Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Lawmakers weigh restoring parole in Maine after 1976 abolition; advocates cite rehabilitation, DOC warns on costs
Loading...
Summary
Representative Nina Milliken presented LD 19 41 to reestablish parole, prompting broad public testimony from system‑impacted people, survivors and advocacy groups about rehabilitation and cost savings. The Department of Corrections opposed the bill as drafted, citing administrative burden and arguing that secured community confinement already provides a supervised alternative.
Representative Nina Milliken opened the public hearing for LD 19 41 by describing the case for reestablishing discretionary parole in Maine, a state that abolished parole in 1976. Milliken said the bill would create a mechanism for review — not an entitlement to release — and argued a parole system would allow review of long sentences imposed under older sentencing regimes and provide incentives for rehabilitation. "Parole does not guarantee release. It guarantees review," she told the committee.
Supporters who testified included formerly incarcerated people, family members, restorative justice organizations and public‑safety and healthcare professionals. Witnesses described education and treatment programs inside prisons, the financial cost of long incarcerations, and the incentive effect parole can provide. Several survivors’ groups and victim advocates testified that a modern parole system can be built with robust, trauma‑informed victim‑notification and participation mechanisms; some organizations said they supported the bill with conditions to strengthen victim services and community resources.
Opposition came from the Department of Corrections and some legislators who said the bill, as written, would create large administrative duties and costs — a new, seven‑member board, rapid timelines for records and hearings, actuarial risk‑assessment obligations, and additional court processes for parole violations and record disputes. Deputy Commissioner Anthony Cantu testified that the department already operates a supervised community confinement program (SCCP) that places eligible residents in community settings for the final months of a sentence and that expanding SCCP or addressing housing and services gaps might be a less disruptive path. "The department has consistently expressed the opinion that reinstating parole is unnecessary," he said.
Richard Harberger, chair of the current Maine Parole Board (which handles out‑of‑state parole cases), urged the committee to reintroduce parole; other law‑enforcement and corrections professionals told the committee parole historically reduced recidivism when properly resourced.
Committee members asked for detailed SCCP demographic and outcome data, cost comparisons of incarceration versus community supervision, and information on how many residents would be eligible under the bill’s criteria. The department agreed to provide demographic and program data for the work session. The sponsor and committee also signaled proposed amendments — including eligibility windows, revocation standards and victim‑notification provisions — would be considered at the next meeting.
No vote was taken; the committee scheduled follow‑up work to resolve implementation, fiscal and victim‑service questions before any markup.
