Dr. Peter Lehman told the parole study commission that historical reforms produced surprising results and that parole provides later continuity to address sentencing gaps; commissioners questioned whether judges would change behavior if parole returned.

Commissioners took a nonbinding straw poll and a majority signaled they would recommend that reinstating parole should not alter current sentencing standards, though several members abstained or sought further technical clarifications before a formal vote.

At the commission’s third meeting, multiple public commenters urged that any reestablished parole system include retroactive eligibility, highlighting rehabilitation, continuity with existing SCCP practice, and the need for transparent, victim‑sensitive review. Commissioners pressed advocates about SCCP capacity and notification.

Office of Policy and Legal Analysis staff reviewed four states that abolished and later reestablished parole, highlighting different eligibility thresholds, victim‑rights rules and administrative designs for parole boards — showing multiple models Maine could adapt.

Advocates told the commission that broad or vague definitions of 'technical violations' could expose victims to increased contact and risk; they gave examples to illustrate the difference between administrative violations and conduct that threatens safety.

After extended floor debate about victims, administration, staffing, and retroactivity, the House adopted committee amendment B to implement recommendations to reestablish a parole system; members emphasized need for further study of parole–probation interactions and fiscal impacts.

Lawmakers tabled LD 1941, which would reestablish parole in Maine. Debate centered on retroactivity (applying parole to people sentenced after 1976), how to calculate eligibility (half the sentence served, whether to include good‑time credit), interactions with probation/supervised community confinement, and administrative costs.