logo
Second Look Act draws hours of testimony in House Judiciary Committee

Second Look Act draws hours of testimony in House Judiciary Committee

Yahoo19-02-2025

A packed hearing room sat through hours of respectful, but tense, testimony over a bill that would let inmates petition for a sentence reduction after 20 years in prison. (Photo by Jack Bowman/Maryland Matters)
For almost three hours, the exchanges were respectful but the tension was palpable as speakers debated a bill that would let inmates petition for a reduction in their sentences after 20 years in prison.
There were brief moments of raised voices, occasional murmurs from the packed hearing room and a few speakers moved to tears. But for the most part, the sides stuck to the facts before the House Judiciary Committee as they debated whether inmates deserve a second look.
The bill known as the Maryland Second Look Act would let an incarcerated individual file a petition to have their sentence reduced once they have served 20 years. The petition, filed in the circuit court where they were sentenced, could be approved by the court if the judge determines the inmate is no longer considered a danger to the public.
More than 1,700 currently incarcerated individuals had served 20 or more years of their sentences as of January, according to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services. More than 300 of those were serving life without parole sentences.
Proponents say the bill would provide another avenue for incarcerated individuals who have been rehabilitated to rejoin society. Among the many speakers who testified in support of the bill were survivors of crime, members of advocacy groups and religious figures, and several who had served time in prison.
'We believe that they are worthy of a second opportunity,' said Anthony Muhammad, who told the committee that he has used his proverbial second chance to participate in community engagement.
Muhammad said he was arrested at age 15 on two homicide charges and sentenced to life plus 20 years before being released after nearly 30 years, under the Juvenile Restoration Act. He said he knows dozens of individuals who have been incarcerated for decades, 'have demonstrated their maturity and rehabilitation' but have not been given the second look the bill would allow for.
Supporters like Curtis Alston argued that incarcerated individuals can bring positive change on their release. Alston, who was appointed by Gov. Wes Moore to a task force studying inmate reentry, had previously been sentenced to multiple life terms. He said that people like him who have seen their sentences cut short have made a difference in their communities.
'Do you know how many people and how many lives that we have already saved since we've gotten home?' Alston said, raising his voice. 'Do you think that it's just the police force that has caused the homicide rate to go down?'
While opponents were vastly outnumbered, they were just as passionate in their arguments over the proposal. One, Theresa Darvish, lost her son to a murder in late 2021.
Darvish, after describing the devastation of losing her son, took issue with the bill allowing for a judge to reconsider a sentence once it has already been decided on, calling the proposed measures 'rampant and ambiguous.'
'This [bill] is retroactive,' Darvish said. 'But my judge cannot go back and retroactively resentence the thug, the murderer.'
Opponents also point to the prospect of victims being forced to relive their trauma by relitigating the sentence when an inmate's petition is heard. Victims would be notified but would not be required to appear or testify when a case is reconsidered, but opponents say that reopening cases would be traumatizing.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'When does it end?' Baltimore County State's Attorney Scott Shellenberger (D) asked the committee. 'Somebody already said it doesn't end, and you're right. Don't add to it not ending.'
Speakers on both sides were pressed by committee members on the issue of forcing victims to relive their trauma. Other concerns voiced by opponents included recidivism and the concept of the law giving a perceived break to violent offenders.
This is the second year for the Second Look Act, which passed the Senate in 2024 only to stall in the House. Del. Cheryl Pasteur (D-Baltimore County) was the lead sponsor last year and again this year, when the bill has garnered far more cosponsors.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

House GOP advances Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobic bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth
House GOP advances Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobic bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth

Yahoo

time16 hours ago

  • Yahoo

House GOP advances Marjorie Taylor Greene's transphobic bill banning gender-affirming care for trans youth

In another attack on transgender youth and their families, House Republicans on Tuesday advanced a bill that would make it a federal crime to provide gender-affirming health care to minors, targeting doctors, parents, and providers with prison time for following medically recognized standards of care. Keep up with the latest in + news and politics. The bill, H.R. 3492, known as the 'Protect Children's Innocence Act,' was introduced by far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and backed by more than 40 Republican lawmakers. It passed the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote and now heads to the full House of Representatives. If enacted, the bill would criminalize puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and surgeries, which are already rare for transgender people under 18, even when supported by families and recommended by their doctors. Related: Trump signs executive order banning federal support of gender-affirming care for anyone under 19 'This is just another attempt by extremist Republican politicians to further their anti-transgender agenda,' said gay California U.S. Rep. Mark Takano, chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus. 'It is outrageous that House Judiciary Committee Republicans just voted to advance a bill that would throw parents and doctors in jail for providing medically necessary care to young trans people.' The bill labels gender-affirming medical care as 'genital mutilation' and 'chemical castration,' while excluding gender dysphoria from the definition of legitimate health conditions. Yet the legislation carves out specific exemptions for surgeries on intersex infants, many of which are non-consensual and medically unnecessary — a practice widely condemned by human rights groups. David Stacy, vice president of government affairs at the Human Rights Campaign, said the bill is not about protecting children but about weaponizing transgender people to score political points. Related: Utah Republicans ignore study supporting gender-affirming care for trans youth. It's research they demanded 'Deeply personal health care decisions belong between families and their doctors, not politicians,' Stacy told The Advocate in a statement. 'No one should need Marjorie Taylor Greene's permission to get the best practice, medically necessary care that their family needs. This bill is not about public health—it's about emboldening discrimination and using the transgender community as a weapon to divide the country and try to obscure failings of the Trump administration and their enablers in Congress.' Under the bill's sweeping provisions, even helping a trans teenager cross state lines or access telehealth services for care could result in a decade-long prison sentence. The law would not apply to cisgender youth seeking similar interventions, such as breast reduction, puberty suppression for precocious puberty, or other medically approved procedures. Related: What to expect in this week's landmark gender-affirming care U.S. Supreme Court case The legislation arrives at a volatile moment for transgender rights. In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order banning gender-affirming care for young people, but federal courts have intervened and put that order on hold. However, as soon as Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, a case challenging Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors. Advocates warn that a ruling upholding the law could create a legal precedent for sweeping national restrictions on trans health care, effectively turning cases like Greene's bill from political stunts into enforceable federal doctrine. Legal scholars and public health experts have warned that such a ruling would be devastating. Writing in The Advocate, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor Harry Barbee called U.S. v. Skrmetti a 'public health disaster' that could codify discrimination and strip life-saving care from some of the country's most vulnerable youth. Research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other institutions shows that gender-affirming care significantly reduces rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide among trans adolescents. Related: Doctors warn of 'terrifying' effects as Trump creates snitch line to report gender-affirming care patients Medical organizations representing over 1.3 million doctors, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and the Endocrine Society, continue to endorse gender-affirming care as evidence-based and medically necessary. They have denounced efforts like Greene's bill as politically motivated and dangerous.

Annapolis mayoral candidates hold cordial debate on environment, housing, other topics
Annapolis mayoral candidates hold cordial debate on environment, housing, other topics

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

Annapolis mayoral candidates hold cordial debate on environment, housing, other topics

Annapolis mayoral candidate Rhonda Pindell Charles, left, responds to a question during a debate Tuesday with her Democratic primary opponent, Jared Littmann, right. Baltimore Banner columnist Rick Hutzell, the moderator, center, listens. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters) Rhonda Pindell Charles and Jared Littmann cordially debated, and mostly agreed, Tuesday on how they would improve Annapolis if they were elected the next mayor of the capital city. Both would form partnerships with community and nonprofit organizations. Both would work to eliminate environmental hazards in some of the city's underserved communities. And both Democrats bestowed high praise on current Mayor Gavin Buckley (D), who is term-limited from serving a third, four-year term. 'I think he's one of the best mayors we've had … and I've been here my entire life,' said Pindell Charles, who has served as an alderwoman on the city council since 2009. Littman, a former alderman who served five years on the council before his term ended in 2017, noted that he and Buckley have a number of similarities, including both having two children, but added that 'my demeanor's a bit different' than the outgoing Buckley's personality. Buckley was one of dozens on hand for Tuesday's nearly 90-minute debate hosted by the Caucus of African American Leaders at the Wiley H. Bates Legacy Center. Some sported blue Littmann T-shirts and others wore red or white shirts supporting Pindell Charles. There was at least one difference between the two besides their supporters' T-shirts: Pindell Charles and Littman outlined different approaches to hiring city personnel. 'I have committed to keeping all staff. I have never heard any other mayor say that,' Pindell Charles said. 'I've worked with these folks on a regular basis. I see how they operate [and] how they get things done.' Although Littman commended city staff, he said he would interview each of the city's directors and chiefs to assess their priorities, any expectations and how they would measure themselves against those expectations. Anyone who may scores themselves a '10 out of 10 of everything always makes me skeptical,' he said. 'I look for people who identify where there's room for improvement.' 'I do not promise anybody a job. Everybody's got to work for their job,' he said. Littman has been working for the mayor's job for 18 months already, declaring his candidacy in January 2024. Pindell Charles announced her candidacy in September. As of Tuesday, they were the only two candidates seeking to be mayor, although others have until July 28 to file. The Sept. 16 primary looms large in the city, where registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a ratio of 2.5-to-1. The Anne Arundel County Board of Elections said that as of Tuesday, about 13,881 Democrats were registered in Annapolis, compared to 5,518 Republicans and 6,006. unaffiliated voters. If no other candidates emerge, the primary winner could have a free pass to the mayor's office. Pindell Charles received a bachelor's degree in business administration from Morgan State University, before earning a law degree from the University of Maryland School of Law. The retired prosecutor, a native of the city she hopes to lead, seeks to make history as the city's first elected Black mayor. Alderman John Thomas Chambers Jr. (R), who was Black, served on an interim basis for two months in 1981 after the suicide of Mayor Gustav Akerland (R). Her time on council included a brief stint as acting mayor, when Buckley appointed her in 2o20 to serve while he traveled home to his native Australia to care for his ailing mother. Littman received a bachelor's degree in environmental engineering from Washington University in St. Louis and a law degree from the University of Maryland, Baltimore. He has worked as an associate county attorney in Montgomery County and is currently a small business owner with his wife, running K&B Ace Hardware in the city. During Littman's time on council, he sponsored several pieces of legislation that included a forest conservation law that's a model for local and state leaders throughout Maryland. On Tuesday, the candidates were asked about a dozen questions, including their plans to redevelop the City Dock, how they would account for financial gaps created by federal government cuts and ideas on how to improve public transportation in the next four years. Phillip Ateto, who lives in the city's Ward 3, said after the debate he didn't hear the candidates provide specifics on housing. In addition, he said they didn't answer a question on how would they respond to a crisis like the current protests in Los Angeles. 'I was disappointed neither one of them really answered the question about what's going on in L.A. and if it happened here,' Ateto said. 'The community needs to know what we can expect from our law enforcement.' Carl Snowden, convener of the Caucus of African American Leaders that hosted the debate, had a message for voters. 'Any citizen who has a candidate knocking on their door should ask one question: 'If I elect you as a member of city council or mayor, how will the quality of life change for me and my family?'' Snowden said. 'And if that person is not able to speak in specificity, then you be minded.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store