Allowing an older prisoner serving a sentence of life without parole to be eligible for parole upon meeting certain criteria.
Summary
HB 638 would change New Hampshire law to create a parole-eligibility pathway for a narrow group of people serving life-without-parole sentences for first-degree murder. Under the bill, a person convicted of a single first-degree murder offense could become immediately eligible for parole if they are at least 60 years old, have served more than 18 years of the sentence, and have avoided serious prison discipline (no Class A or B violations within the prior 10 years). The bill also states that eligible individuals would receive the same parole-board process and rights as other inmates seeking parole.
The bill amends RSA 630:1-a to remove the current absolute bar on parole for first-degree murder life sentences and adds a new section to RSA 651-A establishing the specific eligibility criteria. It is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025. The fiscal note says the bill does not appropriate funding and that any state savings from reduced incarceration would be indeterminable, though potentially decreasing over time; the Parole Board reported no significant operational fiscal impact.
Impact
If enacted, HB 638 would materially alter New Hampshire’s sentencing and parole statutes by carving out an exception to the existing rule that first-degree murder life sentences are never parole-eligible. It would require the Department of Corrections and the Adult Parole Board to evaluate a new class of older incarcerated people for parole consideration, potentially reducing prison population and long-term incarceration costs for a limited number of inmates. The fiscal note also flags possible ambiguity about whether pretrial time counts toward the 18-year minimum and who would determine eligibility under the new law.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the bill faced substantial opposition in the House, where it was killed on an ITL motion by a vote of 214-127. That result indicates the chamber’s overall sentiment was unfavorable, even though the proposal appears to have been framed as a limited, age-based parole reform rather than a broad resentencing measure. The fiscal note reflects a more neutral administrative view, with agencies saying the bill would not significantly affect Parole Board operations but could reduce incarceration costs in ways that are hard to predict.
Contention
The main point of contention is whether people serving life without parole for first-degree murder should ever become parole-eligible, even after decades of incarceration and only if they are older and have maintained good conduct. Supporters appear to have focused on age, rehabilitation, and the limited scope of the exception, while opponents likely objected to changing a sentence historically understood to mean no parole. The fiscal note also identifies technical concerns, including whether pretrial confinement counts toward the 18-year threshold and which authority would make the eligibility determination, suggesting implementation details were not fully resolved.