We all recognize that any discussion of corrections is inevitably going to be affected by the brutal murders of three people by a parolee.  Although such killings are extremely rare, when events like this happen, it is a struggle to keep them from driving policy.  And even though the narrow issue in the current case is why Mr. Selepak was released from custody after his parole violation, inevitably questions arise about the entire parole process. 

Asking questions about the parole process is a lot of what we do, because changes in parole policies have largely driven the expansion of our prison system since 1992.  As Director Caruso has already explained, parole is not early release.  Michigan prisoners must serve the minimum sentence imposed by the courts as punishment for the crime.  The courts must select minimum sentences in accordance with sentencing guidelines adopted by the Legislature.  The question in every case is how much more than the minimum a person will be required to serve.

Many, many people who have served well past their minimum terms, have excellent records in prison and have not exhibited any threatening behavior since they were sentenced are denied parole because the board does not feel confident that they will not pose some risk in the future. Yet, even though parole practices have been tightened and tightened in response to previous high profile cases, the board cannot predict that a particular parolee will commit this sort of horrific crime.  Creating the unrealistic expectation that such predictions can be made leads to locking up thousands of people who would never commit another crime, much less multiple murders, to avoid releasing the one person who will.

So, as you consider the nearly $2 billion budget proposed for the MDOC in 2007, we must continue to ask whether our scarce resources are being put to their best use.  The fact that we will not need to open more prisons in the next few years is good news, but we need to do better than the status quo. Nearly 50,000 prisoners are still far too many.  We are still talking about adding 545 beds this year, causing existing facilities to become even more overcrowded. We still have the highest incarceration rate of any Great Lakes state. We are still talking about an increase of 4.8 percent in general fund spending on corrections and corrections will still take more than 20 percent of the general fund budget. Above all, even after building in the hoped-for reductions in recidivism from MPRI, we are still projecting that the population will exceed 54,000 by 2010 – that is, that we will add 4,500 people in the next four and a half years.

Our prison population can be not just contained but reduced.  If we examine exactly who we have incarcerated and why, we can devise solutions that are cost-effective and protective of public safety.  As the December 2005 Wall Street Journal article I have attached to my testimony shows, other states are utilizing a variety of approaches and Michigan can too.  We have already made a good start, by reforming our drug laws and investing in re-entry support for people returning to the community. Because of boilerplate you put in last year’s budget, the department has improved access to assaultive offender programming that is critical to improving people’s chances of getting paroled. We ask, by the way, that you keep that boilerplate this year to ensure that these improvements in program delivery continue.

As I have watched these hearings, I have been impressed by the range and insightfulness of the questions each member of this committee has posed.  Your search for information has already produced important new data.  For instance, in response to a boilerplate requirement in last year’s budget bill, the MDOC recently reported on prisoners who are discharged after serving their maxi-mum sentences.  It appears that the rate of return to prison with new sentences is not very different for people who max out than it is for those who are paroled.  For parolees, four years after release it is 14.2%; for people who maxed out, over a four-year period it is 16.2%.  Based on this data, we should ask what we are really gaining for the cost of keeping so many prisoners for so many additional years.

I would like to suggest a few more questions you might want to pursue. One is why the number of parole decisions dropped by nearly 2,000 last year and the number of people moving to parole dropped by more than 1,000 – the equivalent of one $20 million prison. 

The available data does not indicate that fewer people were eligible for review. When CAPPS analyzed the MDOC prisoner database as of May 2003, we found 11,223 people who were past their earliest release date but not yet paroled and 3,645 technical parole violators. At the end of 2005, 11,524 people were past their earliest release date and there were 3,675 technical parole violators.  That is, the number of people eligible for parole consideration had actually increased slightly. There are also about 834 parolable lifers whose numbers remain virtually unchanged.

Given these figures, it is difficult to understand why the number of parole decisions has dropped.  If there are fewer prisoners in the categories the board is most likely to release, that would explain why fewer of the decisions made would be grants.  But that does not explain why the total number of decisions to be made would be smaller. 

One possibility is that the board is continuing people for longer periods before their next parole interview.  By policy, once it denies parole to someone other than a lifer, the board can schedule the next review for 12, 18 or 24 months.  There are no set criteria.  People commonly receive continuances of varying lengths for no apparent reason.  If the people not being paroled are getting increasingly longer continuances, they would come up for review less often and fewer parole decisions would be made in a given year.  I don’t know if this is the case.  But since continuance practices can have a big impact on bedspace, they would seem to be worth exploring.

We also need a better understanding of who might be good candidates for release based on age and/or illness. We spend tens of millions of dollars to treat prisoners who have such serious chronic illnesses as kidney failure, heart disease, Parkinson’s and cancer.  We run a geriatric unit where elderly prisoners have all they can do to get themselves fed and dressed.  Even if some people had to be placed in chronic care facilities designed for parolees rather than released directly to the community, it would take the cost of their housing and their medical care out of the MDOC budget.  Federal dollars for Medicaid, social security disability benefits and VA benefits could be leveraged and, in some cases, private health insurance or other resources might be available. 

It is true that some older prisoners were already older when they committed their offenses.  And some committed such terrible crimes that the public would want them to die in prison no matter what the expense or the actual risk to public safety.  But it is also true that some older prisoners have served decades longer than they would if sentenced today.  And some seriously ill people who present no risk to anyone are past their parole eligibility dates. 

One example is attached to my testimony. Ruth Bullock was serving a parolable life sentence for possessing more than 650 grams of cocaine.  The parole board denied release at 10 years. When she came up for her next review at 15 years she was 63 and suffered from kidney failure, seizures, high blood pressure and a brain tumor.  She had waited six months for a decision when blood vessels in her brain ruptured and she died after multiple surgeries at U-M Hospital. 

We need a better understanding of why more foreign nationals are not released so they can be deported under stringent post-911 immigration laws.  About 150 foreign nationals who are currently eligible for parole are being housed in Michigan prisons at a cost to Michigan taxpayers of $4.5 million a year. Another 200 will become parole-eligible this year and next.  Their crimes range from OUIL, drug possession and theft to sex offenses and murder.  Some don’t speak English well enough to participate in group therapy programs or to communicate fluently at parole board interviews.  I am not suggesting that every foreign national should automatically be deported as soon as possible no matter what the circumstances.  But some of these cases make you wonder just what Michigan citizens are paying for. 

Again, one example is attached to my testimony.  Gabriel Christ, a 59-year old German citizen with no prior record is serving 1-10 years for assault and 2-15 years for third-degree criminal sexual conduct as the result of a domestic dispute.  The parole guidelines note that this was a situational offense, unlikely to recur, and score Christ as having a high probability of release.  He has not received a single misconduct citation while in prison and would be immediately deported to Germany. Nevertheless, the parole board has turned Christ down for parole five times because he refuses to admit guilt of the sexual assault.  He is now 5 ½ years past his earliest release date. 

Finally, we need to have a better understanding of how risk assessments are being made.  When people score high probability of release on the parole guidelines, the board is required to state substantial and compelling reasons for denying parole.  But so often the reasons given are general conclusions like:  “despite completion of therapy and good institutional record, board doesn’t feel assured that prisoner is not a risk.”  Allusions are often made to the parole interview, such as:  “during interview, prisoner minimized his offense” or “prisoner appears to lack insight.”  The interview is not recorded and what the prisoner actually said is not quoted, so other board members who have to vote on the case have no basis for making an independent judgment.  It is not uncommon for people with excellent institutional records to be denied release for a couple of years and then suddenly, although absolutely nothing has changed, parole is granted.  Examples of two such cases, Nicholas Seymour and Jerel Wilson, are also attached to my testimony.

At the other extreme are the cases where the board does not even undertake a risk assessment.  For the 834 parolable lifers I mentioned, the board does not calculate parole guidelines scores or give any reason for denying release.  It simply issues a notice that says “no interest.” We have no information about why specific eligible individuals are not being paroled or any basis for determining how much of a risk they would actually present to the public.  All we know for sure is that they are getting older and more expensive to care for.