"Division" of Correction are substituted for the former references to the
"Department" of Correction to reflect Ch. 401, Acts of 1970, which created
the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services and renamed
the Department of Correction to be the Division of Correction.

In subsection (b)(3) of this section, the former reference to suspending a
sentence "as [the Governor] deems proper" is deleted as unnecessary in
light of the reference to "may", which indicates discretionary authority.

The Correctional Services Article Review Committee notes, for
consideration by the General Assembly, that subsection (b)(3) of this
section gives the Governor authority to suspend the execution of an
inmate's sentence without first giving notice to the public as required by
Md. Constitution, Art. II, § 20 for reprieves and pardons. The Committee
believes that the suspension of the execution of a sentence is a "reprieve"
within the meaning of Md. Constitution, Art. II, § 20 and is unclear as to
whether the General Assembly has the power to authorize the Governor to
grant a reprieve without first giving the required notice. The Committee
believes that the General Assembly may have the power to do so under Md.
Constitution, Art. III, § 60, which gives the General Assembly power to
"provide by general enactment ... for the suspension of sentence by the
Court in criminal cases". However, the General Assembly may wish to
consider, as a matter of policy, whether the Governor should be required to
give the notice specified in Md. Constitution, Art. II, § 20 before
suspending a sentence under subsection (b)(3) of this section.

In subsection (d)(2)(i) of this section, the former reference to a "city, or
town" is deleted as unnecessary in light of the reference to the defined
term "county", which includes Baltimore City.

In subsection (e) of this section, the reference to other relative "of the child"
is added each time for clarity.

The Correctional Services Article Review Committee notes, for
consideration by the General Assembly, that subsection (c)(1) of this
section authorizes the Division of Correction to order a father or other
relative to take custody of a child born to an inmate. If the Division of
Correction decides to place a child in the custody of a father or other
relative, subsection (e)(2) of this section requires the father or relative to
care for the child until the mother is released from the correctional facility
or the child is adopted. In essence, these provisions give the Division of
Correction authority to make a child custody decision and suggest that
custody of the child automatically reverts back to the mother upon her
release from confinement. The Committee believes that it is inappropriate
to give the Division of Correction authority to make a child custody
decision and equally inappropriate to require that custody of a child
automatically revert back to the mother upon her release from
confinement. The Committee believes that a better policy would require
that the mother arrange for custody of the child and, in situations in which
the mother is unable to do so, that the Division of Correction place the