Hawaii Senate Bill SCR205

Hawaii 2023 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/23
• Refer: 3/15/23

Caption

Requesting The Judiciary To Convene A Task Force To Examine And Make Recommendations Regarding Existing Procedures Of The Hawaii Paroling Authority Setting The Minimum Terms Of Imprisonment.

Impact

One notable impact of SCR205, if enacted, would be a potential restructuring of the roles and responsibilities of the Hawaii Paroling Authority. It calls for a detailed examination of whether other parole system models utilized by different states might be beneficial for Hawaii. The task force is to assess the possibility of alleviating the Paroling Authority of its duty to set minimum terms, which is unique to Hawaii among the thirty-three states that utilize an indeterminate sentencing system. This could lead to more focused oversight on determining prisoner suitability for parole and supervising parolees effectively.

Summary

Senate Concurrent Resolution 205 (SCR205) is a legislative initiative requesting the judiciary of Hawaii to convene a task force aimed at examining the current procedures of the Hawaii Paroling Authority regarding the setting of minimum terms of imprisonment. The bill highlights the inefficiencies inherent in the existing two-step process, where the presiding judge determines the maximum sentence and the parole board subsequently decides the minimum term. This redundant procedure consumes significant time—approximately thirty percent—of the Paroling Authority's resources, which could be better utilized elsewhere.

Contention

The resolution indicates a significant step towards potentially reforming how the state handles its parole system. However, it may invite contention regarding the balance of judicial efficiency and the rights of individual defendants. Critics may argue that any changes to the current system should consider the impact on victims and the judicial process's integrity, raising questions about how any recommended changes might affect parole decisions and the nuances involved in individual cases. Additionally, there may be discussions about the level of collaboration between judicial authorities and the legislature in reforming such foundational aspects of the criminal justice system.