Summary

Effective October 1, 2021, the Juvenile Restoration Act permits people who have served at least 20 years of a sentence for a crime that occurred when they were under the age of 18 to file a motion for reduction of sentence. This report documents the progress that has been made implementing the Act and its successes over the first year.

More than 200 individuals are eligible for consideration under the JRA, with approximately 160 eligible individuals represented by OPD and its legal partners. To represent its clients, the OPD’s Decarceration Initiative has assembled a team of Assistant Public Defenders, law school clinics, and pro bono attorneys, who often work collaboratively with social workers, re-entry specialists, or other experts. Working with their clients, the multidisciplinary legal teams normally develop release plans connecting clients with community re-entry organizations that support their transition from incarceration to freedom.

The Juvenile Restoration Act is predicated on research showing that most people who commit serious crimes as children eventually mature, become rehabilitated, and can be safely released. The operative statute permits a court to reduce a person’s sentence only if it determines that the person would not pose a danger to public safety and that the interest of justice would be better served by a reduced sentence.

Consistent with what the research predicts and the legislature intended, courts in the first year since the Act took effect have reduced sentences and released people in the majority of cases decided. Courts have ruled on the motions filed by 36 people. They released 23 of those individuals from prison. In four more cases, courts granted the motion in part and reduced the duration of the sentence, but the individual has more time to serve before being released. In seven cases, the court reached the merits but denied the motion. In one case, the court denied the motion without a hearing because it found that the client was ineligible to file a motion – a decision that has been appealed. Finally, in one case, the individual was released on parole after the motion was filed but before the hearing; in that case, the court modified the sentence to place the individual on probation with conditions designed to maximize his chances of success.

Almost two-thirds of the motions decided so far were in Baltimore City cases. The next three jurisdictions with the most rulings on these motions are Baltimore County (4 motions), Frederick County (2 motions), and Prince George’s County (2 motions), with six other jurisdictions having one ruling each. Most of the individuals who were released were connected with organizations that provide holistic re-entry services, some in conjunction with transitional housing. In the group released so far, half lived with family after their release, and the other half initially lived at a transitional housing program.

The first year of the Juvenile Restoration Act shows that, with an available court mechanism and robust re-entry planning and support services, many individuals who have served long sentences can be safely released. The General Assembly should expand on the success of the JRA by expanding eligibility for sentence reduction consideration to people who were emerging adults (18 to 25 year olds) at the time of the crime and older prisoners who have similarly served long prison terms. Funds should also be invested in implementing these recommendations and encouraging reliance on community based services where incarceration is no longer necessary for public safety.

What the Act did

The Juvenile Restoration Act of 2021 created two statutes that did three things.

Criminal Procedure Article § 6-235 addressed sentencing for children tried as adults by (1) prohibiting courts from imposing sentences of life without parole on juveniles tried as adults, making Maryland the 25th state to ban this punishment; and (2) providing that mandatory minimums no longer apply to children sentenced as adults.

Criminal Procedure Article § 8-110 allows a person who was convicted as an adult when they were a minor and who has served at least 20 years of a sentence imposed before October 1, 2021, to seek a sentence reduction. It provides that “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, after a hearing under subsection (b) of this section, the court may reduce the duration of a sentence imposed on an individual for an offense committed when the individual was a minor if the court determines that: (1) the individual is not a danger to the public; and (2) the interests of justice will be better served by a reduced sentence.”¹ In making this determination, § 8-110 directs the court to consider the following factors:

(1) the individual’s age at the time of the offense;

(2) the nature of the offense and the history and characteristics of the individual;

(3) whether the individual has substantially complied with the rules of the institution in which the individual has been confined;

(4) whether the individual has completed an educational, vocational, or other program;

(5) whether the individual has demonstrated maturity, rehabilitation, and fitness to reenter society sufficient to justify a sentence reduction;

(6) any statement offered by a victim or a victim’s representative;

(7) any report of a physical, mental, or behavioral examination of the individual conducted by a health professional;

(8) the individual’s family and community circumstances at the time of the offense, including any history of trauma, abuse, or involvement in the child welfare system;

(9) the extent of the individual’s role in the offense and whether and to what extent an adult was involved in the offense;

(10) the diminished culpability of a juvenile as compared to an adult, including an inability to fully appreciate risks and consequences; and

(11) any other factor the court deems relevant.²

The statute requires the circuit court to hold a hearing on the motion where the individual and the State may present evidence, and the victim or a representative has the right to be heard. If the court denies the motion or grants it only in part, than the individual may file a second and third motion three years after the previous ruling.

The Purposes of the Act

The legislative history indicates that the General Assembly was motivated by the following information and concerns when passing the Act.

The diminished culpability of adolescents and their greater capacity for change

The judiciary has come to recognize that adolescents are less culpable for their criminal acts than adults and more capable of change as they age and mature. The Supreme Court has noted that “(1) juveniles lack maturity, leading to ‘an underdeveloped sense of responsibility,’ as well as ‘impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions’; (2) juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and peer pressure due, in part, to juveniles having less control over their environment or freedom ‘to extricate themselves from a criminogenic setting’; [and] (3) the personality of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult, and their traits are more transitory and less fixed.” ³

As a result, the traditional justifications for punishment apply with less force to juvenile offenders. The case for retribution is not as strong because of the lesser culpability of children. Harsh sentences are unlikely to deter other juveniles because “the characteristics that make juveniles more likely to make bad decisions also make them less likely to consider the possibility of punishment, which is a prerequisite to a deterrent effect.”⁴ The need to incapacitate the wrongdoer to protect public safety diminishes and disappears as children mature and become rehabilitated. Finally, a “meaningful possibility of release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” ⁵ incentivizes and thereby promotes rehabilitation.

The very low recidivism rate

Research has confirmed that most adolescents who commit serious crimes “age out” of criminal behavior and become law-abiding adults.⁶ This is particularly true of adolescents convicted of serious crimes, such as sex offenses and murder. “A meta-analysis of over thirty studies conducted over the past twenty years found that the recidivism rate for juvenile sex offenders is less than three percent” and that “among those juvenile offenders who did reoffend, the vast majority did so within three years of their first offense.” ⁷ Likewise, a recent study from Philadelphia found that among 174 people released after being sentenced to life without parole for murder committed when they were under 18 years old, only six (3.5%) were re-arrested, with only two of these cases (1%) resulting in a new conviction. ⁸

The need to redress severe racial disparities

In the Juvenile Restoration Act’s Racial and Equity Impact Note, the Maryland Department of Legislative Services (DLS) acknowledged the appalling racial disparities in which children get charged as adults and which children receive more severe sentences.

Citing data from 2019 (the most recent pre-pandemic year), DLS noted that “African American youth, or 10- to 17-year-old children identified as Black, are more than seven times as likely to be criminally charged as adults than their White peers in the State.”⁹ Although Black children comprised only 32% of Marylanders ages 10 to 17, they comprised 81% of children charged as adults.¹⁰ Additionally, approximately 80% of people serving 10 years or more in Maryland prisons are Black.¹¹ “Given existing data and scholarly research,” the Racial and Equity Impact Note informed the General Assembly, “the [Juvenile Restoration Act] has the potential to reduce the inequitable impacts on Black youth criminally charged as adults in the State.”¹²

The science of adolescent development

The judiciary’s recognition of the lesser culpability of adolescents is rooted in science. Adolescents are immature both in their emotional development and in the physiology of their brains. This makes them less mindful of the potential consequences of their actions, less able to effectively regulate strong emotions, more impulsive, more likely to take risks, and more susceptible to negative influences from peers and adults.

Preparing for Implementation

Shortly after the passage of the Juvenile Restoration Act, the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD) established the Decarceration Initiative to coordinate representation of indigent people eligible to file a motion for reduction of sentence under the Act, and to advocate for the adoption of similar “look back” provisions authorizing the reduction of sentences for other individuals who have served lengthy periods of incarceration.

The OPD’s Decarceration Initiative partnered with the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, the Family Support Network, former Baltimore City State’s Attorney Gregg Bernstein, and other organizations and advocates to prepare to represent eligible individuals on motions for reduction of sentence. This leadership group guided much of the initial work.

With help from the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, the OPD began the process of identifying eligible individuals and informing them of the new law and its potential relevance to their sentence. As of September 2022, approximately 160 eligible indigent individuals have received representation through the OPD.

The Act took effect at a challenging time for the OPD. In addition to its high caseloads, the pandemic had created a backlog of cases awaiting jury trials. To increase its bandwidth, the OPD and its aforementioned partners recruited dozens of pro bono attorneys and teamed up with law school professors and clinics from the University of Baltimore School of Law, the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, and the American University Washington College of Law to provide representation to eligible individuals.

Next, the OPD developed and presented training curricula and resources for legal teams (attorneys, social workers, paralegals, core staff, and others) working on these cases, and conducted bi-weekly drop-in meetings on Zoom. Finally, in July 2021, the OPD began assigning legal teams to represent individual clients.

Preparing the Motion for Sentence Reduction

The first step for an eligible individual to be considered for a sentence reduction is to file a motion in circuit court, typically to be decided by the sentencing judge if they are still on the bench. The motion typically addresses the legal background of the JRA, the factual circumstances unique to that client, the factors the court is required to consider under CP 8-110, and the proposed release plan.

To prepare the motion, a legal team typically meets with their client multiple times, gathers information from the court, prison and parole files, and contacts family members or close friends of the client. In some cases, the team may retain a psychologist to conduct a psychological evaluation or risk assessment of the client.

As part of preparing the motion, the legal team and the client typically develop a proposed release plan for meeting the client’s needs if they are released. OPD’s forensic social workers and reentry specialists have played a vital role in identifying client needs and connecting them with relevant services. Although not required by the Juvenile Restoration Act, these plans are an important part of helping the client to be successful on the outside and they build upon proven practices established with the “Unger defendants.”

Planning for Re-entry

People who were incarcerated as children and have been locked up for decades sometimes lack the life skills needed for independent living. They may have never lived on their own, paid rent, had a bank account, cooked food for themselves, or gotten a driver’s license. They also may not have the identification documents they need, like a birth certificate or a Social Security card, in order to receive income or services.

The world has also changed while they were imprisoned in unanticipated ways, large and small. Advances in technology are particularly challenging. Most job applications are done online, as are many other transactions. Smartphones are ubiquitous and used as phones, to text, as cameras, as wallets. Many stores have self-checkouts, which can cause a lot of anxiety among clients unaccustomed to them and terrified of being accused of shoplifting.

People incarcerated long-term often face chronic health conditions that create additional challenges, including diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, liver disease and cancer. They need to sign up for medical insurance, access primary care, and obtain prescriptions or medical supplies in the community. Many have to learn self-management skills for conditions like diabetes after relying on care from correctional medical providers in the Chronic Care Clinic. It is important to ensure continuity of any ongoing medical care, from daily medication to dialysis or even nursing care.

Pre-release re-entry planning

Re-entry planning is crucial for both the success of the motion and the success of the client. It requires assessing the needs of the client, identifying resources to meet those needs, and developing a release plan that can guide the client’s transition home and provide sufficient services and support.

For OPD clients, the legal team often includes a social worker from OPD’s Social Work Division or a re-entry specialist from its Community Engagement Reentry Project, who provide their expertise in release planning and experience assisting clients who have served lengthy prison sentences.

The Social Work Division’s licensed clinicians conduct comprehensive biopsychosocial assessments and utilize validated screening and assessment tools to determine a diagnosis (or diagnoses) for individuals with mental health and/or substance use disorders. In addition to identifying appropriate treatment for inclusion in the release plan, these assessments provide valuable background information for the motion and, where appropriate, the social worker may serve as a witness at the hearing.

Community Engagement Reentry Project staff utilizes its knowledge and connections with community service providers to ensure that clients are connected with the full range of services that they need. This may include treatment services, employment and workforce development, life skills training, GED and college planning, vital documents retrieval, housing, food security, clothing, technology training, transportation, and peer support.

DPSCS’s Social Work and Case Management Units have helped with this process by ordering birth certificates for prisoners who may be eligible for a sentence modification, conducting initial release planning with them, and working with OPD social workers on cases where the client has special needs. Many DOC Social Workers have known these same individuals for years through their participation in groups and workshops. When a court date and potential release date is scheduled DOC Social Workers can provide pre-release services to prepare individuals for release.

Connecting clients with community-based services and support

The release plans developed rely on the expertise, resources, and dedication of organizations within the community that have committed to assisting individuals returning home from prison. These include:

Re-entry service providers such as No Struggle No Success in Baltimore, The Bridge Center at Adam’s House in Prince George’s County’s, and Anne Arundel County Police Department's ReEntry & Community Collaboration Office.

Supportive transitional housing programs, such as T.I.M.E. Organization (“Teaching, Inspiring, Mentoring & Empowering the Minds of Tomorrow’s Leaders.”) in Baltimore, High Hopes also in Baltimore, The Way Homes in Anne Arundel County, and the Damascus House RISTORe Program (Rehabilitating Individuals So They Overcome Recidivism) in Prince George’s County.

Peer support and mentorship in meetings held by the Living Classrooms’ First Monday Empowerment Group and H.O.P.E. (Helping Oppressed People Excel), where members provide emotional and practical support for each other as they navigate the challenges of adjusting to life outside prison.

The Hearing

The Juvenile Restoration Act requires that the court hold a hearing on a motion for sentence reduction. After a motion is filed, courts have generally been scheduling hearings around two to six months later. In the wake of the pandemic, these hearings are sometimes done in person, sometimes via videoconference technology, and sometime through a hybrid of the two. At that hearing, the individual who filed the motion and the state are permitted to present evidence, and the victim or a victim’s representative has the right to notice and an opportunity to present a statement.

The movant's presentation

Counsel for the person filing the motion (i.e., the movant) usually begins with an opening statement summarizing the reasons to grant the motion and addressing any matters that may be of special concern to the judge. Counsel then normally calls witnesses, often to speak about the defendant’s character and growth and/or the release plan, and presents other documents and information that may be relevant. After the state’s presentation and any statement by a victim or victim’s representative, counsel for the movant normally responds to points they’ve raised. Additionally, the person seeking a sentence reduction has an opportunity to address the court in allocution at the end of the hearing.

The state's presentation

The state’s approach to these motions differs depending on the jurisdiction. The State’s Attorney’s Offices (SAOs) in Baltimore City and Prince George’s County, which together have the majority of these cases, have established units to review requests for sentence reduction on a case-by-case basis, supported such requests where they believe it is in the interest of justice to do so, and opposed motions where they belief release is not presently warranted. They often take an active role in recommending that certain community re-entry organizations be made a part of the release plan. Elsewhere, SAOs routinely oppose these motions for sentence reduction.

Statement by the victim or a victim's representative

SAOs make efforts to contact the victim or a family member to notify them of the hearing and ascertain their position on the request for sentence reduction regardless of whether they’ve formally requested notification of such hearings. A victim or victim’s family member is never required to attend the hearing. In cases where the SAO has reached a victim or victim’s representative, some opt not to participate at all, others don’t attend but ask the Assistant State’s Attorney to relay a written or oral statement to the judge, and still others attend the hearing. When a victim or a victim’s family members present their position to the court, these positions have varied widely. Some staunchly oppose any relief. Others speak about the impact of the crime but defer to the court as to the request for sentence reduction. Still others, having learned of the person’s remorse and rehabilitation, support release and use the hearing as an opportunity to convey to the person forgiveness and hope that they will lead a good life in the future.

Results and Trends

Statewide results

In the first year of the Juvenile Restoration Act, courts have decided 36 motions.¹³ In 23 of these cases – almost two-thirds – the courts granted the motion and released the defendant from prison. In four more cases, courts have granted the motion in part and reduced the duration of the sentence, but the individual has more time to serve before being released. In seven cases, the court reached the merits but denied the motion. In one case, the court denied the motion without a hearing because it found that the client was ineligible to file a motion; an appeal is pending. Finally, in one case, the individual was released on parole after the motion was filed but before the hearing; in that case, the court modified the sentence to place the individual on probation with conditions designed to maximize his chances of success.

Results by jurisdiction

Baltimore City has both the most JRA eligible cases and the most motions decided (22). More than eighty percent (80%) of those rulings granted the motion in whole or in part. The next three jurisdictions with the most rulings on these motions are Baltimore County (4 motions), Frederick County (2 motions) and Prince George’s County (2 motions), with six other jurisdictions having one ruling each. Aside from Baltimore City, the numbers of rulings in these jurisdictions is too small to suggest a trend or pattern.

Initial housing and support for released individuals

Twenty-four (24) of the individuals granted sentence reductions have been released: twenty-three (23) as a direct result of the sentence modification, and one (1) who was released on parole and subsequently had his sentence modified by the court. Twelve (12) of these individuals lived with family; twelve (12) went to a transitional housing program. Twenty (20) of the released individuals (approximately 83% of those released) received holistic re-entry support through a transitional housing program, a re-entry organization, or both.

Recidivism

At the end of the first year of the Juvenile Restoration Act, none of the 24 individuals who were released have been charged with a new crime or found to have violated probation. ¹⁴

Success Stories

What follows are short interviews with some of the people who have been released as a result of the Juvenile Restoration Act. To protect their privacy and that of their families, we are not using their full names, and are using photographs run through a filter. Interviews have been lightly edited for brevity. It is worth mentioning that nearly all of those we interviewed knew others who remained incarcerated and deserved a chance at life outside of prison but did not meet the specific JRA eligibility criteria. They hoped that those individuals would one day get that opportunity as well.

K.M.

K.M. was sentenced to life plus 30 years in prison for a crime he committed when he was seventeen. He was incarcerated for more than 37 years. In the years preceding his release, correctional officers commended him for helping to resolve conflicts and prevent violence in the prisons where he was incarcerated. In early 2022, he was released at the age of 55 pursuant to the Juvenile Restoration Act. Because he had struggled with addiction in the past, he went from prison to TIME Organization’s transitional housing program. After graduating from the program, he now lives with his sister.

What are you doing now?

I’m working at a PRP, a psychological rehabilitation program, as a field agent, going into the community and finding people who need help. I’m also working part-time for the Mayor’s Office going into hot spots and encourage people who are using drugs or are homeless to accept resources we have to help them get off the streets.

What were you looking forward to most when you were released?

Being with my family, and trying to establish and rebuild relationships with my daughter, and grandbabies. That’s the most important thing, rebuilding these relationships with family members, the ones who are still alive.

What advice would you have for others acclimating to life after release?

Patience. You’ve got to have patience. Everything is not going to go the way you want it to go. I’m fortunate to have a lot of family support and friend support, but some guys don’t. I had TIME to help me, and I’m trying to put myself in a position where I can help other people when they come out.

What was the best thing about coming home?

Probably my sister. We fought so hard for me to get out, and when it happened, I saw the relief on her face. And since I’ve been home, we’ve had the best time.

What do you hope to be doing in five years?

I want to have my own PRP. I want to get my AA degree and become an addictions counselor. My main focus would be guys who are in prison, because there’s a big drug problem in prison.

What would you like legislators to know?

There are a lot of brothers in there who deserve a second chance. There’s a lot of crime in the streets now, but I guarantee that if some people got a second chance, they’d help turn that around.

W.H.

W.H. was sentenced to life plus 30 years in prison for a crime that occurred when he was sixteen. After serving more than 30 years, he was released in the late spring of 2022 at the age of 47.

What are you doing now?

I’m living in a transitional home right now. I’m also doing some prisoner advocacy work for an organization called Life After Release in Prince George’s County.

What were you looking forward to most when you were released?

To be honest, not knowing if this would be a reality, I couldn’t think in terms of “I want to do this, I want to do that.” I just wanted to be free, to be with my family, to have options after being in a place where we didn’t have options.

What’s been challenging?

Learning how to shop. When I got home, Mr. Mitchell from NSNS took me to Walmart, and seeing all these people and all this stuff was overwhelming. So he took me and walked me through each aisle and showed me what was there, and broke down how to look through clothes and find ones that would work. In prison, we got issued clothes and didn’t really have options.

Registering for Medicaid and getting my health insurance together, getting acclimated to a computer and using passcodes. I tell people, if you don’t know, please ask questions. I tell my family and friends, don’t assume that I know something, walk me through the steps. Even crossing the street – learning to use crosswalks again. You have the mindset “I don’t want to break any laws” and so I’m extremely careful.

What do you hope to be doing in five years?

My wife lives in Georgia. We want to open up a re-entry program and transitional home there for people leaving prison.

What would you like legislators to know?

That a child is a child, regardless of the crime that he’s committed. And I’m not saying people shouldn’t be held accountable for the crimes they’ve committed. But I think one of the worst things they can do is put a child in an adult facility. It doesn't rehabilitate them. I was fortunate that some older people in prison encouraged me and helped me, but most people don't have that experience.

J.B.

J.B. was sentenced to life in prison when he was seventeen years old. He was released pursuant to the Juvenile Restoration Act after serving more than 26 years. About two weeks after he was released, he started working as a facility maintenance technician for a vehicle rental company.

What are you doing now?

I’m currently living in a transitional home owned by the Damascus House Foundation. I was recently moved to a lower-level home that provides me with more freedom, but still gives me structure and support. I am also working over 50 hours per week as a facility maintenance technician.

What were you looking forward to most when you were released?

Being able to walk out the front door and have the freedoms I did not have on the inside, like the ability to reconnect with family, go to the fridge, take walks, and walk in the grass. There is not one thing you look forward to more because everything is precious.

What advice would you have for others acclimating to life after release?

Don’t try too hard. If you let it happen, it will happen. Also, your worst day on the outside is ten times better than any day on the inside. When you’re in as long as I was, you learn to be appreciative of everything. Some people say I am doing too much with working over 50 hours per week, but I am just trying to do what needs to be done to have a good life.

What was the best thing about coming home? Being able to connect with people who matter to me. I am able to see these people at dinner rather than in a visiting room.

What do you hope to be doing in five years?

I hope to be off probation and truly be clear. I really enjoy my current job. I like being able to work directly with people and complete a variety of different tasks throughout my day. There is room for advancement in my current job, so I hope to stay here.

What would you like legislators to know?

There is a ton of value in the people serving life sentences. These individuals can provide value to the workforce and can help stabilize the community. We don’t want to see today’s youth go through what we went through. It is helpful to have someone in these communities telling youth directly their experiences, so they do not make the same mistakes.

G.G.

G.G. was sentenced to life suspended all but 50 years in prison for a crime he committed when he was sixteen. He was incarcerated for more than 28 years. In early 2022, he was released at the age of 44 pursuant to the Juvenile Restoration Act. He went from prison to living with his wife.

What are you doing now? I’m currently in barber school. I am also investing in real estate. When I am not in school or investing, I attend community events where I cut hair for students and the homeless, and I provide people with physical training.

What were you looking forward to most when you were released? There isn’t one particular thing you look forward to doing the most; you want to do everything.

What advice would you have for others acclimating to life after release? I would prepare for release beforehand. When doing my boxing training, I don’t give advice before they get into the ring; I train them. Therefore, I am not going to give you advice before you get into the ring of life. You must train before you are released to understand how this world has changed.

What was the best thing about coming home?

I’m not in prison; I’m free! I get to spend time with my wife. I now have the ability to grab my desires and can take my life into my own hands. I have the opportunity to prove those who doubted me wrong and prove I am anew.

What do you hope to be doing in five years? I hope to be financially free. I also hope to help the community and those who are still incarcerated. I want to travel, stay healthy, eat good food, and create stronger relationships.

What would you like legislators to know? Give those that are deserving a second opportunity. If they prove they are deserving, they should be provided a second chance.

J.P.

J.P. was sentenced to life in prison for a crime he committed when he was seventeen. He was incarcerated for more than 38 years. In early 2022, he was released at the age of 56 pursuant to the Juvenile Restoration Act. He went from prison to living with his wife.

What are you doing now?

I’m currently working as a tailor. I have lived with my wife in our own place since I was released.

What were you looking forward to most when you were released? When I found out I was going to be released I almost jumped out of my skin. I was very grateful and thankful to have a second chance at life. It was a breathtaking experience and a tremendous blessing.

What advice would you have for others acclimating to life after release? I would tell them to just breathe and take your time. I would also tell them to take it all in one moment and event at a time.

What was the best thing about coming home?

Being able to spend quality time with my wife and family. I also enjoyed being able to eat great food.

What do you hope to be doing in five years?

I hope to be off probation and to fully regain my citizenship as a free person. With respect to my career, I hope to be a peer recovering specialist who helps those with alcohol and drug issues. I want to promote the overall well being of these individuals.

What would you like legislators to know?

This legislation allows for people to have a second chance at life. It allows them to give back to communities and to share their life experiences with others. If we are able to turn one life around, it makes it all worth it.

Next steps

The first year of the Juvenile Restoration Act shows that, with an available mechanism, courts are able and willing to identify individuals who have been rehabilitated after serving a long period of incarceration and can be safely released. Robust re-entry planning and support services both support court decisions to reduce the terms of incarceration and promote successful transition back to the community. OPD recommends the following common sense measures to further reduce unnecessary incarceration and encourage successful returns home.

Allow other rehabilitated individuals to seek sentence reduction

• Emerging adults (18 to 25 year olds):

There is broad agreement that the age at which brain development is “complete” is approximately 25 years old.¹⁵ The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has recognized that “although adolescents may develop some adult-like cognitive abilities by late adolescence (roughly age 16), the cognitive control capacities needed for inhibiting risk-taking behaviors continue to develop through young adulthood (age 25).”¹⁶ “The neuroscientific evidence,” their report explains, “bolsters the argument that adolescents—including young adults in their 20s—are neurologically less mature than adults,” which “adds strength to the understanding that adolescent wrongdoing is unlikely to reflect irreparable depravity.”¹⁷ The report notes that “[w]hile older adolescents (or young adults) differ greatly in their social roles and tasks from younger adolescents, it would be developmentally arbitrary in developmental terms to draw a cut-off line at age 18.”¹⁸ And yet, this is what the Juvenile Restoration Act currently does. To better align the law with the science, the General Assembly should pass legislation to give rehabilitated people who committed crimes when they were emerging adults – neurologically, still adolescents – a similar opportunity to file a motion for reduction of sentence after they’ve been incarcerated for a substantial period of time.

• Older prisoners:

There are approximately 630 people in Maryland prisons who are 60 years of age or older and have served at least 15 years.¹⁹ Most of these individuals can be safely released. The Justice Policy Institute has observed that “[o]lder prisoners pose a low public safety risk due to their age, general physical deterioration, and low propensity for recidivism.”²⁰ Releasing older rehabilitated prisoners would save the state the high costs associated with caring for prisoners as their health deteriorates from a combination of age and the harsh conditions of imprisonment.²¹ It is also the humane thing to do. No one should spend the last weeks, months or years of their life in the bleak environs of a prison hospital ward unless absolutely necessary to protect the public, and it almost never is necessary. We should be better than this. The General Assembly should enact legislation to allow older prisoners who have served a substantial period of time to file motions seeking their release from incarceration.

Increase funding for organizations that implement these statutes

Releasing non-dangerous prisoners is much less expensive than keeping them incarcerated. The money saved can be invested in ways that promote public safety. Financially, this is a no-brainer. That said, it is important for the state to invest the resources necessary to implement such reforms effectively. Litigating motions for reduction of sentence, including release planning, requires lawyers, social workers, re-entry specialists, funds for experts, and appropriate support staff. A successful transition from prison to life in the community requires adequately funded re-entry organizations and, for some individuals, supportive transitional housing. Investing in these services today will save the state millions of dollars it would otherwise waste keeping non-dangerous people imprisoned.

Summary

The Juvenile Restoration Act (JRA), enacted in October 2021, allows individuals who committed crimes as minors and have served at least 20 years of their sentence to seek a reduction. This report analyzes the Act's implementation and its impact over the first year.

What the Act did

The JRA introduced two statutes: Criminal Procedure Article § 6-235 and § 8-110. § 6-235 prohibits life without parole sentences for juveniles tried as adults and eliminates mandatory minimums for such cases. § 8-110 grants the right to petition for sentence reduction after serving at least 20 years to individuals convicted as adults while minors. This provision mandates a hearing where the court considers factors such as the individual's age at the time of the crime, rehabilitation efforts, and the risk they pose to public safety. The court may reduce the sentence if it determines that the individual poses no danger and the interests of justice are better served by a reduced sentence. The individual can file a second and third motion three years after previous rulings.

The Purposes of the Act

The JRA reflects the understanding that adolescents, due to their underdeveloped brains and limited capacity for understanding consequences, exhibit diminished culpability compared to adults. Consequently, traditional justifications for punishment carry less weight in juvenile cases. Moreover, research consistently demonstrates a low recidivism rate among adolescents who commit serious crimes, indicating a strong capacity for rehabilitation as they mature. The Act also addresses the significant racial disparities in the criminal justice system, recognizing the disproportionate impact on Black youth who are charged as adults and receive harsher sentences.

Preparing for Implementation

The Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD) created the Decarceration Initiative to coordinate legal representation for eligible individuals seeking sentence reduction under the JRA. This initiative, partnered with organizations such as the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth and the Family Support Network, initiated efforts to identify eligible individuals and inform them about the JRA. To ensure adequate representation, the OPD collaborated with law school clinics and recruited pro bono attorneys.

Preparing the Motion for Sentence Reduction

The first step in seeking sentence reduction involves filing a motion in circuit court. This motion typically includes details of the JRA's legal framework, the individual's specific circumstances, relevant factors under CP 8-110, and a proposed release plan. Legal teams, which often include social workers and reentry specialists, conduct extensive research, gather information from prison files, and meet with the client to develop a release plan that addresses individual needs and facilitates a successful transition back into society.

Planning for Re-entry

Returning to life after prolonged incarceration presents significant challenges, including lacking essential life skills, navigating technological advancements, and managing potential health issues. Release planning is crucial for both the successful transition of individuals and the outcome of the sentence reduction motion.

Pre-release re-entry planning

The OPD incorporates social workers and reentry specialists into legal teams to assess client needs, connect them with relevant services, and create comprehensive release plans. These plans often involve a range of services, including treatment programs, employment support, life skills training, and housing assistance.

Connecting clients with community-based services and support

Re-entry plans rely heavily on partnerships with community organizations dedicated to assisting individuals returning from prison. These organizations offer a wide array of support, encompassing transitional housing, re-entry services, peer support groups, and mentorship programs.

The Hearing

The JRA requires a court hearing on each sentence reduction motion. At the hearing, the individual seeking reduction (the movant) and the state present evidence, and the victim or a representative has the right to provide a statement.

The movant's presentation

The movant's counsel typically presents an opening statement outlining reasons for granting the motion and addresses any potential concerns the judge might have. Witnesses are often called to provide testimony about the individual's character, growth, and the release plan. Additional documents and information are presented, and counsel responds to points raised by the state and the victim. The individual has the opportunity to address the court directly at the end of the hearing.

The state's presentation

The state's approach to these motions varies by jurisdiction. While some state's attorney offices actively review requests for sentence reduction and support them in the interest of justice, others routinely oppose them. Victims and their representatives are informed of the hearing and given the opportunity to participate, which often involves providing statements to the court. These statements can vary significantly, from strong opposition to support for release based on the individual's rehabilitation.

Results and Trends

Statewide results

During the JRA's first year, courts have decided 36 motions. In 23 cases, the motion was granted, leading to the individual's release from prison. In four cases, sentences were partially reduced, and in seven cases, the motion was denied. One case was dismissed due to ineligibility, and in another, the individual was released on parole before the hearing.

Results by jurisdiction

Baltimore City has the most JRA cases and decisions, with over 80% of rulings granting the motion in whole or in part. Other jurisdictions with significant rulings include Baltimore County, Frederick County, and Prince George's County.

Initial housing and support for released individuals

Of the 24 individuals released, 12 lived with family, and 12 entered transitional housing programs. Approximately 83% of those released received comprehensive re-entry support from community organizations and transitional housing programs.

Recidivism

In the JRA's first year, none of the 24 released individuals were charged with new crimes or violated probation.

Success Stories

The report includes brief interviews with several individuals released under the JRA, highlighting their experiences, challenges, and hopes for the future. Their stories illustrate the positive impact of the JRA and underscore the potential for successful reintegration into society for individuals who have served lengthy sentences.

Next steps

The report concludes with recommendations for expanding the JRA's benefits to include individuals who committed crimes when they were emerging adults (18 to 25 years old) and older prisoners who have served substantial time. It also emphasizes the need for increased funding to support the implementation of these provisions and to bolster re-entry organizations.

The report emphasizes that releasing non-dangerous individuals is both financially and morally beneficial, saving the state resources and fostering a more humane justice system. Investing in effective re-entry programs and supporting these individuals' transition back to the community is crucial for their success and for promoting public safety.

Summary

The Juvenile Restoration Act (JRA) of 2021 permits individuals who committed crimes as minors and served at least 20 years of their sentence to file for a reduction. This report assesses the Act's implementation and impact during its first year.

Over 200 individuals qualify for consideration under the JRA, with approximately 160 represented by the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) and its partners. The OPD's Decarceration Initiative has assembled a multidisciplinary legal team, including Assistant Public Defenders, law school clinics, and pro bono attorneys, to represent eligible individuals. These teams collaborate with social workers, re-entry specialists, and other experts to develop release plans and connect clients with community re-entry organizations.

What the Act did

The JRA introduced two statutes, Criminal Procedure Article § 6-235 and Criminal Procedure Article § 8-110, addressing sentencing for minors tried as adults. § 6-235 prohibits life without parole sentences for juveniles tried as adults and removes mandatory minimum sentences for juveniles sentenced as adults. § 8-110 allows individuals convicted as adults while minors and serving at least 20 years of a sentence imposed before October 1, 2021, to seek a sentence reduction. The court can reduce a sentence if it finds the individual poses no danger to public safety and the interests of justice are better served by a reduced sentence.

The Purposes of the Act

The JRA's legislative history reflects several key considerations:

• Diminished Culpability of Adolescents: The judiciary acknowledges that adolescents are less culpable for their crimes than adults and more capable of change as they mature.

• Low Recidivism Rate: Research demonstrates that most adolescents who commit serious crimes "age out" of criminal behavior.

• Redressing Racial Disparities: The JRA aims to address the disproportionate impact of harsh sentencing on Black youth charged as adults.

• Science of Adolescent Development: Neuroscience supports the notion that adolescents are less mature than adults, both emotionally and in brain development, making them more impulsive and susceptible to negative influences.

Preparing for Implementation

Following the JRA's passage, the OPD established the Decarceration Initiative to coordinate representation for eligible individuals and advocate for similar "look-back" provisions. Partnering with organizations like the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth and the Family Support Network, the OPD began identifying eligible individuals and informing them of the JRA. As of September 2022, approximately 160 eligible individuals received representation through the OPD.

Preparing the Motion for Sentence Reduction

The process of seeking a sentence reduction under the JRA begins with a motion filed in circuit court. Legal teams typically meet with their clients, gather information from court and prison records, and develop a release plan addressing the client's needs upon release.

Planning for Re-entry

Individuals incarcerated for extended periods may lack essential life skills, such as budgeting, independent living, and navigating technology. They may also face health challenges that require ongoing medical care. Therefore, pre-release re-entry planning is crucial to ensure a successful transition back to the community.

The OPD's Social Work Division and Community Engagement Reentry Project play a vital role in assessing client needs and connecting them with relevant services. These services include treatment, employment and workforce development, life skills training, housing, and peer support.

The Hearing

The JRA mandates a court hearing for sentence reduction motions. At the hearing, the individual seeking reduction, the state, and the victim or a victim's representative can present evidence and arguments.

Results and Trends

In the JRA's first year, courts have decided 36 motions. Of these, 23 resulted in the individual's release from prison, four in partial sentence reductions, and seven in denials. Baltimore City has the highest number of cases and rulings, with over 80% of rulings granting the motion in whole or in part.

Success Stories

The report highlights the stories of individuals who have been released under the JRA, emphasizing their challenges and successes as they re-integrate into society.

Next steps

The JRA's success highlights the need for further reform to reduce unnecessary incarceration and promote successful re-entry:

• Expand Eligibility: The General Assembly should consider expanding eligibility for sentence reduction to include individuals who committed crimes as emerging adults (18 to 25 years old) and older prisoners who have served lengthy sentences.

• Increase Funding: The state should invest in resources necessary to implement these reforms effectively, including funding for legal representation, re-entry organizations, and transitional housing.

The report concludes that the JRA has demonstrated its effectiveness in reducing unnecessary incarceration and promoting successful re-entry. By expanding eligibility and investing in necessary resources, the state can further enhance public safety and provide a second chance to individuals who have been rehabilitated.

Summary

The Juvenile Restoration Act (JRA), passed in 2021, allows people who were under 18 when they committed a crime and have served at least 20 years of their sentence to petition for a sentence reduction. This report examines the progress made in implementing the JRA and its successes during its first year.

Over 200 individuals are eligible for consideration under the JRA. The Office of the Public Defender (OPD) has assembled a team of attorneys, social workers, and re-entry specialists to represent eligible clients. This multidisciplinary team works to develop release plans and connect clients with community re-entry organizations to support their transition back into society.

The JRA is based on research indicating that most people who commit serious crimes as adolescents eventually mature, become rehabilitated, and can be safely released back into the community. This legislation empowers courts to reduce sentences if they determine the individual is not a danger to public safety and that a reduced sentence serves the interests of justice.

In the first year of implementation, courts have ruled on motions filed by 36 individuals. In a majority of these cases, courts have reduced sentences and released individuals from prison. The JRA has been particularly impactful in Baltimore City, where almost two-thirds of the motions decided so far originated. The success of the JRA demonstrates that with proper court mechanisms, re-entry planning, and community support, individuals who have served lengthy sentences can be safely released back into society.

What the Act did

The JRA consists of two statutes that address sentencing for juveniles tried as adults:

• Criminal Procedure Article § 6-235 prohibits courts from imposing sentences of life without parole on juveniles tried as adults and eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for children sentenced as adults.

• Criminal Procedure Article § 8-110 allows individuals convicted as adults when they were minors and who have served at least 20 years of their sentence to seek a sentence reduction.

This statute outlines the factors courts must consider when deciding a motion for sentence reduction:

1. The individual’s age at the time of the offense

2. The nature of the offense and the individual’s history and characteristics

3. The individual’s compliance with prison rules

4. Completion of educational, vocational, or other programs

5. Evidence of maturity, rehabilitation, and readiness to re-enter society

6. Statements from victims or their representatives

7. Reports from health professionals

8. The individual’s family and community circumstances at the time of the offense

9. The individual’s role in the offense

10. The diminished culpability of a juvenile compared to an adult

11. Any other relevant factors

The JRA requires a court hearing where both the individual and the state can present evidence, and victims or their representatives have the right to be heard.

The Purposes of the Act

The JRA was passed based on the following information and concerns:

• The diminished culpability of adolescents and their greater capacity for change

Adolescents have less developed brains and emotional maturity than adults, making them more impulsive, less able to fully understand the consequences of their actions, and more susceptible to negative influences. This immaturity makes them less culpable for their actions, and they are more likely to change as they grow and mature.

• The very low recidivism rate

Research shows that most adolescents who commit serious crimes eventually age out of criminal behavior and become law-abiding adults. Recidivism rates for juvenile offenders are extremely low, particularly for serious crimes like sex offenses and murder.

• The need to redress severe racial disparities

African American youth are significantly more likely than their white peers to be charged as adults in Maryland. This disparity is reflected in the prison population, where a large majority of those serving long sentences are Black. The JRA aims to address these inequities by providing a pathway for sentence reduction and release for individuals who have served lengthy sentences.

• The science of adolescent development

The judicial system's recognition of adolescents' lesser culpability is rooted in scientific understanding of brain development. Adolescents' developing brains make them less capable of controlling their impulses, weighing consequences, and resisting negative influences, which contributes to their greater capacity for change as they mature.

Preparing for Implementation

The OPD established the Decarceration Initiative to coordinate legal representation and advocate for similar “look back” provisions for other individuals who have served long prison sentences. The OPD partnered with various organizations, including the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, the Family Support Network, and former Baltimore City State’s Attorney Gregg Bernstein, to prepare for the implementation of the JRA.

The OPD began identifying and informing eligible individuals about the new law and its potential impact on their sentences. As of September 2022, approximately 160 eligible individuals have received representation through the OPD.

To increase its capacity to represent these individuals, the OPD recruited pro bono attorneys and partnered with law school clinics. The OPD also developed training programs and resources for legal teams working on these cases.

Preparing the Motion for Sentence Reduction

The first step for an eligible individual seeking a sentence reduction is to file a motion in circuit court. The motion typically addresses the legal background of the JRA, the client's unique circumstances, the factors the court must consider, and the proposed release plan.

Legal teams meet with their clients multiple times, gather information from court and prison records, and contact family members or friends. Psychologists may be retained to conduct evaluations and assess risks.

In addition to addressing legal arguments, the legal team works with the client to develop a release plan. These plans are not legally required but are crucial for helping clients succeed after release. Forensic social workers and re-entry specialists play a vital role in identifying client needs and connecting them with relevant services.

Planning for Re-entry

Individuals who were incarcerated for extended periods as children may lack life skills needed for independent living. They may lack experience with everyday tasks like paying rent, managing finances, obtaining identification documents, or using technology.

The world changes significantly while someone is incarcerated, and individuals may struggle to adapt to technological advancements, navigate everyday tasks, and access healthcare.

Pre-release re-entry planning

Re-entry planning is critical to the success of both the motion for sentence reduction and the individual's transition back into society. It involves assessing the individual's needs, identifying available resources, and developing a release plan that provides support and guidance for their transition home.

OPD’s Social Work Division and Community Engagement Reentry Project staff provide expertise in release planning and assist clients with a variety of needs, including mental health and substance use treatment, employment, life skills training, housing, food security, transportation, and peer support.

The Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (DPSCS) has also been involved in the re-entry process, offering services like ordering birth certificates, conducting pre-release planning, and working with OPD social workers on cases with special needs.

Connecting clients with community-based services and support

Release plans rely heavily on the expertise and resources of community organizations dedicated to assisting individuals returning from prison. These organizations include re-entry service providers, supportive transitional housing programs, and peer support groups.

The Hearing

The JRA mandates a court hearing on motions for sentence reduction. Hearings are typically scheduled two to six months after a motion is filed and can be held in person, via videoconference, or through a hybrid format.

The movant's presentation

Counsel for the individual filing the motion typically begins with an opening statement summarizing the reasons for granting the motion. Witnesses may be called to discuss the individual's character and growth or the release plan, and other relevant documents and information are presented.

The state's presentation

State's Attorney's Offices (SAOs) in some jurisdictions have established units dedicated to reviewing requests for sentence reduction and supporting or opposing motions based on individual circumstances. In other jurisdictions, SAOs routinely oppose motions for sentence reduction.

Statement by the victim or a victim's representative

SAOs contact victims or their family members to inform them of the hearing and ascertain their position on the request for sentence reduction. While victims are not required to participate, some choose to provide statements to the court, either in person or through the Assistant State's Attorney.

Results and Trends

Statewide results

In the first year of the JRA, courts have decided 36 motions. 23 motions were granted, resulting in the release of the individual from prison. Four motions were granted in part, reducing the sentence but not immediately releasing the individual. Seven motions were denied after reaching the merits of the case. One motion was denied without a hearing due to the individual's ineligibility, and that decision is currently being appealed. In one case, the individual was released on parole after filing a motion but before the hearing, and the court modified the sentence to place the individual on probation.

Results by jurisdiction

Baltimore City has the highest number of JRA-eligible cases and decisions, with 22 motions decided. Over 80% of these rulings granted the motion in whole or in part.

Initial housing and support for released individuals

Twenty-four individuals have been released as a result of the JRA. Of these, 12 lived with family and 12 resided in transitional housing programs. Twenty individuals received comprehensive re-entry support through transitional housing programs, re-entry organizations, or both.

Recidivism

As of the end of the first year of the JRA, none of the 24 released individuals have been charged with a new crime or found to have violated probation.

Success Stories

The report includes interviews with individuals who have been released under the JRA, highlighting their experiences with the program and their hopes for the future.

K.M.

• Served over 37 years in prison

• Works as a field agent for a psychological rehabilitation program

• Emphasizes the importance of family support, patience, and helping others

W.H.

• Served over 30 years in prison

• Lives in transitional housing and works in prisoner advocacy

• Highlights the challenges of adapting to everyday life after decades of incarceration

J.B.

• Served over 26 years in prison

• Works as a facility maintenance technician and lives in transitional housing

• Emphasizes the value of opportunities and the need for patience during re-entry

G.G.

• Served over 28 years in prison

• Attends barber school, invests in real estate, and provides community services

• Stresses the importance of preparation for release and taking advantage of second chances

J.P.

• Served over 38 years in prison

• Works as a tailor and lives with his wife

• Encourages others to take their time and appreciate the opportunities they have

Next steps

The success of the JRA demonstrates the potential to reduce unnecessary incarceration and promote successful re-entry. The OPD recommends the following steps to further reduce incarceration and support the successful reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals:

Expand eligibility for sentence reduction

• Emerging adults (18 to 25 year olds): Research indicates that brain development continues into the mid-twenties, suggesting that individuals who commit crimes between ages 18 and 25 are still neurologically adolescents and deserving of consideration for sentence reduction.

• Older prisoners: Older prisoners pose a low risk to public safety and often have served lengthy sentences. The state should consider legislation to allow older prisoners who have served a substantial amount of time to file motions for sentence reduction.

Increase funding for organizations that implement these statutes

Releasing non-dangerous prisoners is more cost-effective than keeping them incarcerated. The state should invest in resources necessary to effectively implement these reforms, including funding for legal representation, re-entry planning, community-based services, and supportive transitional housing.

Summary

The Juvenile Restoration Act (JRA) lets people who were under 18 when they committed a crime and have served at least 20 years in prison ask the court to shorten their sentence. This report explains how the law worked in the first year.

The JRA is based on the idea that most kids who commit crimes grow up and become good people. The law allows judges to shorten sentences only if they think the person is not dangerous and that shortening the sentence is the right thing to do.

In its first year, the JRA has helped many people. Judges have shortened sentences and released people from prison in most cases. This shows that when courts work with re-entry programs, many people who have been in prison for a long time can safely return to their communities.

What the Act did

The JRA made some important changes to the law. It made sure that kids who are tried as adults can’t be sentenced to life in prison without the chance to get out. It also said that judges don’t have to give kids who are tried as adults the longest possible sentence.

The JRA also created a way for people who were kids when they were sent to prison and have already been in prison for 20 years to ask for a shorter sentence. Judges can decide to shorten a sentence if they believe the person is not dangerous and that the best thing to do is to let them out of prison.

The Purposes of the Act

The JRA was made because lawmakers learned some important things about kids who commit crimes.

Kids aren’t as responsible as adults.

Kids are still growing and learning, so they might not fully understand the consequences of their actions. They might also be more likely to get into trouble because they’re influenced by friends or adults around them.

Most kids don’t keep committing crimes as they get older.

Research shows that most kids who commit crimes grow up and become good people.

There are big differences in how kids of different races are treated in the legal system.

Black kids are much more likely to be tried as adults and given longer sentences than white kids. This isn’t fair.

How Kids’ Brains Work

Scientists know that kids’ brains are still developing, even when they are teenagers. This means that kids might not be able to think clearly or make good decisions. This is another reason why it’s important to be fair to kids in the legal system.

Preparing for Implementation

The Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD) created a special program to help people who could get a shorter sentence under the JRA. They worked with other groups to get ready to help these people.

The OPD had to find people who could benefit from the JRA. Then, they had to explain the new law to these people and explain how it could help them. They also started working with lawyers, social workers, and other experts to help people who wanted to ask the court for a shorter sentence.

Preparing the Motion for Sentence Reduction

The first step is to file a formal request with the court asking for a shorter sentence. This is called a motion. The motion explains the law and why the person deserves a shorter sentence. It also includes a plan for what the person will do once they’re released from prison.

Lawyers usually meet with the person many times to learn about them and their case. They look at their court records and talk to family and friends. Sometimes, they even get a psychologist to help them understand the person’s situation.

Planning for Re-entry

Many people who have been in prison for a long time need help getting used to life outside. They might not know how to find a job, get a place to live, or handle their own money.

Pre-release re-entry planning

It’s important to make a plan to help people when they get out of prison. This plan should figure out what they need and how to get the help they need.

Social workers can help with this. They can talk to the person about what they need and connect them with services like housing, job training, and counseling.

Connecting clients with community-based services and support

There are many groups that help people who are getting out of prison. These groups can help with finding a job, getting a place to live, and staying out of trouble.

The Hearing

After a motion is filed, the court holds a hearing. This is a chance for the person, the state, and the victim to tell the judge why they think the sentence should or shouldn’t be shortened.

The movant's presentation

The lawyer for the person asking for a shorter sentence will explain why the judge should shorten the sentence. They might call witnesses to talk about the person’s character and what they have done to change.

The state's presentation

The state’s attorney might want to keep the person in prison. They will tell the judge why they think this is the best thing to do.

Statement by the victim or a victim's representative

The victim or a family member of the victim can also talk to the judge. They might want the person to stay in prison, or they might be willing to forgive the person and want them to be released.

Results and Trends

In the first year of the JRA, judges have decided 36 motions. Most of the time, judges have shortened the sentence and released the person from prison.

Statewide results

Out of 36 cases, judges shortened the sentence and released the person from prison in 23 cases. In 4 cases, they shortened the sentence but the person still had to stay in prison for a little while longer. In 7 cases, judges decided not to shorten the sentence.

Results by jurisdiction

Baltimore City has the most people who are eligible for the JRA. Most of the judges in Baltimore City have shortened sentences and released people from prison.

Initial housing and support for released individuals

Many people who have been released from prison live with their families. Others move into transitional housing programs. These programs provide support and help people adjust to life outside of prison.

Recidivism

In the first year of the JRA, none of the people who were released have been arrested for a new crime. This means that the law is working and that people are staying out of trouble.

Success Stories

Many people who were released from prison have been able to make positive changes in their lives. They have gotten jobs, started families, and given back to their communities.

**K.M. **

K.M. was in prison for more than 37 years. He got out at age 55. He now works as a field agent for a psychological rehabilitation program, helping people in the community. He also works part-time for the Mayor’s Office, helping people who are homeless or struggling with addiction.

W.H.

W.H. was in prison for over 30 years. He got out at age 47. He is now living in a transitional home and working with a group that helps people get used to life after prison.

J.B.

J.B. was in prison for over 26 years. He got out at age 43. He now works as a facility maintenance technician and lives in a transitional home. He is grateful for the second chance he has been given.

G.G.

G.G. was in prison for over 28 years. He got out at age 44. He is now going to barber school and is working in real estate. He also cuts hair for people in the community.

J.P.

J.P. was in prison for over 38 years. He got out at age 56. He is now a tailor and lives with his wife. He wants to use his experience to help others.

Next steps

The JRA is a great start. But we can do even more to help people who have been in prison for a long time.

Give more people the chance to get a shorter sentence

People who were between the ages of 18 and 25 when they committed a crime should be allowed to ask for a shorter sentence. This is because their brains are still developing and they might not be fully responsible for their actions.

Also, people who have been in prison for a long time, even if they were adults when they committed the crime, should have the chance to ask for a shorter sentence. Many older people in prison are not dangerous and would be better off living in their communities.

Give more money to help people get back on their feet

It costs a lot of money to keep people in prison. We can save money by releasing people who are not dangerous. We can also use this money to help people get back on their feet and stay out of trouble.

We need to give more money to lawyers, social workers, and re-entry programs so that they can help more people who have been in prison. We also need to give more money to housing programs so that people have a safe place to live when they get out of prison.

We can help people who have been in prison and make our communities safer by making sure that everyone has the chance to get a second chance.