The problem with Md. parole hearings
Dan Rodricks’ recent column, “Pain, anger, and a plea for parole” (April 26), offered a rare glimpse into the emotionally charged environment of open parole hearings, but it failed to provide the larger context in which these exchanges take place. The Maryland Parole Commission’s procedures for open parole hearings create an environment that is dehumanizing and traumatic for victims and for offenders, who spend decades working to become productive members of society only to learn that parole is rarely granted, especially if the victim opposes release. This works an injustice in many cases, and is likely unconstitutional in cases involving juveniles serving life sentences.
For the past year, we have represented Carleana Kirby through the University of Baltimore’s Juvenile Justice Project, which represents people sentenced as juveniles to life in prison.
Open parole hearings happen at the request of a victim and offer victims, including family members of the direct victim, the opportunity to describe the impact of the crime. In Ms. Kirby’s case, the commission followed its regular practice of forbidding our client from turning to face the victim. At no point was Ms. Kirby permitted to make eye contact or address the family directly to express her remorse. Indeed, Ms. Kirby has not had the opportunity to express her remorse to the victim’s family at any point during her imprisonment. The Department of Corrections strictly prohibits imprisoned people from making any contact with victims and their families. It is an indictment of our criminal justice system that, 18 years after the crime, the only outlet the victim’s family had to express their pain and the only opportunity Ms. Kirby had to express remorse was during an adversarial hearing staged so that neither the victim’s family nor Ms. Kirby could see the other face-to-face.
While the anguish and pain that a victim’s family feels are real and, unfortunately, may never fade, imprisoned people do change over time, especially those who committed crimes as juveniles and are now entering middle age. For juveniles serving life sentences like Ms. Kirby, the Maryland Parole Commission is required as a matter of both state and constitutional law to consider the unique attributes of youth that render adolescents both less culpable and more likely to change into better people over time. Unfortunately, in Maryland, the people who can best speak to our clients’ successful maturation into a caring and responsible adult are shut out of parole hearings. Only the victim’s family may make a statement during the hearing. Forbidden to speak at the hearing are our clients’ family members, clergy, correctional officers, attorneys and other supporters who can speak to the change they’ve seen over the years as these juvenile lifers have quite literally grown up in prison. This is an obvious disadvantage to our clients, but it also robs the victim’s family of an opportunity for some measure of healing upon learning more about the tremendous work the clients have undertaken to redeem themselves and repay their debt to society.
Our parole system should function to assess rehabilitation of people serving parole eligible sentences. Turning it into a cruel forum for victim-offender encounters, unmediated by professionals who know how to facilitate such emotionally painful conversations, distorts both the process and the outcome.