Forum for Understanding
Prisons(FFUP)
a 501c3 non profit
June 2014 FFUP
Report on OLD LAW PRISONERS
Mechanisms used
for keeping parole stuck
Ways to unstuck
parole
INTRO
Because FFUP’s main mission is to provide a
voice for inmates and their families, I get a lot of mail. Of late that mailbox
has been full of data and information on the various mechanism used to keep
inmates in and also, ideas from other states and statutes we can use to set
very convoluted system straight.
It is important to know about
these letters to understand that there are no laws that need to be passed to
get parole back on track .This was a political move and can be undone with a
political move. Here are parole figures taken from an investigative article by
the Milwaukee Journal sentinel in 2002 . In this same time period the DOC
population went from 7,500 to 22,000. 1992, the board released 2,921 prisoners on parole and 648 prisoners had to wait until MR
1993 3,624 paroled 607 waited for MR
1994 3,325 paroled 698 waited for MR
1995 3,941 paroled 965 waited for MR
1996. 3,705 paroled 1,086 waited for MR
1997. 3,637 paroled 1,291 waited for MR
1998. 2,627 paroled 2,006 waited for MR
1999. 1,567 paroled 3,347 waited for MR
2000. 2,325 paroled 4,424 waited for MR
2001 1,872 paroled 4,131 waited for MR
There were 3 ,624 inmate released in 1993:before the
memo went into effect . There were 150 old law releases in 2012. This was done
without substantive legislative action.
We believe we can restore the integrity of the
system by governor mandate and/or rule change.
Statute 227.12 provides that 5 or more
people can petition for a rule change:
2 227.12 Petition for
rules.
(1) Unless the right to petition for a rule is restricted by statute to a designated group or unless the form of procedure for a petition is otherwise prescribed by statute, a municipality, an association which is representative of a farm, labor, business or professional group, or any 5 or more persons having an interest in a rule may petition an agency requesting it to promulgate a rule.
(1) Unless the right to petition for a rule is restricted by statute to a designated group or unless the form of procedure for a petition is otherwise prescribed by statute, a municipality, an association which is representative of a farm, labor, business or professional group, or any 5 or more persons having an interest in a rule may petition an agency requesting it to promulgate a rule.
(2) A petition shall state clearly and concisely:
(a) The substance or nature of the rule making requested.
(b) The reason for the request and the petitioners' interest in
the requested rule.
(c) A reference to the agency's authority to promulgate the
requested rule.
(3) Except as provided in sub. (4), within a reasonable period of time after the receipt of a
petition under this section, an agency shall either deny the petition in
writing or proceed with the requested rule making. If the agency denies the
petition, it shall promptly notify the petitioner of the denial, including a
brief statement of the reason for the denial. If the agency proceeds with the
requested rule making, it shall follow the procedures prescribed in this
subchapter..
FFUP Rule proposals SUMMATION
IN Quick summation here, with explanations to follw: We suggest that much pressure be out on the Governor to enact the suggestions made by WISDOM in appointing a retired judge to serve as ombudsman. PLUS we seriously explore the use of statute 227.12 (above)to enact new rules . Here are rule suggestions:
FFUP Rule proposals SUMMATION
IN Quick summation here, with explanations to follw: We suggest that much pressure be out on the Governor to enact the suggestions made by WISDOM in appointing a retired judge to serve as ombudsman. PLUS we seriously explore the use of statute 227.12 (above)to enact new rules . Here are rule suggestions:
1)Release on parole should be granted based on good conduct and efficient performance of duties while confined, including preparedness for re-entry.
2) The Parole Board must state in detail the specific requirements an applicant should meet to be released on parole . This cannot contain a catch-all provision that might allow the decision-maker to base his or her decision on an unenumerated factor .
3) The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to provide applicants access — within 90 days — to the programs or facilities needed to complete the requirements for their release
4) Prisoner’s family members are to be allowed at the parole hearing. At present only victim and victim advocates are allowed.
The rest
of this report will include a series of memos that effectively killed parole, a list of unwritten rules that muck up the system and finally a summation of best practices of other states so we can best create a set of rules
that will finally make parole work again.
We do
not pretend that any of this is exhaustive,
it is intended to spark creative discussion.
We also want
to thank our incarcerated friends for
this wonderful information and for their undying and often misplaced trust in
me. From the bottom of m heart I apologize for my most confused society that
has treated them so unjustly and work for the day when they will be home with
their families and communities. As one
inmate who has been in administrative segregation for 15 years wrote:
“In solidarity we
stand, fall and rise again and again until the day we die . But even then, I
left instructions to bury me standing up.”
First the law:
Are
old law prisoners eligible for release?
1)WI
1989-1990 statutes 304 and 302.(attachment 1a and 1b) The relevant parts are 304.06 (b)where it
says (in sum) prisoners are eligible for parole after serving 25% of their
time, or 6 months, whichever is greater. An inmate serving a life term is
eligible after 20 years.
2)Then there
is good time calculation which inmates now say is irrelevant since all
inmates incarcerated under this old law statute have served at least twenty
years. This good time statute reduces that 20 years to 13 years and 4 months.
Before 1984, lifers were eligible, with good time, to be released after 11
years 3 months.
MR (Mandatory
Release) meant
that with good behavior , the inmate must be released when he/she had finished
2/3rd of his/her time. In
1998 PMR was introduced (Presumptive Mandatory Release) which says that if
the inmate has not finished all his programming, the prison does not have to
release him/her . This is the way many old law prisoners are kept infinitely
second,
the hows and whys of how this got stuck are important.
The exhibits are here as small pictures (jpg) and as documents to open for those who want a closer view.
The exhibits are here as small pictures (jpg) and as documents to open for those who want a closer view.
Exhibit
1 (click here to view in PDF form)
The famous memo of Thompson to
Sullivan. In order to get the grant money, Thompson had to devise a way to keep
“violent offenders’ in as long as
possible. Truth in sentencing took care of current offenders, for old law people
there could be no new laws so Thompson ordered the DOC to pursue “any and all
available avenues to block the release
if violent offenders who have reached their mandatory release date.
.jpg)
Exhibit
2 through 4
3 grant award letters. BIG federal bucks: 42 U.S.C- 13701-13704,
"violent crime control act of 1994" gave the state of Wisconsin
Millions of federal dollars to Keep a sub class of offenders, classified as
'violent’ locked up as long as possible. This was the bill that built the supermaxes
around the country and spurred the whole prison boom Letter three states as of
1999 Wisconsin had received $12,476,558.
The Federal Grants below funded Wisconsin's prison Boom- we went from 7 thousand prisoners to 22 thousand. In exchange, parole was killed for OLD LAW prisoners and Truth in sentencing was enacted.
(click here to view in pdf form)
Exhibit 5- 2007 letter from Tamara Grigsby to the ParoleChairman Alfonso Graham proposing rule PAC 1.06 (5) and (7) changes.
.jpg) |
| 1997 VO Federal grant to WI |
.jpg) |
| 1990 VO Fed Grant to WI |
.jpg) |
| 1999 VO grant to WI |
Exhibit 5- 2007 letter from Tamara Grigsby to the ParoleChairman Alfonso Graham proposing rule PAC 1.06 (5) and (7) changes.
Exhibit
6 This memo prepares for SANDRIDGE- involuntary commitment for sex offenders after they have reached theirmandatory release date. This is the biggest unknown boondoggle, costing the
state $158.000 per inmate, not counted on DOC
roles ,this is considered a “treatment facility” and the inmates are “patients”
and are kept till they die generally.
.jpg)
Essay by one inmate included here in EXHIBIT 7(click here to view)
Essay by one inmate included here in EXHIBIT 7(click here to view)
Listing
of excuses and unwritten rules messing system up ( FFUP has documentation)
This is not complete
The
usual excuses:
Has not served enough time-(no
criteria given)
Must be released from minimum
security institution
Must have 11 month defer before
release
All above are bogus, no written rules
behind them yet used consistently in parole action reports. On the moving to minimum before release:
According to reports, inmates with life
sentences are kept in minimum because the public perceives these are “Good
inmates” then when they come up for parole , the Parole commission says “he killed someone, and has not served
enough time.” Those with lesser sentences stay in maximums until just before
they “max” out. (serve every minute of their sentence). The litigators and
activist STAY in maximums and “max” out finally or die.
less
known examples of unwritten rules used to confuse and befuddle/and statutes
misapplied
1) mandatory Programming
must be assigned by the judge. Many reports of programs assigned retroactively
Larry Brown: They applied
the 2004 PMR rule retroactively and
required that him take a 4 year sot program, He had already completed the
required SOT program; also John Washington and many others
2) catch 22 of
administrative segregation: Luis Ramirez : mentally ill in seg are not allowed programming / he
is being threatened with being give extra time because he has not cooperated
with programming. Wants good programming desperately
3) 1997 Life means life
act is being used retroactively. For example, Roberto Hinojosa, in 30 years so
far, sentenced to life in 1983. 1983-1984 statutes regarding lifers stated release
in part: “or when he or she has served 20 years less than deduction of good
time.”
4) complaints of
misapplication of Presentence investigation ( PI) reports - these are reports done
with victim, prisoner’s friends and neighbors and families etc before
sentencing- filled with heresay and often inflated stories. They are used for sentencing and
also throughout prison term for custody assignments and length of stay. I
believe the prisoner cannot even see
them.
5) The most frustrating:
Parole eligible inmates are not allowed to take programming until they are very
close to their mandatory release date- which is often decades away-the prisoner
call the intervening time “dead time”. Often these same inmates have statements
from the judge such as ”I am sentencing
you to forty years because you are in your early twenties and I want you to be
ten years older when you get out. “ again , unwritten rule-no programming until
near mandatory release date.
6) FFUP is looking into
reports that there are hundreds of Old Law inmates from Mexico and South
America who have orders from the judge that that they be deported to their home
country on completion of their sentence. They are long past parole eligibility
date. Incredulously, These people are being told they are still too much a
danger to be released.
Template for rule changes
“If the parole board doesn’t like the crime, you are not
getting out,”
“The problem today is that the parole board often
acts as if it were responsible for sentencing. It simply reexamines the
underlying crime and history-factors that will never change” The board has
adopted
a cavalier attitude that its decisions are above judicial scrutiny.” They know how to manipulate the system so as
to run out the clock on the inmates claims
“The board should not be allowed to
Continue to warehouse human beings for its own self-preservation and political
and economic interests. It must stop.”
No,
the discussion above is not about Wisconsin although it sounds like it. It is about NY, which almost passed the
Safe and Fair
Evaluations (SAFE) Parole Act (A.4108/S.1128)which would have undid a 1998 law
eliminating discretionary parole for all violent offenders. Something very watered down finally did pass
but the debate has resulted in much rethinking anyway and prisons are emptying.
Because Wisconsin merely needs to obey
the statutes already on the books which worked fine when not cobbled with unwritten and contradictory
rules, we do not need to go through the legislature but might want to craft
rule changes and use the petition statute(227.12) cited above to get a hearing
. Here are some of the provisions of the safe parole law to consider.
This is a summary:
This is a summary:
The basic goal
NY SAFE PAROLE ACT:”move parole to a place where makes it less of a subjective
process and provides justice to all those involved."
1) The bill would also make any documents the parole board has access to available to parole applicants. (this would included presentence investigation)
1) The bill would also make any documents the parole board has access to available to parole applicants. (this would included presentence investigation)
2)
applicants' psychiatric evaluation to be made available to the victim
or to the victims' families with the consent of the applicant;
3) would require that
release on parole should be granted based on good conduct and efficient
performance of duties while confined, including preparedness for
re-entry;
4) would require the
Parole Board to state in detail the specific requirements an applicant should
meet to be released on parole
5) and would require
the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision to provide
applicants access — within 90 days — to the programs or facilities
needs to complete the requirements for their release.
Summary
of best practice in report on NY / This is a report that includes analysis on
parole practices in all states, easily found on internet by googling. recommended reading:
EVALUATION AS THE PROPER FUNCTION OF THE PAROLE BOARD: AN
ANALYSIS OF NEW YORK STATE’S PROPOSED SAFE PAROLE ACT/Amy Robinson-Oost
Maryland,
New Jersey, and Rhode Island provide strong examples of parole laws that
incorporate the best practices in parole theory, with Maryland serving as
perhaps the gold standard
The
parole laws of these three states share the following exemplary
characteristics:
(1) they provide specific and numerous
guidelines for the parole board to consider;
(2)
the predominant focus of the factors is on the parole applicant’s rehabilitation
and progress during his or her incarceration;
(3)
they do not contain a catch-all provision that might allow the decision-maker
to base his or her decision on an unenumerated factor; and
(4)
they utilize a risk assessment instrument, such as a matrix, yet this
instrument does not limit the parole board’s discretion. The guidelines thus
allow for individualization in decision making that can be based on consistent,
forward-looking factors. The mere presentation of a risk assessment tool, along
with guidelines or factors, is not sufficient on its own. When legislatures
provide multi-factored guidelines for determining parole, the considerations
should be unambiguous. Nebulous factors such as “whether there is reasonable
probability that such inmate will live and remain at liberty without violating
the law” and whether the release is in the best interests of the people of this
state are
not instructive to decision-makers or to parole applicants because they do not
provide substantive guidance against which to judge the applicant’s
preparedness for reentry. Statutes that rely on such factors to the exclusion
of others may enable parole board members to exercise improper discretion.
Thus, the risk assessment instrument
is
helpful in guiding the process but cannot and should not be relied on
exclusively. One of the many advantages of the SAFE Parole Act over the current
parole law is its presentation of unambiguous
guidelines.
RULE CHANGE
PROPOSALS for WISCONSIN
IN sum, I suggest that much pressure be out on the
Governor to enact the suggestions made by WISDOM in appointing a retired judge
to serve as ombudsman. PLUS we seriously explore the use of statute 271 to
enact new rules . Here are rule suggestions:
1)Release
on parole should be granted based on good conduct and efficient performance of
duties while confined, including preparedness for re-entry.
2) The
Parole Board must state in detail the specific requirements an applicant should
meet to be released on parole . This cannot contain a
catch-all provision that might allow the decision-maker to base his or her
decision on an unenumerated factor .
3) The Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision to provide applicants access — within 90 days
— to the programs or facilities needed to complete the requirements for
their release
4)
Prisoner’s family members are to be allowed at the parole hearing. At present
only victim and victim advocates are allowed.
Exhibit
1- 1994 Thompsons memo to Sullivan starting no parole
Exhibit 2-4
1997-1999 federal grants to WI amounting to 12 million for prison expansion
Exhibit 5-
2007 letter from Tamara Grigsby to the
Parole Chairman Alfonso Graham proposing rule PAC 1.06 (5) and (7)
changes.
Exhibit 6-1994
negotiations on how to keep sex offenders in forever- possibly starting
SANDRIDGE treatment center.
(Note:
stipulation that only those that were violent after incarceration would be
further detained was not implemented.)
Exhibit 7 -
essay on Sandridge boondoggle by 70 year old “patient”.
Peg Swan
Member, FFUP
29631
Wild Rose Drive
Blue
River, WI 53518
1-608-536-3993
Web:prisonforum.org
No comments:
Post a Comment