Tholen
On Nov. 12, an Opinion piece by C.J. Strausbaugh was published in the Record-Eagle headlined: “Michigan needs to fix criminal justice good-time policies.”
We are responding to provide insight from our experience.
To begin, we agree with Strausbaugh that “there are individuals who are violent and dangerous and must be separated from society.” Our justice system places great emphasis on determining who those people are.
To make this determination, our system has settled on the local election of judges who are provided detailed reports on each person found guilty of a felony. Thus, if someone is sentenced to prison, that is because an informed and democratically-accountable judge considered all options, then publicly provided the reasons why incarceration was appropriate.
In Michigan, only 18% of people convicted of felonies (who are thus eligible for prison) actually receive a prison sentence.
Because of Truth in Sentencing laws, those people are incarcerated for the full amount of time that the judge deems appropriate. Strausbaugh and others, however, are seeking changes so that “all incarcerated individuals, except those serving life sentences, would be eligible” for early release if they attend programs in prison. This would include pedophiles, murderers and repeat violent offenders — almost all of whom have not received life sentences.
Strausbaugh knows this. While he described his imprisonment as being for “armed robbery,” he also is serving a 2014 criminal sexual conduct sentence for forcing himself into a stranger’s home then raping and robbing her at gunpoint.
Strausbaugh provided other misleading information, too. He said “Michigan is the only state” that requires prisoners to serve 100% of their sentences. National Conference of State Legislatures data shows this to be false. Strausbaugh wrote: “Michigan proportionately outspends other states by at least threefold” on incarceration. Data shows this to be false. Michigan is not even in the top 10 states for per-capita prison spending.
Strausbaugh argued that having prisoners “incentivized to work on rehabilitation … will better prepare them for successful reintegration.” In Michigan, an impressive 90% of prisoners already engage in programs. (It increases their chances of being immediately paroled upon serving the judge’s sentence.)
What ultimately compels us to write this response is a concern beyond Strausbaugh’s self-serving and misleading position.
Truth in Sentencing makes our system honest. We have seen, over and over, the relief that comes to crime victims when a judge sentences a person to, for example, “three years.” We can say, because of Truth in Sentencing, that actually means “three years” — of safety, of healing, of consequences.
We deserve honesty, certainty and considered, informed, intelligent decisions when it comes to the people who have demonstrated dangerousness or unwillingness to comply with society’s rules. Current sentencing procedures, combined with Truth in Sentencing, achieves these goals. Please be wary of claims that say otherwise – and do not support the efforts that are underway for “good time,” “productivity credits” or the like.
Incentivization for rehabilitation already occurs and such changes would only serve to undermine our judges’ considered, informed sentences – and release demonstrably dangerous individuals early.
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
