246'/'Maryland Manual
return to custody of alleged violators of parole
and to suspend or revoke parole upon a showing
of a violation of the conditions thereof.
Decisions of its hearing examiners, if concurred
in by the Commission on summary review, be-
come final. A final decision of the Parole Com-
mission may be appealed to a panel of its
members for review upon the record. The deci-
sion of the appeal panel is final.
The Commission must provide a parole inter-
view for every inmate at no later than one-fourth
of the sentence. Such hearings are conducted at
every penal and correctional institution not less
than monthly, and at jails and other places of pe-
nal confinement or detention in the State as often
as may be required to provide the hearing man-
dated at the completion of one-fourth of the total
sentence. The Commission is also charged with
the duty of evaluating information on the activity
of parolees as reported to it by the Division of
Parole and Probation. In addition, it causes
investigations to be made by the Division of Pa-
role and Probation and holds hearings for the
purpose of making recommendations to the Gov-
ernor for his granting of pardons, commutations
of sentences, and parole of persons sentenced to
life imprisonment. "The Commission is also autho-
rized to negotiate and execute tri-party contracts
for the release on parole of an inmate at a prede-
termined future date, conditioned upon the fulfill-
ment of the conditions specified in the agreement.
The signatories to such mutual agreements are
the Parole Commission, the Commissioner of
Correction, and the inmate (Code 1957, Art. 41,
sees. 107-117).
PATUXENT INSTITUTION
Dr. Norma B. Gluckstem, Director
Forrest Calhoun, Jr., Associate Director
Arthur Kandel, Ph.D., Associate Director
Wemer A. Kohimeyer, M.D., Associate Director
Jessup 20794 Telephone: 799-3400
Patuxent Institution was first authorized by
Chapter 476, Acts of 1951, and was charged with
the responsibility for the confinement and treat-
ment, when appropriate, of adult criminal
offenders classified as defective delinquents under
Article 31B of the Maryland Code. A defective
delinquent was defined as 'an individual who by
the demonstration of persistent aggravated antiso-
cial or criminal behavior, evidences a

propensity toward criminal activity, and who is
found to have either such intellectual deficiency
or emotional unbalance, or both, as to clearly
demonstrate an actual danger to society so as to
require such confinement and treatment, when
appropriate, as may make it reasonably safe for
society to terminate the confinement and treat-
ment.' It was also charged with the confinement
and diagnosis of offenders referred to the Institu-
tion by the Courts for determination of their con-
dition under that statute. The Institution con-
ducted a thorough psychiatric evaluation of each
offender so referred and rendered a formal opin-
ion to the Court of jurisdiction. If the Institution
recommended against commitment, the Court re-
turned the offender to the Division of Correction
where he continued to serve his original criminal
sentence. If the Institution recommended that the
offender be confined at the Institution, the Court
promptly provided a hearing, sitting as a Court
or with a jury, and found by a special verdict
whether or not the offender was a defective delin-
quent as defined in Article 31B. Commitment as
a defective delinquent under Article 31B was for
an indeterminate period subject to the order of
the Institutional Board of Review or the Courts.
Under that statute the Institution was formally
opened on January 3, 1955, under the administra-
tive control of the Department of Correction. By
Chapter 629, Acts of 1961, the Institution be-
came an autonomous agency under the control of
the Board of Patuxent Institution. By Chapter
401, Acts of 1970, the Institution became a part
of the Department of Public Safety and Correc-
tional Services, retaining its status as an institu-
tion separate from the Division of Correction and
retaining its Board of Patuxent Institution.
By Chapter 678, Acts of 1977, the General As-
sembly repealed the original Article 31B entitled
Defective Delinquents and enacted a totally new
Article 31B entitled Patuxent Institution. This
statute continued the Patuxent Institution as a
part of the Department of Public Safety and Cor-
rectional Services and established as the purpose
of the Institution to "provide efficient and ade-
quate programs and services for the treatment
and rehabilitation of eligible persons. This shall
include a range of program alternatives indicated
by the current state of knowledge to be appropri-
ate and effective for the population being served.
As an integral part of the program, an effective
research and development effort should be
established and maintained to evaluate and rec-
ommend improvements on an on-going basis."
An "eligible person" was defined as a person who
(1) had been convicted of a crime and is serving a
sentence of imprisonment with at least three