What makes someone a candidate for early release?
Rehabilitation, remorse, empathy, insight, acceptance of responsibility, acknowledgment of the victim statement, assessment-risk score, meritorious acts, prison adjustment, program participation, maturity, number of years served — these are some of the factors used to assess a candidate.

Should “children” go to adult prison — ever?
My experience in cases over the years in the criminal-justice system is that the sentencing of a juvenile offender is one of the most difficult decisions for a circuit-court judge. Each case is fact-specific. It’s known [that] adolescents are different, and this can — and should — be a very relevant consideration at sentencing. … New evidence in brain imaging and studies of adolescent brain development [show] that impulse controls and decision-making are still maturing during adolescence.

How do you justify early release?
We look at the totality of the individual’s circumstances. In many cases, the statutory laws have changed, and if the individual were to be sentenced for the same offense today, they would be eligible now for release. [Sometimes] the individual was overcharged at the time in context to other [similar offenders].

How do you counter fears after the incident of the man who shot the police officers near Tacoma, Wash.? (He was imprisoned at age 17, but released early.)
There are no guarantees of anyone for future behavior. Unfortunately, some people will relapse and continue to engage in criminal behavior. Each case must be carefully assessed. [That] case was obviously very tragic. There are better risk assessment tools available now to determine risk of violence and risk of re-offense. I have assisted many prisoners who have been incarcerated. [In one case, for example], it was determined the prisoner had a psychiatric medical condition that was safely treatable. A structured plan was developed to address the prisoner’s identified needs. He was paroled and has not had any problems since. — Aleene Jinn George for Hour Detroit magazine, March 2010

We have an obligation to remember that individuals are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.

The high cost of housing inmates has long been a drain on the economy. This does not include the social costs of sending a criminal to prison and just expecting them to be “reformed” without the benefit of therapeutic or educational assistance. It costs more each year to keep one individual in prison than one full year of tuition, room and board in any of our state’s 4-year public universities.

Reducing the size of the inmate population makes fiscal as well as humanitarian sense. Rather than relying on lengthy incarceration, there are more effective ways for criminals to pay their debt to society.

Ninety-five (95%) of our prison population will eventually be released. With this in mind, it is absolutely in our communities’ best interest to maximize the possibility of success upon re-entry. Detroit City Council’s recent consideration to eliminate questions regarding convictions from city job applications and city contracts is evidence that we already recognize the difficulty in re-integration after release from prison. One of the most obvious ways to maximize success would be to grant release on parole after the minimum sentence is served, particularly with evidence of good behavior and participation in prison activities such as education. It is evident that the longer one stays imprisoned, the lower their chances become of finding work or maintaining a support network. However, there are currently 11,000 Michigan prisoners who have been denied parole and are still imprisoned. We choose to deny these significant opportunities.

Our system yields to the pressure to appear “tough on crime,” which leads to a tendency to over-punish.

How can we promote the most appropriate method of punishing those who break the law, while upholding our obligation to be fiscally responsible and good stewards of our budget, protecting the community, and promoting societal welfare at the same time?

There are several major ways of accomplishing this as suggested by juvenile justice scholars in law and adolescent development, and social justice advocates such as: developmentally based laws and policies making it possible for adolescents to grow into responsible adults rather than career criminals, collaborate between correctional systems and university systems to promote access to higher education and meaningful educational opportunities, reforming sentencing guidelines and reinstating the sentencing commission in order to assess how sentencing guidelines are working, restoring some form of good time, restoring community placements for prisoners who are near their first eligibility date, increasing parole approval rates, and increasing reliance on community court methods.

Many communities across the country are experiencing success by engaging their residents in a problem-solving approach in community courts. These courts aim to harness the power of the justice system to address local problems. The first of these opened in Midtown in New York City in 1993, and they have been able to report a $1.3 million savings annually from reduced retention costs and reduced future arrests.

We should discourage legislative efforts to over-punish. We should adopt criminal justice policies and practices that do not lead to the overutilization of our state’s available correctional resources and we should challenge a legal system that is mindlessly punitive. In our efforts to construct an optimal or even adequate criminal justice policy we can both protect the community and promote societal welfare and the reaching of one of the major goals of the corrections system: rehabilitation.

Michigan cannot afford to stay behind the curve in making strong choices that not only make sense for our fiscal future but help to promote more effective methods and the development of an optimal criminal justice policy.

Allow me to provide information to the Committee regarding my background.  I have worked in the Michigan Corrections field since 1976 where I began my career as a Prison Counselor.  In my capacity as a prison counselor, I attended numerous parole board hearings with prisoners that were assigned to me.  I was employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections for 26 years before I went into private practice as a corrections and parole consultant.  I have worked in the correctional facilities, Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) Bootcamp Aftercare and Detention facilities, and Probation and Parole Field Operations with the MDOC.  I was a probation/parole agent in Wayne County assigned to caseload supervision and Manager of Specialized Programs for sex offenders and other high-risk offenders in Wayne and Macomb Counties.  I was also a national auditor for the American Correctional Association auditing correctional operations throughout the United States and Past President of the Michigan Corrections Association which is an organization of correctional professionals in Michigan.

I am familiar with alternative programs for offenders throughout the State of Michigan, and managed such MDOC programs including the Electronic Monitoring, Public Act 511 Specialized Supervision Units, Sex Offender Units, Aftercare Detention Facilities for probation violators and the Special Alternative Incarceration (SAI) Prisoner and Probation Bootcamp Aftercare programs.

For several years, I worked for the MDOC at Recorder’s Court and was assigned to the Chief Judge, Dalton A. Roberson’s Court on felony matters involving sentencing, sentencing guidelines, and adult probation and parole violations.

As it happens, I recently joined the CAPPS board but I am speaking today as an individual.

I appreciate this opportunity to talk to you.  Since 2002, I have been working as a consultant and in numerous cases participated in the parole review process as a prisoner representative, present at the parole board interviews.  This has given me a first-hand view of how the parole interview and review process is currently working.  Having said that, I believe the legislation proposed is certainly necessary because there are now no protocols in place to ensure there is a check and balance within the system.  What we have now is essentially a system of unfettered discretion of the parole board.  They have absolute power with virtually no review or filter in place.  The proposed legislation is really to create another filter for the system.

To begin, I would like to focus my remarks in three areas.  First, on the importance of having a system where there are appropriate checks and balances.  Secondly, that the system for parole considerations has a filter for review.  Third, that based on my experience and observation; there is now a very narrow concentration of power that in essence leads to absolute power, in the hands of panels of three people.  Except for lifers, a panel of three members will decide whether to release a prisoner on parole with two of three votes needed in favor, for parole to be approved.  Only one board member conducts the prisoner interview and the other two panel members see no tape or transcript of it and therefore, depend on the interviewing member’s judgment.  In some cases, I have found the interviews are very short and rushed.

Regardless of corrective steps initiated by the prisoner or the documented progress or growth that has been demonstrated by the prisoner, prisoners are continued for additional 12 and 18-month terms without a rational or sufficiently detailed explanation of the decision.  This leaves the prisoner confused and diminishes their hopes.

While board members take their jobs very seriously, we’re all human.  If a particular member has a predisposition about particular offenses or particular factors in a person’s background or doesn’t get the answers he or she wants from the prisoner, parole may well get denied based on the impression that board member conveys to his or her panel partner.  As the system presently exists, there is no way to identify or correct errors or catch personal biases.

Our entire structure of government is to create a check and balance.  What this legislation seeks to do is create a reasonable check and balance within the system.

I have personally observed the frustration that this engenders in the prisoner and their lack of hope.

I have seen many cases, from a review of the facts that it was never the intent of the sentencing judge that a prisoner be held as long as they have been.  As one example in a recent case, the sentencing judge and prosecutor agreed to a downward departure at the sentence hearing because of the offender’s cooperation with law enforcement and the psychological information that was documented in his profile, but the parole board decided to continue the prisoner for another 12 months for reasons that were factually inaccurate.

Now, what does this cost us?  It costs the State of Michigan millions of dollars in housing and maintaining these people.  It is counter-productive to the mission of the Michigan Corrections Department which is not only to protect the public but also to provide the highest quality of service to the public, including the offenders under the Department’s supervision and that activities will be conducted in a professional way which reflects positively on the MDOC.  At its most basic level the parole decision process we now have is unbalanced without any checks or oversight.  The power of the parole board is absolute.  This creates problems in the operations and maintenance of the correctional facilities; this leads to despair and frustration for no good reason.

While certainly people convicted of crimes should have to pay for their crimes, it is the sentencing guidelines and the judge who decides what punishment is proportional.  Once people have served that punishment, they are entitled to a second chance unless they have failed to meet the guidelines for release or there is some objective evidence that they are currently dangerous.  If you tell people they can earn their way out of prison, then do not tell them it does not matter how hard they work and rehabilitate themselves.  It creates an atmosphere where the parole process is perceived as unfair and on occasion is unfair.

It is important for the prisoners to have the belief that they are getting a fair process.  In the system we have now, there are no filters or checks and balances.  If the parole board interviewer is predisposed for whatever reason, that is a very narrow concentration of so much power.

I am aware there is some concern about frivolous lawsuits, but by spelling out limited grounds on which appeals will be permitted, the bill will minimize those.  Certainly when someone who has a presumption of parole because of a high guideline score is not released, their appeal cannot be characterized as frivolous.  They might ultimately prevail, but the attempt cannot fairly be called frivolous.

In summary, the parole system as it presently exists has 1) no checks and balances; 2) does not have a filter for review of parole board decisions; and 3) creates absolute power in a very narrow base of individuals.

I hope my remarks are helpful and I urge the committee to support HB 4548.  Thank you.