Demystifying and Reforming Maryland’s Parole Policies and Practices
- Moderator: Olinda Moyd, Esq., Board Member, Maryland Alliance for Justice Reform
- Speakers:
- Gordon Pack, Advocate, Prepare Parole
- Keith Wallington, Director of Advocacy, Justice Policy Institute (JPI).
- Sonia Kumar, Senior Staff Attorney, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of MD
Olinda Moyd explained that “parole” is French for “word,” so a person who is on parole has given his or her word of honor that if they are released, they will abide by the conditions of their parole.
What are the real goals of incarceration? Is it about deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, or retribution? When people are kept in prison long after rehabilitation, Ms. Boyd stressed, it becomes retribution and nothing else. Parole is supposed to be an avenue for release, but for many Marylanders release remains elusive and the reasons unclear. Maryland conducted 5,922 parole hearings in 2022 (including for violations of parole) and granted parole to only 959 people. By way of background, she added that the Parole Commission operates with a 6-million-dollar budget, 5 million of which goes to salaries.
The goal of this session, Ms. Moyd explained, is to demystify Parole Commission policy and discuss the framework in which it carries out its duties. Speakers and audience members are invited to propose recommendations that will bring the Commission more in line with best practices and open the door so that parole is more attainable.
What are the hurdles that get in the way of people making the best case for themselves at parole hearings? Do you have any advice for individuals as to how they can put themselves in a better posture to be granted parole?
Gordon Pack represents an advocacy organization called Prepare Parole that exists because of the belief that prisoners and others do not understand the parole
process. Its mission is to prepare people to make their best case for parole. He said prison libraries do not have information about the process, and no one is available to teach people what to expect.
He himself served 42 years and had 17 hearings before he was granted parole. At his first
hearing, he imagined a friendly process in which he would have someone representing him. After introducing themselves, the first thing he heard from the Commission members was “we have the authority to refuse parole.” After that, he said, he “couldn’t hear anything else.” When he was told he would be given another hearing in ten years, he was dazed. “What about my accomplishments?”
Mr. Pack said prisoners need to know how to dress, how to present themselves, and what factors will be (or should be) considered. They need to prepare for interrogation. Both mental and emotional preparation are essential. People also need to prepare a written argument for release that they can leave behind with Commissioners so they can be reminded of what they heard as they make their decision. He also recommended that prisoners review their files to ensure that certifications and achievements are included and the contents are accurate.
Keith Wallington, of the Justice Policy Institute, said his organization has just published Safe at Home: Improving Maryland’s Parole Release Decision Making Project (Justice Policy Institute, 2023). The report makes specific recommendations for improving the process. One of them follows: “The Maryland Parole Commission should operate
under the presumption that the goals of punishment have been met at the time of initial parole eligibility. Parole release decision-making should be based solely on objective factors related to an individual’s future risk to public safety.”
The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) states what factors the Commission should consider. Examples include the person’s progress, their involvement with drugs or alcohol, the reasonable probability that they will honor the terms set by parole, and any recommendations sent by the judge. Is there any one factor that is given more weight?
Mr. Pack’s answer was simple: It is always the crime that gets the most weight.
Going before strangers to talk about the worst thing you’ve ever done is traumatizing, and many prisoners have experienced trauma from other events in their lives. Do you think it would be helpful for someone with mental health expertise to be part of the parole process?
Mr. Pack said people do need preparation for the parole process, and counseling from a mental health professional would be very valuable.
Ten people can serve on the Commission. Of the nine currently serving, six come from law enforcement and prosecution backgrounds. The Commission is supposed to serve the community. What qualities and characteristics do you think Commission members should have to issue fair decisions?
Ms. Kumar said serving on the Parole Commission is currently granted through political
patronage. There are no minimal qualifications, and no one is tasked to ensure that the board reflects the community. Commissioners receive no education in recognizing trauma. She would like to see a greater emphasis on service, with people in professions such as social work serving on the Commission. Such people would be focused on helping people achieve their full potential and come home. Currently, there is no consequence to saying no. No one feels the loss and the cruelty of that decision. Imagine investing in the promise of what people could be. Imagine investing in the spirit of redemption.
Mr. Pack said he did not object to law enforcement representatives on the Commission, but there should also be someone who has been incarcerated. Commissioners should have more training and education.
Ms. Moyd observed that Commissioners serve for six years and can be reappointed. Other
jurisdictions outside the State of Maryland have directly impacted individuals serving as
corrections staff and even as Parole Commissioners.
If you could change two things about the parole system that would help people “stuck” in the system, what would they be?
Ms. Kumar would establish a legal standard with a presumption of release. She would radically restructure the review process for lifers. The risk assessment should be waived for them. Also, medical parole should be used when appropriate.
Mr. Pack would like to see more case management and support for prisoners, especially in
preparing for the parole process. People are falling through the cracks. We have the same number of Parole Commissioners we had in 1979. Secondly, everyone involved in the parole process needs education, including the Commissioners. Then we will see better outcomes.
Mr. Wallington also urged a presumption of release. The risk assessment following parole should be completely eliminated. The person’s institutional record should be given the most weight. Maryland has the highest incarceration rate for Black men in the country.
What role should the parole process have in lowering the incarceration rate?
Ms. Kumar said the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate and the world, and Maryland has the greatest racial disparity in the U.S. Maryland’s prison population, effective July 2018, at more than 70% Black, is the highest rate per capita in the U.S more than double the national average of 32% and more than double the percentage of the state’s 31% Black population (Justice Policy Institute, 2019). Correcting this situation is a matter of justice. Looking back, it is important to understand that the current statistics are grounded in history. In 1860, prisons were almost all white. By the end of the Civil War, however, when people were no longer enslaved, the prison population was almost all Black. The current disparity cannot be divorced from that story. Today, nearly 8 in 10 prisoners sentenced to ten years or more are Black.
It is not possible to solve the problem of mass incarceration without addressing the most lengthy sentences. People who have these sentences, including lifers, have repeatedly been shown to be the least likely to reoffend (United States Sentencing Commission, 2022). It costs $40,000 a year to keep someone incarcerated in Maryland (Maryland Policy Initiative, nd). There are many prisoners behind prison walls who could be doing good work in the community. The Department of Corrections cannot possibly meet people as individuals and prepare them to return to communities while prisons are at this scale. We need returning citizens working with children and running mentoring programs. That is how we get public safety.
Ms. Kumar observed that the parole process is anything but transparent and can last 2 or 3 years. Most of this process is unknown and unreported. People are being denied parole not on the basis of merit but because they do not have the resources to navigate the system. A functional parole system would serve youth as well as adults, reducing the population behind walls.
Questions from the Audience
The system seems designed to create barriers to parole for lifers, despite the fact that they recidivate less than other prison populations. Is there any new thinking about requiring a specific number of years to be served?
Ms. Kumar said that a 2023 study by the Sentencing Project concluded that a life sentence
should be capped at 20 years (Komar et al., 2023). When a person doesn’t have a sentence with a specific number of years they are eliminated from participating in many correctional programs.
Mr. Pack was in favor of a minimum-maximum sentence structure in which prisoners know what they have to do to be released. One of the glaring inequities in the current system is that a Lifer has to do more time than a person with a 40-year sentence, who would be eligible for review in 20 years.
How could the lengthy and inefficient risk assessment process be reconstructed? Are there legislative efforts to change that process? Currently, 150 people are awaiting parole, and only seven per month are processed by the two risk assessors.
Ms. Kuman said the Commission’s current dysfunctional process goes back to fictions about the level of risk in releasing people with long sentences. She added that the solution does not have to be a legislative one; the Commission could address the problems.
Mr. Pack stressed the need for more staff to resolve problems and address concerns before
hearings rather than have an assessment drag on afterward.
