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 is one of only four states that requires applications for subsequent hearings – alongside Delaware, Idaho, and Utah. The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services originally provided us with numbers, but has since clarified that they do not collect data on how many parole hearing applications they deny. We know from speaking with parole-eligible individuals that their hearing requests are often denied.”

These aren’t parole denials, these are denials of the request for a hearing. The Parole Commission is effectively refusing parole eligibility to 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.