Convicted felons in Maryland could soon petition for early release with bill advancing
Convicted felons in Maryland could soon have a chance to petition for reduced sentences under a new bill that is one step closer to becoming a law.
The Second Chance Act, or House Bill 724, which would apply to convicted felons who have already served 20 years and are not a danger to the public, survived Crossover Day passed the House chamber and now heads to the Senate.
Under the proposed bill
, petitions would be filed once every three years.
Per the measure, the courts would consider factors including the individual's age at the time of the offense, behavior during incarceration, participation in educational programs, and public safety risk.
A similar bill, the
Maryland Clean Slate Act
, would direct the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to clear marijuana possession records and cases at least three years old. The bill would also allow for expungement of misdemeanor charges after seven years.
However, domestic-related crimes and second-degree assault charges would remain ineligible for expungement under the proposed law.
If passed, the legislation would require all electronic court records of cases eligible for expungement to be removed from public view starting in August 2027. The bill specifies that physical documents and media would not need to be redacted or destroyed.
After recreational cannabis was legalized in Maryland in July 2023, Gov. Wes Moore
pardoned more than 175,000 convictions
for cannabis or drug paraphernalia possession.
Currently, the
Juvenile Restoration Act
allows people who served at least 20 years of a sentence for a crime they committed when they were under the age of 18 to request a sentence reduction. The law passed in 2024, also prohibits the courts from sentencing minors to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or release.
According to a 2024
report by the Second Look Movement
, nearly one-third of people serving life sentences are 55 or older, which amounts to more than 60,000 people. The report also says that lengthy sentences do not significantly deter crime and that people tend to desist from crime as they age.
In December 2023, the
Maryland Equitable Justice Commission
shared recommendations to reduce mass incarceration in the state and reduce racial disparities in the justice system.
The commission said that Maryland has the highest amount of Black individuals in its prisons when compared to the state population. Expanding second look laws, limiting the automatic charging of children in adult criminal court, and increasing the number of people eligible for parole consideration due to serious medical conditions, or reaching an age where they are no longer a threat to public safety.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
As Chesapeake restoration crashes, greenwashing pervades
Gov. Wes Moore (D) signs the Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act on May 13, 2025, with a basket of greens brought by a Montgomery County farmer to celebraate the signing. (Photo by Bryan Sears/Maryland Matters) The Chesapeake Bay is being polluted with huge flows of farm pollutants and environmental greenwashing. Elected and appointed government officials are aided and abetted by supposed conservation leaders. Government officials are driven by hypocritically burnishing their Green credentials with nothing-burgers while avoiding offending polluting interests. Some environmental organization leaders are also driven to claim significant policy successes when there are none. This is done to ensure that they do not lose governmental and private funding by criticizing the lack of meaningful measures to significantly curb Bay pollutants. These opportunists have become environmental mercenaries. Sadly, gone are a formerly robust group of experienced environmental journalists. The few new ones are overburdened with other assignments and succumb to Greenwashing. A prime example is the Chesapeake Bay Legacy Act. On May 14, Maryland Matters reported on the bill's signing, dutifully quoting its progenitor, Gov. Wes Moore: 'This is the most comprehensive piece of Chesapeake Bay legislation that Maryland has seen in years.' This is a Trumpian overstatement of epic proportions reminiscent of former Gov. Larry Hogan's discredited claim in 2019 that his efforts resulted in a Chesapeake Bay 'cleaner than it has been in recorded history.' A close examination of Moore's Legacy legislation reveals that it does very little if anything to reduce the Bay's major pollutants of nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and toxic chemicals. Maryland Matters welcomes guest commentary submissions at editor@ 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 Matters also gave a mostly favorable boost to Moore's 'complex' legislation on Feb. 11, mostly parroting Moore and his secretary of Agriculture's propaganda. The reporting did note that 'Gov. Wes Moore (D) announced with some fanfare in the fall that he planned to introduce legislation during this year's General Assembly session to expand and modernize Maryland's efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay, telling assembled leaders from every state in the Bay watershed, 'It's up to us to protect it.'' Moore was speaking as chair of the Bay Program's Executive Council. Moore is obviously desperate to burnish his presidential cred, as was Hogan. The legislation changes little in the status quo so as not to upset agribusiness and commercial fishing interests that might impede his presidential ambitions. From my 55 years of environmental advocacy, I can discern greenwashing, and this bill epitomizes such. Let's examine the Legacy Act's details: First, a person who has a tidal fish license or commercial channa license and harvests and processes finfish on a vessel by ikejime for direct sale to restaurants need not have a food establishment license. Secondly, minor changes are made regarding the procedures for adoption of fishery management plans. Nothing is included that would better conserve crashing fish and crab populations. Aquaculture regulations are tweaked but there are no needed changes to better advance oyster aquaculture. The bill allows publicly funded oyster restoration projects to generate water quality trading credits allowing pollution reductions from planting oysters to be traded for increased pollution elsewhere. In a separate bill, oyster poaching penalties are relaxed. The Legacy Act establishes a Water Quality Monitoring Program in the Department of Natural Resources that simply formalizes the existing water quality monitoring system. Big deal. But the major initiative in this grab bag is yet another voluntary agricultural program termed LEEF, Leaders in Environmentally Engaged Farming. Despite my repeated efforts to dissuade the secretary of Agriculture from such a meaningless approach that would waylay needed regulatory efforts, the legislation was enacted into law. The secretary acknowledged publicly that voluntary farm measures have failed to achieve the necessary pollution reductions. Farmers who choose to may apply for certification to be created akin to LEED building certifications except this is entirely voluntary and there are no details on its implementation or on attaining certification levels except: Credit must be given for preserving farmland, participation in farmers markets, donations to food banks, on-farm research and for farmers lecturing about agriculture. Instead of acting to curb the largest source of Bay-choking pollution by better regulatory measures and enforcement, and despite knowing that voluntary farm measures do not work well, LEEF would perpetuate the desecration of our environmental legacy. LEEF already was used to defeat legislation requiring riparian buffer plantings on 2,665 acres of Critical Area farmland. Remarkably, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's president is quoted supporting this fraud: 'With federal cuts and rollbacks looming heavily on our state, Maryland's environmental leadership is more important than ever. This Act will help maintain forward momentum and ensure that investments in clean air, clean water, habitats, and local economies are secured.' With such gubernatorial and NGO leadership, may God Save The Bay!
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Lean budget threatens to spark public college turf war
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up At this May's meeting, after a presentation about an upcoming advertising campaign for state financial aid programs, Pedraja expressed concern that helping low-income students attend four-year schools would take money away from free community college. Advertisement 'We are very concerned that shouting from the treetops that our public four-year institutions are free for certain students based on income will further deplete very limited financial aid for the whole system,' Pedraja said. Advertisement Pedraja said that financial aid money is expected to be tight next year, and free community college is codified in statute, while the MASSGrant Plus expansion is not. 'Not to take away from the importance of marketing toward these students and making education available for all, which I do believe, we ought to be cautious about over-promising to students who are most in need of support,' Pedraja said. In a follow-up interview, Pedraja doubled down on his concern that the state is 'over-promising' by advertising free four-year college for low-income students. He again emphasized the distinction between free community college, which is codified in law, and other financial aid, which comes from a pot of money that can run out. Practically, however, this is a distinction without a difference — at least legally, if not politically. Pedraja is correct that free community college is codified in the Department of Higher Education spokesperson Nicole Giambusso confirmed that free community college and the MASSGrant Plus expansion are both subject to annual appropriations. The House and Senate budget proposals for fiscal 2026 both include money for all these programs, although the Senate's funding level is somewhat higher. State Senator Jo Comerford, Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Higher Education, said lawmakers see these programs as coming from different pockets of money. 'One does not cannibalize each other,' Comerford told me. Advertisement When free community college was established, expanding aid for all low-income students was seen as key to ensuring that students who are qualified to attend a four-year university won't be channeled into community college just because it's free. After all, according to There are potential funding sources — like money collected from the surtax on income over $1 million — that could be tapped to keep both programs running. 'I don't think it should be either/or,' Bridgewater State University President Frederick Clark told me. 'I don't think the segments should be working at cross purposes. We should be leaning in to make sure funding is adequate for financial aid for all students.' It is true that in a tight budget year, lawmakers have to make choices. Policy makers should be honest in crafting their budget around what can realistically be funded. In our interview, Pedraja said he 'would love for everybody to have more access to higher education.' But the troubling implication of his statement is that if there is a Sophie's choice to be made, Massachusetts should prioritize aid for community college students, regardless of income, over low-income students at four-year schools. If the state wants to help the most students achieve their academic potential, that is the wrong approach. Instead, the guiding principle should be helping each student attend the college that's right for them. Advertisement As these financial aid programs continue, state policy makers should collect data to determine their impact. Which aid programs are boosting college enrollment and also college completion rates and postgraduation employment? Are other ways of improving college success working, like If hard choices have to be made about funding, they should be based on which programs most help students succeed. Shira Schoenberg can be reached at
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' to make wealthy even richer and punish poor
Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' will hand thousands of dollars to the rich and leave poorer Americans worse off, a US spending watchdog has warned. The top 10pc of households will get a windfall of $12,000 (£8,800) per year from the Bill's tax cuts, while the bottom 10pc will see a net loss of $1,600 per year because of benefits cuts, according to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). This means the richest people in America will get a cash boost worth 2.3pc of income while the poorest households will see losses worth 3.9pc. Mr Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill Act', as the legislation is known, was narrowly passed by House Republicans last month and is currently under scrutiny by the Senate. The president has set a July 4 deadline for a final version of the Bill. The Bill has come under heavy fire for driving up America's debt burden just as economists are sounding alarm bells over the sustainability of the US debt pile. Earlier this month, Mr Trump's former 'first buddy' Elon Musk slammed the Bill as a 'disgusting abomination' that he said would saddle America with 'crushing' debt. The US lost its last triple-A credit rating in May after a downgrade from influential credit agency Moody's. According to the CBO, the measures outlined in the Bill will add $2.4 trillion to the US deficit over the next decade. The Bill includes tax cuts worth $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years – primarily through extending the income tax cuts Mr Trump introduced in 2017 which are due to expire at the end of this year – alongside $1.3 trillion in spending cuts. The bulk of the spending cuts will come through reductions in Medicaid, which funds health insurance for low-income families, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which provides food stamps for the poorest in America. This means that although households will technically benefit from the tax cuts, the benefits for the lowest earners will be far-outweighed by the cost of their lost benefits. Around 16m Americans are expected to lose their health insurance as a result of the Bill. In a letter to Democrat lawmakers, who had requested the analysis, Phillip Swagel, the CBO director, said: 'The changes would not be evenly distributed among households. 'The agency estimates that in general, resources would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution.' Households in the middle of the income distribution would gain just $500 per year, or 0.5pc of their annual income. Speaking on Thursday, Mr Trump said the Bill was 'one of the most important pieces of legislation ever signed, ever approved, so it's going to be something very special.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
