Get-tough policy helps bloat prison system

Sunday, June 24, 2007

By Judy Putnam

Lansing Bureau

LANSING -- As Gov. Jennifer Granholm pushes to close prisons to reduce the state's ballooning corrections budget, critics say some of her own get-tough-on-crime policies are filling beds needlessly.

Some parolees are getting slapped with a mandatory five years in prison because they were caught with imitation guns, including BB, paintball or squirt guns.

A man paroled on a criminal sexual conduct conviction for having sex with an underage girl when he was 23 found himself back in prison for more than three years after giving a ride to his pregnant cousin, her sons and her nephew. The ride violated the no-contact-with-children condition of his parole.

We don't want to see people returned to prison because they failed to meet unreasonable expectations that have nothing to do with public safety,'' said Barbara Levine, executive director of the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, an advocacy group that looks at the cost of incarceration.

The strict parole rules are necessary to safely supervise offenders making the transition from incarceration to freedom, said Russ Marlan, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Corrections.

"The goal is not to make it hard for them. We don't want to see anyone fail on parole,'' Marlan said. "What we're trying to do is make sure they succeed, but also ensure the safety of our communities.''

Last year Tom VanGieson, 44, a Clinton Township drug offender, was sent back to prison for five years after a surprise visit from his parole officer caught him with firecrackers, a sword, beer and a BB gun in his home, all violations of his parole conditions.

But it was the BB gun that returned him to prison for five years under a 2004 zero-tolerance policy launched by Granholm in her first term. The policy was aimed at reducing gun violence by sending parolees back to prison for five years, or until the end of the maximum sentence if less than five years, if they possess a gun or imitation gun.

VanGieson's father, Mel, a retired GM engineer from Warren, said his son is an alcoholic who broke his parole rules, but five years is too high a price to pay. Tom VanGieson, he said, in an Army vet who was working and had reduced an $11,000 overdue child support payment to $2,200 in just eight months out of prison. He had spent the day fishing when he was caught in violation of his parole.

"I don't see any logic in the state spending ($30,000 a year) to incarcerate someone for five years for a possession of a BB gun. That's not even considered a firearm under Michigan statutes,'' Mel VanGieson said.

VanGieson said his son failed to pay attention to the parole rules and the gun was among items he brought home after storing them in a former girlfriend's garage.

In a similar case, Caroline Burgess, 24, of Portage, has tearfully testified before legislative committees about her fiancee, Charles Hunt, 31, who was sent back to prison for five years because a BB gun she owned was found in their shared apartment.

Hunt, on parole for breaking into a car, told her she couldn't keep the BB gun she had unpacked last fall, Burgess said. She said she made plans to give it to a neighbor, but before she could get rid of it, Hunt was picked up for failing to appear for a meeting with his parole officer. Police found the gun in the couple's living room, Burgess said.

Hunt, who had a night job at a motel, is back in prison for five years.

"There was no crime. This is a broken rule that is costing us five years of our lives and $150,000 in taxpayer dollars, and I'm a taxpayer,'' Burgess said.

Michigan has sent 284 parolees back to prison for five years under the zero-tolerance policy, according to Marlan.

An estimated 240 cases are for real guns and the rest are for imitation or "facsimile" guns.

Whether they are real doesn't lessen the fear of potential victims, Marlan said.

"You point a pellet gun at someone's face, they don't know it's not a gun,'' Marlan said.

He said parolees are fully aware that they are not to have fake or real guns as a condition of their release.

Legal Aid of Western Michigan attorney Miriam Aukerman, who works on prisoner re-entry issues, said that the parole board is overworked and appears to be applying conditions broadly without considering the individual circumstances.

"I would say we have a schizophrenic approach as a state to the release of prisoners,'' she said. "We're making it harder by passing lots of laws and restrictions that undercut the ability of people to do the things we want them to do: Find employment and reintegrate with their families.''

Harvey Reese Jr., 33, of Lansing, spent more than three years in prison for giving a ride to his pregnant cousin and her two sons and a nephew, aged 11, 14 and 16.

In January 2004, Reese was on parole from a criminal sexual conduct conviction and was ordered not to have contact with children. He was working as a maintenance crew manager at a General Motors Corp. plant. He said he had just purchased a new Saturn with his earnings and was driving through a fast-food restaurant when his cousin, who was seven months pregnant, spotted him and asked for a ride. Reese said she was having cramps.

Reese said when she got in the car, three children with her -- her two sons and a nephew -- also got in the car. After he left the restaurant, he was stopped for having an air freshener hanging from his rearview mirror, blocking his view.

Although he was not ticketed, the officer did a background check and arrested him for breaking parole rules.

He spent more than three years in prison and was released in May.

Although he understands the rule, Reese said he couldn't turn his back on a relative who needed him. His family was supportive while he served time in prison for a drug offense and the sex conviction, he said.

Now he's on a tether for a year and can't have contact with his own children, aged 3 and 8. He wants to marry the mother of his 3-year-old daughter, but is prohibited.

"We should be allowed to see our children, at least our children. It's hard when you've got a family,'' he said.

The MDOC's Marlan agreed with the basic facts of Reese's story, but said Reese is a sex offender who was prohibited from contact with kids, and he broke the rule.

Barbara Janoskey, 34, of Jackson, also has a no-contact-with-children rule, although her crime was armed robbery, not a sex offense. She says the rule is interfering with her family members' lives and limiting her job opportunities.

Janoskey served nearly six years after using a gun in an attempted robbery that involved a woman and a 9-year-old at a drive-through ATM.

The woman was unable to withdraw any money from her account and Janoskey walked away. She says she was addicted to crack and was in a "drug-induced haze."

Now drug-free, on parole and living with her parents, she's prohibited from contact with her two sons, aged 11 and 14, and had to give up a job at a fast-food restaurant because it had a play yard for kids. She's instead working a night shift at a restaurant that's farther from home.

"I'm not a sex offender. I'm not a child abuser. I spent six years trying to re-establish the family connections I destroyed while I was using drugs. Now everything's on hold,'' she said.

Her parents have objected, too, because it keeps their many grandchildren from visiting, Janoskey said.

Marlan said the rule was applied by a parole board member overseeing Janoskey's case. He said she used a gun in an attempted robbery and a child was traumatized.

"She walked up to that car with two occupants, a 42-year-old female and a 9-year-old girl. She chose to put the gun to the 9-year-old girl,'' he said. "They want to ensure she doesn't do this type of thing again.''

Janoskey says she only waved a gun and didn't point it at the child. She said that was a mistake in her original file and she's tried for years to clear it.

Marlan said Janoskey's parole officer has recommended that the no-contact rule be lifted if Janoskey is in compliance with her parole conditions for six months.