At a press conference on Oct. 12,
sheriffs and prosecutors from multiple counties joined Attorney General Bill
Schuette to stand united in opposition to Michigan House Bill 4138. The
proposed legislation would offer presumptive release to certain incarcerated
offenders. Some of these elected officials are well intentioned in their
opposition. Others are just seeking to get their faces in front of the voters, jumping
in front of the cameras at every opportunity to remind their constituents that
they are tough on crime. There are times, however, when appearing tough on crime requires turning a blind eye to reality.
The opponents of this bill want
people to believe that the legislation will, in essence, throw open the doors
of our prisons to allow violent offenders back on the streets. They share
stories of parolees who have been released only to commit new violent offenses,
fostering a fresh brand paranoia. They ignore the fact that the people who
truly pose a threat to the community, the violent offenders, will be required
to continue through the normal parole process. Those offenders will not qualify
for this presumption that the statute seeks to create. Their concerns are unfounded.
The legislation presumes that
certain individuals are not a menace to society and, absent substantial and
compelling reasons to depart from the parole guidelines, those individuals
shall be granted release after serving their minimum sentence. How does this
legislation ensure that we aren’t throwing violent offenders back on the street
until they have served an appropriate sentence? Well, in order to fall into
this category of presumptive release, an individual still must pass through
three levels of scrutiny.
The first level of scrutiny
occurs when the Circuit Court judge sets the defendant’s minimum sentence. The
court is aware of the details of the defendant’s offense, their criminal
history, their violent nature or lack of, and the risk that they pose to the
community. Those offenders who have committed violent offenses and who pose a
risk to the community will undoubtedly receive lengthier minimum sentences than
nonviolent offenders, ensuring that they will remain in prison longer.
The second level of scrutiny
occurs when the minimum sentence for a prisoner has been served. Michigan
Department of Corrections Policy Directive sets a framework for giving each
potential parolee a guideline score. Points are added and subtracted in eight
different categories that take into account the violent nature of the offense,
their prior criminal history, behavior since the time of sentencing,
participation in rehabilitative programs, etcetera. Each parolee is put into
one of three categories: those who are presumed to have a high probability of
parole, those who have an average probability, and those who have a low probability.
When the parole board receives the file of someone who fits into the high
probability category, they know that this is an individual that they should
probably grant parole unless they have some sort of specific information that
would suggest otherwise.
This legislation would grant
presumptive release only to those individuals who are presumed by the
guidelines to have a high probability for parole as determined by the parole
guidelines. An offender who commits a violent offense, or who has an extended
criminal history, or who poses a high statistical risk, will not likely fit
into that category. Those offenders will
have to continue through the normal parole process. In essence, the presumption
only applies to those who are already likely to be released under the current
parole system.
The third level of scrutiny
occurs after the parole guidelines are scored and it is determined that an
offender fits within the presumption. The presumption does not give that
offender an automatic right to be paroled. Instead, the parole board must still
review the file and determine if there are substantial and compelling reasons
not to grant release. These reasons may include exceptionally poor behavior in
prison, evidence of substantial harm to the victim that was not available at
the time of sentencing, threatened harm to another person if the individual is
released, pending felony charges, or if the prisoner has been linked to an
unsolved criminal violation. If the parole board finds that a substantial and
compelling reason exists, then parole may still be denied.
Only after passing through these all
three of these levels of scrutiny is an offender released under the new
legislation. The purpose of this legislation is not necessarily to release more
prisoners but rather, to streamline the process and quell the backlog of cases.
These non-violent offenders, who have already been earmarked as likely to be
released on parole, are being held longer than necessary simply because the
parole board is backlogged. The result is millions of dollars in additional
funds going to incarcerate individuals unnecessarily.
What will this legislation do for
the state? The Michigan Department of Corrections estimates that the
legislation could reduce our prison population by 3,200 in five years and save
$75 million annually. The state already spends over $2 billion each year on
corrections.
Furthermore, it is no mystery
that rehabilitative efforts are better achieved through services available in
the community and not in the prison system. These low level offenders are not
serving life sentences. They will be released from prison at some point. The
best chance of ensuring that they do not reoffend is to get them into
rehabilitative programs as quickly as possible. That being the case, does it
make sense to keep these offenders penned up with the violent offenders rather
than putting them where they can receive the rehabilitative services that will
prevent them from reoffending? Let’s take the money that we would have spent
incarcerating them unnecessarily and spend it on rehabilitative services or on vocational
programs. Perhaps the money could be reallocated to help create new educational
opportunities in our children’s schools that will in turn help to prevent crime
in the future. Or, would we rather just continue to spend the money
incarcerating individuals who don’t need it just because the parole board can’t
keep up with the backlog of cases?
In short, don’t fall for the
political subterfuge that takes place at these press conferences. Your
legislators are not going to put your community in danger with this
legislation. They are doing exactly what you elected them to do: to cut
unnecessary spending and reallocate the money where it can provide the greatest
benefit.
