The subject of parole is huge and emotionally charged. Every
activist in the country knows the heartbreak of advocating for a prisoner
friend and watching him or her be disappointed time and again as it becomes
clear that nothing he does will effect his ongoing entombment. Here we follow
the money trail , give prisoners stories, and tell about campaigns here and in
other states- where the story differs but little. Soon we will have a petition
on line.
.jpg)
Marvin Wilson 297343, N LCI
The Catch 22s of No Parole Well Explained
Marvin Wilson has been working to prove his innocence since
incarcerated and now is eligible for parole. Here he clearly goes through the
terribly frustrating excuses given year after year by the parole board to
thousands of men ready and waiting for release.
These
are the excuses parole eligible men hear decade after decade.
PAROLE ISSUES
1. YOU HAVE NOT SERVED SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUNISHMENT.
The Wisconsin parole board gives out 12, 24, 36 and 48 month
defers. Thus is the equivalent of sentencing the parole seeker to 1 co 4
additional years in prison even though the parole board isn't even a judge.
The common statement used by the parole board to deny parole is:
"You have not served sufficient time for punishment." However the
•board has not, nor has anyone, documented what is "sufficient time for
punishment." Thus what is sufficient time served for punishment?
Wisconsin law sets parole dates for prisoners after they have
serve:! 25% of their sentence and when sentenced by the judge, the judge had
this in mind. Hence, if 25% of a sentence makes the prisoner eligible for
release, thus 25% must be. Sufficient time for punishment. However, the parole board
has been allowed to act as de facto court of law, de facto jury, de facto
prosecutor and de facto sentencing judge, in the parole boards reconvicting and
sentencing a prisoner to 1 to 4 additional years and denying parole, with the
statement 'that: "You have not served, sufficient, time for
punishment." Under Wisconsin law, that statement would be true only if the
prisoner petitioned to see the parole board before completing 25% of his or her
sentence. Thus 25% is sufficient time to serve for punishment under Wisconsin
law.
The facts remain that the parole commissioner and parole board
does not belong to the Wisconsin Bar Association of the state of Wisconsin,
thus has not been licensed by the state of Wisconsin to act in the capacity of
a prosecutor, jury, judge and court of law to Take a determination that after a
prisoner under old or new law, has served 25% of their sentence, the prisoner
has not served sufficient time for punishment and re-convict and sentence the
prisoner to 1 to 4 additional years. When that judge sentenced the prisoner,
the judge had the 25% parole date in mind and did not mean for the parole board
to re convict and re-sentence the prisoner after he or she has done 25% of
their sentence. Again, if 25% of a sentence is sufficient time to make the
prisoner eligible for release according to Wisconsin law, then 25% must be
sufficient time served for punishment. Or Wisconsin's parole law of 25% is just
smoke and mirrors.
So what is the percentage of Wisconsin parole eligible prisoners
that get out after doing 25% of their sentence? Or in other words, what
percentage gets out the first time they see the parole board? If the percentage
is not 90% or more, then the 25% parole hearing date is a legislative waste and
a false hope for the prisoner. Thus is a violation of Due Process Rights.
Wisconsin law states that sufficient time has 'been served when
old and new law prisoners have completed 25% of their sentence. The parole
boards use of the statement: "You have not served sufficient time for
punishment" is too loosely used. For it is a routine statement that is
used in every case. So what is sufficient time served for punishment? If the
prisoner has reached 25% of their sentence and the parole -board admits, or
prison records show that the prisoner has had satisfactory behavior upon
reaching- 25%, then that is sufficient time, served for punishment. If serving
25% of a sentence is sufficient time to be "eligible" for release,
then why is 25% not sufficient time served for punishment? It appears that
Wisconsin's 25% parole law is only a theory and not an actual practice because
records show that no one is being released, at 25% of their sentence i.e. their
first parole hearing date. So lets put this theory into practice.
The parole board saying an old or new law prisoner, has not
served sufficient time for punishment is semantics and a play of words because
if the statement was true, the prisoner could not have met with the parole
board if that prisoner had not served sufficient time for punishment. The
prisoner could not see the parole board before he or she has completed 25%of
the sentence because the prisoner had not completed sufficient time for
punishment i.e. 25% of their sentence, according to Wisconsin law of 25% of the
sentence must be completed before parole can be given.
However, the parole board has not defined, on a consistent
bases, what a "sufficient time to serve for punishment" is. Though it
is well defined in Wisconsin law, but not practiced, that sufficient time for
punishment is 25% of a sentence, it that is the use to set a parole 'date at
25% of a sentence but don't let ANYONE out at 25% of a sentence and the parole
board says serving 25% of a sentence is not sufficient time served for
punishment? It is a catch-22. The parole board is essentially saying that they
are the prosecutor, jury, judge and court of law and can re-convict and
re-sentence a prisoner to 1 to 4 more years at a time or in some cases MR.
In the days of parole commissioner John Huss in the early
1990's, prisoners had a hope of being paroled after serving 25% (or soon after)
no matter the arias they were in prison for. Thus Wisconsin's prisons were less
crowded.
2. RELEASE AT THIS TIME WOULD INVOLVE AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO
THE PUBLIC
Another common term of the parole board is: Release at this time
would involve an unreasonable risk, to the public." However, the parole
board does not even present any reasonable evidence, or evidence at all, from
the prisoners prison file to backup this statement. Thus the statement is just
routine and not of any factual bases if it is used on all prisoners. The parole
board member, on average, meets with a prisoner for less than an hour and can
not reasonably determine if the prisoner is a risk to society based- on a one time
meeting. For a person that never met you before to say you are an unreasonable
risk to the public is unreasonable.
If a person is sentenced to 40 years in prison, under old or new
law, that would mean he or she had to do 10 years (25%) before having a parole
hearing. Ten years is a long time and for the most part, the prisoner has
completed HSED/GED, a vocational trade class, ME programming and took sane time
out for self-improvement and maturing. Thus the prisoner is not and
unreasonable risk to the community in whence he or she came from, or any
community, but rather a more mature person that has made sane accomplishments
even in an adverse place like prison.
For prison in itself is a community, with populations reaching
over one thousand, and if the prisoner has not been convicted of a crime in
over ten years of incarceration, then the prisoner has consistently shown for
years on end that he or she poses no threat to the "outer" community.
Thus how can the parole board truthfully and reasonably state that the prisoner
is -an unreasonable risk to the public? The parole board members have used this
routine statement to place themselves as a god or fortuneteller to be able to
foresee the future to determine that a person who served 25% of their sentence
would be an unreasonable risk to the public if released. Thus statement
violates Due- Process and constitutional rights.
3. YOUR PROGRAM PARTICIPATION HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORY
Further, the parole board uses: "Your program participation
has not been satisfactory" to deny release. When a prisoner has had his
Assessment and Evaluation (A&E) he is given certain programs to complete
such as HSED, vocational training and anger management. However, once he gets
to his designated prison, it is up to the program directors to allow him into
the program such as anger management, AODA and CGIP regardless if he request to
complete the program. So the person with the 40 year sentence can request the
anger management program as soon as he gets into the prison but he will be
denied access due to his sentence length. The programs director will state,
"Due to the length of your sentence, prisoners with shorter time have
priority to this program. Request again when you get closer to your mandatory
release date." Which is 26 years (or 2/3 of the 4-0 year sentence). This,
in itself, makes the A&E process obsolete if the prisoner is parole
eligible at 25% their sentence but can't take certain programs until their
mandatory release date. Three things stand out here.
1. If the prisoner is being denied access to needed anger
management programming, the DOC is not preparing the prisoner for release at
25% of that sentence. A person that has a parole date should have the same
priority to a program as a person with a short sentence, because in theory, the
person should get out once 25% of their sentence is completed. If the prisoner
is in and out of the hole for fighting, the denial of programming is a factor because
the DOC has previously assessed him, at A&E, with an anger problem but
won't address it promptly by getting him the needed programming.
2. If the DOC is denying the prisoner access to a program, the
parole board will use this against the prisoner as program participation not
being satisfactory, even though it is documented that the prisoner has tried to
complete all recommended programs before his 25% has been served.
3. If the prisoner has 40 years but being denied anger
management until mandatory release, that would mean that he will have to be in
prison for 26 years with this untreated anger problem, that the DOC assessed
that ha has 26 years ago, before he can get in the program and it gets treated.
What is the logic behind this? None! Prisoners with parole dates should have
priority to programs to prepare them for release at 25% of their sentence. If
not, the DOC is either saying that, he has to self-treat an anger problem that
he don't understand why he has for 26 years until the DOC is ready to treat it,
the DOC is using denial of programs to keep prisons packed or there really is
no anger problem, the DOC just put anger management on A&E routinely, so
the parole board has something to use against releasing prisoners at 25%(or at
any point)
The crux of the matter is, it is not the prisoner who is
"refusing" the program, that is a different matter. It is the DOC who
is refusing to allow the prisoner access to complete the program. If a prisoner
has reached 25% of their sentence and has not refused any programs, and the DOC
has denied him access to programs that ME said are necessary, then the prisoner
has done no wrong in that regard, as such he should be released.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES
What use is it to have a parole hearing date at 25% of the sentence,
by law, and have a, parole board that says 25% is not sufficient time served
for punishment, contrary to law? The parole board is above the law. These two,
theories and practices, conflict. One or the other is unconstitutional. And we
can rationalize that it is the parole board's practices. With the Wisconsin law
of 25% being sufficient time served to be released, it makes the parole board
obsolete. The law of parole hearing date at 25% of the sentence and the prison
record should be enough in determining if someone should be released. It would
make things that much easier and ease the overcrowding prisons and save
tax-payers money if parole eligible prisoners were released on paroles.
By serving 25% of a sentence not being sufficient time served
for punishment according to the parole board and granting parole is now
discretionary, it becomes a system of how the parole board member feels on any
given day or how the member feels about a certain individual or the alleged
crime, on whether to release that prisoner or not. Thus serving 25% of a
sentence before a parole hearing and granting parole based on how the parole
board member feels about you in a 30 minute meeting, is a conflict. If the
judge sentenced a person to 40 years, the judge had it in mind that in 10 years
(25%) that person would have completed programs and matured, thus should be
released.
If a prisoner reached 25% of their sentence, and the parole
board has no logical, not theoretical, evidence that release at this time would
involve an unreasonable risk to the public, and the prisoner has tried to take
recommended programs and the DOC denied him access, the prisoner should be
released. It can not be a system of the prisoner meets Wisconsin's law of 25%
but the parole board overrules Wisconsin state law and says, 25% is not
sufficient time served for punishment. Or the prisoner readies 25% but the
parole board denies release based on a risk to the public with no evidence to
support that. Or the prisoner gets to 25% but the parole board denies release
based on programs not being completed when it is the DOC that denies access to
programming. It is all a catch-22 and needs to be changed. A policy must be put
into place, retroactively, for old and new law prisoners, that have
"reached (or would) 25% of their sentence, to cease the arbitrary
discretionary parole board and allow 25% of a sentence to be sufficient time
served for punishment, along with
1. a parole plan,
2. satisfactory record based on the last year (as they do now)
before the current earing
3. no logical evidence showing that you are or would be a risk
to the public,
4. an attempt to complete A&B programs before 25% of your
sentence is up.
This way it is on the prisoner to show by evidence and facts,
that they have served sufficient time, pose no threat to the public and have
done all that they can to complete all necessary programs before they have
reached 25% of their sentence.
SPECIAL ACTION PAROLE RELEASE, SEC. 304.02
The department shall use a special release program to relieve
crowding in state prison by releasing certain prisoners to parole supervision
using a procedure other than mandatory release under sec. 302.11 or release
under sec. 304.06 (1) (b). Most prisoners under old and new law are in prison
for homicide related cases and this is why granting parole is routinely denied.
However, if viewed in its full context, most of these parole eligible prisoners
were in their youth (teens and early 20*s) when these crimes occurred and now
have spent their 20 's and part of their 30's (and some of them 40's, 50's and
part of their 60's-prison). Thus they are no longer in their youth but mature
adults that view the world differently, value life and want to contribute to
society. The crimes are not excused because they were committed in their youth,
and/or out of ignorance. However, it explains that the person that they were in
their youth and now, are two totally different people. And to perpetually
punish them for a crime done in their youth, and/or out of ignorance, serves no
purpose to justice or to a so-called civilized society, when that 'person has
changed and is positive now. Thus the department should use this special
release program statue to release old and new law prisoners based on their
conduct now, not their past crime, or based on who they ware 10, 15 or 20 years
ago, to relieve prison overcrowding.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, the above facts are to be taken into consideration
for a more uniformed approach to parole in any given case. Parole should be
mandatory at 25% with satisfactory conduct for all old and new law prisoners,
based on their behavior for the Last year prior to the parole hearing. To
perpetually incarcerate changed people is inane and serves no purpose in the
scheme of justice or restorative justice.
By: Marvin D Wilson
GBCI 297343
P.O. box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307
No comments:
Post a Comment