Local
The constitutional rights of more than 1,000 inmates serving life sentences in Michigan prisons have been violated ever since parole policies were toughened in the 1990s, a federal judge has ruled.
U.S. District Judge Marianne Battani said the cumulative effect of the parole changes violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on laws being applied retroactively.
She released her decision earlier this week, and has yet to decide what her ruling means for 1,000 to 1,200 Michigan prisoners sentenced before 1992 to life in prison with the possibility of parole. The ruling does not affect inmates sentenced after 1992.
"Men and women have been waiting since 1992 for constitutional parole hearings," said Paul Reingold, a University of Michigan law professor who brought the lawsuit on behalf of seven prisoners in 2005. The suit has class-action status.
Since the early 1990s, prisoner advocates say, the Michigan Parole Board has been less willing to release inmates sentenced to life with the possibility of parole.
In the 1970s and 1980s, a life sentence for a crime meant some inmates - except those convicted of first-degree murder - ultimately would be released, assuming they had behaved well and did not have a substantial prior record.
Some Michigan judges have said they never intended that those criminals remain in prison for life. Back then, some people serving a life sentence with the possibility of parole could be released sooner than those given a fixed sentence such as 25 years.
Once the parole board's makeup changed from civil service employees to appointed members in 1992, the board adopted a "life means life" policy, Battani ruled.
State officials disagree, and like prisoner advocates, cite parole statistics to make their case.
"Life has always meant life," said Russ Marlan, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Corrections. "How could it mean anything else?"
He added that 70 percent of all lifers eligible for parole are in prison for either second-degree murder or sex offenses.
"They take a hard line with these cases," Marlan said.
In the 1990s, the Legislature reduced the frequency of parole reviews for lifers, changed the structure and size of the parole board, took away inmates' right to appeal parole decisions and eliminated the requirement that a member of the board interview lifers, instead saying a file or paper review was sufficient.
Battani ruled that before 1992, parole standards were the same for parolable lifers and inmates with long sentences - and the parole board considered a number of factors including inmates' behavior and progress in prison.
After 1992, "the potential danger to the public was assessed solely from the standpoint of the seriousness of the crime," Battani said.
Once the judge rules on a remedy for the inmates, Marlan said the state will appeal. State courts have ruled against prisoners challenging tougher parole policies.
Reingold said the parolable lifers should be reviewed for parole as quickly as possible by a temporary or provisional parole board.
"Under the current board, the crime itself trumps everything," he said. "Before 1992, that simply wasn't the case."
