ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland lawmakers voted this week to repeal the governor's ability to reject parole decisions for people serving life sentences, taking itself off a list of just three states where governors have that power.

Monica Cooper, executive director of the Maryland Justice Project, said for years, state delegates have put forward legislation to end the practice, which disproportionately impacted African Americans.

She thinks it is inhumane to watch elderly incarcerated folks who are not a danger to their communities deteriorate in prison. She pointed out even during the height of the COVID pandemic, Maryland prison officials were releasing older inmates who have not since re-offended.

"It's a win for the African American community," Cooper asserted. "And it's a win for families, children, children who are now 40 years old who haven't seen their parent since they were three. It's a win for the community all around."

The House voted 92 to 46 late Tuesday to override Gov. Larry Hogan's veto of Senate Bill 202 after the Senate approved it the day before. Opponents of the bill say it allows dangerous people back onto the streets and sends a wrong message to communities looking for help with violent crime.

But Cooper maintained everyone should be given a second chance, especially incarcerated people who are falsely imprisoned or committed crimes as teenagers and have reformed after years in prison.

Her group has been working for the veto override with advocates including Lea Green of Maryland CURE, whose son is serving a life term, and Walter Lomax, a Marylander who was finally exonerated after spending 39 years in prison for fatal robberies he did not commit.

They argued parole committees, who have worked with incarcerated people, are better to judge release than a governor reading a profile.

"Parole and probation make decisions based on people's institutional records, based on the amount of programs that you've done," Cooper explained. "These are actual people who over years upon years upon years know this individual."

Older offenders are much less likely than younger offenders to re-offend following release, according to a study by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Over an eight-year follow-up period, about 13% of offenders age 65 or older at the time of release were re-arrested compared with about 67% of offenders younger than age 21.

Another important U.S. Supreme Court ruling this month has been overshadowed by the controversy about overturning abortion rights.

Legal experts say the court has weakened the rights of people who've been arrested in its 6-3 decision in the case Vega v. Tekoh.

At issue was a landmark 1966 decision Miranda v. Arizona, which prompted the statement police read to people as they're arrested, to inform them of their rights.

Vincent Bonventre, professor at Albany Law School, said the high court is making a distinction between Miranda protections and the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

"While an individual can sue under '1983' for a violation of his constitutional right against compelled self-incrimination, the court said that the individual cannot sue under '1983' for violation of Miranda rights, because Miranda rights aren't constitutional rights," Bonventre explained.

The '1983' to which Bonventre refers is Section 1983 of the Ku Klux Klan Act, an amendment to the 1871 law which allows people to file lawsuits if they feel their constitutional rights have been violated.

The new ruling means in such cases, a person cannot sue law enforcement officials under federal civil-rights law for Miranda warning violations.

But Bonventre pointed out New York's Court of Appeals as well as other state courts can protect Miranda rights more than the Supreme Court, and without penalty. He does not think the Vega v. Tekoh decision will be as major a change to the legal system as it seems.

"The court did not have to rule this way," Bonventre emphasized. "The court could have said, 'Well, Miranda rights are important enough, and they are part of constitutional law, even though they are not the actual constitutional right. And therefore, we want to protect them by allowing individuals to sue when their Miranda rights are violated.' "

The original 1966 case has for decades provided a safeguard for people against the right to self-incrimination through forced confessions.

A new report from The Sentencing Project debunks the myth of a post-pandemic crime wave fueled by young people.

In March, Congress held a hearing about a spike in carjackings in big cities, but the data actually show a drop in overall robberies by youths in 2020, and a drop in the share of crime committed by youths over the past 20 years.

Tshaka Barrows, co-executive director of the W. Haywood Burns Institute in Oakland, rejected calls to ditch progressive policies on juvenile justice.

"To think that somehow we don't need to revisit failed approaches that specifically have a racial impact that's structural - that dates all the way back to the founding of this country - to me, is disingenuous," he said. "It lacks a true reflection of the magnitude of what we're dealing with."

Barrows said he supports restorative-justice programs that rehabilitate young people and keep them out of the criminal-justice system. He said he views the recent recall of progressive San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin as a setback, and added that huge investments in law enforcement have not made communities safer.

Report author Richard Mendel, senior research fellow at The Sentencing Project, said he thinks young people who commit minor crimes should not be expelled or locked up - but rather, redirected to counseling.

"You take them away from school, you take them away from activities of rites of passage and adolescence, and you surround them instead with incarceration, with other troubled kids," he said, "and it's a negative dynamic that halts their natural progression to 'age out' of these behaviors."

State data show the felony juvenile arrest rate decreased from 2019 to 2020 - from 3.9 per 1,000 to 2.7 at the height of the pandemic.

A new report from Indiana University revealed stark racial disparities in bail costs, and outlined how those higher costs can have long-term impacts on folks charged with crimes and their families.

According to the report, bail across the country is set an average of 34% for Black detainees and 19% higher for Latino detainees, compared with their white counterparts.

Krystal Gibson, program analyst for the Indiana University Public Policy Institute, said increased cost makes it more difficult for many to get out of pretrial detention.

"Research does show that detaining people before their trials, it really increases their risk of future criminal behavior," Gibson reported. "It can harm the defendant, their family and community, and it disrupts an individual's life."

According to the report, eliminating cash bail could help reduce those racial disparities, since it would level the field for all ethnicities, regardless of the charges they face. Its authors point to New Jersey, which reduced its dependence on cash bail, and saw a 35% decrease in its jail population.

Come July, Indiana will enact a new law restricting the operation of charitable bail funds. Among other restrictions, the law would prevent charitable funds from bailing out people charged with a violent crime.

Gibson said the policy could potentially push detainees to rely more on for-profit bail-bond companies, which still are permitted to bail out those facing violent-crime charges.

"When you use a bail bond agency, individuals have to pay several fees, including this 10% nonrefundable fee, no matter the outcome of the case," Gibson pointed out. "And that can be thousands of dollars."

The policy currently is facing a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Bail Project, a national bail fund whose Indiana operation is likely the largest such fund operating in the state.

The two groups argued, among other things, the policy violates the Bail Project's constitutional right to equal protection under the law, as it was drafted essentially to solely target their Indiana operations.