Give prison lifers fair parole hearings

January 17, 2007

A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court against the state Parole Board could force changes in how it handles inmates with life sentences who are now eligible for release. But neither the Parole Board nor the Legislature, facing a growing and costly prison population, should wait for court action. They ought to give the state's more than 800 parole-eligible lifers the same review process as other inmates who have served their minimum sentences.

After Gov. John Engler and the Legislature changed the makeup of the 10-member Parole Board in 1992, it practically adopted a life-means-life policy. But many judges had sentenced parole-eligible offenders with an understanding that, legally, life didn't mean life. It meant eligible for parole in 10 years. In 1992, state law increased the minimum to 15 years.

The state Parole Board no longer grants regular interviews to these inmates, typically convicted of armed robbery or second-degree murder. A federal suit, filed by Paul Reingold of the University of Michigan Clinical Law Program, argues that the Parole Board has, in effect, changed the rules and created harsher sentences.

A recent study by the Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending found that nearly three-fourths of parolable lifers sentenced before 1970 were released after serving an average of less than 16 years. By contrast, only 8% of those sentenced from 1970 to 1985 have been released, even though they have served an average of nearly 25 years. Most are now middle aged or older, often with serious and costly health care problems, and some could be safely released at a big savings to taxpayers.

The Parole Board ought to review these cases as they do other inmates with parole eligibility, even if that requires a special panel to handle the backlog. Michigan, facing a budget shortfall that just this year could hit more than $500 million, can't afford not to.

Copyright © 2006 Detroit Free Press Inc.