Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel hears proposal to let judges use probation-before-judgment for defendants with autism or intellectual disability
Summary
The Maryland House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on HB 940, a bill sponsored by Delegate Kaufman that would require courts to consider probation-before-judgment (PBJ) for defendants diagnosed with autism or intellectual disability while preserving public-safety and victim input requirements.
Delegate Dana Kaufman introduced HB 940 and asked the committee for a favorable report on a bill he said was brought at the request of the Autism Society. The measure would require courts to consider placing defendants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder or an intellectual disability on probation before judgment, rather than entering a conviction, where doing so is consistent with public safety and the views of the state’s attorney and the victim or the victim’s representative. “The bill recognizes that not all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are incompetent to stand trial but their disability should still be considered before sentencing,” Delegate Kaufman told the committee.
Supporters described repeated examples and studies indicating that people with autism can act on impulse or misread social cues rather than act with criminal intent. Kimber Watts of the Office of the Public Defender’s Forensic Mental Health Division told the committee that clinicians and defense counsel often see people who look uncooperative or unremorseful in court but are actually confused by the process; she said judges should be able to account for those impairments when deciding sanctions. Delancey Allred of the Autism Society of America and Brian Kilmar, an advocate who worked on similar Virginia legislation, also urged the panel to adopt the bill, describing potential benefits such as community-based therapy and supports rather than incarceration.
Lawmakers raised constitutional and procedural questions. Committee members asked whether limiting PBJ by diagnosis could invite Fourteenth Amendment challenges; witnesses pointed to Department of Justice guidance and other laws for people with disabilities and said the bill preserves prosecutorial input and public-safety safeguards. Members also pressed whether school records or late diagnoses would qualify; panelists explained clinical diagnosis and adaptive-functioning evidence often underlie intellectual-disability findings and that courts could order neuropsychological testing when warranted. Supporters supplied a draft amendment package submitted earlier to the committee addressing evidentiary and procedural details.
The bill drew many family and self‑advocate witnesses who described personal harm when disabilities were not considered in sentencing and said PBJ or diversionary periods could allow defendants to remain in the community while completing supports. Opponents did not speak in the record during the hearing. Committee members asked staff and counsel to circulate the sponsor’s proposed amendments and the judiciary staff analysis before deliberation. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 940 at the hearing.
