SB467

Testimony in Opposition to Senate Bill 467 Presented by: Priscilla Matos Dear Members of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, I am writing to respectfully urge you to oppose Senate Bill 467, which would impose mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug-related offenses. As someone with both lived experience and professional experience working in recovery, I have seen firsthand what actually helps people rebuild their lives—and what sets them back. New Hampshire has made meaningful progress in shifting toward treatment, recovery support, and evidence-based approaches to substance use disorder. SB 467 threatens to undo that progress. Mandatory minimum sentencing does not address the root causes of substance use. Instead, it removes discretion from judges, ignores individual circumstances, and places people into a one-size-fits-all system that often prioritizes punishment over healing. Recovery is not linear, and people need access to support, connection, and services—not extended incarceration. In my work, I support individuals who are trying to rebuild their lives after substance use, incarceration, or both. Many are already facing significant barriers, including housing instability, limited employment opportunities, and stigma. Mandatory minimum sentences only deepen these challenges by separating individuals from their families, interrupting treatment, and making reintegration even more difficult. Programs like recovery courts, peer support services, and community-based treatment have proven to be far more effective at reducing recidivism and supporting long-term recovery. These approaches hold people accountable while also giving them the tools and support they need to succeed. Mandatory minimums move us away from these solutions and toward policies that have historically failed. I am also concerned about the broader impact on our communities. When we invest in incarceration over treatment, we shift resources away from what is actually working. We risk increasing harm rather than reducing it. I ask you to consider the real people behind these policies—people who are working hard every day to change their lives. They deserve opportunities for recovery, not barriers that make that path harder. For these reasons, I strongly urge you to oppose Senate Bill 467. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Priscilla Matos

All public health and safety research and evidence show mandatory minimum policies are worse for the stated goals of the proposed bill.

There is solid and clear documentation of how mandatory minimums create mass incarceration and do not discourage the criminal dissemination of drugs. We need our resources to go into drug rehabilitation and programs. The history of mandatory minimums cleary shows a racial bias, as well. Please do not pass this bill. Sheila Heffernon

We elected Karen Liot in the most gerrymandered district in the state. Voters deserve to be represented by the Executive Councilor we elected. That right should not be taken away by a trumped-up charge based on something the AG has already cleared. Please immediately ITL HR41!!!

This bill will create censorship in the schools and make the job harder for teachers. Please vote against SB476. It is vague, confusing and will promote some views over others. Thank you!

Widespread evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control.1 National Research Council. (2014). The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences. Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration, J. Travis, B. Western, and S. Redburn, Editors. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18613. This bill does not make our communities safer or heal the underlying issues that lead to drug abuse. I oppose Bill SB467

If your goal is to profit the private prison owners, then by all means... Mandatory minimums are for lazy judges unable to evaluate circumstances & variability and they are harmful to the justice system & society. There are plenty of studies to support this. Thanks for doing your homework.

Eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing laws is essential to creating a more just and equitable criminal justice system. Widespread evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentences produce substantial harm with no overall benefit to crime control. Determined by lawmakers rather than judges, these sentences represent a uniquely American approach to sentencing that has accelerated prison growth. They constrain judicial discretion, deepen racial disparities in the criminal legal system, and cause far-reaching harm to individuals, families, and communities. Despite building bipartisan agreement that such sentences are a policy failure, mandatory minimum sentences continue to be promoted as a tool to combat crime, even as the public signals waning support. This fact sheet identifies the main issues associated with mandatory minimum sentences. It documents the modest progress toward ending them, as well as efforts to reinstate them, and offers solutions to hasten change that will aid in ending mass incarceration.

Dear Membes of the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee, I OPPOSE SB 467 relative to mandatory sentencing. Points I ask you to consider: Almost half of all states, as well as the federal government, have reduced or eliminated some mandatory minimums related to drug offenses Mandatory sentencing eliminates discretion in sentencing, moving the this power from judges to prosecutors. Eliminating mandatory minimums would allow the reallocation of resources that could instead go toward funding these services and programs, which have known community safety benefits My sources are from the Sentencing Project website

Mandatory minimum sentences perpetuate racial disparity. A 2017 United States Sentencing Commission report on drug sentences revealed that Black people were the more likely to have been sentenced under a mandatory minimum than any other group, and that, despite equal rates of drug use, Black and Hispanic individuals comprised the majority of persons convicted of drug-related offenses which are most often those receiving mandatory minimum sentences. This causes long-lasting harm to individuals, families and communities.

This bill does not do anything to actually limit crime or the harm that illegal substances can do. This bill will only negatively affect targeted groups of people without actually help target the actual drug abuse problem.

Dear NH Representatives, Our criminal justice system based on punishment has been shown to be ineffective for reducing crime or criminal recidivism. We need to reform our justice system, not exacerbate the overcrowding of our prisons. I agree with the Sentencing Projects findings on this issue. "he Sentencing Project supports the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences entirely as well as making the changes retroactive for persons already serving these sentences. Reforms should be strengthened so they point the way toward a new paradigm of sentencing that allows individualized assessments, that includes regular review, and earned release as soon as possible.” Sincerely, Ellen J Hayes

I voice my testimony for the benefit of NH voters.

I oppose this bill because it is not geared to help people overcome addiction and reconnect to their best selves and their community. Instead, this bill will result in the mass incarceration of addicted humans who will have little chance of recovery.

As a registered nurse I urge you to focus on treatment and recovery rather than punishment. Evidence shows that treatment is more effective than a jail sentence in reducing drug use and related offenses. Thank you.

I am the mother of a young woman who lost her life to addiction at the age of 29, while incarcerated for 90 days for possession. (First Offense, not in NH) Had she been able to access proper medical treatment / supervision during her withdrawal from opioids (which typically is the first 5 days of withdrawal that are critical) she may be alive today. She was not able to convince the guards that she needed medical supervision. When she became angry, she was placed in solitary confinement, with NO supervision or support. This bill, I fear, would put MANY others at risk of the same end of life. Addicts are human beings with a disease that IS treatable with the proper support. Please do not allow this bill to pass, leaving many without that chance to become productive members of society again. Sincerely, Janet Kelly Forrest, CHW / GRASP group facilitator

Mandatory minimum sentences separate individuals from their communities, restricts access to needed Behavioral Health Treatments that shifts resources away from the evidence-based approaches that are working! Please vote down this bill. For the past 10+years Our State's Recovery Community Centers have made a tremendous difference and improvement to help our family members, friends and neighbors Please, vote down this bill.

This is unlikely to reduce problems with opiates in NH. It would increase costs for prosecution, imprisonment and likely lengthy appeals processes tying up court time.

I’m opposed to mandatory sentencing, as it would increase the likelihood of incarceration without individual cases being tried fairly. We already have many people’s lives being wasted behind bars

I oppose 467 FN which advocates for mandatory minimum sentences, for several reasons which I urge you to consider: 1. I think the justice system can manage the sentencing, and while we all have opinions, the justice system has lawyers, juries, and judges who know how to evaluate each situation. The general opinions of a limited group of people in the NH house should not take the place of the legal system. 2. The use of overcrowded prisons to correct the problems of drug use and drug trafficing, would probably not significantly change drug trafficking and the ensuing overdoses and deaths. 3. We would have more people in large prisons, where the likelihood of behavior correction would probably be reduced. 4. Prisons are overused in our country as opposed to other countries, such as Norway, where there is more emphasis on correction and rehabilitation. Thank you for considering these issues. We all want less drug use and crime, but this is not likely to be the answer.

Mandatory sentencing leads to more incarceration. It is not effective at dealing with crime and increases state expenditures. Our corrections system is already understaffed and underfunded. Judges should have discretion regarding sentencing. Treating addiction is more cost effective - and cost effective - than criminalizing addictive behavior and increasing the number of people incarcerated. Fentanyl is a problem for our communities, but this bill is no solution. And it will exacerbate existing problems in NH. NH needs more thoughtful, responsible legislation than this.

We have tried mandatory sentencing in the past and it was a terrible failure leading to mass incarceration. Please vote against this bill and let judges be the arbiters of justice.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.