Give parole-eligible lifers fair hearings

October 31, 2007

It's not surprising that the Michigan Department of Corrections plans to appeal a court ruling that some of its parole policies are unconstitutional, but the department would do better just to fix the problem. That could be accomplished by appointing a special panel to review the cases of parole-eligible lifers who have not had fair or constitutional hearings.

 

A federal judge ruled last week that the department had violated the constitutional rights of more than 1,000 inmates serving life sentences that carried the possibility of parole. The problem arises from changes made to parole policy in 1992, when the Legislature and Gov. John Engler replaced corrections professionals on the 10-member parole board with political appointees.

 

The new board has practically adopted a life-means-life philosophy, releasing only a handful of lifers eligible for parole. But those sentenced before 1992 were sent to prison with an understanding that their parole process would be very different, and their release determined by a number of factors the new board disregards.

 

That's an unconstitutionally retroactive shift, the judge said. MDOC denies to this day that any policy shift occurred.

But rather than fight with the court, it makes better sense to confront the issue squarely.

 

Most parolable lifers committed armed robbery or second-degree murder. Some judges have acknowledged that they didn't intend for them to remain in prison for life. In fact, before 1992, most lifers served about 15 years and were eligible for parole after 10.

 

Parole-eligible lifers tend to have low recidivism rates. The offenders affected by the ruling are older -- typically over 50 -- and generally have good institutional records, said Paul Reingold, the University of Michigan law professor who brought the lawsuit. All have already served at least 15 years.

 

MDOC ought to appoint a provisional panel to review the more than 1,000 cases, applying the same parole standards to them that were in place before 1992. To be sure, not all of these offenders should get paroles. Still, the board could probably safely release many, perhaps hundreds, which would help the state move forward with planned prison closings.