Barbara R. Levine is executive director of the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public
Spending in Lansing.
Proponents of Michigan’s unique “truth in sentencing” scheme must answer two questions. What benefits make it worth the huge expense? And why do they think they are right and everyone else is wrong?
For decades, Michigan, like other states, awarded prisoners generous amounts of time off for good behavior — or “good time.” But a 1978 initiative petition prohibited these awards.
Then, in 1982, faced with
dangerous overcrowding, the Legislature adopted a more modest system of
“disciplinary credits.” Since accumulated credits can be lost, prisoners
had a strong incentive to follow the rules. Nonetheless, credits just
made people eligible for parole consideration sooner; they did not
require that anyone be released.
In 1998, “truth in
sentencing” legislation took a big step backward. It eliminated not only
disciplinary credits, but also transition programs for people nearing
parole. Over the last decade, it has required thousands of additional
prison beds and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.
As
the Citizens Research Council has explained, truth in sentencing is a
primary reason the average prison stay in Michigan is much longer than
in comparable states. A recent Senate Fiscal Agency report notes that by
contributing to the aging of our prisoner population, truth in
sentencing also drives up health care costs.
There is no
evidence that restoring sentence credits would harm public safety. In
fact, research shows there is no relationship between recidivism and
length of stay. The justification for eliminating all credit is
transparency.
Critics argue that it is dishonest not to have people
serve every day of their sentence. But transparency can be achieved
simply by stating at sentencing how much credit the defendant might
earn. As former Michigan Department of Corrections Director Bob Brown — a
strong proponent of restoring credits — has said: The system can
certainly be honest for a lot less money.
Sentencing credits
can have a positive effect. People who have failed to meet societal
expectations, often despite receiving plenty of punishment, need
opportunities for positive reinforcement. Sentence credits can encourage
prisoners to behave in ways that will ultimately benefit not only them
but also the communities to which they will return.
Michigan
stands virtually alone. Federal prisoners can receive 15% off their
sentences. Most states give some amount of credit for good conduct. Many
give an additional amount, typically called “earned credit,” for
participation in work, educational or treatment programs. Even Michigan
counties use “sheriffs’ good time” to control the size of jail
populations and manage inmate behavior. The American Correctional
Association has a formal policy that supports the use of both good time
and earned credits.
Michigan’s original good-time system was
both very generous and complicated to administer. But to argue against
restoring that particular system misses the point.
Michigan can adopt whatever combination of good conduct and program participation credits it chooses. The important thing is that we all come to the table prepared to evaluate honestly what the impact of truth in sentencing has been and to consider cost-effective alternatives.