MI- State prisons too expensive, ineffective at reform

7-13-2008 Michigan:

When it comes to corrections, Michigan policymakers are afraid to do what's right.

That's the opinion of retired Oakland Circuit Judge Gene Schnelz, and he is far from alone in that view.

Standard handling of criminals should involve punishment of the criminal and protection of society, but also correcting the behavior of those who can be rehabilitated so they become productive, taxpaying members of society.

But "there is no rehabilitation. Nothing is being done," Schnelz says.

"I just don't see people getting the help they need," agrees longtime defense attorney Larry Kaluzny, of West Bloomfield Township.

It is difficult even to get an intelligent discussion going on the subject. Often, the conversation will shift to the policies of Maricopa County, in Arizona, where Joe Arpaio, self-styled as "America's toughest sheriff," boasts of housing inmates in hot tents, giving them pink underwear and feeding them bologna sandwiches.

The downside of this approach, critics say, is that Maricopa County has paid out $43 million stemming from inmate lawsuits during Arpaio's 16-year tenure.

You would think Michigan, with its top-quality centers of higher education, would be more enlightened when it comes to corrections policy.

This has nothing to do with being a squish-headed liberal or holding any other political philosophy. It has to do with common sense. As things stand, to put it bluntly, Michigan taxpayers are shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to corrections policy.

Michigan has the highest incarceration rate of any of the Great Lakes region states and the ninth highest in the nation. While to some this might be something to brag about, the state also has a rising recidivism rate, meaning more of those who are paroled eventually end up back behind bars.

Part of the reason Michigan's incarceration rates are so high is that the average prison sentence in Michigan is 16 months longer than the national average and 19 percent longer than the Great Lakes average.

It would be one thing if the lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key philosophy were working. It is not.

According to the Lansing-based Citizens Research Council, this simplistic approach cost Michigan about $403 million in 2005 and caused the state to employ 4,700 more corrections employees.

The Michigan Department of Corrections is the largest program that state government operates directly, accounting for nearly 20 percent -- $2 billion -- of the current discretionary general fund budget and employing nearly one-third of the state's classified work force.

"Michigan's Corrections program is out of line, substantially in some cases, in regional and national comparisons," the CRC states. "Lower parole approval rates and specific policy changes aimed at being 'tough on crime' are the primary causes of longer prison stays."

CRC says a 9 percent increase in the recidivism rate between 1992 and 2002 is "likely associated to some extent with the 1992 restructuring of the state Parole Board from civil servants to appointees."

The Parole Board determines whether each parole technical-rule violator is returned to prison. Given that each technical-rule violator returned to prison is recorded as a parole failure, recidivism rates increase when the number of technical-rule violators returned to prison increases.

Kaluzny says judges are hamstrung by sentencing guidelines. In many cases "they would like to deviate, but don't want to be appealed."

While Kaluzny agrees that sexual predators "have to be put away," in some Internet predator cases, "where there's no actual victim, only a potential victim ... these people can be helped."

Schnelz notes that sexual offenders have to be treated before they can be granted parole.

But often "it's five years before you can get treated." The state needs to increase its number of psychiatrists and psychologists. Such a move would be cost-efficient.

Michigan also is behind the curve when it comes to handling nonviolent offenders. Other states employ drug and mental-health courts to handle nonviolent offenders and those who need treatment.

One successful program that needs to be expanded is the Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative, which is designed to reduce the return of parolees to prison, for either new crimes or technical violations, by helping them to overcome barriers to employment, housing and family reunification.

It is these types of initiatives that other states are using to reduce recidivism and prison population, and thus the cost to the taxpayers of incarceration.

But Schnelz says "everyone is afraid to do the right thing" for fear of being labeled soft on crime.

The Lansing-based Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending advocates "six strategies for right-sizing Michigan's prison population."

"Some are longer-term and some are more immediate," states the group's Web site, capps-mi.org.

"Some require legislative action and some do not. All have Michigan precedents. None involve the early release of dangerous offenders."

They include enforcing parole guidelines to increase paroles of low-risk offenders who have completed their minimum terms; reassessing the impact of sentencing guidelines to ensure that drug and property offenders are not incarcerated unnecessarily and that sentences for crimes against people are proportionate to the offense; reinstating good behavior and other disciplinary credits to reduce sentences; limiting prison returns for technical-parole violators with no new criminal conduct to one year or less; reinstituting parole for individuals serving life prison terms who pose little threat to the public; and expanding the Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative.

The state ought to take a long look at such ideas and other programs to rehabilitate young offenders, treat those whose "crimes" are due to mental illness and reduce taxpayer expense in the process. ..News Source.. by GLENN GILBERT, Of The Oakland Press