Case Explained: Hundreds of advocates line up in support of early parole bill  – Legal Perspective

Numerous advocates reading aloud from letters written by incarcerated individuals and former prison inmates offered testimony to Connecticut’s Judiciary Committee detailing how they’ve changed since entering prison at a young age. The testimony was provided in support of a bill that would grant earlier parole eligibility to those who committed their crimes before the age of twenty-six.

Senate Bill 503 was pushed by Rep. Kadeem Roberts, D-Norwalk, and would expand legislation passed in 2023 that allows those who committed their crimes before the age of 21 to become eligible for parole after serving at least twelve years or 60 percent of their sentence if they were sentenced to less than fifty years, or serve at least thirty years if they were sentenced to more than 50 years.

In 2015, Connecticut updated its laws following a U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled those who committed crimes before the age of 18 could not be sentenced to life without parole, creating an alternative parole system for those under the age of 18, which was then expanded to those below the age of 21 in 2023. However, the 2023 legislation only applies to those convicted before October 2005.

Under current law, those who commit serious crimes must serve 85 percent of their sentence before becoming eligible for parole, and those sentenced for crimes like capital murder, murder, and first-degree sexual assault after the age of 21 are not eligible for parole. Expanding eligibility to those who committed their crime before the age of 26 would affect roughly 750 individuals currently incarcerated.

Advocates argue that the human brain is not fully developed until the age of twenty-five, making younger people more susceptible to committing crime, so the age cutoff of 21 does not account for the scientific research. They further argue that only making those convicted before October 2005 eligible is arbitrary and unfair to those who may have been convicted just a month later.

Shannon Sampieri says she was sentenced in the 1990s to 25 years without the possibility of parole and says she had a “multitude of disciplinary reports” while incarcerated before she turned twenty-five, after which she remained on good behavior.

“I started to think different. I actually grew up. Decisions I made were different. I couldn’t even comprehend who I was five to six years prior to that when I committed my crime,” Sampieri told lawmakers. “As I still had twenty years to serve in prison, I exhausted all groups, all educational pathways and everything I could to better myself.”

However, Sampieri went on to say that her lengthy term of imprisonment left her so disconnected from the outside world that she froze when a guard offered to shake her hand, unsure what to do. “I thought I was prepared to come home but I realized that growing up in prison affected my subconscious in the ways you interact with people,” Sampieri said. “I lost the humanness part of being human.”

Letters written by incarcerated individuals and formerly incarcerated individuals described difficult childhood upbringings that led them down paths to crime, which they now understand in retrospect following their time of isolation in prison, and are committed to change.

Roperto Lugo, who was sentenced to sixty years in prison at age 19 and served 24 years after his sentence was commuted by the Board of Pardons and Parole, “after decades of rehabilitation,” says his story started earlier when he was arrested and sent to juvenile detention at twelve years old for stealing baseball cards.

“From twelve to nineteen I was part of that pipeline. By the time I stood in that court as a teenager, the system no longer saw me as a child who had grown up inside it, it saw a criminal,” Lugo said. “Twenty-four years later I’m standing here as proof that people change.”

While the vast majority of both in-person and written testimony was in support of the bill, the state’s Division of Criminal Justice and the Office of the Victim Advocate were opposed to increasing parole eligibility, arguing that those in their twenties are adults and the change could impact victims of crime and plea bargains.

“Parole eligibility should not be conferred equally upon the barely eighteen-year-old burglar who is a first-time offender, and the twenty-five-year-old rapist who is a multiple felony offender,” wrote Chief State’s Attorney Patrick Griffin. “Raising the age of parole eligibility in this manner also has the potential to undermine plea bargains and erode judicial sentencing authority in criminal cases.”

While the Division of Criminal Justice is “in wholesale opposition” to expanding parole eligibility outlined in the bill, the division “does not oppose” elimination of the October 2005 cut-off date.

“Reform strategies should serve not only public safety and the interests of the accused; but must serve those personally harmed by crime,” wrote Natasha Pierre, the state’s victim advocate. “The ever-changing sentencing landscape in criminal cases has had and will continue to have a detrimental impact on victims of crime. Victims no longer have certainty in any sentence imposed.”

Both the Connecticut Judicial Branch and the Board of Pardons and Parole indicated that the parole expansion would increase costs and workload. The Judicial Branch indicated the Office of Victim Services would likely need more staff and would “increase the number of forensic evaluations” in pre-sentence investigations: “It is difficult to find providers that conduct these evaluations and the evaluations can be costly, resulting in a fiscal impact.”

Chair of the Board of Pardons and Parole Jennifer Medina Zaccagnini wrote the change would expand parole to – or hasten parole eligibility – for hundreds of individuals, which would require more resources for the BOPP to conduct the parole hearings. Zaccagnini also wanted to ensure the BOPP retained its framework for evaluating whether someone was suitable for parole.

“The presence of aggravating factors indicating increased risk or public safety concerns would rebut any presumption associated with parole suitability,” Zaccagnini wrote. “Preserving this discretion allows Board members to weigh these factors and conduct individualized assessments when determining whether release is appropriate.”

Although a similar bill was proposed during the 2025 legislative session, it didn’t receive a public hearing. While the legislation would expand parole eligibility, potentially requiring victim families to supply testimony in the parole hearing, parole eligibility does not necessarily mean the convicted individual will receive parole. The BOPP approves roughly 40 percent of parole applications.

“Expanding the age of eligibility for review does not equate to automatic release,” said Deborah Del Prete Sullivan, legal counsel and director for the Office of the Chief Public Defender, which supports the bill. “At the hearings, the state is represented by the prosecutors, and the victim is not only present, but able to fully participate in the hearing.”