Reforming Parole in Maryland

Posted on by Will Smith

My first act as Chairman of the Judicial Proceedings Committee was to arrange for a briefing from the Justice Policy Institute as they had recently published a shocking report which revealed devastating disparities in our criminal justice system. The report found that whereas African Americans make up 32% of Maryland’s population more than 70% of our prison population is Black, double the national average. Almost 80% of people serving at least 10 years in our prison system are Black, and Maryland has the highest incarceration rate of Black men aged 18 to 24 in the nation.

A critical component in addressing these broad-based inequities is parole reform. Today in Maryland, a juvenile can be sentenced to spend the rest of their life in prison without the possibility of parole. Separately, Maryland is one of only three states in the country that grants sole authority to the Governor to make the decision on whether to approve parole for eligible Marylanders.

Ending Juvenile Life Without Parole

“Having been involved with juvenile justice over the past 45 years as a prosecutor, defense attorney, and trial judge, I have seen these cases from all angles. Without a doubt, we in Maryland often prosecute and punish children much too harshly in a system designed for adults. The Juvenile Restoration Act will provide appropriate second chances to those children, now that they are mature adults, who have been rehabilitated and are ready for a future outside prison. Now is the time to finally recognize that a child who commits a serious crime at age 16 is not the same person 20 years later.” – Judge Gary E. Bair

In Maryland, there are over 400 people who have served at least 20 years of a life or life equivalent sentences for crimes they committed as children. Over 114 of those serving life or life equivalent sentences for crimes committed as youth are 50 years of age or older. Maryland ranks first in the nation with the highest proportion of Black youth sentenced to life without parole.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that life without parole for children under 18 is unconstitutional in the vast majority of cases because of their “diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change.” More specifically, in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole may not be imposed on a juvenile offender. However, courts may still impose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole on a juvenile offender after considering mitigating factors. The court subsequently held in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), that Miller applies retroactively and that states may remedy sentences that are in violation of Miller by extending parole eligibility to, rather than resentencing, offenders mandatorily sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for crimes they committed as juveniles.

In Maryland, we did just that by getting rid of lifetime sentences without the possibility of parole for those sentenced juveniles when we passed Senate Bill 494. As I said on the Senate floor, the fundamental question with regard to this bill is whether we believe in the redemptive quality of the human condition. The bill now awaits action in the House of Delegates.

You can read more about our efforts here:

Depoliticizing the Parole Process

Maryland is one of only three states in the country that grants sole authority to the Governor to make the decision on whether to approve parole for eligible Marylanders. As former Governor Paris Glendening wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed, “If I were to give nonpartisan advice to those three governors today, I would emphasize that they do not want to be in this position. It is a certain opportunity for political controversy. How can it not be political for a governor to hold all the power in the decision about whether to release someone who has been involved in a serious crime?”

As Governor Glendening noted, Governors are not experts in the parole process and are ill-equipped to make sound decisions regarding a person’s suitability for parole. Unlike the Governor, the Maryland Parole Commission looks at multiple factors when conducting an initial parole grant hearing, including the nature and circumstance of the offense; victim input; history and pattern of offenses; prior incarcerations; institutional adjustment; rehabilitation; programming needs; home plans and employment readiness. These decisions should rest in the capable hands of the Parole Commission, not the Governor.

Serving you in the Maryland Senate has been a tremendous honor and I thank you for this privilege. Please reach out to me if you have questions or want to discuss an issue of importance to you. My door is always open.

Sincerely,

Will Smith