David R. Blumberg, chairman of the Maryland Parole Commission, during a visit to offer parole at the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women in Jessup on Feb. 12. (Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post)

In the March 20 Metro article “The lifeline for Md. inmates,” a profile of David R. Blumberg, chairman of the Maryland Parole Commission, Mr. Blumberg likens his role to that of a judge yet also discusses relying on his instincts when making decisions regarding whether those serving a life sentence should receive a second chance. Therein lies the problem with Maryland’s parole system.

Parole commissioners are not judges, and many have little or no legal training at all. Unlike for judges, who are bound by the rules of criminal procedure and evidence and must make detailed findings of their rulings, the statutes and regulations governing parole give commissioners wide latitude regarding how to exercise their discretion. Maryland law provides no discernible legal standard for release on parole. The result is that many of the clients I represent are refused release without a reasoned explanation. Those decisions perpetuate injustice and, in the case of individuals serving life sentences for crimes they committed as juveniles, are quite likely unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling that juveniles must receive a meaningful opportunity for release.

To fulfill our constitutional obligations to those convicted as juveniles and our civic obligation to end mass incarceration, we must have a system that relies on more than instinct.

Lila Meadows, Baltimore

The writer is a clinical teaching fellow in the
Juvenile Justice Project at the
University of Baltimore School of Law.