Correctional Services - Geriatric and Medical Parole
SB181 revises Maryland’s parole laws for two groups of incarcerated individuals: those seeking medical parole and older incarcerated individuals eligible for geriatric parole consideration. For medical parole, the bill broadens and clarifies the standards the Maryland Parole Commission must use, including new definitions for “chronically debilitated or incapacitated” and “terminal illness,” expanded medical and discharge information the Commission must review, and a requirement that a licensed physician determine the person meets the medical criteria. It also allows the incarcerated individual or representative to request a meeting with the Commission in specified circumstances, requires the Commission to adopt implementing regulations, and removes the Governor’s authority to disapprove a medical parole grant for a person serving a life sentence.
For geriatric parole, the bill creates a new section requiring the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services to identify eligible incarcerated individuals and submit their names to the Commission. The new process applies to people who are at least 65 years old, have served at least 20 years, are not sex-offender registrants or eligible registrants, are serving sentences with parole eligibility, and have no Category 1A disciplinary infractions in the prior three years. The Commission must order risk assessments for certain individuals, hold parole hearings, and consider the person’s age and how age reduces recidivism risk. The bill also sets recurring hearing timelines, requires annual reporting to the Justice Reinvestment Oversight Board, and directs the Commission to adopt regulations and provide annual notice of the rules to affected incarcerated individuals.
SB181 also amends the Justice Reinvestment funding provisions so that some savings generated by reduced incarceration may be recommended for the Maryland Parole Commission to hire psychologists to perform geriatric parole risk assessments. The bill repeals an older Criminal Law provision related to geriatric parole and replaces it with the new Correctional Services framework. It takes effect October 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it changes how Maryland evaluates parole for medically fragile and older incarcerated people, shifts some decision-making and procedural requirements onto the Parole Commission and Department, and removes the Governor from the final approval process for medical parole in life-sentence cases. It also creates new statutory duties for risk assessment, hearing scheduling, reporting, and regulation-making, while tying implementation to Justice Reinvestment savings and staffing support.
The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history appears generally favorable, with the bill passing both chambers by substantial margins after one rejected floor amendment. The main points of contention likely centered on the scope of parole expansion, the age and time-served thresholds, the exclusion of people with sex-offender registration eligibility, and the removal of gubernatorial veto power over medical parole for life-sentenced individuals. Supporters appear to have favored a more structured, medically informed, and age-sensitive parole process, while opponents likely raised public safety and release-criteria concerns.
SB181 amends the Correctional Services Article to create a new geriatric parole process and substantially revise medical parole standards and procedures. It also repeals an older Criminal Law geriatric parole provision, updates State Government provisions governing Justice Reinvestment savings, and authorizes funding for Parole Commission risk-assessment staffing. The bill imposes new duties on the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and the Maryland Parole Commission, including identifying eligible individuals, ordering assessments, holding hearings, considering age-related recidivism risk, and adopting regulations.
The bill appears to have received broad legislative support, as reflected by its passage in both chambers with comfortable margins. The rejection of a floor amendment suggests there was some disagreement over specific details, but the final votes indicate the core policy was acceptable to a majority. Overall, the discussion and voting history suggest a generally reform-oriented sentiment focused on expanding and formalizing parole consideration for older and medically vulnerable incarcerated individuals.
The most notable areas of contention are the expansion of parole eligibility and the reduction of barriers to release for older and medically fragile incarcerated individuals. Specific disputed issues include the age threshold for geriatric parole, the required years served, the exclusion of people eligible for sex-offender registration, the new requirement for physician-based medical findings, and the repeal of the Governor’s ability to disapprove medical parole for life-sentenced individuals. Public safety advocates would likely emphasize recidivism and victim concerns, while supporters would emphasize age-related decline in risk, humanitarian considerations, and the need for medically appropriate community placement.