Going Soft on Crime

House Bill 121 seeks to turn back the clock...

by Mike McDermott

Every now and again Maryland’s General Assembly can be counted on to get something right. This was true when, years ago, they passed legislation that placed mandatory minimum sentences in place for repeat drug offenders. It was crafted in response to a real problem with the courts and a system that allowed repeat offenders (career criminals) to serve minimal sentences before being eligible for parole.

Our prisons had become revolving doors and, with a growing crime problem, legislators took action. At the prompting of criminal justice and other community leaders, they adopted mandatory minimums sentencing guidelines to address the more serious criminal drug element. In many cases this meant a criminal caught taking another bite of the apple would be required to serve a minimum sentence between 2 and 40 years behind bars before they could even think about being paroled.

Even the threat of a 10-year minimum sentence created an environment where those charged became more receptive to plea bargain offers from the State’s Attorneys. This ultimately reduced the demand placed on an overburdened court system by limiting the number of jury trials required. Further, it lessened the impact on crime victims and witnesses by eliminating the need to testify. Acceptance of pleas in these cases vanquished the appeals process further reducing pressure on the system.

It is safe to say, there are more marks in the plus column on the balance sheet with this law in place. Yet, in a move to turn back the clock, the Baltimore City Delegation and their Chairman, Delegate Curt Anderson, are pushing ahead with HB-121 in an effort to further soften life for criminals in Maryland.

The bill has suffered amendments, as most do, but it is still full of language that would damage a system that has been working to the benefit of Marylanders. If passed into law, it would strike the minimum mandatory sentences and replace them with discretionary sentences that could be imposed by the trial judge. It is a bait and switch tactic where you trade your guaranteed dinner for what could amount to an empty plate.

The delegates pushing this bill designed it to “appear” tougher saying, “but we doubled the sentencing possibilities from 10 to 20 years”. This is true, but they know full well that it would take a 20-year sentence to see an inmate come anywhere close to serving 10. In reality, it would be closer to 7, and this is the very reason that mandatory minimum sentences were sought out in the first place.

While we are under siege with a heroin epidemic, going soft on the dealers and traffickers that are poisoning our children seems hardly appropriate. In fact, it amounts to surrender. Our State’s Attorneys need the threat of mandatory sentences hanging over the heads of career criminals, and our court system needs the relief that a functional plea agreement often provides.

If HB-121 becomes law, it will only benefit the criminal and it will increase the burden on tax payers. If passed, it will only mean that our streets will be occupied with more drug dealers and those they make dependent upon their poison. It will constitute another step in the wrong direction for Maryland. The vote in the House Judiciary Committee came down along party lines with 8 Republican votes against and the bare minimum 12 Democrat votes in favor. Seems a few Democrats sat this one out on the sidelines.

It is perhaps appropriate that the hearing date for HB-121 in the Maryland Senate falls on April 1st; for changing the law, in this case, would constitute a foolish act.