The Pennsylvania legislature faces mounting pressure as they failed to address the state’s unconstitutional sentencing laws for second-degree murder before adjourning on Sunday. This inaction risks surpassing the deadline set by the state’s Supreme Court, potentially leaving the situation unresolved and creating legal uncertainty throughout the commonwealth.
Second-degree murder in Pennsylvania occurs when a killing takes place during a violent felony, such as robbery, rape, or arson. Individuals involved in these felonies can be convicted of second-degree murder even if they did not directly cause the death. This has led to situations where people, like getaway drivers in a failed robbery, receive the same life sentence without parole as those who intentionally commit murder.
In a pivotal decision in March, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed mandatory life sentences without parole for second-degree murder excessively harsh under the state constitution in the Commonwealth v. Lee case. The court instructed lawmakers to revise the sentencing laws by July 24.
Chief Justice Debra Todd, representing the majority opinion, emphasized that while the court must ensure constitutional boundaries are respected, “we may not act as legislators, who are best positioned to effectuate penal reform.” The ruling does not apply retroactively, leaving it to the legislature to decide whether those already serving life sentences for second-degree murder should be eligible for parole.
Despite ongoing discussions among criminal justice reform advocates, district attorneys, and a divided legislature, no consensus has been reached. State Rep. Tim Briggs (D., Montgomery) criticized a Senate proposal for being overly punitive, which aimed to introduce 35-year mandatory minimum sentences for adults convicted of second-degree murder, alongside a release pathway for current inmates.
If the legislative deadline is missed, the Supreme Court’s decision will stand, allowing individual judges across Pennsylvania to determine appropriate sentences without legislative guidance. Over 1,100 individuals currently incarcerated for second-degree murder could see their cases impacted, with civil rights attorneys poised to seek additional clarification from the state’s highest court.
Conversations, but no compromise
Pennsylvania’s justice system has long imposed identical life sentences without parole for a broad range of second-degree murder cases, including instances involving accomplices in violent crimes or unintended consequences of felonious actions. The Supreme Court’s March ruling found this approach to be excessively cruel, lacking an individualized assessment of culpability, and thus, unconstitutional.
Despite initial legislative momentum, including bipartisan proposals from state Sens. Sharif Street (D., Philadelphia) and Camera Bartolotta (R., Beaver), as well as Rep. Tim Briggs (D., Montgomery), efforts stalled. Briggs paused his proposal in April to incorporate stakeholder feedback, hoping it would lead to meaningful bipartisan discussions, which ultimately did not materialize.
State prosecutors, concerned about the implications for over 1,100 inmates serving life sentences, seek uniformity in sentencing to avoid disparate outcomes across counties. Public defenders echo concerns about inconsistent justice, fearing “justice by geography” without legislative intervention.
While district attorneys support a minimum sentence with parole eligibility, advocates like Straight Ahead argue for a maximum sentence akin to third-degree murder, carrying a 40-year cap. A Senate bill passed in June proposed a 35-year mandatory minimum for adults, with exceptions for mitigating circumstances, but failed to gain traction in the House.
State House Majority Leader Matt Bradford (D., Montgomery) expressed hope for resolution by the deadline, saying, “We’re hoping to get something accomplished.”
Mass resentencings possible
Berks County District Attorney John Adams supported the Senate’s legislative framework, appreciating its balance of potential life sentences with alternative options. In contrast, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner criticized the bill as outdated and unscientific, arguing the courts might offer a better solution.
The path to mass resentencing remains uncertain without legislative resolution. The Abolitionist Law Center is prepared to pursue court intervention if necessary, highlighting the constitutional crisis affecting more than 1,100 individuals serving unconstitutional sentences.
More than 500 of these cases are in Philadelphia, where a reform-minded district attorney may result in more lenient sentences. The ongoing debate underscores the complexity and urgency of reforming Pennsylvania’s felony murder sentencing laws.
