J. MILLARD TAWES, Governor                       1673

House Bill No. 85—Defective Delinquents

AN ACT to repeal and re-enact, with amendments, Section 10 (a)
of Article 31B of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1964 Supple-
ment) , title "Defective Delinquents," subtitle "Defective Delinquents,"
to modify the requirements necessary for a person committed under
Section 9 (b) as a defective delinquent to file a petition for review by
providing the two year commitment period be equal to one third of
the original sentence. REDUCING THE NECESSARY PERIOD OF
TOTAL ACTUAL CONFINEMENT TO ONE-THIRD OF THE
ORIGINAL SENTENCE OR FIVE YEARS, WHICHEVER IS
SHORTER.

May 4, 1965.

Honorable Marvin Mandel
Speaker of the House of Delegates
State House
Annapolis, Maryland

Dear Mr. Speaker:

In accordance with Article II, Section 17, of the Maryland Con-
stitution, I am returning herewith House Bill 85, 1965 Session,
which has been vetoed by me today.

This Bill would modify the requirements necessary for a person
committed to Patuxent Institution as a defective delinquent to file a
petition for Court review of his status as a defective delinquent by
reducing the necessary period of total actual confinement from two-
thirds to one-third of his original sentence, or five years, whichever is
shorter.

The Chairman of the Board of Patuxent Institution has recom-
mended that the Bill be vetoed. He points out that the present rule of
two-thirds was inserted in the law by an Act of the 1961 Legislature
pursuant to the recommendation of a Commission appointed by the
Legislative Council to recommend changes in the statute. It was the
result of careful study by a Commission under the chairmanship of
Judge Roszel C. Thomsen which recommended that the rule of two-
thirds would protect the interests of the inmate and avoid the un-
necessary consumption of staff members' time in Court, as well as the
time of the Courts.

He further points out that neither he nor representatives of
Patuxent Institution were afforded an opportunity to present their
views to the committees of either House which considered the Bill.

I have recently appointed a Commission, upon which repre-
sentatives of both Houses of the Legislature are serving, to consider
further changes in the statute relating to Patuxent Institution with a
view to proposing amendments at the next session of the General
Assembly. A former Commission that was appointed by me last year
has made tentative recommendations but has recommended that its
membership be broadened in view of the importance of the subject.
I have followed that recommendation by appointing a new Commis-
sion to continue the study.

In view of the foregoing, I am constrained to veto House Bill 85
since, in my opinion, it constitutes so-called piecemeal legislation