R Street Testimony in Support of Colorado Senate Bill 26-115: “Post-Conviction Relief for Certain Offenders

Testimony from:  
Sarah Anderson, Associate Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties, R Street Institute

In SUPPORT of Senate Bill 26-115: “Post-Conviction Relief for Certain Offenders”

May 8, 2026

House Judiciary Committee

Chairman Mabrey and members of the committee,

My name is Sarah Anderson. I am a resident of Granby, Colorado, and I serve as the associate director of criminal justice and civil liberties policy at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization. We engage in policy analysis and outreach promoting free markets, and limited, effective government in a variety of policy areas, including criminal justice and civil liberties issues.

We have a particularly vested interest in creating a system that improves public safety while promoting the fair, efficient, and constitutionally-aligned operation of the justice system. An essential piece of this is ensuring that we hold offenders accountable for their actions, yet still allow for successful rehabilitation and an opportunity to truly leave life’s mistakes behind when earned. 

This is why we have a continued interest in Senate Bill 115, which creates a carefully structured second look process for individuals who are at least 60 years old and have served at least 20 years of their sentence.[1] However, as amended, this legislation removes from eligibility those individuals who are not yet 60 but who committed their offense prior to age 21, as well as sunsets the second look process three years following enactment.

Although broader eligibility and a permanent process would provide more benefits for the state, the amended bill still represents a positive step forward for Colorado well worth supporting, and will allow for data collection and a better understanding of how judicial resentencing works in practice.

Second look policies are grounded in a simple but powerful proposition: people are capable of change and rehabilitation, and our justice system should allow for and encourage that possibility where appropriate.[2] Substantial empirical research demonstrates that individuals, especially those who committed their offenses at younger ages, experience significant cognitive, emotional, and psychosocial development as they age. These developmental realities are reflected in decades of research showing the likelihood of reoffense declines sharply with age.[3]  

It is both smart and safe to incorporate what we now know about rehabilitation, aging, and public safety into the justice system in a measured way, by allowing courts to evaluate the full record of an individual’s conduct during incarceration, including participation in behavioral, educational, or vocational programs, evidence of personal growth, disciplinary history, and demonstrated readiness for reentry.[4] Judges are uniquely positioned to weigh these factors alongside the seriousness of the original offense and the proactively sought interests of victims and communities impacted by an individual’s potential release.

Furthermore, individuals who have served long sentences are also statistically among the least likely to reoffend upon release.[5]At the same time, the criminal justice system has evolved considerably over the past several decades, and many sentences imposed in earlier eras were shaped by policy frameworks that emphasized uniform severity rather than individualized reassessment.[6]

These policies can also improve the functioning of correctional systems. Long-term incarceration is expensive. Incarceration alone costs an estimated $58,000 per incarcerated person per year in Colorado, and these correctional expenditures only rise—and steeply—as the prison population ages, driven by healthcare costs associated with chronic illness and disability.[7],[8] Allowing courts to reconsider lengthy sentences will enable Colorado to focus resources where they are most needed: on individuals who remain a risk to public safety, rather than on those whose incarceration yields minimal benefit.

Additionally, a permanent resentencing policy also offers the benefit of improving institutional safety by incentivizing positive behavior and engagement with programming from day one, particularly among those with lengthy sentences. Second look still mechanisms maintain accountability while recognizing the possibility of transformation. They do not erase past harm or minimize the seriousness of criminal conduct. Instead, they acknowledge that justice systems should retain the capacity to reassess sentences when evidence demonstrates that continued incarceration may no longer serve its intended purposes.

This bill offers a chance to begin bringing the real benefits of resentencing policy to Colorado. For these reasons, we support Senate Bill 115 and urge the committee to issue a favorable report, as well as pay close attention to the three years of this policy with an eye toward expanded eligibility and permanence. 

Thank you,

Sarah Anderson
Associate Director, Criminal Justice & Civil Liberties
R Street Institute
sanderson@rstreet.org  

[1] Colorado 75th General Assembly, Second Regular Session, Senate Bill 26-115, Last Accessed May 6, 2026: https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb26-115.

[2] Becky Feldman, “The Second Look Movement: A Review of the Nation’s Sentence Review Laws,” The Sentencing Project, May 15, 2024: https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-second-look-movement-a-review-of-the- nations-sentence-review-laws/.

[3] “The Older You Get: Why Incarcerating the Elderly Makes us Less Safe,” FAMM Foundation, April 19, 2022: https://famm.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Aging-out-of-crime-FINAL.pdf.

[4] Becky Feldman, “The Second Look Movement: A Review of the Nation’s Sentence Review Laws,” The Sentencing Project, May 15, 2024: https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-second-look-movement-a-review-of-the- nations-sentence-review-laws/.

[5] JaneAnne Murray, et al., “Second Look = Second Chance: Turning The Tide Through NACDL’s Model Second Look Legislation,” National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2021: https://www.nacdl.org/getattachment/c0269ccf-831b-4266-bbaf-76679aa83589/second-look-second-chance-the-nacdl-model-second-look-legislation.pdf.

[6] “After 50 Years Of The War On Drugs, ‘What Good Is It Doing For Us?’” NPR Morning Edition, June 17, 2021: https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1006495476/after-50-years-of-the-war-on-drugs-what-good-is-it-doing-for-us#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20still%20incarcerates%20more,of%20the%20Affordable%20Care%20Act.

[7] USA Facts team, “How much do states spend on prisoners?,” USA Facts, April 17, 2024: https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-do-states-spend-on-prisons.

[8] Matt McKillop and Alex Boucher, “Aging Prison Populations Drive Up Costs,” Pew Charitable Trusts, February 20, 2018: https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2018/02/20/aging-prison-populations-drive-up-costs.