from Mr. Shelby Billionaire on Zoom. Briefly. Mr. Billionaire, go ahead.

Oh, aloha guys. So I'm in strong support of this Bill. I do not have a Purple Heart. I was a veteran in the Air force, joined in 2000, got out in 2008. So I do appreciate this Bill. Usually get a Purple Heart if people don't know.

For civilians, if you got injured during war, during battle and you survived, you have a proper. A lot of our veterans did not make it through the wars. So my prayers go out to everyone who lost their brothers and sisters out there because it's very hard for and a touching moment.

So hopefully this can do and bring benefits to the family Members and those we loved lost. Aloha.

Thank you. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Go ahead, Ms. Young. And briefly please.

Yes, I think to make Hawaii a Purple Heart state will help support our general population of veterans that have endured combat training and have suffered mental health conditions.

And I helped to raise awareness in 2024 with Councilmember Agi Toba, who authored the legislation at the Honolulu county signed by the Honolulu County Mayor to enact the Purple Hearts City Resolution on behalf. And so you know, veterans support ideals and embody values like discipline, responsibility, teamwork and sacrifice which are crucial for building a stronger society.

And we should post signs up across the state to support our veterans that defend our country's freedom.

All right, thank you. Ms. Young. Any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers via Zoom? Seeing none. Members questions? Representative Iwamoto, go ahead.

I have a question. I've heard testifiers reference benefits. Somehow this actual Purple Hearts state confers benefits. I'm just curious, what are those? I didn't see.

Do you have a question of a testifier?

What are the benefits? I think Mr. Billionaire mentioned benefits and I don't. I'm not. It was unclear to me what the benefits of being a propeller state confer.

Do you know, Mr. Billionaire? Okay, seeing no response, we'll circle back with the.

Sorry, what was the question?

Do you know if there's any benefits conferred with the Purple Heart state designation?

So far, when you get shot, you would receive the ribbon. It'll go on your award plaque for your DD214. But there's no extra benefits that I'm aware of for getting a Purple Heart.

I think we can circle back with the introducer, Ms. Representative Iwamoto. As I read it, I don't think it's just a designation. So it's a way of honoring our veterans. And we've seen the city and county of Honolulu also designate the county as a purple state county.

I have a question.

If you could come to the. Can someone assist him? And is this specifically with House Bill 9? Sir? Is this with House Bill 9? Okay. Can you come to the.

If you can state your name and then please keep it brief because we can move through the rest.

My name is Grand Kyoki Kahumoku at the present time, I'm the President of Ohanae Hokere. I don't know why, but I am. Okay, the person you're talking to is for the Purple Heart. The crowner of the Purple Hearts is Timo Pihana. You got that name? Okay. That's McKaza. So how come he isn't here?

He's the commander of Purple Hearts for the Pacific. You need to notify him about what you guys are doing.

Point taken, Mr.

I got this phone number, but not.

Thank you.

Okay. And that's about it.

All right.

Thank you for this information, Vietnam vet.

Thank you, sir. Make sure we have the individual's name, please. Seeing no other questions. Move on to House Bill 1628. This is relating to compassionate release. Members, this is a Bill that establishes a protocol for compassionate release for certain ill or seriously debilitated incarcerated persons. Members, your testimony is in your red leaf.

I'm going to take it a little bit out of order. So first up we have the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Director Tommy Johnson in opposition.

Thank you, Chair Belatti. Vice Chair Iwamoto. I'll just summarize my testimony because it's quite lengthy. So in short, I think this is a Bill they're looking for problem that doesn't exist. We have an administrative process the state has with ECR and HPA to identify and recommend for compact and release. Every application we refer to HPA has been granted.

The issue is that there's not housing for them in the community. That's the main issue. The four main thing concerns we have with this Bill is one, it appears it as written. It would allow people serving life without the possibility of parole to apply for someone for compacted release and those serving mandatory minimum terms.

I believe that infringes on the governor's authority to commute the person's sentenced to life with parole after 20 years so the person can be seen by the HPA.

Then I believe the provision that allows people to be considered for professional lease that are serving a mandatory minimum term infringes on the judge's discretionary authority when they minimum terms of their discretion, but also with the statute on mandatory limit terms that are in statute that are required for certain types of offenses and repeat offenders.

The other concern I had with the Bill was that it does not have a mechanism to family members of the victims or surviving family members of the victims to have input into the process.

Whereas now it is, it is the procedure where we notify the Hawaii, HPA notifies the prosecutor's office and the victim, Kahua staff then, or contact the surviving family members or the victim to provide written input to the parole board to consider.

The other issue with this Bill is it doesn't provide the resources that DCR would need for the onslaught of requests that we're going to receive if this were enacted.

So we would respectfully request that, that this Committee review our testimony in detail, particularly the 111 crimes that these 20 people currently in our custody who are serving life without the possibility of parole committed. You're looking at 13 murders, another over 10 attempted murders, rape, sodomy.

So I provided you a chart in my testimony with those crimes laid out and the numbers. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Next up we have testimony from Mr. Gene DeMello from the Hawaii Paroling Authority.

I'm sorry, Chair, Vice Chair. Standing in for Gene Demelo was at parole hearings this morning. I'm Corey Rinkin, administrator of HPA. So Tommy kind of pointed out already our concerns as well as the mandatory minimums in the life without parole. Also, this Bill really doesn't address the needs of victims.

I'm available for questions if you have any examples of cases where we've had that we have currently that have gone south. Thank you.

Thank you. We have testimony and support from Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. Ms. Kristen Johnson.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Kristin Johnson. I'm the Oversight Coordinator of the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. We stand by our written testimony and strong support of this Bill.

We outlined within our testimony the monumental costs that it costs the state to keep people with very complex medical conditions incarcerated and how that can be alleviated by getting them out and getting them some federal funding.

We covered how much it impacts staff, how much we have that not only written in surveys, but how much you know, we have personally spoken to staff and how much it impacts the inmates population in addition to how in General this could help human dignity.

But in addition to the written testimony, I also want to add in that there's very, very few amount of people who have the unfortunate opportunity to go in and see these people where they are and our commission is one of those few. We have seen suffering and we have seen horrific conditions that people have died in.

And so we don't come forward in support of this lightly. We come forward because it's the right thing to do. I'll give you one very brief example of a man who we Consistently went in just to check in on. He was in a wheelchair. He couldn't speak. His mouth was kind of open all the time.

Couldn't really gesture too much. And he loved to chew on his clothes a lot. That was his big thing. And one of the times that I went back to see him, he wasn't there. And so I asked the staff, hey, what happened to this guy? He's been in here a while.

And they informed me that he choked on a sock because he was chewing on it and staff weren't able to catch it. And so these are not people who are a risk to society. These are not people who are looking to come out and hurt other people.

These are people who are in significant pain and in really detrimental areas. That does not align with Hawaii's values when it comes to human dignity. Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Please refrain from clapping. We're trying to move through this expeditiously. Up next is Ms. Haley Chang from the Office of the Public Defender in support.

And good morning, chair, vice chair and Members of the Committee. The public defender has submitted testimony and support and I do just want to point out a few pivotal things that I hope the Committee will seriously consider.

First and foremost, as we pointed out, our incarceration system and our correctional facilities are not suited or well suited to be long term medical facilities facilities. And Kristin has spoken to that.

And I would encourage the Committee, if you have not already, to tour the facilities, to specifically visit the medical units and see the conditions that our community Members are in at this stage of their life.

Second of all, I can speak on personally, as somebody who has been doing criminal defense, specifically public interest work through the public defender's office for almost 20 years. I've had many clients pass away while incarcerated. And as Kristin pointed out, these are not individuals who continue to be a risk to our society.

The Bill very clearly is not a mandate to just release everyone who may have some sort of medical condition. The language is very clear, and the Committee has the language in front of them; this creates a way to streamline and fast-track this process for the very reason that these people are oftentimes dying.

We cannot afford to have a process that will take months and months and months because what would be the purpose of somebody who has a terminal illness or somebody who has a very debilitating medical condition? I would also like to point out that the Bill itself has guardrails in place.

This is just not a free pass to get out into the community and go wherever you need to be. The conditions that are set up are akin or somewhat like parole. You will be supervised, and if there is a violation of any of the conditions of your release, you will be revoked and returned to custody.

Finally, I just want to speak briefly to Mr. Johnson's argument to this Committee about undermining or usurping the court's discretion or the court's imposition of minimum terms or mandatory minimum terms. I think, and I encourage the Committee to familiarize itself with the sentencing scheme that we have here in Hawaii. The courts have very little discretion.

There are indeterminate mandatory open terms for certain levels of offenses and the court cannot deviate from that. I'm going to speak a little bit more about that when we get to the appeal subsequent on the agenda.

But for example, if you get a prison term for a class B felony, it must be 10 years, certain exceptions for youthful offender and things of that nature. But it must be 10 years if you commit a class A felony. Again, with very limited exceptions, it must be a 20 year term of incarceration or a life sentence.

Additionally, mandatory minimums are often statutorily set where the court has no discretion. They may have the opportunity to reduce it if certain criteria is met. But there is very little discretion when it comes to the sentencing scheme that the courts must follow.

And finally, when our sick or elderly community members are incarcerated, if they're at Halawa Prison, which is I think mainly where we're dealing with this, or perhaps Arizona or any of the other long term correctional facilities, the courts don't have any ability to get involved. The courts lose jurisdiction.

But I can tell you I've had clients who have been sentenced to jail throughout the years. So they're serving their time at occc. And I can tell you that I've had clients who have become terminally ill or have passed away.

And every single time, because I've had the ability to do so, I petitioned their judge to consider a compassionate release at this trial court level. And the judges without fail have granted that the courts do not want to sentence these people to die.

So if the judge is in my experience, and I cannot speak for every case or every judge or every decision or every client, but in my experience, when I have gone to the court to say my client is dying, the staff has said this. The medical team at the facility says this.

Can I get him a release to transition either to hospice or a medical facility so that his family can see him and he can die? Outside of the custody of the Department of Corrections, the judge has always granted that request.

So I'd ask the Committee to be mindful of that when you're hearing arguments about the judges wouldn't want this. I would respect. Respectfully disagree. I will be available for questions. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you, Ms. James. Please, please refrain from clapping. I have to enforce that rule. Testimony in support from McKenna Woodward. Ms. Woodward. From the Office of Hawaiian Affairs.

Aloha Kakahiaka, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee, McKenna Woodward. On behalf of the Office of the Hawaiian Affairs. In strong support of this measure, HB 1628 strengthens Hawaii's compassionate release framework to ensure seriously ill and medically debilitated incarcerated individuals are considered for release in a timely, consistent and humane manner.

The Bill responds to the reality that Hawaii's Pahau are aging rapidly, with many experiencing advanced medical conditions and psychological aging far exceeding their chronological age. Compassionate release reflects the values of dignity, humanity and aloha by prioritizing the well being of Paahaua's serious medical needs while still protecting public safety.

Native Hawaiians are disproportionately represented in Hawaii's correctional system and therefore bear a disproportionate share of the harms associated with prolonged incarceration during serious illness. HB 1628 preserves accountability by requiring medical evaluation and structured decision making while allowing the state to act with dignity and compassion in extraordinary circumstances.

Providing a clear compassionate release pathway allows correctional resources to be redirected toward rehabilitation, reentry and community based care that better serves Paahau, Ohana and the Luhui. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Committee to pass HB 1628. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony on this important measure.

Thank you, Ms. Woodward. We have testimony in support from the Department of Prosecuting Attorney, City and County of Honolulu, from Mr. Daniel Hugo. Are you here in person, Mr. Hugo? I just want to kind of clean up the record. You have had testimony supported in opposition and comments. I think it's duplicative.

Can we strike your testimony with comments?

It's in opposition.

Yeah. Yes. And what I'm saying is that our staff received both comments and opposition. Can I strike from the record your. Or withdraw from the record your comments and keep your opposition? Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.

Daniel Hugo for the Honolulu Prosecutor's Office. And I'll start by saying that our office is sympathetic to the cases of terminally ill inmates. You know, there is. Even with the. Even when you take into account considerations of finality and considerations of justice, there is a place for mercy and compassion in the legal system.

That said, we have three serious problems with this Bill. The first is that it has no mechanism for victim input. As a prosecutor, I make objective decisions about cases based on my evaluation of the law. But I always do that with the understanding that I am not the person who is the most impacted by it.

And even when I speak in the name of the state, I am also speaking for justice for a specific person. And so we think that victims should always have input at every stage of this process, and this Bill does not account for that. Second, we believe that what the.

The bill's language is too large and what it determines to be debilitating condition, and what we can look for comparison is the federal system, which had similar extraordinary remedies that led to a flood of litigation during the COVID pandemic. So people with obesity, people with high blood pressure, were saying that they deserved compassionate release.

Now, as a rather stout person myself, I can. Obesity has its challenges, but it's not like Epithelioid Glioblastoma. It's not a terminal condition, and it's not something that merits ending finality. And then finally, our concern about this are the mandatory provisions. We think that there should always be a place for discretion within the system.

And given that a lot of these provisions appear to be mandatory, we would prefer that there is a place for individual case evaluations. I'm available for questions if the Committee has any.

Thank you, Mr. Hugo. And I know you might be running from hearing to hearing, so take a breath. I think there will be questions, so if you could hang around. But I understand also if you have to run to other hearings. Thank you. We have testimony and support from Hoomana Pono, LLC. Mr. Damont Kalai Manaole. Is he present?

Okay. We have testimony in support from FAM, Ms. Molly Crane.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for having me. It's really a pleasure to be here. It's so good to see many of you again. But if you don't know me, my name is Molly and I'm from fam. We are a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, and we've worked on compassionate release for 25 years all across the country.

We're really grateful to have collaborated closely with government agencies, with nonprofits, correctional staff and families who identified the need for reform here in Hawaii, and we strongly support this Bill. I discussed the purposes of compassionate release at my informational briefing in October and in my testimony, so I won't make many remarks about that.

Now, I'll just say briefly that compassionate release is best practice and exists in the federal system and in every state in the country except for one. And this is because states recognize that people who are critically ill are the most expensive to incarcerate, the most burdensome to care for and the least likely to renovate.

From a national perspective, Hawaii is the only state in the country whose compassionate release program is not governed by statute. This Bill aligns with best practices and can make Hawaii a leader in compassionate release. Although there are a lot of wonderful provisions here, I'll just highlight two of them. The first is eligibility criteria.

It is best practice around the country for the eligibility for compression or at least to be based on medical factors and to allow for individualized determinations rather than categorical exclusions. The medical criteria in this Bill match appropriate diagnostic standards that we've seen everywhere in the country.

This Bill also allows for careful consideration of a critically ill person's individualized risk to public safety. Programs fail to achieve their cost and burden shifting purpose when there are categorical exclusions based on non medical criteria. People serving mandatory minimums and or life without parole are eligible for compassionate release in the majority of parole based states.

This includes states all across the political spectrum and in every part of the country. And this is because states recognize what we have all said, that people are costly, burdensome and least likely to recidivate. And that's true irrespective of their sentence or conviction. The second factor is timeliness.

As we've discussed, those with critical and terminal illnesses are often in precarious health with rapid downturn and death possible at any time. Delays prolong suffering and frustrate program goals. Best practices include straightforward processes and deadlines for decision making. When the number of deaths in DCR custody is eight times higher, this Bill ensures that. Sorry, excuse me.

This Bill ensures that decisions are in appropriate timelines for the inherent urgency of compassionate release. I will just add briefly that this Bill does not preclude victim notification. It just creates a small exception to the 60 day time frame which we know is not appropriate when people are rapidly dying. All right.

In speaking with medical and correction staff, people hospitalized in the infirmary and families, we've seen the harms of the lack of this Bill. I've personally visited Halawa on many occasions and I've seen this with my own eyes.

I want to thank you all so much for your leadership in introducing this Bill and for the opportunity to support court. We respectfully urge you all to pass this Bill which reduces costs, supports staff, promotes dignity and protects public safety. I'll be here first.

Thank you, Ms. Crane. We have Ms. Kat Brady from Community Alliance and Prisons.

Good morning. Thank you so much for hearing this Bill and introducing it, Chair. This Bill is really about the humanity of incarcerated people serving with time with devastating illnesses that are chronic and in many cases, irreversible.

Luckily, Hawaii has our own angel of mercy in Bob Merce, who actually has been working on this for more than 10 years. And he has encountered people who have. So their illness is so far gone, they don't know why they're there. They think they're waiting for their family to come and pick them up.

I mean, these people are not a danger to society. They're really sick. And on the cost side, at the October 6th briefing, it came out that one person in three months, his care cost $2 million, and another person ate up $900,000 in medication of the medication budget.

And I received an anonymous memo from the Department, and it was health care workers saying, we cannot provide medication to people who need it. And I talked with a family who said, yeah, my son needs medication, but he's really worried about the people who need psychotropic medication. There's no budget for that anymore.

So we're not really looking at the big picture. We're picking and choosing and saying, well, these people are in prison for a long time because of this. You know, we need to understand that the department's role is to rehabilitate people, to help them be able to reintegrate with society.

And this Bill has an affirmative duty to help people who are in this situation. And we hope that you support this Bill in the values of our community. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. We have testimony in support from Chanel Santiago Hall.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Chanel Santiago Hall. I'm here today as both a community member and as a granddaughter in strong support of House Bill 1628. My grandfather, Norman “Chico” Santiago, is 84 years old and has been incarcerated for 56 years, serving a life sentence without parole.

While he does not currently qualify for compassionate release, aging in prison is inevitable. There will come a time when he, like many others serving longer life sentences, may become medically fragile, disabled, or seriously ill, requiring assistance with basic daily needs. That is why this legislation matters. Compassionate release does not erase accountability or guarantee freedom.

It simply creates a structured process to evaluate whether continued incarceration of elderly or seriously ill individuals still serves public safety or justice. It recognizes that there are moments when incarceration no longer fulfills its original purpose, particularly when someone is incapacitated or nearing the end of life. This bill is not just about my grandfather.

It is about the many people currently aging in our correctional system and those who will inevitably follow. Without compassionate release pathways, life sentences become life without dignity at the end of life. I respectfully urge you to support House Bill 1628 and allow it to move forward. Mahalo for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Ms. Hall. We have Mr. Edmund "Fred" Hyun in opposition.

Good morning, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair, Committee Members. My name is Edmund "Fred" Hyun. I'm the former chair of the Hawaii Paroling Authority, and I speak as a concerned citizen. I stand on my written testimony and I'll just highlight some key points.

While I agree with many of the previous speakers, I would like to say that many of the times that compassionate release, what we call medical release now, individuals have not been released is due to lack of placement, lack of community resources, medical treatment, mental health care. As you've heard, with the VA, psychotropic medications, and other services.

You know, Ms. Cheng points out a lot of key points during her practice. Mr. Merce, as well as Kat Brady, have also experienced our pleas to find placements so we can release individuals. Not that they haven't been paroled. They've been paroled on a parole charity set pending a placement in the community for their special needs.

We have effected parole for medical individuals in a week and a half. Is that too long? I don't think so. Of course, there are those who have been in custody for over a year because we cannot find community placement.

So I think the focus really should be community placement and perhaps changing the 1972 penal code for indeterminate sentences. But perhaps looking to the courts for compassionate sentences so individuals do not have to come to prison and overload the system as such. I don't feel there is a need for a working group, and I'll be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hyun. We have Mr. Bob, Robert K. Merce in support. And I love it that you guys are sitting right next to each other.

Thank you, Chair Belatti and Vice Chair Iwamoto. My name is Bob Merce. I'm a retired lawyer, and as people have said, I've been working with people seeking compassionate release for the last 10 years or more. We do need a bill. We absolutely need a bill.

When I get a call from somebody, there's no structure to handle their case. We have no timeline. So if the department drags their feet on something, somebody's going to die in time. And once the case goes over to the parole board, again, there's no timeline. They can put to give it a hearing or not.

One of the big problems is as soon as somebody is identified as somebody who is sick and needs compassionate release, we need to start working on their case. I'll give you an example of what happened a number of years ago. I ended up with a person who, he was really sick. We ended up getting him compassionate release.

We get him into the... But the department did nothing to help him at all. There was nowhere to put him. I was able to find out that he was going to die soon. We got him cleared into hospice.

We got him to hospice finally because we were going to lose the bed because the paroling authority was moving fast enough on the case. And they called me the morning, they said, Bob, if you don't get him in here by noon, the hospice, which is, which was charity hospice, it was free.

They said, we're going to give the bed to somebody else. And I had to call him and get him, rush him over there to get him in in time because nobody cared about where they're going to put him. When they found out he was dying, they just left him to die.

And it was up to me to find a place. And then he did get into hospice, and he was in hospice for probably about six or eight weeks. And they called me, I remember it was the Easter morning, and they said, Bob, David has passed away last night. He had end stage liver disease.

From the time you get the diagnosis of end stage liver disease to the time you die should be two years. That's the average. We ended up... Nobody identified him as being a compassionate release patient.

We ended up with him getting out and living maybe, you know, a couple of weeks or a month or two instead of two years. He should... As soon as we get the diagnosis of glioblastoma, a brain tumor, we should, we should start working on getting that person out. But we don't do that.

In fact, I, we worked really hard on getting a woman in the hospital who had a brain tumor, and she got good care there, but it was too late. And you only have 12 to 18 months when that diagnosis comes down. And she was just there for a short time and died.

And that's why we need timelines, we need criteria, we need an organized way of doing this, and we need to put responsibility on the department and on the parole board to do their part. And they have to begin to help us find places for people early on. We're working together now.

Corey Reinke and I are talking to hospitals. We're talking to, we're going to be talking to nursing homes. We're going to try and solve that problem. But briefly, I'd also like to talk about the life without parole. I understand that there's pushback on that. Somebody sentenced a life in parole.

As Molly Crane said, they are the least likely to offend, and they're the most expensive to keep in prison. What do you do with a man who, like Mr. Ramos, who I was asked to help a number of years ago, who dementia and doesn't understand anyway why he is in prison?

As Kat Brady mentioned, when I asked him why he's in prison, he said, my son left me here and he's coming to pick me up. And I wait every morning for him to come, but he never comes. He has... What are you going to do with him?

You want, you don't want to release him because he's got, he's got a mandatory minimum sentence. Are you going to keep him somewhere? Where are you going to keep him? I heard Chanel Santiago talking about her grandfather. He's not sick yet, but he was 27 years old when he was sentenced to life without parole. He's now 84 years old. He has changed. He has a good record in prison.

In fact, he received a commutation because there was a big fight in the prison, and he was the leader of a group of inmates who surrounded a group of people who were visiting the prison and saw them and protected them to get out safely. And he was given a commutation. So do we wait till he gets sick?

Do we wait? These are people who we could let out right now, but we, you know, we just, we just need to start reducing our prison population. And some of these 80 year old people, you know, they are the people who really, really need to be released.

We have a long way to go to get to the point where we want to be, but we need a bill to do it. We just, we just can't leave this big thing where everybody can do whatever they want, take as long as they want. We need to put responsibility where it belongs. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Merce. Maysana Aldeguer in support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. My name is Maysana Aldeguer. I'm a former correctional officer from Waianae. I became a correctional officer via rehabilitation treatment and out of a homeless shelter. I'd like to thank the department, first of all, for giving me that life.

I worked as a correctional officer in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for 20 years, from 1996 to 2016. I became a CO. I was passionate about holding the line. I rose to the rank of a sergeant.

As a CO, I personally witnessed the indignity of dying in prison and the burden of caring for people who are critically ill for officers who are neither trained nor equipped to do so. During my time as a correction officer, I was assigned to hospital duty. The hospital unit is where the inmates who are sick and dying.

What is inmate was transferred. She was deteriorating. And I remember having to guard her who was dying of AIDS in the hospital. And I had to help her suck her fluids. Due to her conditions, she lost control of her bodily functions. Her breathing became more shallow even though she was slipping into a coma.

I was required to keep her cuffed. Her arm was extended straight out so she could be shackled and her leg irons on her feet. This was so disturbing for me. One day when she was deep in the coma, I told her, I don't know if you can hear me, but I'm taking your cuff off.

Just for her to have that moment of dignity. She died alone. I was required to put the chains back on all the way until her body was in the morgue. Watching people die in shackles impacts correction officers morale deeply. The day this woman died, I had to go back home and be a mom again for my kids.

And then wake up the next day and somehow be functioning to go through this all over again. I cried when I had a brief moment. I don't believe anyone should die alone in prison. I've seen this firsthand. We faced with overcrowding and understaffing. There were times where there was one of me and 120 inmates.

People who are very sick often need a lot of care outside of the prison. Every time, two of us would help to assist, you know, the nurses from trying to clean them up and then escort them to the doctors and back.

It takes time away from the already understaffed facilities and for an entire shift because the specialists were not nearby. It's not easy. It's not easy for the correctional officers. We are not hired to be nurses. We are not skilled in IV poles and changing diapers. We are qualified to take care.

We are not qualified to take care of sick inmates. All we could do was try to check if they were alive and breathing. The hope the nurse can be there at some point. The nurses was overwhelmed.

Taking care of people who are critically ill, who need a lot of care, but who are not a safety risk was an unnecessary strain to correctional staff. As a correction officer, you work with inmates every single day. Unlike how the public view people from outside looking in, I really got to know the inmates.

Even though they made a mistake, they are still human. The crimes people commit matter. But I believe people should die knowing that they are still loved and that peace would give them peace as they leave this world.

This bill is important not only because they are still people, but because they are already in their last leg of life. The group of people required so much support from overwhelmed, overworked correctional staff with absolutely no public safety purpose.

Hawaii is the only state in the country without a statute for the compassionate release program, and this cannot go on. We need a bill that helps DCR and the Hawaii Paroling Authority accountable to address the sick and dying population.

This bill is important for the state, for the DCR, for the inmates, and families, and the correctional officers. On behalf of the correctional staff, I respectfully urge you to pass this bill. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify respectfully.

Thank you, Ms. Aldeguer. Next up is going to be Mr. Louis Erteschik. I want to just apprise the public. I'm not putting time limits on, but we do have your written testimony, so if you're able to summarize and really just highlight what you want to say.

We have three other bills on this after this bill. We have time until 11:30, but I just want to urge people to move it along a little bit. We have, up next, Mr. Louis Erteschik.

Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Representative Belatti and Vice Chair and Members. I'm Louis Erteschik. Yeah, I'm going to be pretty brief. My testimony actually wraps and echoes a lot of what you've heard. I just wanted to add that I've been at this for a long time too. Bob Merce and I worked on several cases over the years.

And the problem is that the current system is very ad hoc. It just depends on the good efforts of guys like Bob who are persistent and things like that. And so what this bill does is it sets up a structure and a framework with some procedural rights.

And so I think that's definitely an improvement over the current situation. And so basically I like the substance of the bill. Obviously, we're all humanitarians here. And so I agree with that.

What I did want to add is that, even if you're not a humanitarian, even if you're just a cold, calculating number cruncher, this whole system doesn't make any sense. These guys are the most expensive prisoners you're ever going to find in your entire life.

If you treat them in the community, not only is it cheaper to begin with, but they can get Medicaid coverage. You can't get Medicaid when you're in prison. If you're out in the community, Medicaid will cover the cost of the treatment, which means that the feds are going to pick up half of it.

So economically, this thing is a total no brainer. I do agree. And if you look at the first part of my testimony, the concerns raised by Tommy Johnson and the gentleman that used to be with the parole board, if you don't solve the problem of capacity in the community, you're not really going to solve the problem.

Because I remember Bob and I had a case years ago. I think the guy had been a sex offender, and the prison was actually ready to let him out, but nobody wanted to take him. All these care home operators were like, oh, I don't want the sex offender guy in my house.

And so you have the stigma of people who are prisoners. And so you need to find a way to develop capacity in the community of places that are willing to take them. Now, if it's hospice and they're going to die in a couple of days, maybe it doesn't matter. And if you have...

If you could wrap up, Mr. Erteschik. Thank you.

All right, thanks.

All right, next up we have JoAnne Keaulana. So, okay, I'm going to take this out of order at the moment. But then next up is going to, after this is going to be Ms. Carrie Ann Shirota, followed by Ronald Fujiyoshi, and then Nikos Leverenz. Can you state your name?

Hi, my name is JoAnne Keaulana. And this is my dad, Buffalo Keaulana. Aloha, Chair and Members. I'm here in strong support in HB 1628. This bill is not about letting dangerous people out of prison. It's about people who are old, very sick, or dying.

People who can no longer care for themselves and no longer pose a threat to anyone. Keeping someone like that locked up does not make our community, doesn't make our community safer. It only costs the state more money and causes more suffering that serves no real purpose. Yeah.

HB 1628 gives Hawaii a clear and fair process to look at these cases carefully with medical proof and safeguards in place. Right now, compassionate release exists in theory, but in reality, it is rarely used and often confusing. This bill brings clarity, fairness, and accountability. Justice should always include responsibility, but it should also include humanity. Yeah.

When someone is at the end of their life, punishment without compassion is no longer justice. Hawaii is known for caring for people, for honoring Ohana, and for choosing what is right, not just what is easy. HB 1628 reflects those values. Please don't wait until this becomes personal. Until it's your parent. Yeah.

Your child, sibling, or someone you love before you understand the cost of waiting too long to show compassion. Mahalo. God bless you guys.

Can you just state your name again for the record?

JoAnne Keaulana. K E A U L A N A.

Okay. Thank you. All right, up next is Ms. Carrie Ann Shirota from ACLU. No. Excuse me, individual. Thank you for joining us. Go ahead, Carrie.

Aloha, Chair Belatti, Vice Chair Iwamoto, and Committee Members. Carrie Ann Shirota, concerned community member. I'm an attorney, but I'm also a member of the community that has been impacted by incarceration. I've shared with you previously, I have family members who have incarcerated and I have family members within law enforcement.

And I also want to frame because I hear a lot of fear tactics rolling out the number of people who are incarcerated for serious and violent crimes. I previously worked as the Director of Maui Economic Opportunities Reintegration Program. We focus on helping individuals with class A and B felonies, which is considered the most serious and violent.

And I can tell you that they are people who made mistakes, often coming from poverty backgrounds, abused themselves, not having the resources that had they had that from our community, they likely would have not ended up incarceration. So when we provide more support in the community front, less victims, less incarceration. But I want to just pose the question to us, you know, we are faced with a choice. What kind of society do we want to be?

Do we want to treat compassionate release as this token act of charity and underutilize it, or do we want to follow best practices and codify compassionate release as a law in Hawaii because it makes medical, humanitarian, and fiscal sense? Statistics have been shared with you about compassionate release is infrequently granted.

As a former public defender, I only worked there for one year, but I know when I went before the parole board, I had one client who obtained compassionate release. And at the time I was young and, you know, thinking we can get more people out. And I was told it rarely ever happens.

And it was a victory that one individual had it, even though others could have benefited from it. If we look throughout the world, philosophers, religions, faith groups are all unanimous that there's a purpose for compassion and mercy because it speaks to who we are.

We have an aloha spirit, but are we practicing it if we're allowing people to literally suffer? Kupuna, even someone who's younger, who has a terminal illness? And as a former caregiver, my father, who was in and out of the hospital most of my life, dialysis, stroke, heart attack, spinal cord injury, and our family cared for him.

I know what it takes to provide care for a loved one. And we should not deny that to other people who are medically frail and could benefit from this. I want to briefly touch upon this argument about that this infringes potentially upon the Governor's authority.

First of all, I haven't heard anyone say, any constitutional scholar or opinion or the AGs from this state or other states, to say that this bill, if passed, would infringe upon the Governor's clemency powers. He still has the ability to pardon and commute. So let that argument go to the wayside.

Second, it is fully within lawmakers' purview to pass laws. That's why you're here. And just as lawmakers in the past have sometimes followed tough on crime filled politics and policies, which we are still facing mass incarceration as a result of that period. You have the ability to to eliminate mandatory minimums.

You also have the ability to pass compassionate release. It is fully within your purview. There is no constitutional argument there. Again, the fear tactics. I just want to also add, I know what it's also like for my family and myself to be impacted by violence, and so other people who are invoking the name of victims.

And I know not all the victims and survivors are the same, but they do not speak for me. My uncle was murdered, my mom's brother, when I was 6 years old in Maui. So my family knows what it's like to have someone killed.

And we, my family not here, all to Maui today, but they would also be here to testify and support this compassionate release bill. And also, as a person who has experienced violence and sexual assault, I am also here to say that I believe in compassionate release because it is who we are.

I just want to close with a quote from Bryan Stevenson. He's well known for helping people who are on death row. And he says simply punishing the broken, walking away from them, or hiding them from sight, only ensures that they remain broken and we do too. There is no wholeness outside of reciprocal humanity.

And I humbly ask you that we just not tout the values of aloha when we're blessing a place or when we're on opening day, but that we live it. And this is an example in a concrete way that we can codify the aloha spirit into our law. And I humbly ask that you pass this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Shirota. Next up, we have Ronald Fujiyoshi of Ohana Ho`opakele, followed by Mr. Nikos Leverenz. Is Mr. Fujiyoshi here?

I'm here on Zoom.

Okay, go ahead, Mr. Fujiyoshi. Sorry.

Mahalo for the opportunity to testify. I wish I were there with you. My name is Ronald Fujiyoshi. I've been the treasurer of Ohana Ho`opakele since May of 2000. Our organization has three members of our six member board are ex paʻahao. So we, our organization helped in supporting the first Makahiki opening ceremony in Diamondback in November of 2003.

I saw a photo in the Hawaii Correctional Systems Oversight Commission annual report that showed Mark Kawika, Chair, and Christin Johnson, the Oversight Commissioner, standing next to a poster that said prison should not be a death sentence. And Ohana Ho`opakele agrees completely with this.

We think that even people who have sentences of life without parole, if they have shown that they are model prisoners, should be allowed to get out. This bill is called compassionate release. Compassionate. It doesn't mean easy release.

You know, I was a missionary in Asia for 20 years, and I can tell you there is an aloha spirit in Hawaii. And so we should be proud of it and should believe in it and work on it and lead the nation in compassionate release.

I learned at the last hearing before your committee was when Molly Crane from FAMM reported that we are the only state that doesn't have a statute on compassionate release. You know, I don't have to remind all of us that the United States has the largest percentage of incarcerated people.

So we should be leading the world, not trying to catch up. So please pass this bill, do whatever it needs to to get it passed so that we can help our people. Thank you. Mahalo for allowing me to testify.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fujiyoshi. Next up, we have Mr. Nikos Leverenz of Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center.

Aloha, Madam. Aloha, Madam Chair, Vice Chair, and Members Nikos Leverenz with Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center. We've supported compassionate release law since it was, the bill was introduced by the current Lieutenant Governor, I think in the last decade, actually.

And this is one of those areas where Hawaii is really aberrant with respect to the practices of other states. Others have noted that we are the only state in the nation without a compassionate release law on the books. In a political process that likes to invoke Native Hawaiian terminology and concepts like pono and aloha. You know, again, you know, the lack of a bona fide compassionate release program as outlined in this bill really speaks to how deficient the state has been.

We also support the hard reporting requirements in this bill to ensure that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is actually implementing the program and not just pointing to a policy or a statute that is not executed properly. Mahalo for the opportunity to provide testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Leverenz. We have testimony in opposition from the Sex Abuse Treatment Center, Lynn Costales Matsuoka via Zoom. We have testimony in support, Ms. Young via Zoom, Neighborhood Security Watch Kapalama. Briefly, Ms. Young. Go ahead.

Hi, can you activate my video? Hello? Can you hear me? Okay. Angela Melody Young testifying on behalf of Kapalama Neighborhood Security Watch. We're very involved in public safety, and of course we also care about people who are in the prisons.

So I think the legislation should consider an amendment with classifications of harmful to not harmful to society and perhaps release with supervision around the clock and intensive health care plans.

Or also consider a task force of mental health professionals, faith based ministries active in incarcerated ministries, nonprofits, and businesses supporting causes, or raising awareness about reducing recidivism to come up with legislations for next year.

I think these are the people who know these circumstances best, and in my opinion, I don't know if the victims are the best at making the decision. This is just my opinion, and I don't want to diminish their voice.

It should be a group of legal and mental health, public health, and public safety professionals with victims in an advisory role. And the task force could consider including Department of Law Enforcement, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, HPD, and Department of Human Services.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Can you wrap it up? We have your amendments, but can you wrap it up?

I will wrap it up, yeah. So you know, my grandfather, he died in prison trying to come to America in the Chinese Cultural Revolution when the Communist Party was activating in China. So I am very passionate about this. And also we need to, in good faith, enact a good task force to help accomplish these goals.

Okay, thank you, Ms. Young. Thank you. We have Jessie Brenes in support on Zoom. Go ahead, Jessie.

Hello. Hi. Good morning, Chair. My name is Jessie Brenes. I'm a junior studying social work at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. I'm in support of HB 1628, pertaining to compassionate release, because I believe compassion can be where true justice is reflected in our criminal justice system.

And I believe compassionate really speaks for the aging, disabled, and incarcerated individuals who often lack voice in society and go underrepresented. By valuing incarcerated individuals, respecting their health, their dignity, and worth as people, I think room for real reformation is made, and not just reformation within the criminal justice system, but across generations of society.

When considering this bill, I believe it's vital to consider the impacts of incarceration on communities. And through this bill, I believe families and communities will be gifted with the opportunity to spend final days with loved ones, which I think is important. But I also do emphasize the need of consideration for care options upon release for those without family or without care that they can receive. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brenes. We have Sharleen Kahumoku via Zoom. Go ahead, Ms. Kahumoku. Then we're going to be followed by Mr. Billionaire.

Hi. I don't know how to activate the Zoom.

You can go ahead and continue to testify.

Okay. Aloha, Chairman Belatti, Vice Chairman Iwamoto, and Committee Members. My name is Sharleen Kahumoku. I'm writing in strong support of HB 1628, relating to compassionate release. In September 7, 2023, my brother Van Keoki Kahumoku was released through the Compassionate Release Board. He was deteriorating rapidly in Halawa/Saguaro, given a few years to live because of multiple chronic illness.

Through releasing Van, he who had VA medical Medicare, he was able to get the proper medical care with specialist. In prison, Van wasn't getting the proper medical attention he needed, although he was constantly in the infirmary.

In the two and a half years of being released with his Ohana around, Van and we Ohana thanking God for second chance with Van. So I'm sharing with this bill, HB 1628, passed. It can help many other in prison who doesn't belong there and it can be a win situation where the medical cost can help lessen the state's overhead.

I pray that everyone involved in making this HB 1628 bill pass by my testimony can help other incarcerated prisoners to have a second chance in dignity and make things right with themselves and Ohana and lessen the over crowded prisons we have today and overhead cost factor. We, as Van's siblings and being Hawaiian, Ohana means family.

No one gets left behind. Thank you for trusting our testimonies years ago in releasing our brother Van. So let me end with this. Can our Ohana be an example that incarcerated prisoners whose health is challenging, who has just a few years to live can show compassion and help others like Van?

I want to also in thanking Christin Johnson, Bob Merce, expressing him dedication, Carrie Shirota, and Ron Fujiyoshi that without their support in pushing and helping my brother come out, he probably wouldn't be alive today. So I'm in support of HB 1628 because these people that's behind the voice right now made my brother still be here today.

So I just want to thank everyone that's involved because this is not an easy position to stand for, but as a sibling to someone that was incarcerated...

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kahumoku. And I just want to note that this is testimony that's also provided in support from Van Keoki Kahumoku, George Kahumoku, Maile Perez, and Ramona Moreira. Thank you. All right, thank you. Next up, we have Mr. Billionaire on Zoom. Please be brief.

Aloha, guys. Pikachu Shelby Billionaire representing Kingdom of Hawaiian Islands, Ohana Unity Party. I'll keep it short and sweet because it seems like we're ready to roll. So I fully support this bill, and the perfect example. I know it's tested with medical and what we want to do.

Everyone's testimony was very great, positive and negative. But with compassion, there's only one person I really think of, Mana Olayan from God Forgives Bad Boys, Bad Girls. And he'd be helping to, you know, do good things for society, helping the population.

So I'm hoping with this parole authority, if they do get this compassionate release, they can also do some recidivism, do good stuff, you know, to help the community and society and give back. Don't just get them out of jail, they do crazy stuff. I'm sure they'll, you know, some people are dying. It's so sad to hear.

Sound of stories of people dying in chains and cuffs just bring breaks your heart. So if you guys have compassion, just like Mahatma Gandhi, just like Dalai Lama says, if you want to be happy, practice compassion. If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. So the world would be a better place if you had compassion in your heart.

Thank you, Mr. Billionaire. Thank you. Up next in support, Mr. Aaron Ruddick. Testimony in opposition, Crime Victim Compensation Commission, Ms. Pamela Ferguson-Brey. Members, that testimony is in your red leaf. We have testimony in support from Office of Prosecuting Attorney County of Kauai. Testimony in support, ACLU of Hawaii, Josh Frost.

Testimony in support, First Unitarian Church of Honolulu, Carla Allison. Testimony in support ʻEkolu Mea Nui, Dr. Jamee Miller. We have additional testimony in support from FAMM from Celeste Trusty. Testimony with comments from Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. Testimony in support by Hawaii Friends of Restorative Justice. Members, we have a numerous other support from individuals in...

Sorry, we have numerous individuals in support. One, a few in opposition in your red leaf. Are there any other individuals in the room who would like to testify? Okay, if you could come forward, line up. I see four individuals. If you could state your name. And like I said, if you have submitted it online, we have it. And then, so please keep it brief. All right.

Aloha mai kākou. Mahalo, you guys. My name is Kaleihau Kamauu and I'm with Ohana Ho`opakele, and I am in full support of this bill. I'm going to write down my paper. I know I'm going to send them in, but I don't know if you guys got them. So I'm just going to pick here and there.

So Ohana Ho`opakele has been very, very active in meetings with the oversight commission and looking for ways on how we can, how we can find ways to get our kupuna out of prison, many of whom been in there, like Chico, crazy 56 years. You know, and I know him. I'm formerly incarcerated and I know him.

And he's always been a great guy inside there, always leading different positive programs in there. So I'm in strong support of this. I was surprised to learn in our last meeting through Molly that Hawaii does not have a bill like this or a mandate like this.

Surprised because as plenty of guys was mentioning Hawaii, aloha, you know, compassion. So I was surprised to hear that, that we the only ones throughout the whole union. Also, I would like to point out that in regard to life without parole, I view that as, well, 1957, they outlawed or they got rid of the death penalty in Hawaii. And part of that has to do with our culture about who we are as a people.

Like many people were saying. Life without parole, it's like it is the death penalty, but you dying when slow death through incarceration. So I think, you know, we need to pass this bill. Compassion. And I stand by what somebody else mentioned earlier, that we are about compassion, we should be about compassion. The rest of my bill, you guys got. But mahalo for letting me give me the opportunity to testify. Mahalo. Aloha.

Thank you. And if you could make sure that his testimony is accepted and submitted. Next up, please. And if you could state your name.

Hello. My name is Pikake Quebatay. I'm the women's program manager for Makana O Ke Akua. We're a women's recovery home services for women coming out of prison. I also am a UH Manoa student studying for social work. Sorry, I'm a little nervous. And I'm also a convicted felon. I did time at Woman's and I did time at Oahu Correctional Center.

And I didn't know Hawaii wasn't the only state that didn't have this. I'm in full support of it. Coming from someone who actually was incarcerated with other women who had terminal illnesses and died. I remember having to take care of them myself. And I was just a prisoner. I'm not a doctor or anything.

So definitely they need a place to go when they're at that stage, you know. And not everybody in there is bad, needs to be looked at that way. You know, I came out, I opened 2 clean and sober houses, and I'm willing to help with this. If there's housing strategies that come about, I'm willing to help support and be a part of it, you know.

But yeah, it was, it was traumatizing for us prisoners to go through as well. So our mental health is getting affected as well in there. And I like, I'll never forget my... I'll never forget the womens that passed away, but I won't forget the way like they didn't get the help they needed and they wanted to see their families and they weren't able to.

And so that will always stay with me, you know, because it's like traumatic. I don't know what they call that. PTSD. So we get PTSD. Us prisoners get PTSD because we got to watch this happen. You know what I mean? And I'm out now. I'm giving back because I have compassion.

I think that's something we should look at. If we stand for the, if we stand for aloha, where's the aloha in that? Right. So I'm just here to voice that out. I'm sorry. I'm real nervous. Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you, Ms. Quebatay. Next up, and I really want to get to questions, so if we could be very brief. We do have your written testimony if you submitted it. If you could state your name for the record and speak briefly.

My name is Van Keoki Kahumoku. I spent 24 years in prison. This is the law that put me because I followed this law. This is the Hawaiian law called kānāwai. It says when somebody hurts my family, I can go after them and kill them. We come from the Babylonia. We are the twelfth tribe of Abraham.

We are both aliʻi and we are also priests, so we count kahunas and aliʻi. My family used to own 23,000 acres on the Big Island, Kualoa. I don't know what they own now. It covered all of Aliʻi Drive. That means we own Kailua-Kona.

Thank you for this. I need you to speak to the bill, please. And if you could wrap it up.

I support the bill wholeheartedly. And this is my testimony. My testimony is that while I was in prison, they poisoned me. When we first got to Diamondback, I went to Watonga, Diamondback. The food was good. Everything was copacetic, whatever that word is. It was great. And then they found out there wasn't...

They were paying too much for the food, so they hired somebody to not give us good food. And not only that place, but in Saguaro, too. I went to both places.

So, Mr. Kahumoku, I needed to...

I spent 24 years. Let me have about 10 minutes.

No, you don't have 10 minutes. If we take 10 minutes, we're not going to be able to get through this bill, Mr. Kahumoku.

I am the proof that you can let me go. I'm 76 years old. I've helped a lot of people while I'm in prison. I gave away 3,000 bucks. I got it in writing. Ron Fujiyoshi wrote it, wrote it all down, and I can show it to you. I'm also a relative of King Kamehameha I.

That means all the land in royal lands, including Bishop State, my family has access. We were also ambassadors to England. You know that flag you see right there? That's why we got the flag. Because my family went to England and they negotiated because King Kamehameha III designated my family in Honokaa as ambassadors.

Thank you, Mr. Kahumoku. I know that your history is long in your genealogy. So I think it's really important we understand that you support this. But we have two other people that need to speak up. Thank you so much.

This is the notification that I sent to Ron Fujiyoshi that was coming from Hilo to Halawa for the first time.

Thank you. Thank you for sharing those with us. Next.

Thank you. I am for that bill. In our country, as a Kanaka Maoli, we cannot vote. The only way we have a voice is through a treaty dispute. After administration review, on behalf of the Hawaiian Kingdom government and our subjects, this notice is to preserve the rights of the Kanaka people who are not within the jurisdiction of the United States but are being tried from a foreign entity, two of which is unlawful and not acceptable. Due to the 1849-50 treaty with President Zachary Taylor and King Kamehameha III, there is clearly a distinction between the two parties referencing to them as subjects and citizens.

There have been many complaints regarding this distinction to which there is now question with current and retired police officers who are believe they were operating in correct capacity by enforcing United States laws upon kingdom subjects to of which you lack jurisdiction on any Hawaiian Kingdom subject.

I'm sorry. You need to speak to the bill.

Yes. Okay. Yes.

The Permanent Court of Arbitration has recognized the Kingdom of Hawaii still exists. Jurisdiction is legal fact. The legal position of our people rests in the fact that the court has no lawful jurisdiction over any of the subjects, AKA Kopai Ina.

Get to that comment now.

Since the legal foundations that support this position does not need your recognition under International Law, Montevo Convention 1933 Article 1 defines the criteria of statehood: Population, territory, government, capacity to enter into religion.

Can I interrupt you? Please. I recognize that you're reading something. So if you're -

To enter into relations, Montevo Article 3 Political existence of the state is independent of recognition. The Hawaiian Kingdom has never been extinguished by treaty or lawful annexation. Under international law, a sovereign state continues to exist despite illegal occupation, see all in Island's case. Permanent Court of Arbitration PCA ruling 2001 in Larson vs Hawaiian Kingdom, the PCA acknowledged the continued existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom as a state -

Ms. Corlette, I'm going to cut you off now. You can submit what you have. I do not think it's relevant at this point, but you can submit it up.

And it is very relevant because many of the Tanaka people are arrested.

Thank you. But we're talking about compassionate release. If you can please submit that. Please submit that's what you have in writing. Please submit what you have in writing. And if you could move to the side so we can let the next testify.

I'm in support of this bill because many of our Kanaka people, the United States doesn't even have jurisdiction to imprison them. They shouldn't be exporting our people out of our country. Our country of birth.

Thank you. Thank you next up please. And if you could submit that in writing to the clerk, you will make sure that it made part of the record. Next up please. And this is the last person in person. Is there any other person here?

Okay. Good morning, Chair and board members. I don't have anything written but - oh, excuse me. My name is Gail Olyan. I'm wife to Mana O'Lion. I carry a shared mantle in the organization we're blessed with. God Forgives Bad Boys and Bad Girls.

And my position is very different because I'm blessed that I have a husband awaiting such possibilities or a path for such clemency or pardonship at the federal level. So do I feel strongly that something at the state level like this should be evident, clear, restructured. I hear everything that everyone is saying and I'm like, wow, great.

This is true to fact. But I guess my position in saying is many of us on the other end, because I've been on the other end, both state and federal, you know, when you ask someone what did you get a 10 year sentence, state or federal, it's disheartening to hear that it's state. The sentences are not equivalent.

The housing settings are not the wraparound services, the programs non existent. So it's a near - I want to say a 10 on a state level is like getting a 20 in existence that a human must walk through. So compassionate release on the other end. Absolutely. We don't have a death penalty.

But to not have something like this structured beyond the possibility of consideration to compassionate release I think is of great importance for everyone to look at to bring that to pass. Yeah.

Thank you, Miss Olayan.

Thank you.

Make sure your name is submitted. We have, this is the fourth person. Are you also standing? Okay, so the last person in the room.

Go ahead me next week. My name is Eddyn Stanley. I represent this bill. My father has been incarcerated for almost 40 years. He does have illness and as a daughter, I would want to help my dad. Like a lot of them said, no more places. They have family: family can take home, family can help, family can take.

Right. But I, you know, just make a simple shot but I am for this, for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Stanley, do we have any other testifiers on Zoom? No. Seeing none. Okay. Thank you to the public for testifying. I do want to spend some time with questions that I knew members must have questions. Any questions? Mr. Shimizu...Representative Shimizu? Go ahead.

Thank you. Can I ask Kristen Johnson. Quick question is: out of the 20 people that Director Johnson highlighted in his testimony what number of that 20 do you think would qualify for this passionate release - he took you on the spot. Yeah.

I don't know that number offhand, but I could definitely get it for you. I'm a pretty consistent question contact with the medical - I'm sure the Department could also get it for you.

It wouldn't be all 20?

No, no, no, it wouldn't be all 20. If I had to guess, based on conversations with the medical director, I would guess 5, 10 at most. You know, because they are an older...most of them are an older population.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Representative Iwamoto.

For Director Johnson. Director Johnson, in your oral testimony, you mentioned that this bill is trying to address a problem that does not exist. Go ahead, go ahead. Sorry about that. So, but I've heard in prior testimonies of yours that underfunding is a problem, understaffing is a problem.

And also you've also mentioned the mental health of your staff is concerned. So all of these problems seem to - we've heard testimony about the amount of money it'll save. The amount of moving people to draw down from federal programs, if they're out of your system, would actually then allow money for other things. Right. And free -

Ask a question, please.

I'm just trying to understand how you can say that there's no problems that this would alleviate?

Well, a couple things: one, the state doesn't have a law because we have administrative rules. In the absence of state law, the administrative rules have the same effect as law. HPA's administrative rule 23, 700-26: A through C covers this issue. Bob was right when he indicated there's no timeline.

But Bob should have also stated that every time we refer a compassionate release person case to HPA, HPA has granted the release. This doesn't - and the Former Chair Hume is correct.

We've done it in seven and a half days because we got the prosecutors to agree to review the case and give us a response back in two days. The issue is capacity in the community to help these people for housing. We're working with DHS now on the 1115 waiver issue. So we still a little bit - we're still a long way from where we should be.

But they just got the 1115 waiver. So we're working with them. We're providing them information so we can - someone can get signed up up to 90 days prior to the release date, if you know what that release date's going to be. That's how that system works.

So, what I meant was, the bill is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist because we have the administrative rules. Now, can the administrative rules be beefed up to add procedures and timelines? Yes, that's why. But if the legislature wants to pass a statute, that's the legislature's purview to do it.

However, we are in support of compassionate release, but we're not in support of those who are serving life without the possibility of parole and those who are serving mandatory minimum terms.

And we also would need resources to address the increase in the cases that we're going to have to review because this changes the practice that we currently follow under the administrative rules.

Any other question?

I'll ask after.

Okay. Any other first questions? Okay, I have a first question, and then I will defer to you folks. If I could have Molly Crane from FAMM.

In the prosecutor's Honolulu prosecutor's testimony, they have a challenge with the term chronic, and I could see why they would. Is there a problem that chronic. Why can't chronic be dropped out? Because I think debilitating or irreversible conditions captures that population that you're trying to help.

What is the best practice across states for the use of the term chronic?

Yeah, every single state, except for one has a category like this one. The word chronic helps us understand that this is a condition that may not improve, that's going to last through the life course. And so it actually does, in fact, limit who is eligible.

Okay, I have a few more questions, but I'm going to defer. Any other questions? Any second questions for Director Johnson?

Director, I appreciate your testimony and that you do, and I understand you're looking out for the public's best interest, and you shared that you feel that it's a public safety issue or concern. So would you say that these people who are being considered for compassionate release still pose risks to public safety?

Some of them may, but that would determine. That would depend on their health condition, the severity of what their issues they have. As HPA Administrator Corey Rinke mentioned earlier, he does have information on some cases that can go south.

But I want to make it clear, again, we're not against compassionate release, but we do not believe that those two categories of offenders should qualify. That's what we're saying.

And what is the reason for that if they do not pose a public risk and they are qualified other than what your concern is. Why are you steadfast on that?

Because, again, those who are serving life without the possibility of parole have committed murder, some of the most heinous crimes. Nowhere in this measure does it give the victim or the surviving family Members or victims any say in this process to let this person out.

If that can be included in there, then maybe we'll look at reevaluating our position. But because this measure says nothing about the victim, it's as if we're dismissing the harm that these people have caused to other families. Think about it. Someone's father gets murdered. Now, the child grows up without a father, the mother gets murdered.

So all I'm saying is that those people who committed the most heinous crimes should not be walking on the street. Now, for people who are incarcerated for 50 or 60 years, those people's cases have gone before governors. Governors have said no.

These because under state law, once a person has served 20 years, if they're serving life without the possibility of parole, HPA does an application to commute the person sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, and that goes to the Governor. And if the Governor denies it, the person then can apply every four years thereafter.

And if the Governor denies it, then they deny it. That is the governor's call.

I want to do a follow up on this line of questioning. Thank you, Director. If I could have Ms. Crane up again. And I think this is a real serious ask for the amendment process. And I think this is something we need to consider across states. Do any of the other statutes allow for victim notification?

Yes, other states do allow for victim notification, but this statute does not preclude victim notification. It just says that the 60 days is too long.

Okay. So there could be amendment where we require it to be.

There could be. Although there are many states that do not include this as part of the process at all. There are that do include it as well.

Okay. So this is a really tough problem. Right, that we're facing, because I understand what Director Johnson has said. And just pulling in my own family cuts across like, no, they should be serving their time in prison. Right.

If the victim is allowed to participate in this, the ultimate decision for the compassionate release is being made by who? So that is

Hawaii Paroling Authority.

Okay. So the concern is that they would be swayed. Right. So is there a way to kind of like, present different criteria that would, you know, to really help the paroling authorities?

You know, some of them want to lean into the punitive, but maybe there are others who want to lean into understanding that this is not good for us, just for the simple matter of cost. Absolutely. Right. So is there a system of that where we could give the decision makers some balancing criteria?

Absolutely. And that is best practice.

And I think what's exciting about this Bill and makes it a model for many other states is the sort of regulation working group that we put together so that the Department and the Hawaii Polling Authority and the Corrections Oversight Commission can all come together to figure out how to implement this law, to make sure that it balances important factors.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Crane. Any other questions? This question's for the lawmakers at this point because we need to ask the questions to understand how we can make this Bill move forward. Representative Iwamoto, followed by no, no, no, no referees of Director Johnson, again, so.

When the concern for victims are victims of allowed to opt out of being contacted? Because I can imagine some victims feeling. Traumatized every time they're contacted about the status of the.

They could notify the Victim Witness Cocoa staff at the prosecutor's office that they don't want to be notified of anything. They can write to the Hawaii Paroling, they can put it in the board action section of the database that they don't want to be notified at all.

But at the same time, they have the right to sign up for seven, which is free, the state automated Victim Information Notification System. And they can also write to HPA and to us to say we do want to know when something comes up for this case.

Got it. So in the situation where somebody who's incarcerated, say they have diabetes and they eventually have a foot removed or something, do you guys. You don't update the victim's family about situations about.

Well, that's a HIPAA issue. So we would not discuss an inmate's medical issues with anyone other than those they authorize us in writing to discuss it with. Right.

That's where this gets so kind of like it feels like this is all about medical compassion. There isn't. But this is a medical. And again, well, my other question is. Would you allow a victim's family to. Say, please don't give them any painkillers, please amputate without painkillers.

Okay. We have to provide a certain level of care and we have to provide humane care.

Okay, thank you. Okay, next question. I have a question. Sorry, go ahead.

I have a question for you later.

Thank you. I want to know in practice, when you have went to the judge, asked for compassionate release for your clients, what was that process like as far as victim, victims, you know, family notification? What is the current process?

So these. And I do want to just make sure that the Committee is aware of the distinction between us going to the court and the judge to file a motion for some sort of release versus the process that we're outlining. The individuals that we're talking about have been sentenced to indeterminate open terms of incarceration.

I do just want to make a mention that the Bill does not only address individuals that are serving life without parole or life with parole or 40, 50 year sentences, we have people who get sentenced to 5, 10 years that are in need of compassionate release.

However, going back to your original question, once the defendant or a client is sentenced to the open term of incarceration, with very minor exceptions, the circuit court or the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. So once they're in the custody of the Department of Criminal Corrections, there's really little that we can do.

We have the option to file a reconsideration of a sentence, something like that, where I've had this experience when my clients have not been sentenced to the indeterminate term, they've been either sentenced to probation with jail as a condition of that probation, where the court will still retain jurisdiction because that person will be supervised by the court system, the probation Department, or I have had clients who are in custody pending their case as a pretrial felon.

Sometimes these cases take 3, 4, 5 years to go to trial for whatever reason that may be. So when I have initiated a motion requesting a modification of their status, early termination of their sentence, a reduction of their jail term, whatever it may be, the prosecutor's office is still very actively involved in that case.

They will automatically get notified of any motion I file to. And then we rely, or I guess the court would rely on the prosecutor's office, as they do in all pretrial cases or cases still within the court's jurisdiction, to be the agency responsible for contacting the victims.

That you've heard reference to Victim Kokua Services, Victim Witness Advocates, we call them VWADs colloquially in the system, but that's an arm of the prosecutor's office that is hand in hand works with the victims so they are notified. Technically, it's up to the prosecutors. There's not an automatic.

But my practice is that the prosecutors either on their own, will notify the victims to give them an opportunity to come to court, or on a motion like this, the prosecutors can maybe represent. I've spoken with the victims and they're oppositional to the release or take no position, something like that. Great, thank you so much. No problem.

Next questions from Representative Shimizu.

Molly. You mentioned that Hawaii is the only state that doesn't have this compassionate release law. So in the other states, to address directors concern about releasing murderers or other people sentenced to that degree. How do the other states. Do the other states allow that?

Yeah, great question. So the majority of states have. Have parole boards make these decisions, do allow for people with these crimes with these sentences to be considered. And I think the key component of what we put in this Bill is that the Hawaii Paroling Authority is trained and equipped every day to do public safety assessments.

And that's what we're asking of them. Some states, just for example, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Utah, North Dakota, Vermont, these states are all over the country and all across the spectrum and they all allow people with mandatory minimums and or LWOP to be considered.

Follow up question. You know, a big consideration I'm hearing is for the victims, you know, not dishonoring how has that played out in these other 49 states as far as consideration for the victims?

Yeah, absolutely. So the majority of states don't have a provision in their compassionate release law for notification. However, there are a number that have very brief timelines recognizing the sort of inherent time crunch of someone who's rapidly deteriorating. So, for example, in Texas, there's a notification of one day where people have the opportunity to respond.

In Indiana, they just require reasonable effort. And if this notification process can be waived, if time is of the essence, we've heard today from Tommy Johnson that here the practice is to give two days to allow for response.

And so I think there is a path, even already in existence, for us to abbreviate the 60 day time frame.

I mean, besides the notification. I guess what I'm trying to gather is if you have a sense of how victims feel when they find out, if they find out that these murderers are released, is there like angst or anger or is there a sense of compassion also?

Yeah, you know, I think one of the important points that we heard today from Kerrianne is that victims and survivors are not a monolith. And so I couldn't necessarily say how all victims or survivors might feel, but I have personally represented people for compression at release or the survivors are the strongest advocates.

Survivors. When you say survivors, you're talking about the victims.

Yes. Yeah. Sometimes it's used as a more empowering term than victim, you know.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I'm gonna. I have one last question. So any other seeing? None. I think this question is for a Director. So I understand the desire not to, you know, violate mandatory minimums or life without parole. But when we're talking about individuals who may be at their.

We know they're at their end of life and it's going to cost us $2 million to keep them. Just economically it doesn't make sense. And so you are talking now about resources for people that we could expend more wisely and that the system can be more humane. So how do you respond to that question?

I would take all of asking in the testimony saying that the Legislature should do the research to see if that does affect the governor's powers and abilities. That's all. That's why I object to it because normally a person doesn't qualify for compassionate medical release unless they have a minimum term that had been set by the hpa.

The people who are serving life without the possibly open have not had a minimum term shift because their sentence hasn't been commuted yet by the Governor. So I just want to make sure that this process doesn't circumvent the authority. Vested with the government.

Well, okay. This is going to go on to the Next Committee where that issue can be explored. I don't know that I necessarily agree with you entirely, Director, but I appreciate that. Again, I'm now more focused on the economic question.

And when we're talking about resources like hospice care covered by Medicaid versus hospice care covered in the prisons, 100% a funds, I think we can make some economic choices here that people will understand.

I don't disagree. We're working with DHS now on the 1115 waiver issue. I coordinated with Gene, the chair of HPA on the chair, to set cases, to set a date so that within 90 days so that we can get them enrolled. And this is for all the offenders coming out.

So we're working on different avenues to try to get things done.

Understood. Thank you. Thank you, Members. We've had a really good discussion and actually this is going to allow us to. I think. Right. And come up with a better Bill, but we do need to move on. So we are moving on to House Bill 1517. Another simple Bill related to sentencing review.

Establishes a procedure for incarcerated individuals who have served at least 10 years of their sentence to petition the court for sentence reduction. Requires the DCR to report to the legislature's Hawaii Paroling Authority and the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission. We have organized. We have testimony in opposition from Mr. Johnson.

I'll just. Oh, good morning, Chair, Vice Chairman of the Committee. I'm Tommy Johnson. I'll just summarize my testimony. You have it in front of you. We strongly oppose this measure for several reasons. We believe one, that it negatively affects the penal code as approved in 1972, which was to address disparity in sentences. An indeterminate sentence is 706-660.

We also think that by allowing a person to go forward to ask the court for reconsideration, what does it stop the court from? From saying the person is time served when they may not have completed all the programming.

What do you have when you have a predatory sex offender who goes before the court and the court agrees and they didn't complete sex offender treatment. That's just an example. You have a person will be for the court and the person hasn't completed substance abuse treatment yet.

Because when a person comes in based on the minimum term, we set up a sequential phasing process to get the programs done, ideally prior to the minimum term expiry. So the drug treatment programs aren't done toward, they're not done until toward the end of the sentence. So the person doesn't go back in the general population.

So they move on to re socialization work. Further, if they petition the court and they're let out beforehand, they don't have the substance abuse treatment which probably brought them to prison in the first place. The behaviors which could have been just UCPVs, breaking in cars, burglary to support the drug habit.

So all we're saying is the underlying reason for the person going to prison should be addressed before the person is let out of prison. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Director. We have testimony in opposition for Mr. Gene DeMello, Hawaii paralleling authority or Mr.

Cory Reinke standing in for Gene DeMello, Administrator, Hawaii Paroling Authority. I'll just summarize our written testimony that the Hawaii Paroling Authority already has a reduction minimum process in place where the inmate can serve for a reduction minimum after serving one third of their sentence.

And also another concern of ours, as the Director also mentioned, is you could potentially allow a sex offender to be released in the community without completing their sex offender treatment, which is a two year program. And also would this law also bypasses where inmates can go through work furlough.

Going through work furlough, what we've seen on parole, they tend to succeed far greater than any other inmate, at least from other facilities. Thank you. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. We have testimony in support or comments from the judiciary.

Good morning, Chair, vice chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Jennifer Wong. I'm the staff attorney for the Criminal Administrative Division of the First Circuit Court. It's been a long morning so I will for most part stand on our testimony.

I'm just going to note that we take no position on the intent of policy determinations for the proposed legislation. And we just provided the following comments.

In order to effectuate the intent of this Bill, significant, significant changes need to be made to both structurally and procedurally to both chapter both the sentencing provisions and the parole provisions that are in Chapter seven four. The state of Hawaii is I believe, the only true indeterminate term sentencing state.

And Hayley touched on that a little bit. There really is not a lot of discretion for judges in terms of what they sentence, especially aid felonies and cases involving murder.

For B and C felonies we can sentence to probation and then you might get a jail term, which was the situation that Haley was talking about where she could come Back to the court for that compassionate release stuff.

In order for us to basically review any of these sentences, we would need a completely different sentencing structure than we have right now. What happens is our judges, our sentencing judges, sentence people to either an indeterminate term of 5, 10, 20 or life with or without parole, depending on the status of the offense at that time.

The actual time a person must serve of the imposed indeterminate term of imprisonment before they may become eligible for or released on parole is currently determined by the Hawaii Paroling Authority. They have exclusive authority to release defendant on parole prior to the expiration of the indeterminate term.

So essentially, and towards the end, we kind of just say that the intent of this Bill, I think, will probably be best served if it is put into provisions directed to the paroling authority.

If you want them to consider these things with respect to when they grant parole or reduce the minimum, they have on their website an entire handbook that I cite in the testimony with respect to their policies and procedures. And I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. We have testimony in opposition from the Crime Victim Compensation Commission, testimony from Community Alliance on Prisons. Kat Brady in person.

Aloha. Good morning. Again, I want to make clear that this does not mean that people just get released. It's about judicial review. So I've been working with many, many people who are serving really excessive sentences. And people do change. Change does happen. And they have the right programs. So this is about judges, courts actually reviewing.

It doesn't mean that everyone who files a petition is going to be granted a judicial review because the court will look at the record not only of the initial offense, but of institutional conduct. So it doesn't mean that everybody gets out.

Right now we have 135 people serving life with parole, 34 with life without parole, 2 serving 40 years, 13 serving 30 years, 18 serving 20 years, and 150 serving 10 years. So that's 352 people, 10% of the entire population of 3,654 people, 25 states. I've been researching this for many years.

And first it was, you know, 15 states, 10 states, 15 states. Now it's 25 states and the District of Columbia and the Federal Government and they've enacted second look review policies. This is not granting somebody freedom. It is granting the court to look at the record and determine things have changed since that person has been in prison.

And the law has changed, people have changed and the judge gets to make a decision. This is supported by much national research. The American law Institute, Fair and Just Prosecution, The American Bar association, the National Academy of Sciences. This is about reviewing a judicial review. It is not about release. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. I believe I might have skipped over Ms. Hayley Cheng. Did I skip over you? I did. On my list, I skipped over you. I'm sorry. Office of the Public Defender.

Thank you and good morning again. Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. The Office of the Public Defender is incredibly supportive and always will be on measures or ideas to give people an opportunity to have their sentence revisited or reevaluated. So many things change over time.

I think our comments, though, in our testimony, while we are supportive of the intent and the spirit of the Bill, our current sentencing scheme is not in line with what I think the intent of the Bill is. I alluded in my prior testimony to the loss of jurisdiction once somebody is transferred over to the Department of Corrections.

Again, there are a few exceptions to that, such as filing a Rule 40 petition or things of that nature. However, the trial court and the judge, original judge does not retain the ability to hear motions in front of him or her after somebody is sentenced to an indeterminate open term.

Really what we would ask the Committee to take a look at is our overall sentencing scheme because these indeterminate terms I don't think are in line nationally with what the rest of the country does. It is a very dismissive way of sentencing individuals and it puts all of the power, in our opinion.

And I think there are individuals in the room who would disagree. But in my experience doing this, it puts way too much power with the Hawaii Paroling Authority.

And we are sort of at the mercy of them, as you heard, when they are the ones that can evaluate and are the only ones that can currently evaluate the appropriateness of a sentence. So I would be happy to share thoughts with the Committee, maybe offline, about just the whole sentencing structure as a whole.

And you can see why the measures like this, while great in purpose, will not really achieve anything based on how we sentence individuals in Hawaii. And that's statutory. It's mandatory. There's really little discretion for the courts besides probation and these designated indeterminate terms.

So again, we support it, but it really, as we've outlined, would only impact this incredibly small group of people who basically got extended term sentences.

Because if you got a 20 year term and applied the court for a release, the court, there's no statutory mechanism to allow him to sentence you anything other than to the 20 year term. What we're talking about is a reduction of the minimum that is currently in the sole control of the Hawaii Paroling Authority. So be available for any questions. Thank you.

I think I'm going to have a question for you, so please stay. Testimony in support from Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Ms. McKenna Woodward.

Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Committee, McKenna Woodward, on behalf of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs in support of this measure. As I mentioned previously, HB 1517 establishes a structured and transparent judicial review process after 10 years of incarceration. And as Community alliance on Prisons mentioned, it does not guarantee release.

The Bill allows courts to assess whether sentences imposed in some cases decades ago remain just proportional and consistent with contemporary sentencing principles. As we've heard, today, Hawaii faces a rapidly aging prison population. And research shows that public safety risk declines with age, while incarceration costs and medical needs increase.

As I noted previously, Kanaka are disproportionately represented in the criminal legal system. Why this is important to us. They represent only 20% of the state's population, but 40% of the prison population. Despite not committing crimes at a higher rate than other groups. But they are arrested at higher rates and sentenced for longer terms on average.

So HB 1517 preserves accountability by requiring individualized review, consideration of rehabilitation and conduct, and meaningful victim participation. The measure also includes key due process safeguards, including the right to counsel and a requirement that courts explain their decisions on record. Providing a judicial second look creates an opportunity to reduce unnecessary incarceration while maintaining public confidence and community safety.

That being said, OHA also supports thoughtful amendments to strengthen victim notification, align the process with existing sentencing structures and ensure careful re entry planning. So for these reasons, OHA respectfully urges the Committee to pass HB 1517. Mahalo.

Thanks. Ms. Woodward. We have testimony in opposition by Fred Hyun. Thank you for staying with us for so long.

Good morning again. Anyway, I stand on my written testimony, but I would like to piggyback on some of the previous comments. So, in 1972, when the penal code was established and indeterminate sentencing came about, that was primarily to address some of the variations in sentences rendered by the circuit courts for prison.

That also created a jack in the population. And the community correctional centers had to band aid all these additional attachments to accommodate the population. That a little bit of history and dating myself.

But I would like to tell you that through my course as the chair and my history with corrections, Hawaii is perhaps one of the most progressive states, if you think about it. By law, once the individual has completed their minimum sentence, they're granted a parole hearing.

If that parole is denied at that time because for whatever reason, they didn't complete programs or they had misconducts. Another hearing must be held within 12 months. No other state is like that. None. If you look at Georgia, they may not have a hearing for 10 years once denied, or five years or eight years.

That directly from the Georgia chairman and his staff. So parole has, the parole board, has often heard inmates come up for hearing two to three times in one year just so they can affect the release on parole. That is not unusual. The other thing is that they will be heard.

Parole hearings will be heard until they either are paroled or discharged due to the maximum of their sentence. Parole board also considers reduction of minimums that the board has set court mandatory minimums. Unfortunately, the parole board cannot address that.

So the Bill to me does not identify the types of crimes which we've already talked about, such as heinous crimes, let alone property theft crimes. But I would pose these two questions with proposed shortened sentences. How will victims be impacted?

And then two, if a release is mandatory, does that release the individual from correctional program obligations such as sex offender treatment or substance abuse treatment? I'm available for questions.

Thank you, Mr. Hyun. We have testimony in support from Ohana Hoopa Kelly still on zoom. If not, it's testimony in support. Testimony in opposition by Victor Ramos. Testimony, late testimony. Received comments from deputy prosecuting attorney, county of Maui. We also have comments. We need to change that staff, please. Comments from sex abuse treatment Center.

We have testimony and support from Mr. Billionaire still online. Please keep this brief. We have to move on to two more other bills.

I'm in support of this Bill. Thank you. Very important. And that's it. Aloha.

Thank you. We have testimony and support by Carrie and Shirota. Testimony in opposition by Dennis Dunn. Any other testifiers in the room? Ms. Shirota, please be really brief.

You do have your written testimony. Thank you. We support this Bill. I think ultimately it comes down to philosophy. Do we believe in a system that's based primarily upon punishment and retribution, or we allow opportunities for rehabilitation and knowing that people change over time?

Again, I have worked with individuals convicted of, quote, serious A and B felonies at the time. And I know that people change and by providing support, people were successful. There was less recidivism compared to other groups who did not receive services.

But I'd like to just point out that if you look at the data from the Hawaii Paroling Authority, they put out an annual report. There's numbers, and I don't know if it was submitted in testimony. About a reduction in minimum sentence. Most of the time there's denials between 60 to 74% of a reduction in minimum sentence.

And that could be for a variety of reasons, our carceral system. There's overcrowding in most of our jails and prisons. And so we should be looking at best practices of ways to reduce the number of people inside and provide them the care in the community.

This is an opportunity for another branch which we talk about respecting the judiciary, giving them the opportunity to review a case years later and potentially bringing in the evidence. And I want to close by bringing up a person's name, Alvin Jardine III, who's from Maui in the same community that I grew up and I actually knew him.

He's dead today. He was wrongfully convicted of rape, convicted when his daughter was just born, shipped all across the United States to private prisons, removed from his family. And he kept saying that he was innocent and he's dead today. And his family lost all those years, his freedom taken away.

So for the statistics, we point out that people are inside. It is true that there are some people inside who are wrongfully convicted who are innocent. So if we paint this brush as people just being monsters, it's more of a reflection of who we are than the people inside.

And so that I ask that we look at second chances.

Looking back, and I understand that based upon the public defender's testimony, I would like to incorporate that they have pointed out that we probably would need to make some amendments to effectuate the intent of this Bill, but that we look at the broader picture and this is one tool amongst many, and it really comes down to philosophy.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Shirota, any other testifiers in the room? Any other testifiers on Zoom? Ms. Young, you have 30 seconds.

Angela Melody Young, Kaplama Neighborhood Security Watch, testifying in strong support. And so basically, I think the Bill should consider an amendment. Chapter 706c has been amended for the court to consider reduction of sentence. But can it then legislate a reference to the law that Director Johnson talked about where it empowers the Governor to pardon because by legislating.

Thank you for your Amendment. Thank you, Ms. Young, for your amendment. We'll take a look at it. Okay, so seeing no other testifiers on ZOOM Members. Questions, Quick question, please.

Question for Director Johnson. You mentioned people might be released without getting services. For instance, two year programs. Wouldn't this law then just trigger you to offer those services at year 8. So that by year 10 they complete the treatment? So that they could be considered by year 10.

We could shift it around. But ideally you want them to complete the most intensive treatment just before the eligible for furlough sex offender treatment itself is two years long. And so I might point out too that the recidivum rate for new sex offenders for the people who complete that program is 3%. So it's a very effective program.

But I would ask you to consider what the public defender said. If a judge legally sentenced someone based on a law at that time to a 10 year or 20 year sentence, it doesn't matter what happened down the line if the person changed or not.

How is the court going to change that unless we change the sentence and structure for the state?

Thank you. Director, I have a question for Ms. Hayley Cheng. Quick question. So was there a larger Committee working group that focused in on this Bill before this was offered? Because typically the introducer does do a really good job of like finding and working with.

No, I learned of the Bill just through our own tracking. Yeah. So.

Okay, thank you. That's all I—that's my question. Seeing no other questions. Members, we're going to move on to House Bill 2044, relating to offender reentry. This is expanding programming and training for comprehensive offender reentry program under the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to reduce the rate of recidivism and increase inmate marketability.

We have testimony in support by Mr. Johnson, and we do have your written testimony, so.

I'll just summarize real quick. So, we support this measure, the $4 million the Legislature gave us last year, and it's reoccurring funding. So, we are putting in a wraparound reentry services. We would just ask for some more time as we put those contracts in place.

And so, we, in our testimony, you see some of the things we're doing with the unions to provide marketability for the inmates. You'll see some of the initiatives with UH Wilmer Community College. You'll see some other initiatives with other community-based organizations. So, we support this measure. We think it's a good idea.

We think we're on a track to get there.

Thank you very much. Testimony in support by Correctional System Oversight Commission, Ms. Johnson. Testimony in support, Office of the Public Defender.

Good morning, again.

Just very, very briefly. I, I think it goes without saying that the Office of the Public Defender is incredibly supportive of these measures and cannot emphasize enough how the lack of reentry services is debilitating not only to our clients, but to the community because of what it does for recidivism. I appreciate Director Johnson's support of this, which I believe is a recognition of how important these services are.

I would perhaps encourage the Committee to require the Department, however, to offer a report or something about the steps that are actually being made, because we cannot keep coming back here year after year to emphasize how important these services are, if we are not actually implementing them. So, I'll be available for questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you. We have testimony in support by University of Hawaii. Thank you for being so patient. Ms. Artis Eschenberg.

Representatives, thank you for allowing us to testify. We stand on our written testimony and are available for questions.

Thank you. Testimony in support from Touch a Heart, Colin Kumabi.

Hey, Madam Chairman, Vice Chairman, and Committee Members. Hi, I am. My name is Colin Kumabi. I'm the Director of Training Operations for Touch a Heart. We are in support of HB 2044.

Touch a Heart is a Honolulu-based nonprofit that advances workforce development through vocational training, lived experience informed supportive services for adults and youth facing barriers to employment, including justice involved, recovery from substance use, and other hardships that impact stability and opportunity.

Our work rooted in the simple belief, transformation happens when people are united by growth, not defined by their past. Touch a Heart's workforce model builds job readiness, confidence, accountability, and long-term stability so participants can secure meaningful employment and contribute to their families and communities.

Since 2004, Touch a Heart has served individuals and families experiencing hardship through outreach, mentorship, meals, supportive services. In 2012, Touch a Heart strengthened its focus on employment pathways for individuals facing significant barriers to work, particularly those impacted by incarceration and justice system involvement.

Today, Touch a Heart has graduated over 145 participants and more than 90% remaining successfully employed. Touch a Heart also prioritizes continuing continuity of care and connection by keeping justice impact participants engaged throughout their transitional process, including consistent communication, relationship building, demonstrating values and action, so individuals remain supported before, during, and after reentry.

Touch a Heart's workforce training model is anchored in our Signature Growth Mindset Core Curriculum which equips individuals to build resilience, strengthen workplace behaviors, develop leadership skills, and support long term retention and advancement. Leadership development is built organically into the program itself, creating pathways for participants to grow into mentors, trainers, and lived experienced leaders, over time.

Participants gain real world experience through Touch a Heart's employment social enterprises, our Ohana meals, our baker's heart baking, and Touch a Heart catering.

While the organization works toward its 2026 goal of building a best-in-class scalable workforce development program that builds life—lived—experience leadership and strengthen sustainability through earned revenue and partnership built these training services.

Thank you, Mr. Kumabi. And thank you, I know you were waiting patiently all morning. Testimony in support from Community Alliance and Prisons.

Aloha, again. Kat Brady.

Let's pause and you know the drill, Kat. We're trying to get to decision making, but go ahead.

We're in strong support of this bill. We believe, though, that one of the problems with the Department of Public Safety is a lack of communication with their staff. And my testimony cites a report done by the White Correctional Oversight Commission.

So, how can things change when downtown, the leadership of DCR does not communicate a clear vision to their uniform staff, does not have discussions involving staff about visions for corrections and rehabilitation and ways to achieve it, does not have a clear understanding of what it's like to work in facilities, and does not take staff seriously and doesn't treat them or their ideas with respect?

That is one of the basic problems of programming. When people who are the line staff feel ignored, feel undervalued. We think that there's lots that can do. This Bill has a lot of heart and I thank Representative Shimizu for introducing it because reentry is crucial. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brady. We have Lauren Akanelua in support. We have Alan Johnson in support, from Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition. We have in support Hina Mauka, Brian Baker. In support, Catholic Charities of Hawaii. We have numerous individuals who also testified in support and with comments. We have, I believe, Mr. Billionaire on Zoom. Briefly, please. 30 seconds.

Hello, guys. I support this Bill, thanks to Rep. Shimizu, who bring out to my attention. He sent an email and I responded in support for the recidivism. Obviously, you know, there's overcrowding, there's issues. You already know about the complaints and a lot of native Hawaiians are stuck in the system.

So, introducing this Bill will help people get a chance second chance in life and help them hopefully rehabilitate. Thank you very much. I strongly support this.

Thank you, Mr. Billionaire. Ms. Angela Young. 30 seconds. Kapalaman Neighborhood Security Watch. Comments.

Not present.

Not present. Okay. Any other testifiers in the room? Sorry, Ms. Woodward, we missed you. Go ahead.