Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Parole Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Geriatric and medical parole bills remain under negotiation over mandatory risk assessments

2766600 · March 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 181 would expand access to geriatric parole and allow requests from incarcerated people or representatives; sponsors and House conferees are negotiating whether mandatory risk assessments should apply to all geriatric parole applicants or be limited to life‑sentenced inmates to avoid backlog delays,

Senate Bill 181 would permit medical and geriatric parole requests from incarcerated people, family members or other representatives and raise the qualifying geriatric age to 65 in the Senate version; the measure’s sponsors and House conferees are negotiating whether mandatory risk assessments should apply broadly.

The vice chair presented the bill on behalf of Senator Shelley Hettleman and said Maryland law currently allows medical and geriatric parole but the requests are rarely granted. The Senate version raises the qualifying age to 65 and would allow people who have served a continuous 20 years of a sentence (with certain disciplinary conditions) to be eligible for geriatric parole. The parties have reached agreement on many provisions but disagree over whether a mandatory risk assessment should apply to all geriatric applicants or be limited—per current practice—to those serving life sentences.

Sponsors said a broad, mandatory risk‑assessment requirement could worsen an existing backlog of assessments and slow release decisions; House supporters have proposed adding more psychologists to clear the backlog. The committee heard that negotiations are close and that the remaining question is how to target risk assessments so they provide individualized risk information without creating procedural delays.

No formal committee action was taken; sponsors said they were continuing negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions before further committee consideration.