Disclaimer: MCVRC provided the same set of questions to all candidates seeking this office. The responses below were submitted by Tara Jackson. We have invited all other candidates to participate and look forward to publishing their responses as they are received. Responses are published as submitted, with only minor formatting or typographical corrections made.

Issues and Concerns Posed by Crime Victims in Prince George’s County

Posed to State’s Attorney Candidates

Tara Jackson

1. Support for Crime Victims
   The Victim Compensation Reform Act of 2024 has created gaps in services for some crime victims. What funding or legislative changes would you support to make sure all victims in Prince George's County can receive the help and support they need?

Supporting crime victims is a core responsibility of this office, and the gaps created by the Victim Compensation Reform Act of 2024 demand a direct response. Victims, particularly domestic violence survivors and those whose crimes go unreported due to fear or immigration status, are being shut out of the very programs designed to help them. That is unacceptable.

What makes this even more urgent is that the impact is not falling equally. Multi-state research has shown a clear racial and gender disparity in whose claims get accepted. Black women are disproportionately more susceptible to violence, and yet their claims are denied at higher rates, often because they lack the documentation the system requires. They are being victimized twice: first by the crime, and then by a system that was supposed to protect them.

I would advocate in Annapolis for amended eligibility criteria, simplified application processes, and the restoration of emergency bridge funding. But legislative fixes alone are not enough. My office is already acting, and part of why I believe so deeply in wraparound services and nonprofit partnerships is precisely because I know who falls through the cracks when those supports are not there. Our Victim and Witness Unit and Special Victim and Family Violence Unit connect survivors to mental health services, housing assistance, and legal advocacy throughout the process. Community-based organizations that understand the lived realities of the people we serve must be part of this infrastructure. Victims deserve justice and support, and it is my job to fight for both.

 

2. Reducing Violent Crime and Supporting Victims
   What proven programs or strategies would you support to reduce violent crime and improve services for victims, especially in the Upper Marlboro corridor?

We have made real progress; overall, violent crime in Prince George's County decreased significantly in 2024, including homicides, and I am committed to building on that momentum with strategies that work.

My office has prioritized holding violent and repeat gun offenders accountable by seeking enhanced penalties where the law allows, working in close coordination with law enforcement partners through our Firearms Enforcement & Narcotics Intelligence Unit and Strategic Investigations Unit. Targeted, focused deterrence, going after the individuals driving the most harm, is more effective than broad approaches and produces lasting results.

In communities like Upper Marlboro, I also believe prevention and intervention are just as important as prosecution. Programs like our R.I.S.E. truancy initiative, a community-based effort to reduce juvenile delinquency through youth services and family supports, address the root conditions that drive violence. Our Back on Track diversion program, which just had its largest graduation class in program history, gives people an off-ramp before deeper involvement in the criminal justice system.

For victims, our Victim and Witness Unit and Special Victim and Family Violence Unit provide direct, wraparound support throughout the process. A victim who feels supported and protected is also more likely to cooperate with the prosecution, which strengthens accountability.

 

3. Sentencing, Accountability, and Public Safety
   When reviewing older cases and long prison sentences, how would you balance rehabilitation with other important goals like accountability, public safety, justice for victims, and deterrence? In cases where there was no legal error in the original conviction, would your office generally defend those convictions and sentences?

Justice requires holding two truths at the same time: people can change, and accountability is not optional. My approach to reviewing older cases and long sentences reflects both of those convictions.

When this office evaluates whether to support a sentence modification or release, we do not apply a single formula. We look at the nature and severity of the original offense, the impact on victims and their families, the individual's conduct and demonstrated rehabilitation while incarcerated, public safety risk, and whether the sentence still serves the interests of justice. Victims have a right to be heard in that process, and their voices carry real weight in our recommendations.

Our Conviction and Sentencing Integrity Unit exists precisely for this kind of rigorous, case-by-case review. We also have a formal referral process for claims of actual innocence, ensuring that those claims are independently screened and investigated, because integrity means pursuing justice in every direction, including when the system got it wrong.

To your direct question: where there was no legal error in the original conviction, my office will generally defend those convictions and sentences. Accountability is foundational to the trust victims and communities place in this office, and I will not undermine that by treating valid convictions as open questions. However, "generally" is the operative word, where new evidence, changed circumstances, or disproportionate sentencing warrants a second look, we will take it. That is not weakness; that is what integrity requires.

Rehabilitation matters. Deterrence matters. Victims matter. Public safety matters. A strong State's Attorney holds all of these in tension, with discipline and without shortcuts in either direction.

 

4. Second Look Act and Victims’ Rights
   Second Chance /Second Look reviews of sentences are in our view the most harmful change in many years from the perspective of crime victims. The forced multiple in-person hearings sow discord between prosecutors and victims as prosecutors often abandon their adversarial roles to agree with convicted criminals.  What will be your policies regarding these sentencing reviews?

 

I hear this concern clearly, and I share it. Victims who fought for justice, who sat through trials, gave statements, and carried the weight of their experiences through the legal process, should not be forced to relive that trauma repeatedly because of open-ended sentence review mechanisms. That is a real harm, and my office takes it seriously.

Let me be direct about my policies. Under my leadership, this office will not simply defer to or agree with petitions for sentence reduction. Every Second Look petition will receive a rigorous, individualized review by our office. We will examine the original offense and its impact on victims, the individual's full institutional record, public safety risk, and whether a reduction truly serves the interests of justice, not just the interests of the petitioner. Where we believe the original sentence remains appropriate, we will say so, and we will advocate for that position before the court.

Victims will be notified, kept informed, and given every opportunity to be heard. Their input is not a formality; it is central to how we evaluate these cases. I will not allow this office to become a rubber stamp that abandons its adversarial role and leaves victims feeling re-victimized by the very system that was supposed to protect them.

At the same time, I recognize that the Second Look Act is the law in Maryland, and this office must operate within it. What I can control is how we operate: with rigor, with transparency, and with an unwavering commitment to victims at every step of the process.

 

 

5. Post-Conviction Hearings and Court Process
   Do you believe that post-conviction cases involving serious violent crimes should be reviewed by the original sentencing judge whenever possible? What steps would you take to ensure these hearings are fair, transparent, and respectful to victims and their families?

 

In cases involving serious violent crimes, when the law permits a post-conviction review to be requested, it is the defendant's right to submit the proper motions, and those motions must be reviewed. When that review occurs, it should be conducted by the original sentencing judge whenever possible. The sentencing judge is uniquely positioned to evaluate these cases because they presided over the proceedings, heard the evidence, considered the impact on victims and the community, and weighed all relevant factors before imposing a sentence.

The interests of justice are best served when post-conviction decisions are informed by a comprehensive understanding of the case's history, circumstances, and sentencing rationale. While every petition must be considered on its individual merits and in accordance with the law, continuity in judicial review promotes consistency, fairness, transparency, and public confidence in the criminal justice system.

For victims, their families, and the broader community, it is important that significant post-conviction decisions in serious violent crime cases are made with the benefit of the fullest possible knowledge of the record. Whenever practicable, that objective is best achieved through review by the original sentencing judge.

Where reassignment is unavoidable, my office will work to ensure the reviewing judge is fully briefed on the original case record, victim impact statements, and sentencing rationale so that critical context is not lost. Victims will be notified early, kept informed at every stage, and given meaningful opportunities to be heard. My prosecutors will be prepared and will advocate; these hearings are not formalities, and victims deserve to be treated with dignity throughout the entire process.