R Street Letter to MD Governor Wes Moore in Support of MD SB 162, judicial review for juveniles
April 23, 2026
The Honorable Westley Moore
Governor of Maryland
State House
100 State Circle
Annapolis, MD 21401
Re: R Street Institute’s Support for Senate Bill 162
Governor Moore,
My name is Logan Seacrest and I am a resident fellow of Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties at the R Street Institute. R Street is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization that engages in policy research and outreach to promote free markets and limited, effective government. It is for these reasons that we support Senate Bill 162, which will fix an inconsistency in Maryland’s sentencing laws.
SB 162 removes an arbitrary date restriction from Maryland’s Juvenile Restoration Act that prevents individuals sentenced as juveniles from petitioning for release under the state’s Second Look law. Enacted in 2021, the Act allows certain individuals sentenced as adults for crimes committed under age 18 to petition for sentence review after 20 years, but only if they were sentenced before October 1, 2021.[1] Last session, the Maryland Second Look Act extended the same review to those 18 to 24 at the time of their offense, but without the date restriction. As a result, if a 15-year-old and a 24-year-old were arrested as co-defendants today, the 24-year-old would eventually be eligible for sentence review, while the 15-year-old would not qualify.
The Supreme Court’s recognition that juveniles are less culpable under the law not only makes this discrepancy constitutionally untenable, it also represents a departure from the latest developmental science.[2] The prefrontal cortex—responsible for decisions and impulse control—develops rapidly during adolescence, making teens more susceptible to negative influences but also more responsive to behavioral interventions.[3] This higher level of “neuroplasticity” makes rehabilitation more effective in young people than in adults.[4] Continuing to incarcerate individuals who have demonstrated decades of rehabilitation and no longer pose a threat to public safety is an inefficient use of state resources.
A limited, effective government should ensure that its mechanism for reviewing sentences is applied logically and equitably, rather than based on an arbitrary date. SB 162 resolves this oversight by removing the date restriction, ensuring that a meaningful opportunity for review is available to all individuals who were under 18 at the time of their offense. We therefore urge you to sign SB 162.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Logan Seacrest
Resident Fellow
Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties
R Street Institute
lseacrest@rstreet.org
Cc: Jeremy Baker, Chief Legislative Officer, Office of Governor Westley Moore
Myles Hicks, Deputy Legislative Officer, Office of Governor Westley Moore
[1] Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 8-110 (West 2021).
[2] Roper v. Simmons, Supreme Court of the United States, March 1, 2005, p. 569; Miller v. Alabama, Supreme Court of the United States, June 25, 2012, p. 471.
[3] Mariam Arain et al., “Maturation of the adolescent brain,” Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 9 (April 2013), pp. 449–461. https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S39776.
[4] Lisa L. Weyandt et al., “Neuroplasticity in Children and Adolescents in Response to Treatment Intervention: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Clinical and Translational Neuroscience 4:2 (July 2020), p. 21. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2514183X20974231.