Seaman: 'Second Look Act' would guarantee judge who knows less about actual crime is one to ultimately decide sentence for some convictions

Guest Editorial by Brian D. Seaman

Niagara County District Attorney

Legislators and advocacy groups from downstate are pushing another raft of so-called criminal justice reform legislation this year. As usual, these bills are presented with catchy slogans while finding out what they really do isn’t easy.

One of the worst this season is a bill they are calling the “Second Look Act,” which could just as easily be titled the “Life Sentence for Crime Victims Act.” The bill, if enacted, would allow everyone who has served 10 years (or as little as five years in some circumstances) to apply to be resentenced by a different judge than the one who originally sentenced them. Then if, in the opinion of the new judge, the “interests of justice” warrant it, the sentence, or sentences if there are multiple convictions, even multiple life sentences, get “reduced.” And the law is set up so that “reduced” means immediately released in most cases. All of the minimum sentencing provisions the original judge had to consider are cast aside. If the new judge decides not to resentence the defendant and leaves the original sentence intact, not to worry, a new application can be filed every three years.

Furthermore, there is a presumption that the judge shall release anyone over 55 years old or who was under 25 when they committed the crime. Think about that: There will be a presumption in the law that anyone who commits a murder or violent rape when under 25 years old, or over 45 years old, will serve only 10 years! Of course, the new judge is also prohibited from imposing a longer sentence than the original judge.

This bill guarantees that a judge who knows less about the actual crime will be the one to ultimately decide the sentence. The judge who actually sat through the trial, heard the testimony, and heard what a crime victim or family member had to say at sentencing is excluded from hearing the new application. In fact, if you think about it, this bill would in effect guarantee that every serious crime is eventually sentenced by the most lenient judge available. The defendant can just keep filing applications until he gets the judge that will let him out, then it’s over, he’s out for good.    

I recall meeting with the mother of a woman who was brutally murdered after the judge imposed a sentence of 25 years to life on her murderer. The grief-stricken mother asked me when her daughter’s killer would be eligible for release. I told her the year, and you could see the mother doing the calculations in her head.

“Good,” she said, “I’ll be gone before he gets out, and I’ll never have to worry about him again.”

This is not uncommon. One of the things, maybe the thing, crime victims want most from our system, is a sense of closure. Having been the victim of a crime, or having lost a loved one to a crime, and having gone through the difficult ordeal that our process is for crime victims and their families, they want to finally know what will happen. What is the consequence for the crime committed? They want to know that they can at least put the criminal justice process behind them.

If this bill is enacted, no victim of a horrendous crime, or the family of a murder victim, will ever have that closure. After 10 years, and every three years after that, victims and families will have to again fight to get a different judge to understand what this defendant’s crime took from them. They will have to fight perpetually for justice for themselves or their loved one, for the rest of their lives.

One final thing that is troubling about this bill. The chief administrative judge of the New York State Office of Court Administration (“OCA”) is actively promoting its passage. OCA will tell you that they have a part in commenting on proposed laws that affect the workings of the court system, and rightfully so. While this bill will certainly affect the court system, by adding the work of continuously re-litigating previously decided issues, it is clearly not really a bill about court administration. It is an ideological bill based on a progressive view of criminal justice that – in my opinion – neutral, impartial magistrates should not be promoting.