Yesterday's hearing before the Maryland House Judiciary Committee on House Bill 581, which seeks to limit the amount of diminution credits that violent offenders can attain towards early release was insightful, to say the least. If it's possible to be both emboldened and a little frustrated at the same time, then that was definitely the case with me in Annapolis yesterday.
Del. Benjamin F. Kramer, the bill's sponsor, spoke first -- as is the procedure at these hearings -- to promote the passage of the bill, saying among other things that the dim credits system is deceptive and undermines the idea of truth in sentencing because a judge imposes a sentence, but then neither the judge nor the victim nor the average human being knows just how much of that sentence the offender will serve. These credits are doled out by the corrections system -- without prior notice to their victims -- and do not speak to the issue of whether an inmate is actually ready for freedom. The parole board is supposed to determine that.
Montgomery County Police Chief Thomas Manger spoke next in support of the bill. He was the first to tell the story of what happened to Lindsay Harvey on April 13, 2008. I followed Chief Manger with my testimony. And the committee also received written testimony from Debra Harvey, Lindsay's mother.
I told the committee members that our criminal justice system is supposed to protect innocent people against violent criminals but failed in its duty to protect Lindsay Harvey -- and did so in the worst way possible.
"Diminution credits do not turn violent offenders into law-abiding citizens," I said. "They endanger those of us who are."
I told the committee members that our criminal justice system is supposed to protect innocent people against violent criminals but failed in its duty to protect Lindsay Harvey -- and did so in the worst way possible.
"Diminution credits do not turn violent offenders into law-abiding citizens," I said. "They endanger those of us who are."
Next up was David Mulhausen, a statistical analyst from The Heritage Foundation who argued that truth in sentencing makes incarceration more meaningful and has helped reduce violent crime in other states. This is something that was also argued by Montgomery County Police Capt. Mitch Cunningham and other police personnel and Maryland state prosecutors whose testimony followed Mulhausen's.
John McDonald, the lead prosecutor for Queen Anne's County, said that parole -- not diminution credits -- is supposed to be the carrot that gets inmates to behave better and thus make their case for early release. Diminution credits, he said, are not "good time" credits, they're simply credits -- inmates earn them at pretty much the moment they're incarcerated. They essentially get credit for time they are never going to serve, he said (you may remember that Shawn Henderson's bid for parole in 2004 was rejected, but he was released early anyway because of the diminution credits he had attained during his stay in prison).
Mitch Cunnigham, for his part, spent time debunking defense lawyers' long-held beliefs about violent crime and its causes, saying that poverty and employment as factors don't hold water because Montgomery County, for one, has one of the nation's lowest unemployment rates but has one of its highest crime rates. He compared Montgomery County's crime rate with that of neighboring Fairfax County, Virginia, which have similar per capita incomes but different criminal justice systems. In Virginia, where truth in sentencing is in place, the crime rate has been reduced and many offenders have been "redirected" or given alternative sentencing options, depending on what risk they pose to the community (more on the data Capt. Cunningham compiled in a future post).
None of this, of course, was enough to dissuade those who testified against HB 581. Lori Adler, an attorney representing the Office of the Public Defender, said that violent offenders are already subject to very long sentences (leaving out the fact that none of these offenders actually serve that time, due to sentence suspensions, reconsiderations, and of course, diminution credits). She also challenged the assertion that the system in Virginia has actually reduced crime and believes that state has suffered a huge financial burden, despite Capt. Cunningham's testimony to the contrary.
And of course, there were some members of the HJC, particularly Del. Curtis S. (Curt) Anderson, of Baltimore City, who indicated that concept of truth in sentencing means different things to different people and argued that judges are indeed well aware that violent inmates participate in all of the programs that offer diminution credits.
More to the point, Anderson also indicated that he could not see HB 581 going forward so long as it had such a large fiscal note attached to it (more on that in a future post).
To conclude, I will tell you that I have never felt so emboldened by this cause than I did yesterday. I believe those who gave the expert testimony in support of the bill, including Del. Kramer, made a solid case for its passage, refuting perfectly just about every bit of opposition that came their way. These people did not just assert their support for HB 581 -- they vigorously defended it against every hint of opposition that was thrown their way.
Unfortunately, there is no way to know at this time whether HB 581 will survive the committee process and reach the House floor. But this legislation is clearly worth fighting for, and if it does not get passed or does not receive a favorable review by the committee this year, I have no doubt that we should come back to the Assembly next year and try and get this passed again.
No comments:
Post a Comment