More News

The convicted armed robber who stands accused of murdering Lindsay Marie Harvey and leaving her body by a trash bin in Gaithersburg last spring had served only a fraction of his sentence before he was released from prison. The sentence was 60 years, with all but 12 years suspended. Through a combination of good behavior and lenient Maryland rules that allow judges to reconsider the original penalty, Shawn M. Henderson was back on the streets after six years behind bars.

Henderson's case is the catalyst for renewed calls for reforms in the court and penal systems. One Montgomery County police veteran called the case not only frustrating, but "emblematic of Maryland's system of revolving-door justice which puts too many people at risk."

Other aspects of this case are galling. Henderson, after receiving his freedom, had apparently failed to check in with his probation officer just months before Harvey's slaying, a lapse that could have put him back behind bars.

In addition, Montgomery's judges have been remiss in filing the paperwork required so a state commission can track how often courts reduce or modify sentences. (Of more than 3,000 sentencing reconsideration requests in two years, Montgomery County judges made modifications to 509 sentences.)

Since the mid-1980s, a majority of states have enacted "truth-in-sentencing" laws and other changes to help make sure the worst criminals spend a substantial portion of their terms behind bars, usually a mandatory 85 percent. Maryland has watered-down practices.

In enacting the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, in an era when cracking down on violent crime was politically expedient, Congress gave all states a financial incentive to have truth-in-sentencing laws in place. While the effectiveness of the guidelines is hard to pin down, several national studies have confirmed increases in prison populations — and higher costs for operations, including rehabilitation programs — since the act was passed.

There can never be absolute certainty that criminals, no matter the severity of their offense, won't return to the menacing ways when they are released. Linking recidivism rates to sentencing guides is tricky given the complexity of criminal cases and differences in states' rules and loopholes.

Confronting the problems in Maryland highlighted by Harvey's killing needs to start in next year's session of the state legislature with a fresh look at holes in laws and sentencing guidelines, including whether they are being consistently applied. Patterns in sentencing by individual courts should be documented to make sure there are no race-based disparities, a possibility raised in a 1997 report to a state policy commission.

There are other basic steps that can be taken. Judges should be advised, at the time of sentencing violent criminals, to clearly state the earliest possible date for release. Crime victims and their immediate families also deserve to know the status of sentence-reconsideration hearings and given a voice.

Slowing this dangerous revolving door from prison to the streets won't be easy but is absolutely necessary.