Is it really parole-eligible if inmates can't get a hearing? Time to modernize Maryland parole
Maryland's parole system has fallen far behind national standards, refusing eligible individuals parole hearings and allowing department staff – rather than appointed parole commissioners – to conduct the majority of parole hearings.
Two bills that passed the House this session, House Bill 1147, sponsored by Del. Elizabeth Embry (D-Baltimore City) and others, and House Bill 1156, sponsored by Del. N. Scott Phillips (D-Baltimore County), aim to correct these fundamental issues and ensure that parole operates as intended.
In Maryland, state law does not explicitly state that a parole-eligible person ever has to get a parole hearing. It has been the practice of the Parole Commission (parole board) that incarcerated people are given at least one hearing and, if they are denied, must apply for all future hearings.
Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@marylandmatters.org.
We suggest a 750-word limit and reserve the right to edit or reject submissions. We do not accept columns that are endorsements of candidates, and no longer accept submissions from elected officials or political candidates.
Opinion pieces must be signed by at least one individual using their real name. We do not accept columns signed by an organization. Commentary writers must include a short bio and a photo for their bylines.
Views of writers are their own.
Maryland is one of only four states that requires applications for subsequent hearings – alongside Delaware, Idaho, and Utah – and the Parole Commission routinely refuses these hearing applications. Over the past two years, the commission has refused hearings to more than 1,000 people each year (1,126 in 2023 and 1,159 in 2024), including hundreds of hearings for people in prison for nonviolent offenses.
These aren't parole denials, these are denials of the request for a hearing. The Parole Commission is effectively refusing parole eligibility to thousands of people whom both the legislature and courts have already determined to be eligible.
It's currently within the Parole Commission's authority to refuse people's request for a hearing each time they apply, effectively changing a parole-eligible sentence to one without parole. This practice was not the intent of the legislature. Is a sentence really parole-eligible if the law doesn't state that you actually get a parole hearing?
HB1147 would establish a schedule for subsequent parole hearings, ensuring eligible people are considered at specific intervals and providing the commission with a predictable cadence for scheduling.
Additional provisions in HB1147 would clean up some basic housekeeping: removing administrative delays for providing a person their records, making sure all victim-impact statements are considered by the commission, ensuring recordings of hearings are retained throughout a person's incarceration and ensuring a prompt official decision on parole, alongside justifications for each decision.
Further, it's a common misconception that parole commissioners conduct all parole hearings in Maryland. By law, parole commissioners are only required to conduct hearings for people convicted of a homicide or serving a parole-eligible life sentence.
The majority of incarcerated people (~60%) will have their parole hearing in front of a hearing examiner, a department staff member who conducts a hearing alone and decides whether to recommend release. These hearing examiners are selected by the secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services – the governor and Senate never review or approve their names. It is a system without checks and balances rife for abuse.
Parole is a crucial step toward successful re-entry and release is an important decision: Is the incarcerated person ready to transition to community supervision? HB1156 would swap out hearing examiners for an expanded Parole Commission, ensuring the people appointed to make release decisions meet with every person who is eligible for release. No department staff member should be conducting parole hearings alone.
These bills do not change parole eligibility laws – they simply ensure that parole-eligible people get parole hearings, parole commissioners conduct their hearings, and adequate records and justifications are kept in their file. House Bills 1147 and 1156 would help modernize parole in Maryland, a move that is long overdue to ensure eligible people have the chance at parole that both the legislature and courts provided to them.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' -- well, here they are,' said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. 'For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' – well, here it is.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, by its own leaders' admissions, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled tactics. Advertisement So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also push back against the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. Advertisement 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the Working Families Party at the left flank of mainstream U.S. politics. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking his signature sign off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the Civil Rights Movement. Advertisement State Rep. Ramon Romero Jr., invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F--- the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J. and the Democratic leader of the U.S. House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Advertisement Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Joe Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, he said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot. In 2016, Democratic President Barack Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, Mitchell said. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab,' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs (political action committees) and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. Advertisement In the meantime, said U.S. Rep. Julie Johnson, D-Texas, voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does' If you don't do politics, politics will do you.''
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
In Trump's redistricting push, Democrats find an aggressive identity and progressives are on board
ATLANTA — Fight! Fight! Fight! It's not just Donald Trump's mantra anymore. As the Republican president pushes states to redraw their congressional districts to the GOP's advantage, Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win. Democrats in the Texas Legislature started it off by delaying, for now, Republican efforts to expand the GOP majority in the state's delegation and help preserve party control of the U.S. House through new districts in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Then multiple Democratic governors promised new districts in their own states to neutralize potential Republican gains in Washington. Their counter has been buoyed by national fundraising, media blitzes and public demonstrations, including rallies scheduled around the country Saturday. 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' Well, here they are,' said U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, one of several Democrats who could be ousted under her state's new maps. 'For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' Well, here it is.' There is no guarantee Democrats can prevent the Republican-powered redistricting, just as Democrats on Capitol Hill have not been able to stop Trump's moves. But it's a notable turn for a party that, as its leaders have long asserted, has honored conventional rules and bypassed bare-knuckled political tactics. So far, progressive and establishment Democrats are aligned, uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November. Leaders on the left say the approach gives them a more effective way to confront him. They can challenge his redistricting ploy with tangible moves as they also counter the Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding American democracy. 'We've been imploring Democrats where they have power on the state and local level to flex that power,' said Maurice Mitchell, who leads the left-leaning Working Families Party. 'There's been this overwrought talk about fighters and largely performative actions to suggest that they're in the fight.' This time, he said, Democrats are 'taking real risks in protecting all of our rights' against 'an authoritarian president who only understands the fight.' Texas made sense for Republicans as the place to start a redistricting scuffle. They dominate the Statehouse, and Gov. Greg Abbott is a Trump loyalist. But when the president's allies announced a new political map intended to send five more Republicans to the U.S. House, state Democratic representatives fled Texas, denying the GOP the numbers to conduct business in the Legislature and approve the reworked districts. Those legislators surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere, joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action. The response was almost Trumpian. Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats and pledged retaliatory redistricting. Pritzker mocked Abbott as a lackey who says 'yes, sir' to Trump orders. Hochul dismissed Texas Republicans as 'lawbreaking cowboys.' Newsom's press office directed all-caps social media posts at Trump, mimicking the president's frequent sign-off: 'THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER.' U.S. Rep. Al Green, another Texas Democrat who could lose his seat, called Trump 'egomaniacal.' Yet many Democrats also claimed moral high ground, comparing their cause to the civil rights movement. Texas state Rep. Ramon Romero Jr. invoked another Texas Democrat, President Lyndon Johnson, who was 'willing to stand up and fight' for civil rights laws in the 1960s. Then, with Texas bravado, Romero reached further into history: 'We're asking for help, maybe just as they did back in the days of the Alamo.' A recent Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found that about 15% of Democrats' own voters described the party using words like 'weak' or 'apathetic.' An additional 10% called it 'ineffective' or 'disorganized.' Beto O'Rourke, a former Texas congressman and onetime Democratic presidential candidate who is raising money to support Texas Democrats, has encouraged Democratic-run statehouses to redraw districts now rather than wait for GOP states to act. On Friday, California Democrats released a plan that could give the party an additional five U.S. House seats. It would require voter approval in a November election. 'Maximize Democratic Party advantage,' O'Rourke said at a recent rally. 'You may say to yourself, 'Well, those aren't the rules.' There are no refs in this game. F— the rules. ... Whatever it takes.' Democratic National Committee Chairman Ken Martin acknowledged the shift. 'This is not the Democratic Party of your grandfather, which would bring a pencil to a knife fight,' he said. Andrew O'Neill, an executive at the progressive group Indivisible, contrasted that response with the record-long speeches by U.S. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and the Democratic leader of the House, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, in eviscerating Trump and his package of tax breaks and spending cuts. The left 'had its hair on fire' cheering those moments, O'Neill recalled, but were 'left even more frustrated in the aftermath.' Trump still secured tax cuts for the wealthy, accelerated deportations and cut safety net programs, just as some of his controversial nominees were confirmed over vocal Democratic opposition. 'Now,' O'Neill said, 'there is some marriage of the rhetoric we've been seeing since Trump's inauguration with some actual action.' O'Neill looked back wistfully to the decision by Senate Democrats not to eliminate the filibuster 'when our side had the trifecta,' so a simple majority could pass major legislation. Democratic President Biden's attorney general, Merrick Garland, O'Neill said, was too timid in prosecuting Trump and top associates over the Capitol riot and insurrection. In 2016, Democratic President Obama opted against hardball as the Senate's Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, refused to consider Obama's nomination of Garland to the Supreme Court. McConnell's maneuver gave one additional Supreme Court appointee to the next president — Trump. 'These unspoken rules of propriety, especially on the Democratic side, have created the conditions' that enabled Trump, said Mitchell of the Working Families Party. Even on redistricting, Democrats would have to ignore their previous good-government efforts and bypass independent commissions that draw boundaries in several states, including California. Party leaders and activists rationalize that the broader fights tie together piecemeal skirmishes that may not, by themselves, sway voters. Arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats, O'Neill said. By contrast, he said, the GOP 'power grab' can be connected to unpopular policies that affect voters' lives. Rep. Green noted that Trump's big package bill cleared the Senate 'by one vote' and the House by a few, demonstrating why redistricting matters. U.S. Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said Democrats must make unseemly, short-term power plays so they can later pass legislation that 'bans gerrymandering nationwide ... bans super PACs [political action committees] and gets rid of that kind of big money and special interest that helped get us to this place.' Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) added that a Democratic majority would wield subpoena power over Trump's administration. In the meantime, said Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas), voters are grasping a stark reality. 'They say, 'Well, I don't know. Politics doesn't affect me,'' she said of constituents she meets. 'I say, 'Honey, it does. If you don't do politics, politics will do you.'' Barrow writes for the Associated Press.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
The rich already know how private equity mints money — and it's not from a 401(k)
The ultrawealthy are envied for many reasons. For instance, we wish we could access the same private-market investments that they favor. Now, after the White House issued an executive order on Aug. 7, you may be able to invest like the billionaires do. Homeowners rush to refinance as mortgage-rate plunge opens window of opportunity My wife and I are in our 50s and have $11 million. We're not leaving it to our kids. Is that wrong? You could receive up to $7,500 from the AT&T settlement. Here's how class-action suits work. But would you want to? The executive order allows ordinary retirement savers to invest in private assets and cryptocurrency. This will expand investment options for anyone with a 401(k) or similar tax-advantaged retirement plan. It is a big deal — opening part of America's $12.4 trillion defined-contribution market to private-asset managers. The largest private-equity firms and other asset managers are salivating at the opportunity to pitch this untapped market of retirement savers. Private assets encompass a range of investments that do not trade on a public exchange. Examples include hedge funds, private equity, private credit and infrastructure. The case for private assets is they can provide a buffer against inflation — plus steady returns. The downsides include high fees, illiquidity and complexity. The nation's biggest asset managers welcome the executive order. They want to develop funds that make private assets easier for people to buy, and argue that the added diversification serves savers' best interests. Larry Fink, chief executive of BlackRock BLK, says retirement savers should replace the traditional 60% stocks/40% bonds asset-allocation model with a 50/30/20 split: 50% stocks, 30% bonds and 20% private assets. Read: Larry Fink proposes an alternative to the 60/40 portfolio. It means more fees. Should you be excited about this widening menu of investment choices? It depends on whom you ask. Some investment professionals like the idea of making private assets more available to more people. 'Historically, a number of private-market strategies have produced higher performance and additional diversification in defined-benefit pensions,' says Peter von Lehe, head of investment solutions and strategy at Neuberger Berman. 'It's appropriate that a broader range of investors have access to private assets in their defined-contribution plans because of the potential for return and diversification that these long-term investments can provide.' However, von Lehe cautions that these investments are illiquid and 'have a higher degree of complexity.' He says his 'most appropriate use case' for private-market investments is through professionally managed target-date funds or other funds that allocate a percentage of defined-contribution money to these complex but potentially more lucrative alternatives. Read: Here's something the rich know about managing investment risk that can help you, too Financial advisers have differing views on the role of private assets in client portfolios. Steven Roge, a certified financial planner in Bohemia, N.Y., says private markets are not for everyone. 'It's for people in the wealth-accumulation phase, say 40 to 50 years old, who have a long time horizon and a high risk tolerance,' Roge says. 'And they have to be sophisticated enough to understand it. We know if they don't understand it, they may not stick with it.' Of the firm's 300 clients, he says that 'only about a dozen' fit the bill for adding private-market assets to their retirement accounts. Even with the expanded investment options that may result from the White House's action, Roge remains a fan of passive strategies for most investors. 'Indexing is how they will win over the long run,' he says. 'But some clients want something that's special and different' as they seek market-beating returns. Given the illiquidity of private assets, Roge anticipates setting expectations for those clients who tend to monitor their portfolio daily — and who engage in frequent trading. 'These private investments may only price four times a year,' Roge says. 'That's not enough action for certain clients who track their portfolio like a hawk.' In his personal portfolio, Roge uses private markets — especially private equity — to diversify his holdings. He says he allocates about 25% to alternative assets. 'It helps me sleep at night knowing my portfolio isn't being pushed around by the volatility of public markets,' he says. Roge adds that he is not concerned about the current high valuations of private-equity funds. 'The valuations [of private-equity funds] are more realistic than the erratic valuations we see in public markets on a daily basis,' he says. Other advisers are more skeptical of the White House executive order. 'It's less being done out of interest for the general public and more for private industry lobbying the [Trump] administration,' says Alex Ruda, an adviser in Silver Spring, Md. The executive order undoubtedly pleases asset managers and private-equity firms. For years, they've wanted to attract retirement savers' money. These savers bear primary responsibility for managing their 401(k) compared with today's older retirees, many of whom receive employer-funded defined-benefit pensions. While some younger savers enjoy picking their investments, others dread it. 'The average American worker isn't equipped to navigate these complex [private-market] investments,' Ruda says. 'And they may fall prey to a little performance chasing given where we are in the market cycle' — as private markets have outperformed publicly traded stocks since 2000. Ruda feels so strongly about not incorporating private assets into client portfolios that he's willing to forgo newcomers who express such interest. 'If I wanted to broaden my client base, I'd have to play to what they want,' he says. 'But I don't have to do that. So I'd say to them, 'I'm not the best fit.'' Read next: Here's what it's like to invest in private equity — and why you don't want it in your 401(k) More: As private equity enters retirement plans, is it too dangerous for average investors to jump in? I'm a senior who barely survives on $1,300 a month. No way could I live on $1,000. 'I am a senior citizen': My car needs $3,500 for repairs, but only has a trade-in value of $6,000. Do I bother fixing it?
