2021 Legislative Session
Update on the Juvenile Restoration Act:
The bill hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on January 21st went amazingly well. There were many people who gave compelling testimony in support of the bill.
One person gave testimony in opposition of the bill (the State’s Attorney’s Office). Their reasoning for opposing the bill is exactly why we have a mass incarceration problem in the United States.
The bill was heard in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee on February 17th.
The bill has passed out of both the House and the Senate! The Governor vetoed the bill, but his veto was overridden by the General Assembly.
These are the wonderful advocates for children that testified to support the JRA:
The Juvenile Restoration Act (HB0409)
Passed!
This bill will bring Maryland in line with Supreme Court rulings and the 24 other states and jurisdictions across the country, including Virginia, West Virginia, and Washington D.C, that have abolished life without parole for adolescents. It establishes a judicial review mechanism for incarcerated individuals so that after serving 20 years for a crime they committed when they were under the age of 18, they may apply to have a sentencing hearing that would determine if they have been rehabilitated, meet the strict requirements to have their sentence modified, and if they can be a candidate for early release. The bill would give the court a list of factors that should be considered for a sentence modification, including risk assessments, education achieved while incarcerated, family and other secure relationships on the outside, psychological evaluations, etc. These factors, when thoroughly evaluated, will allow the courts to release those who are not a threat to the community or public safety. MD JJC is hopeful that Maryland can model itself after Washington D.C., who has achieved much success with the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act and is considering to expand it to emerging adults (those convicted between the age of 18 to 25). A list of talking points in support of this can be found here to discuss when meeting with legislators.
The Felony Murder Bill (HB0385)
This bill seeks to abolish the felony murder charge for juveniles. Moving forward, anyone under 18 will not be charged for a murder that they did not commit during the commission of a felony. The bill would require the courts to resentence those juveniles who were convicted of felony murder to second-degree murder and to be re-sentenced to the penalty that was in place at the time they were convicted. There is the potential that this could eventually include emerging adults. A list of talking points in support of this can be found here to discuss when meeting with legislators.
Lifer’s Bill (HB0003)
Although this bill is not directly related to juvenile justice reform, the parole process in Maryland is inherently flawed. The Lifer’s Bill will remove the Governor out of the parole process. Currently, even after the Maryland Parole Commission approves someone for release it is required that the Governor has the final approval. Maryland is an outlier because it is only one of three states that require the Governor’s authorization. As a compromise, this bill does increase the minimum time that an individual must serve before being eligible to go before the Parole Commission to 20 years instead of 15 years. Diminution credits can apply (anyone sentenced before this bill would still be eligible at 15 years with diminution credits). It is even more crucial now with COVID-19 because there are individuals that have served their time, have been approved by the Parole Commission, and are awaiting the Governor’s approval to come home. A list of talking points in support of this can be found here to discuss when meeting with legislators.
FAQs
Is the JRA good for public safety?
Eligible individuals must meet strong criteria to be candidates for early release. The review mechanism mandates that an individual must serve at least 20 years for a crime they committed when they were under the age of 18. The court must still consider specified factors when determining whether to reduce the duration of a sentence:
Age at the time of the offense.
Nature of the offense and history and characteristics of the individual.
Has the individual completed an educational, vocational, or another program
The individual must demonstrate maturity, rehabilitation, and fitness to reenter society.
Statement offered by a victim or a victim's representative.
The individual's family and community circumstances at the time of the offense, including any history of trauma, abuse, or involvement in the child welfare system.
The diminished culpability of a juvenile as compared to an adult, including an inability to fully appreciate risks and consequence.
Is the JRA necessary with the emergence of Sentencing Review Units?
The current Sentencing Review Units are limited to Prince George’s County and Baltimore City. If an individual’s conviction stems from outside those jurisdictions, they are not eligible for this type of review. This is something that should be extended to everyone in the state of Maryland as it creates an inequity. Even if the State wants to offer relief, it is sometimes difficult to get back into court due to lack of a strong legal issue. The JRA allows for the legality to be that the individual was convicted when they were under the age of 18. There are a lot of rights that are attached to this legislation that are not offered by the Sentencing Review Units. Although this is only specific to those convicted as adolescents, it would be a step in the right direction.
What is the position of State’s Attorneys on the JRA?
State’s Attorneys, Ayesha Braveboy and Marilyn Mosby, have expressed support for the JRA as it will only enhance the effectiveness of their operations. We welcome Ms. Braveboy and Ms. Mosby’s stance. This piece of legislation would have a profound impact on the jurisdictions they serve. The JRA would also fill some of the inequity gap because their areas are the only two that currently have a Sentencing Review Unit.
The Maryland State's Attorneys' Association is vehemently opposed to any sort of reform or relief that would require additional effort for the State to practice proper application of the law (Miller v. Alabama 2012) and to take ownership of past errors or injustices.