Michigan Truth in Sentencing Law - Questions [Archive]

Jus' Mom

10-12-2003, 08:24 PM

This will answer your question:
" first of all what is the law now any way"
Truth in Sentencing and Sentencing Guidelines
http://www.state.mi.us/mdoc/publication/1998annual/p49.html
Public Act 217-218 of 1994 created Truth in Sentencing by eliminating disciplinary credits from the sentences for violent and assaultive crimes, by ending placement in residential program centers for all offenders and by adding "disciplinary time" to the sentences of those found guilty of breaking prison rules.

The law was tie-barred to another law overhauling the state Sentencing Guidelines Commission and was designed not to go into effect until the sentencing guidelines were adopted by the Legislature. Because that didn't occur until 1998, the earlier Truth in Sentencing law failed to go into effect from 1994 to 1998.

The law was amended in mid-1998 to initially apply only to assaultive crimes committed on or after after Dec. 15, 1998, and then to all other crimes committed on or after Dec. 15, 2000. The amendment removed the requirement that disciplinary time be added to the minimum sentence. Under the revision, the accumulated time does not lengthen the minimum sentence but is to be taken into consideration by the Parole Board in deciding parole.

The law will change the way offenders are supervised in the public.

Currently, about 20 percent of all offenders leaving the prison system go out through the MDOC's Community Residential Programs, with 6,000 prisoners passing through these programs every year. That will end under Truth in Sentencing because affected prisoners will have to serve their entire sentence in prison, and not be eligible for community supervision until placed on parole.

Eliminating disciplinary credits may have little effect on the safety and security of Michigan prisons.

The practice of reducing a prisoner's sentence for good behavior is widely used in the United States and has been a practice in Michigan since at least the 1930s.

It has been assumed that good time reductions are a major factor in maintaining the safe operation of Michigan prisons.

Like the disproved concern about dire consequences if the state went to double bunking, the fear that elimination of disciplinary credits will cause prison management problems may prove to be a bogey man.

Managing a prison to make sure it is safe and secure depends on many factors. It goes far beyond disciplinary credits.

Though the new Sentencing Guidelines may cause the state's prisons to end up with a concentration of prisoners with more serious offenses, it doesn't necessarily follow that these prisoners will be more difficult to manage.

Some of the system's most difficult prisoners originally came to prison for relatively minor crimes. Sex offenders are among the easiest to manage in prison, and offenders with long sentences are often resigned to spending their lives in prison and have decided to make the best of it by causing as little trouble as possible.

Maintaining a safe and secure prison depends on factors such as keeping prisoners productively occupied. To that end, the department has worked to reduce the idleness rate in prisons from more than 20 percent to 12.9 percent in 1998 with a further reduction being pursued.

Other elements include making sure staff treat prisoners humanely.

A critical factor in managing a prison well is having a good staff and ensuring that staff members enforce policies. A mission statement that reflects management's philosophy in dealing with prisoners - honesty, integrity and fairness - should guide each prison's operation.

Effective prison operation results from employees realizing that their ability to control prisoners is enhanced by creating among the prisoner population a belief that not only will they be disciplined for unacceptable conduct, but that the staff members will work diligently to meet their legitimate needs.

This means:

Prisoners get the information they need in order to follow rules.
Prisoners are listened to by staff.
Prisoner representatives meet routinely with the warden.
Investigations occur when prisoners complain about abuse.
Prisoner kites (or correspondence to staff) are responded to in a timely manner.
Programming is organized so prisoners can make the best use of it.
Practices that enhance the safe operation of a prison also include thorough and relevant staff training as well as sound policies and procedures followed by staff.

Beyond disciplinary credits, the Michigan system has built in incentives for prisoners including limitations on property in higher security levels.

The first of the new prisoners coming into the system unable to earn disciplinary credits are likely to arrive sometime in the spring of 1999. It will take a number of years for their numbers to reach significant levels.

In the meantime, the MDOC will continue to fine-tune the strategies that have contributed to its success in running a safe and secure prison system.

I don't see any current Bills or anything like that. Below is for the end of 2002 and the beginning of 2003 though. Maybe that is what you want! Sounds pretty good!!!

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/LETTERPrisonPopProj03_57227_7.pdf
GRANDVIEW PLAZA BUILDING • P.O. BOX 30003 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909
www.michigan.gov • (517) 335-1426
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM
GOVERNOR
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
LANSING
WILLIAM S. OVERTON
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 1, 2003
TO: Senator Alan L. Cropsey, Chair, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
Corrections
Representative Mike Pumford, Chair, House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Corrections
FROM: William S. Overton, Director
SUBJECT: Prison Population Projections
Section 401 of 2002 P.A. 524 requires the Department to submit 3 and 5 year prison population
projection updates. Revised prison population projections for 2002 were not issued in February
of last year because we needed to study unusually large increases in intake, and a faster than
expected decline in the Community Residential Programs (CRP) population. Both had just begun
to occur when the revised projections were due.*** It was important to obtain more definitive
information and data on possible sentencing changes*** and the reasons for the CRP decline before
we could reliably update the projections. Consequently, new projections were not issued until
December 5, 2002. Since that latest update was issued less than two months ago, I indicated at
the time that, by today’s new deadline, we would be able to gauge the effects of the short-term
measures that we implemented late last year to slow growth, and examine how the trends that
were driving growth throughout last year are holding up. ***First, I will summarize the full, calendar
year 2002 trends.****
Corrections Trends
Michigan’s prison population grew by 2,142 inmates (4.5%) in 2002, which was 43%
more growth than occurred in 2001.
The primary factor driving 2002 prison population growth was a 15% increase in prison
intake (more than 1,400 additional admissions) compared to 2001, for a new record high
of 11,047. The previous record was 10,943 admissions to prison in 1992. In the
intervening years, prison intake ranged from 8,667 in 1995 to 9,610 in 2001, so the 2002
increase was a significant jump from recent years. It appears that, based on preliminary
information, some of the jump was due to increasing numbers of statewide felony court
dispositions (up more than 3,000 in 2001 and perhaps up another 6-8% in 2002). Prison
Prison Population Projects
February 1, 2003
Page 2 of 3
____________________
admissions increased substantially across most commitment types, with the largest
increase in probation violators sentenced to prison, followed by new court commitments,
and then parole violators with new sentences. Examination of the minimum term
distribution shows the largest increase among “short-termers” (i.e., prisoners sentenced to
minimum terms of 2 years or less). In 1994, they accounted for 45% of total intake. By
2002, they had increased to a total of over 56% of intake.
The other major factor driving 2002 prison population growth was the ****decline of the CRP
population due to requirements resulting from enactment of Michigan’s Truth in
Sentencing law. Truth in Sentencing requires that State prisoners serve their full
minimum sentences without credit for good behavior before seeing the parole board for
the first time, and it requires that the entire minimum sentence be served in a secure
institution or prison camp.**** Due to the latter provision, prisoners subject to Truth in
Sentencing cannot be placed in the CRP pre-parole program, so 742 fewer inmates were
placed in CRP during 2002 and the program population fell by 26%. There is a one-toone
relationship between the CRP population and the prison population because every
inmate who cannot be placed in CRP requires a prison bed.
Other important factors that affect the size of the prison population include movement to
parole, technical parole violator returns to prison, discharges on the maximum sentence,
and prisoners serving life terms.
o The Parole Board approved parole for 48.4% of the 24,258 cases reviewed in
2002, a 0.7% increase over the 2001 parole approval rate. That resulted in 10,682
moves to parole in 2002, which was a 7% increase over 2001 and eclipsed the old
record high of 10,506 moves to parole set in 1998.
o Despite a 1,047 increase in the parole population supervised in Michigan during
2002, parole violator technical returns to prison increased by only 57 (2%) in 2002
compared to 2001, but that still translates into a new record high of 3,293 parole
violators returned to prison.
o Discharges on the maximum sentence from institutions and camps increased by
59 (4%) over 2001 to 1,656 max outs, another record high.
o Michigan prisoners serving life terms increased by 136 inmates to a new high of
4,572. Michigan’s lifer population exceeds the total prison population in each of
12 other states according to the latest Federal statistics.
Prison Population Projects
February 1, 2003
Page 3 of 3
____________________
Implications & Conclusions
The prison population projections that were issued in December 2002 were based on data for
January through October of last year. As was noted in the report, the data showed the prison
population growing at a pace of 243 per month. Such a pace was unsustainable from both prison
bed availability and budgetary perspectives. Consequently, the Department implemented
measures in November designed to make our remaining vacant beds last as long as possible,
because every month that we can delay the remaining beds saves several million dollars in
operating costs. Key among the measures taken was an effort by the parole board to adjust the
parole dates for offenders who had already been approved for release at later dates. The measures
taken managed to bring a temporary stop to growth in November. In fact, the prison population
fell by 298 inmates that month, and then grew by only 10 inmates in December. But an increase
in paroles in these months was essentially borrowed from future months, and demonstrates that
such measures are merely short-term fixes that can only delay the inevitable. If the 2002 trends
were to continue throughout 2003, we would exhaust all male prison beds by sometime in the
fall of this year, but we cannot let that happen.
*****In order to reduce the likelihood of running out of prison beds, the Department is developing a
series of statutory and administrative recommendations for consideration by the Executive
Office. These statutory and administrative changes in criminal justice policy will need to
effectively address either the number of offenders coming to prison or the length of time they are
incarcerated, or both. Once direction is received from the Executive Office, we will revise the
projections that were issued two months ago.
In summary, the Department has been meeting with Executive Office representatives and we are
in the process of examining every potential means available to control prison population growth
over both the shorter and longer terms. Rest assured that we will issue revised projections that
take into account whatever measures are ultimately adopted, as soon as a course of action is
determined.*****
cc: Mary A. Lannoye, Office of the State Budget
Jacques McNeely, Office of Public Protection, DMB
Marilyn Peterson, House Fiscal Agency
Bethany Wicksall, Senate Fiscal Agency
Corrections Executive Policy Team