An effort to reform Maryland’s criminal justice system hit the skids Monday as conflicting data emerged over the efficacy of the legislative action.
The proposed legislation is aimed at reducing the prison recidivism rate by redefining penalties for certain drug related charges and replacing prison terms with counseling and other forms of treatment.
Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller delayed a vote on the legislation that was scheduled for Monday, citing data suggesting lawmakers grossly overestimated savings from the bill. Legislators planned to reinvest the savings into programs designed to rehabilitate criminal offenders, reports The Washington Post.
“We’re going to have to look at this very carefully,” Miller said Monday in the Maryland senate. “If we don’t have savings, what are we doing?”
An initial analysis by The Pew Charitable Trust in conjunction with state lawmakers showed the bill saving nearly $250 million in prison costs and reducing the state prison population by 14 percent over the next 10 years. A new analysis released after legislators added amendments to the bill Thursday and Friday shows a fraction of the promised savings and an overall increase in state incarcerations, reports The Washington Times.
Pew researchers who reviewed the law over the weekend, said wording in the legislation gives judges final discretion on a person’s incarceration if they: have “good cause,” could potentially cost the state millions and potentially bring projected 10-year savings down to just $34 million. It would also kill any chance of reducing the prison population — it would instead likely increase the rate.
The potential landmark criminal justice reform would send drug offenders to treatment facilities instead of prison, allow drug penalties to be more easily expunged from criminal records, correct large differences between penalties on various drugs and help offenders re-enter society in an effort to reduce recidivism.
Democratic Sen. Robert A. Zirkin, chairman of the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee, said he disagrees with the revised research but is open to changing the language through an amendment. Ultimately Zirkin is not willing to completely eliminate judge discretion, arguing they are the best positioned to determine risk to the community is on a case-by-case basis.
“Our committee is tacitly OK with doing away with the good cause exception,” Zirkin told The Washington Times. “What we won’t do, and let me repeat, underline, underline, underline, will not get rid of the public safety exception. If somebody is dangerous, the judges should have ultimate discretion.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.