The Path of a Reparative Bill Worth Celebrating
Many Mainers don’t know that anyone can propose ideas for legislation. If there is a community need or a law that should be changed, any community member can reach out to a state lawmaker and request they write a bill. You don’t need to know legalese or hold a position of power or privilege. All you need is a solid idea and the courage to pitch it to a state representative or senator — the one that represents your district or any other. I have been blessed to know several lawmakers who have been eager to receive and support common-sense legislation proposed by constituents.
LD 533, “An Act to Allow Residents of the Department of Corrections to Opt In to Additional Restitution for Their Victims,” is one such example.
An incarcerated person had been living for more than 15 years under the unbearable weight of the violent harm he committed that sent him to prison. No matter how many rehabilitative programs he took or taught, how many people he counseled away from violence, or how much education he attained, nothing he did could come close to repairing the harm he caused. There was no way to do sorry, rather than simply be sorry.
So, what did he do? He filed a motion with the same Superior Court that once sentenced him. The judge granted the motion to allow him to open a trust account to which he could contribute voluntary financial reparations for the harm he caused to one of the survivors of his crime.
But despite having permission from the Superior Court to pursue this reparative action, state Department of Corrections (DOC) administrators told the incarcerated man that no law allowed them to assist him in making such reparation. The prison system thus blocked the victim’s ability to receive compensation and the offender’s ability to voluntarily provide it.
So, once again, what did he do? With the help of his partner, he pitched the concept to State Rep. Nina Milliken, Democrat of Blue Hill. A true champion of victim/survivor care, Rep. Milliken readily agreed to sponsor the bill. She submitted a “concept draft” to the Revisor’s Office as a placeholder while she met with the DOC, victims’ advocates and the prisoner’s partner. The incarcerated man was denied permission to participate, despite Rep. Milliken’s requests that be included.
Though the original concept was sound, the bill became markedlystronger through the process of collaborative revision. DOC residents would be allowed to open a “Victims’ Reparative Account” and contribute on a strictly voluntary basis. That was vital to protect against the law’s weaponization as another tool of state punishment. Not so much for the sake of the harm-doer, but for the sake of the person or people harmed: they deserve to know that any contribution is made as an act of remorse. They deserve to know the person who harmed them is deliberately working to do sorry.
However, the bill that was finally submitted to the Criminal Justice and Public Safety (CJPS) Committee is not the same one that received a unanimous “Ought to Pass” vote from them earlier in the legislative session. The original bill contained language requiring that contributions to these reparative accounts must be made confidentially; only the victim can publicly discuss them, if they so choose. “An offender may not disclose the offender’s donation of money to the account for any purpose, including to influence a clemency petition,” it reads.
But then, on the suggestion of a committee member, another clause was added: “If an offender violates this [confidentiality] subsection, the chief administrative officer of the correctional facility shall prohibit the offender from donating to the account.” While I respect the protective intent, the impact is actually a punishing of victims/survivors, depriving them of receiving funds they are due, which undermines restoration and maintains systemic retribution.
This punitive result potentially could have been avoided if the bill’s incarcerated originator had been included in the conversation, offering a perspective that could have helped assure confidentiality without depriving victims/survivors of restitution. In any case, any punishment for violating the law’s confidentiality clause should have been addressed during the subsequent revision of DOC policy that will govern practice, not in state law, and it should never be detrimental to survivors.
At the time of this writing, LD 533 had passed the House and Senate and was awaiting action by Gov. Mills. Even with the harmful clause, this bill stands as the first CJPS bill I’ve seen pass that is truly grounded in meaningful accountability and support for victim/survivor healing. I take heart in that, so thank you, Rep. Milliken and collaborators.
I will close with hope that the punishment clause can be removed in the so-called Short Session of the Legislature that begins next year, and that more people will get involved in the legislative process. Your voice can change law, open avenues of care for others, and create structural support for a tomorrow worth seeing.
Leo Hylton is a PhD student at George Mason University’s Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, currently incarcerated at Maine State Prison. His education and work are focused on Social Justice Advocacy and Activism, with a vision toward an abolitionist future. You can reach him at: Leo Hylton #70199, 807 Cushing Rd., Warren, ME 04864, or leoshininglightonhumanity@gmail.com.
