|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM MIDDLE RANGE ISSUE ISSUE: SENTENCING GUIDELINES SUMMARY: The 1996 General Assembly passed legislation to establish the Maryland Commission on Criminal Sentencing Reform to review Maryland's sentencing laws and make recommendations to change these laws. The Commission issued its Final Report in December, 1998. Maryland presently relies upon recommended guidelines that have a range of sentences depending upon the severity of the offense and the offender's criminal history. This method of using voluntary guidelines was approved by the General Assembly in 1983 (See Article 27, Section 643C), and applies the Maryland Sentencing Guidelines as developed by the Sentencing Guidelines Advisory Board, consisting of circuit court judges, criminal justice agency officials and members of the Bar. The key elements of Maryland's policy with regard to sentencing are: (1) training for judges, court personnel, public defenders, states attorneys, and parole and probation officers in the application of the guidelines; (2) A Maryland Sentencing Guidelines Manual with matrices to aid judges in the application of appropriate sentences; and, (3) a data collection unit within the Administrative Office of the Courts that maintains statistics to track sentencing patterns, inconsistent sentencing, and compliance rates. Supporters of the idea of having a sentencing advisory body set up to advise the General Assembly question the dominant role of judges in sentencing. They believe that the correctional system will be better served if other "stakeholders" (criminal justice professionals, victims' rights advocates, law enforcement officers) are included in the process to balance the views of judges and lawyers. The advocates of this approach claim that their goal is to insure that in this era of limited resources, violent criminals serve the maximum amount of prison time, while alternate forms of punishments are reserved for nonviolent lawbreakers. To them, too many hardened criminals are getting lenient treatment, while valuable prison space is occupied by offenders who have been convicted of less serious crimes. Opponents of the Sentencing Commission do not feel that the Maryland corrections system requires an extensive overhaul. They challenge supporters of the sentencing commission concept to document their case with statistical evidence and credible examples of abuse of sentencing guidelines used in Maryland. To bolster their arguments they have produced their own statistics to show that the overwhelming number of prisoners convicted of serious crimes in the state are sentenced within the accepted guidelines and serve at least 60% of their sentence in correctional institutions. They point out that the disproportionately large percentage of victims' rights advocates, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers in the makeup of the proposed Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission is an indication of the real intention of supporters of the bill--more and longer mandatory sentences. Legislation extending the life of the Maryland Sentencing Commission passed the 1999 General Assembly late in the session after an amendment was added to the bill establishing a procedure by which a three-judge panel by a unanimous vote could override a statutorily-imposed mandatory sentence. During the debate over the sentencing revisory power of judges during the 2001 session, the absence of any statistics on the use of this practice led proponents to seek amendments directing the Maryland Sentencing Commission to compile the appropriate data. While these amendments did not pass, officials at the Commission reported that they will collect the information and report back to the General Assembly in 2002. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Monitor the proceedings of the Maryland Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. SAMPLE LEGISLATION: NOTE: See MIDDLE RANGE ISSUE: Judicial Power to Revise Criminal Sentences.
|
||||||||||
