Passing the Second Look Act (SB 123/HB 724) is both a moral imperative and a pragmatic strategy that promotes a fairer criminal legal system and offers people an incentive to maintain good behavior. It would contribute to the reduction of prison overcrowding and diminishes threats of violence. And it would ensure that people who have transformed over the years can positively contribute to their communities.
The crisis:
Maryland incarcerates the highest percentage of Black people in the country, at 71% of our prison population, more than twice the national average. Shamefully, Maryland also leads the nation in sentencing young Black men to the longest prison terms, at a rate 25% higher than the next nearest state—Mississippi. These facts underscore a pressing and deeply troubling racial justice issue within Maryland’s criminal justice system: bias against Black and Brown people and people with low income has been widely documented at every stage, from racial profiling by police to arrest to sentencing.
Recent history shows we can safely release many of these Marylanders, address these racial disparities, reduce the bloating of the system, and advance public safety and restorative opportunities.
The solution:
The only way to reduce existing racial disparities is to create more meaningful avenues for release for Marylanders who have demonstrated their rehabilitation. The Maryland Second Look Act would to address the state’s extreme race disparities and advance public safety by allowing people with extreme sentences who have served at least two decades the opportunity to petition the court to modify or reduce their sentence based on their demonstrated rehabilitation. This evidence-based initiative recognizes the transformative potential of focusing on rehabilitation and the urgency of addressing racial justice in our criminal legal system. According to the 2022 National Survey of Victims’ Views, victims prefer by 2 to 1 that the criminal justice system focus more on rehabilitating people who commit crimes rather than punishing them.
Why this approach?
The status quo does not afford meaningful opportunities for release. The devastating “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality from the last thirty years led to harsh changes to law and policy. One terrible result is that the only way for someone in Maryland serving an extreme sentence to have their sentence reviewed is by challenging the constitutionality of the conviction itself. Maryland judges used to have the ability to review sentences – an important safety valve for extreme sentences – but this process was eliminated by a rule change. And for more than 25 years, Maryland's parole system was not available to people serving life with parole sentences, which contributed to the bloated prison system and its extreme racial disparities. Now, the Governor has finally been removed from the parole process, but this is not enough to remedy decades of wrongful denials.
Unlike court hearings, parole is not a judicial hearing. People have almost no due process rights, and no legal representation to prepare a strong presentation. There is no other way to obtain review of your sentence after serving decades of time. That is why the current system incentivizes people serving extreme sentences to challenge the conviction and avoid ever conceding guilt, because doing so might jeopardize any future chance at release, even if they demonstrate rehabilitation. As a result, people who have been harmed by serious crimes may never hear an explanation or expression of the remorse the person feels.
A “Second Look” provision would change this dynamic by ensuring that people are able to express their genuine remorse and maintain focus on their transformation without worrying that conceding guilt would eliminate any hope of resentencing.
Equally important, in the immediate aftermath of a serious harm, emotions are high and it may be difficult for a sentencing judge to determine a person’s capacity for change. But many years later, a judge can assess an person’s growth, progress and rehabilitation behind bars based on their actual track record.
Disturbingly, Maryland’s prison system is filled with Black people who were excessively sentenced or denied parole based on “superpredator” mythology. A broad “second look” provision ensures that, decades after the crime, sentences can be reviewed based on our current understanding of fairness and racial justice. The Second Look bill represents a vital step towards justice, especially for those who may have encountered bias in their interactions with law enforcement, the courts, or corrections.
For Marylanders who have grappled with past mistakes, this legislation extends a lifeline—a chance to showcase their personal growth and rehabilitation throughout their time behind bars. It represents hope to the disproportionately Black families who have been the “collateral damage” of our current broken system. And it goes beyond individual cases; it sends a powerful message to a skeptical public. It shows that the state is actively acknowledging and rectifying past instances of bias and then committing to equitable treatment for all those in its custody.
Advancing public safety, investing in human potential, and saving taxpayers money.
Rather than posing a threat to public safety, many of the people who have been released from extreme sentences in recent years are building public safety. They are now elders working with young people, working in peer recovery programs, developing small businesses, and more. They provide support to their families, all while navigating a new world. One by one, they are strengthening their families and their communities with their presence and positive contributions.
Research consistently reveals a significant decrease in recidivism rates among people released from prison in their 40s and beyond. In fact, people convicted of the most serious offenses have the lowest recidivism rates. In Maryland, this was vividly demonstrated by the “Ungers,” so named for the Unger v. Maryland decision. As the Justice Policy Institute explains, in 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that improper jury instructions invalidated the life with parole sentences of 235 people. As of 2019, 192 of them had been released. Most were young adults when they were sentenced and had spent an average of 40 years behind bars. Almost 90 percent were Black, even though only 18% of Maryland’s population was Black when they were sentenced. Since their release, less than 4% have returned to prison. It’s estimated that the release of these Marylanders has saved taxpayers $185 million. More than a billion dollars could be saved over the next decade by building on this positive experience.
The crisis:
Maryland incarcerates the highest percentage of Black people in the country, at 71% of our prison population, more than twice the national average. Shamefully, Maryland also leads the nation in sentencing young Black men to the longest prison terms, at a rate 25% higher than the next nearest state—Mississippi. These facts underscore a pressing and deeply troubling racial justice issue within Maryland’s criminal justice system: bias against Black and Brown people and people with low income has been widely documented at every stage, from racial profiling by police to arrest to sentencing.
Recent history shows we can safely release many of these Marylanders, address these racial disparities, reduce the bloating of the system, and advance public safety and restorative opportunities.
The solution:
The only way to reduce existing racial disparities is to create more meaningful avenues for release for Marylanders who have demonstrated their rehabilitation. The Maryland Second Look Act would to address the state’s extreme race disparities and advance public safety by allowing people with extreme sentences who have served at least two decades the opportunity to petition the court to modify or reduce their sentence based on their demonstrated rehabilitation. This evidence-based initiative recognizes the transformative potential of focusing on rehabilitation and the urgency of addressing racial justice in our criminal legal system. According to the 2022 National Survey of Victims’ Views, victims prefer by 2 to 1 that the criminal justice system focus more on rehabilitating people who commit crimes rather than punishing them.
Why this approach?
The status quo does not afford meaningful opportunities for release. The devastating “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality from the last thirty years led to harsh changes to law and policy. One terrible result is that the only way for someone in Maryland serving an extreme sentence to have their sentence reviewed is by challenging the constitutionality of the conviction itself. Maryland judges used to have the ability to review sentences – an important safety valve for extreme sentences – but this process was eliminated by a rule change. And for more than 25 years, Maryland's parole system was not available to people serving life with parole sentences, which contributed to the bloated prison system and its extreme racial disparities. Now, the Governor has finally been removed from the parole process, but this is not enough to remedy decades of wrongful denials.
Unlike court hearings, parole is not a judicial hearing. People have almost no due process rights, and no legal representation to prepare a strong presentation. There is no other way to obtain review of your sentence after serving decades of time. That is why the current system incentivizes people serving extreme sentences to challenge the conviction and avoid ever conceding guilt, because doing so might jeopardize any future chance at release, even if they demonstrate rehabilitation. As a result, people who have been harmed by serious crimes may never hear an explanation or expression of the remorse the person feels.
A “Second Look” provision would change this dynamic by ensuring that people are able to express their genuine remorse and maintain focus on their transformation without worrying that conceding guilt would eliminate any hope of resentencing.
Equally important, in the immediate aftermath of a serious harm, emotions are high and it may be difficult for a sentencing judge to determine a person’s capacity for change. But many years later, a judge can assess an person’s growth, progress and rehabilitation behind bars based on their actual track record.
Disturbingly, Maryland’s prison system is filled with Black people who were excessively sentenced or denied parole based on “superpredator” mythology. A broad “second look” provision ensures that, decades after the crime, sentences can be reviewed based on our current understanding of fairness and racial justice. The Second Look bill represents a vital step towards justice, especially for those who may have encountered bias in their interactions with law enforcement, the courts, or corrections.
For Marylanders who have grappled with past mistakes, this legislation extends a lifeline—a chance to showcase their personal growth and rehabilitation throughout their time behind bars. It represents hope to the disproportionately Black families who have been the “collateral damage” of our current broken system. And it goes beyond individual cases; it sends a powerful message to a skeptical public. It shows that the state is actively acknowledging and rectifying past instances of bias and then committing to equitable treatment for all those in its custody.
Advancing public safety, investing in human potential, and saving taxpayers money.
Rather than posing a threat to public safety, many of the people who have been released from extreme sentences in recent years are building public safety. They are now elders working with young people, working in peer recovery programs, developing small businesses, and more. They provide support to their families, all while navigating a new world. One by one, they are strengthening their families and their communities with their presence and positive contributions.
Research consistently reveals a significant decrease in recidivism rates among people released from prison in their 40s and beyond. In fact, people convicted of the most serious offenses have the lowest recidivism rates. In Maryland, this was vividly demonstrated by the “Ungers,” so named for the Unger v. Maryland decision. As the Justice Policy Institute explains, in 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals held that improper jury instructions invalidated the life with parole sentences of 235 people. As of 2019, 192 of them had been released. Most were young adults when they were sentenced and had spent an average of 40 years behind bars. Almost 90 percent were Black, even though only 18% of Maryland’s population was Black when they were sentenced. Since their release, less than 4% have returned to prison. It’s estimated that the release of these Marylanders has saved taxpayers $185 million. More than a billion dollars could be saved over the next decade by building on this positive experience.