Call for Fair Parole in Wisconsin

Parole Fakery Explained

2011-09-05T14:22:00.003-07:00

These are the excuses parole eligible men hear decade after decade.

PAROLE ISSUES
1. YOU HAVE NOT SERVED SUFFICIENT TIME FOR PUNISHMENT.
The Wisconsin parole board gives out 12, 24, 36 and 48 month defers. Thus is the equivalent of sentencing the parole seeker to 1 co 4 additional years in prison even though the parole board isn't even a judge.
The common statement used by the parole board to deny parole is: "You have not served sufficient time for punishment." However the •board has not, nor has anyone, documented what is "sufficient time for punishment." Thus what is sufficient time served for punishment?
Wisconsin law sets parole dates for prisoners after they have serve:! 25% of their sentence and when sentenced by the judge, the judge had this in mind. Hence, if 25% of a sentence makes the prisoner eligible for release, thus 25% must be. Sufficient time for punishment. However, the parole board has been allowed to act as de facto court of law, de facto jury, de facto prosecutor and de facto sentencing judge, in the parole boards reconvicting and sentencing a prisoner to 1 to 4 additional years and denying parole, with the statement 'that: "You have not served, sufficient, time for punishment." Under Wisconsin law, that statement would be true only if the prisoner petitioned to see the parole board before completing 25% of his or her sentence. Thus 25% is sufficient time to serve for punishment under Wisconsin law.

The facts remain that the parole commissioner and parole board does not belong to the Wisconsin Bar Association of the state of Wisconsin, thus has not been licensed by the state of Wisconsin to act in the capacity of a prosecutor, jury, judge and court of law to Take a determination that after a prisoner under old or new law, has served 25% of their sentence, the prisoner has not served sufficient time for punishment and re-convict and sentence the prisoner to 1 to 4 additional years. When that judge sentenced the prisoner, the judge had the 25% parole date in mind and did not mean for the parole board to re convict and re-sentence the prisoner after he or she has done 25% of their sentence. Again, if 25% of a sentence is sufficient time to make the prisoner eligible for release according to Wisconsin law, then 25% must be sufficient time served for punishment. Or Wisconsin's parole law of 25% is just smoke and mirrors.

So what is the percentage of Wisconsin parole eligible prisoners that get out after doing 25% of their sentence? Or in other words, what percentage gets out the first time they see the parole board? If the percentage is not 90% or more, then the 25% parole hearing date is a legislative waste and a false hope for the prisoner. Thus is a violation of Due Process Rights.

Wisconsin law states that sufficient time has 'been served when old and new law prisoners have completed 25% of their sentence. The parole boards use of the statement: "You have not served sufficient time for punishment" is too loosely used. For it is a routine statement that is used in every case. So what is sufficient time served for punishment? If the prisoner has reached 25% of their sentence and the parole -board admits, or prison records show that the prisoner has had satisfactory behavior upon reaching- 25%, then that is sufficient time, served for punishment. If serving 25% of a sentence is sufficient time to be "eligible" for release, then why is 25% not sufficient time served for punishment? It appears that Wisconsin's 25% parole law is only a theory and not an actual practice because records show that no one is being released, at 25% of their sentence i.e. their first parole hearing date. So lets put this theory into practice.

The parole board saying an old or new law prisoner, has not served sufficient time for punishment is semantics and a play of words because if the statement was true, the prisoner could not have met with the parole board if that prisoner had not served sufficient time for punishment. The prisoner could not see the parole board before he or she has completed 25%of the sentence because the prisoner had not completed sufficient time for punishment i.e. 25% of their sentence, according to Wisconsin law of 25% of the sentence must be completed before parole can be given.

However, the parole board has not defined, on a consistent bases, what a "sufficient time to serve for punishment" is. Though it is well defined in Wisconsin law, but not practiced, that sufficient time for punishment is 25% of a sentence, it that is the use to set a parole 'date at 25% of a sentence but don't let ANYONE out at 25% of a sentence and the parole board says serving 25% of a sentence is not sufficient time served for punishment? It is a catch-22. The parole board is essentially saying that they are the prosecutor, jury, judge and court of law and can re-convict and re-sentence a prisoner to 1 to 4 more years at a time or in some cases MR.

In the days of parole commissioner John Huss in the early 1990's, prisoners had a hope of being paroled after serving 25% (or soon after) no matter the arias they were in prison for. Thus Wisconsin's prisons were less crowded.

2. RELEASE AT THIS TIME WOULD INVOLVE AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO THE PUBLIC
Another common term of the parole board is: Release at this time would involve an unreasonable risk, to the public." However, the parole board does not even present any reasonable evidence, or evidence at all, from the prisoners prison file to backup this statement. Thus the statement is just routine and not of any factual bases if it is used on all prisoners. The parole board member, on average, meets with a prisoner for less than an hour and can not reasonably determine if the prisoner is a risk to society based- on a one time meeting. For a person that never met you before to say you are an unreasonable risk to the public is unreasonable.
If a person is sentenced to 40 years in prison, under old or new law, that would mean he or she had to do 10 years (25%) before having a parole hearing. Ten years is a long time and for the most part, the prisoner has completed HSED/GED, a vocational trade class, ME programming and took sane time out for self-improvement and maturing. Thus the prisoner is not and unreasonable risk to the community in whence he or she came from, or any community, but rather a more mature person that has made sane accomplishments even in an adverse place like prison.
For prison in itself is a community, with populations reaching over one thousand, and if the prisoner has not been convicted of a crime in over ten years of incarceration, then the prisoner has consistently shown for years on end that he or she poses no threat to the "outer" community. Thus how can the parole board truthfully and reasonably state that the prisoner is -an unreasonable risk to the public? The parole board members have used this routine statement to place themselves as a god or fortuneteller to be able to foresee the future to determine that a person who served 25% of their sentence would be an unreasonable risk to the public if released. Thus statement violates Due- Process and constitutional rights.

3. YOUR PROGRAM PARTICIPATION HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORY
Further, the parole board uses: "Your program participation has not been satisfactory" to deny release. When a prisoner has had his Assessment and Evaluation (A&E) he is given certain programs to complete such as HSED, vocational training and anger management. However, once he gets to his designated prison, it is up to the program directors to allow him into the program such as anger management, AODA and CGIP regardless if he request to complete the program. So the person with the 40 year sentence can request the anger management program as soon as he gets into the prison but he will be denied access due to his sentence length. The programs director will state, "Due to the length of your sentence, prisoners with shorter time have priority to this program. Request again when you get closer to your mandatory release date." Which is 26 years (or 2/3 of the 4-0 year sentence). This, in itself, makes the A&E process obsolete if the prisoner is parole eligible at 25% their sentence but can't take certain programs until their mandatory release date. Three things stand out here.
1. If the prisoner is being denied access to needed anger management programming, the DOC is not preparing the prisoner for release at 25% of that sentence. A person that has a parole date should have the same priority to a program as a person with a short sentence, because in theory, the person should get out once 25% of their sentence is completed. If the prisoner is in and out of the hole for fighting, the denial of programming is a factor because the DOC has previously assessed him, at A&E, with an anger problem but won't address it promptly by getting him the needed programming.
2. If the DOC is denying the prisoner access to a program, the parole board will use this against the prisoner as program participation not being satisfactory, even though it is documented that the prisoner has tried to complete all recommended programs before his 25% has been served.
3. If the prisoner has 40 years but being denied anger management until mandatory release, that would mean that he will have to be in prison for 26 years with this untreated anger problem, that the DOC assessed that ha has 26 years ago, before he can get in the program and it gets treated. What is the logic behind this? None! Prisoners with parole dates should have priority to programs to prepare them for release at 25% of their sentence. If not, the DOC is either saying that, he has to self-treat an anger problem that he don't understand why he has for 26 years until the DOC is ready to treat it, the DOC is using denial of programs to keep prisons packed or there really is no anger problem, the DOC just put anger management on A&E routinely, so the parole board has something to use against releasing prisoners at 25%(or at any point)

The crux of the matter is, it is not the prisoner who is "refusing" the program, that is a different matter. It is the DOC who is refusing to allow the prisoner access to complete the program. If a prisoner has reached 25% of their sentence and has not refused any programs, and the DOC has denied him access to programs that ME said are necessary, then the prisoner has done no wrong in that regard, as such he should be released.

RECOMMENDED CHANGES
What use is it to have a parole hearing date at 25% of the sentence, by law, and have a, parole board that says 25% is not sufficient time served for punishment, contrary to law? The parole board is above the law. These two, theories and practices, conflict. One or the other is unconstitutional. And we can rationalize that it is the parole board's practices. With the Wisconsin law of 25% being sufficient time served to be released, it makes the parole board obsolete. The law of parole hearing date at 25% of the sentence and the prison record should be enough in determining if someone should be released. It would make things that much easier and ease the overcrowding prisons and save tax-payers money if parole eligible prisoners were released on paroles.

By serving 25% of a sentence not being sufficient time served for punishment according to the parole board and granting parole is now discretionary, it becomes a system of how the parole board member feels on any given day or how the member feels about a certain individual or the alleged crime, on whether to release that prisoner or not. Thus serving 25% of a sentence before a parole hearing and granting parole based on how the parole board member feels about you in a 30 minute meeting, is a conflict. If the judge sentenced a person to 40 years, the judge had it in mind that in 10 years (25%) that person would have completed programs and matured, thus should be released.

If a prisoner reached 25% of their sentence, and the parole board has no logical, not theoretical, evidence that release at this time would involve an unreasonable risk to the public, and the prisoner has tried to take recommended programs and the DOC denied him access, the prisoner should be released. It can not be a system of the prisoner meets Wisconsin's law of 25% but the parole board overrules Wisconsin state law and says, 25% is not sufficient time served for punishment. Or the prisoner readies 25% but the parole board denies release based on a risk to the public with no evidence to support that. Or the prisoner gets to 25% but the parole board denies release based on programs not being completed when it is the DOC that denies access to programming. It is all a catch-22 and needs to be changed. A policy must be put into place, retroactively, for old and new law prisoners, that have "reached (or would) 25% of their sentence, to cease the arbitrary discretionary parole board and allow 25% of a sentence to be sufficient time served for punishment, along with
1. a parole plan,
2. satisfactory record based on the last year (as they do now) before the current earing
3. no logical evidence showing that you are or would be a risk to the public,
4. an attempt to complete A&B programs before 25% of your sentence is up.

This way it is on the prisoner to show by evidence and facts, that they have served sufficient time, pose no threat to the public and have done all that they can to complete all necessary programs before they have reached 25% of their sentence.

SPECIAL ACTION PAROLE RELEASE, SEC. 304.02
The department shall use a special release program to relieve crowding in state prison by releasing certain prisoners to parole supervision using a procedure other than mandatory release under sec. 302.11 or release under sec. 304.06 (1) (b). Most prisoners under old and new law are in prison for homicide related cases and this is why granting parole is routinely denied. However, if viewed in its full context, most of these parole eligible prisoners were in their youth (teens and early 20*s) when these crimes occurred and now have spent their 20 's and part of their 30's (and some of them 40's, 50's and part of their 60's-prison). Thus they are no longer in their youth but mature adults that view the world differently, value life and want to contribute to society. The crimes are not excused because they were committed in their youth, and/or out of ignorance. However, it explains that the person that they were in their youth and now, are two totally different people. And to perpetually punish them for a crime done in their youth, and/or out of ignorance, serves no purpose to justice or to a so-called civilized society, when that 'person has changed and is positive now. Thus the department should use this special release program statue to release old and new law prisoners based on their conduct now, not their past crime, or based on who they ware 10, 15 or 20 years ago, to relieve prison overcrowding.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, the above facts are to be taken into consideration for a more uniformed approach to parole in any given case. Parole should be mandatory at 25% with satisfactory conduct for all old and new law prisoners, based on their behavior for the Last year prior to the parole hearing. To perpetually incarcerate changed people is inane and serves no purpose in the scheme of justice or restorative justice.

By: Marvin D Wilson

GBCI 297343
P.O. box 19033
Green Bay, WI 54307

A Mother and Son Speak

2010-11-27T08:42:00.000-08:00

"Why Doesn't Anyone Know About the Secret of Parole Abuse"

Did you know that there are parole eligible men (truly rehabilitated men) who are being denied parole year after year?
One need not to be a professor in crime and punishment or change and rehabilitation to consider the following: If a man has shown clear signs of rehabilitation and has reached his predetermined (by the judge) parole eligibility date, then why exactly is the Wisconsin department of probation and parole's hidden agenda to constantly keep denying a man parole year after year?
I'm not implying we should not be tough on crime, Absolutely not! We all need to be safe from being victimized. Who so ever breaks me law should be sought after, captured, and held accountable.
However, we're not talking about an 18-year-old who committed a crime yesterday or last week, and doesn't even understand how selfish and terrifying he is to his own community and family.
For those kinds of people need to be captured and rehabilitated.
The travesty we're talking about are those once 18-year-old's who have been incarcerated for 15 or 20 years so far, and have been parole eligible for the last 5 or more of those years, yet they're purposely being denied parole year after year.
We're talking about men who have matured, developed an adult's perspective on life, and can clearly be seen as rehabilitated even by the most untrained eye.
Men who have been model-inmates, completing several educational, vocational and life enhancing programs.
Paroling rehabilitated men who have proven themselves deserving of a second chance will
1.) ease the over-crowding.
2.) give a changed man a second chance,
3.) most importantly, create room for those who are committing serious crimes as you read these very words!

There are rehabilitated men who need help, opportunity, and support.
They have family, friends, and jobs that are lined up awaiting their arrival, but the secret hidden agenda of parole abuse is prolonging (year after year) the second chance of countless, changed, rehabilitated men who have no voice! (a prisoner in oakhill)

Wrongheaded punishment
Punishment for the incarcerated is to seclude them from the so-called -free world. To be separated from family members, friends, loved ones is punishment all by itself but to have to suffer and be denied the simple things they are entitled to is an inhuman act by officials. Examples of such acts of brutality include:
1) keeping a person in solitary confinement longer than needed
2) not caring for the sick, no "proper attention"
3) Not allowing education programs that will help them once they are mainstreamed back into society
4) Keeping a person after they have become parole eligible, sometimes for 10 or more years, after they have met all requirements, have made significant change, been a model prisoner and have a good conduct report.
5) Over stuffing our prison with people that deserve a second chance instead of releasing them. Officials do not care about any of the above as long as they receive their pay check. So, is it ALL about the money, or what?"

"Dead Time" explained by Prisoner

2009-08-01T16:08:00.000-07:00

Below are three short excerpts by prisoner who tries to make it clear what it means when he is told he has 40 years ”dead time”

We feel strongly that our treatment here is inhumane and we are all desperate for change. We openly express this desperation for change in our lives as well as our current condition of confinement & stagnation to the social worker and we are consistently told "you've still got dead time to do" These words are psychologically traumatizing to us. Our lives are equated with death. To equate aBelow are three short excerpts by prisoner who tries to make it clear what it means when he is told he has 40 years ”dead time”
man's life with death is the ultimate- show of hopelessness. This practice is very harmful to us as it is used to justify to us, why we are being told to be idle. You have dead time to do because you are not recommended to take part in sanctioned rehabilitative programming unless you are 6 months prior to you mandatory release (MR) to the date they projected you would be released.

Rehabilitation is a frequently used word, but the truth is that there is no real rehabilitation built into this system. What we are experiencing is a system of oppression. It is inconceivable that men can be rehabilitated when they are denied work, school and school programs because the dates fall outside the next 6-24 months

We all want to be better men that we were when we came to prison. However the condition we currently live under here are truly the antithesis to this growth. If rehabilitation is to take place, then it must not only between the hearts and minds of men who are incarcerated. It must also be in the interests of those in authority. Because it is these people who can cultivate men and point them in the right direction. So many of us Men have such wonderful talents here. There are award winning artists here, there are also great rappers, musicians, poets, authors,, educators and athletes and the list goes on and on. What is sad is that a lot of the these talents in our situation are considered be nesciences and threats to good order of the institution. These talents are often discouraged, thus removing the self-satisfaction and sense of purpose and achievement men get from seeing and hearing the creativity manifest a itself.

Here is the letter with all relevant parts included:
"Dead Time" and Ideas for Change

Dear Representative Grigsby & Investigator Tates:

This letter is from the "nobodies" who have been told to wait. We feel like there is no alternative for us other than to reach out to you, our State Representative & Civil Rights investigator, in a positive A sincere effort to present our "bodies", as a means of laying our case before ears that will hopefully listen.

You have dead time to do because you are not recommended to take part in sanctioned rehabilitative programming unless you are 6 months prior to you mandatory release (MR) to the date they projected you would be released.

Prison is filled with ways to distract ones minds from the reality of his present condition. There are hundreds to thousands decks of playing cards, domino games, different recreation games like basketball and soft ball and men spend their days submerged in these games because here, in these little games is the only place they can feel alive. So they play these games for 12 hours a day, but after awhile a man says to himself, "it is time to stop this nonsense and do something with my time.

Once this decision is made he will then seek help from where he is told that it resides, with the social worker. He'll then be told, not because of a lack of self-motivation or eagerness, but because he has more than 6 months until the time he is to be released that he has to do "dead time" Death and denial are associated Here at RGCI, learning is highly emphasized and in some cases enforced.

In addition to the HSED programs offered here, the institution has a Microsoft vocational program. It also offers the IYO college program. And a B of the Arts Degree program through Milwaukee area technical college, but these programs are inaccessible for those who are over the age of 26. These programs are operated under the 6 to 24 months rule. Men who's projected release for prison exceeds this time frame are met with a shrug of the shoulders and told they are not eligible yet.

It is counter productive that our requests for program placements are denied. Our request for placement and recognize treatment needs and educational needs are continuously denied.

Our complaints about the wrongs that are done to us are unjustly denied, and in the end we feel denied. Rehabilitation is a frequently used word, but the truth is that there is no real rehabilitation built into this system. What we are experiencing is a system of oppression. It is inconceivable that men can be rehabilitated when they are denied work, school and school programs because the dates fall outside the next 6-24 months.

The made-up policy of not allowing willing men to participate in treatment or school programs and telling us to do dead time, is counter rehabilitative. It is seen by some that this is actually the design of the system as a whole. If white men are statistically given lesser sentences in the court room than minorities, than the policy of choosing inmates for treatment and programs with 6-24 months is most beneficial to those with shorter sentences. Further more, men who apply for TIS sentence adjustment near the completion of their sentences are deemed unfit because they have not taken part in any recognized DOC rehabilitation programs. The DOC of course does not explain that these programs were denied. If they did explain, the whole world would see that the DOC intends to dictate the release the date of the men despite any other legal authority.

This magic authority the DOC assumes manifests itself in other ways too. For example, men who have been deemed by the sentencing courts to be eligible for the early release program, or for the boot camp, are frequently told by the DOC that due to some dynamic of their offense they are not going to be permitted to participate. We have tried to see a copy of the law books from which the DOC works, but they are inaccessible to us. Therefore, how the DOC can override the judicial branch remains a mystery to us all.

We all want to be better men were when we came to prison. However the condition we currently live under here are truly the antithesis to this growth. If rehabilitation is to take place, then it must not only between the hearts and minds of men who are incarcerated. It must also be in the interests of those in authority. Because it is these people who can cultivate men and point them in the right direction. So many of us Men have such wonderful talents here. There are award winning artists here, there are also great rappers, musicians, poets, authors,, educators and athletes and the list goes on and on.

What is sad is that a lot of the these talents in our situation are considered be nesciences and threats to good order of the institution. These talents are often discouraged, thus removing the self-satisfaction and sense of purpose and achievement men get from seeing and hearing the creativity manifest a itself.

There is a saying that goes "the best person to design a house alarm is a burglar." And I believe wholeheartedly that the form of rehabilitative programming will come from the hearts and minds of those, who are or have been, incarcerated themselves. Incarcerated individuals see clearly the flaws and roadblocks to rehabilitation first hand. Therefore they are the best situated to effectively point out to others and give helpful and productive suggestions on how to overcome these obstacles.

The first step in this process would be to realistic expectations from everyone involved in the rehabilitation process. The staff/ inmate relationship must remain professional and discipline must be firmly set in place in order to create a safe working and living environment for everyone.

It is well know that a student cannot learn if he has safety and security on his mind. It must be acknowledged that due to the ethnocentric difference between staff & inmates, staff must be culturally literate and adept to dealing with men of diverse backgrounds. This literacy if learned & demonstrated by the staff will be taught to the men quite naturally. The staff will be respectful and in return the Men will I treat them as they are treated.

The way it is now, we are respectful & the staff does as they please. This training would best be given to the staff from a group of former inmates, as they can convoy exactly what needs to be known about dealing with culturally diverse men in a prison setting.

Another idea would be to design programs for inmate's whose projected release dates exceeds 24 months & allow men to accomplish things. programming should be set in place for Men who refuse to sit in a coffin while he's still alive..

There is nothing better under confinement condition for a prior bad act than the feeling of accomplishing something positive. These programs would give the Social Workers a chance to get to know the M«n & this would give the men an a "meaningful" opportunity to be known. This will also place the Social Worker in a better position to help the men, because by knowing us, she can prescribe accurate & efficient help for us. This type of programming is critical to men who are incarcerated.

Not all of us here are fortunate enough to have a strong family support network & these programs would be a way for men to see that some one does care about their lives, someone wants them to change. Through the implementation of new programs, such as "Coming into Manhood", Men in prison can be taught proper ideas about manhood. As it is now,There is no teaching. Men who are not religiously affiliated or in a search for that type of inspiration should be provided with another association group which they can be a part of, one of men who are of the same or ethnic backgrounds It would be very healthy for men to be shown the accomplishments of great men who have come before them.

From here Men will be able to draw inspiration from these examples of success or failure. Men who are culturally aware of themselves are greater assets to their cultural community, and in many communities, these Men are the leaders.

It is essential to the interest of the community to have prospective leaders who are incarcerated to return to their communities rehabilitated, so that one day they can assume their roles in that community. From here, we see that so much can be done to cultivate great men from behind these walls of madness, but there is so little faith in change. The staff have this a "walking Dead" philosophy, where they either see us as inanimate or without the attributes that are normally associated with living people, such as feelings, families and goals.Men have been crying for help, but no one seems to hear us, those screams echo here.

We need you to hear us. We want to be given a chance to turn our lives around and be productive citizens and loving, caring, teaching and providing fathers. We want rehabilitation. We need this chance and we ask that you see that we get it.. There is a saying that goes "the best person to design a house alarm is a burglar." And I believe wholeheartedly that the form of rehabilitative programming will come from the hearts and minds of those, who are or have been, incarcerated themselves. Incarcerated individuals see clearly the flaws and roadblocks to rehabilitation first hand. Therefore they are the best situated to effectively point out to others and give helpful and productive suggestions on how to overcome these obstacles.

The "How" of NO Parole

2009-07-31T18:19:00.000-07:00

TOMMY THOMPSON"S SECRET ORDER

Scan:
from :TOMMY G. THOMPSON
Governor State of Wisconsin
April 28, 1994' '

To: Sec. Michael J. SullivanDepartment of Corrections
149 east Wilson StreetMadison,
Wi 53707-7925

Dear Secretary Sullivan, '

I write to you today regarding the administration of Wisconsin's mandatory release law.I recently proposed and subsequently signed into law a bill to end mandatory parole for violent offenders. In enacting this important change, legal council advised that any retroactive change in the law would be unconstitutional.Therefore, although I have ended mandatory release for violent offenders, there are some inmates in prison who are still governed by the old release law.I believe that mandatory release of violent criminals is wrong. That is why I called a special legislative session of the legislature in 1987 to pass the "life means life" sentencing bill, and that is why I moved to end the mandatory parole for violent offenders this year.In order to implement this policy as fully as possible, I hereby direct the Department of Corrections to pursue any and all available legal avenues to block the release of violent offenders who have reached their mandatory release date.The policy of this Administration is to keep violent offenders in prison as long possible under the law.Thank you for your immediate attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,Tommy G Thompson
Governor

Sullivan to Thompson

one example of playing with the law

follow the money

2009-07-30T08:29:00.000-07:00

Follow the money to the why of no parole

1994 Violence Control Act Paid For The Prison Building Boom : This act built this countries Supermaxes and continues to provide the funding for Keeping prisons stuffed.

This is the part of the act that has allowed Wisconsin to recieve money for the new prisons and helped take away the incentive for rehabilitation of prisoners.
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
(VOI/TIS) Incentive Grants Program

As part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994, Public Law 103-322 ("1994 Crime Bill"), Congress enacted
the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
(VOI/TIS) Incentive Grants Program, 42 U.S.C. 13701 et. seq.,
which offered prison construction grants and other institutional
improvement funding to encourage States to adopt tougher
sentencing policies for violent offenders.
In the FY 1996 Omnibus Appropriations Act, Public Law 104-
134, Congress significantly amended this legislation by changing
the formula for distribution of grant funds and limiting the
types of construction projects for which State recipients could
use the grant money. Currently, the VOI/TIS program provides
funds for eligible States to build or expand permanent or
temporary correctional facilities in order to increase secure
confinement space for violent offenders. Grant funds may also be
used to build or expand local jails and juvenile correctional
facilities, and for the privatization of facilities.

State applicants for VOI/TIS grants must provide assurances
that funds received under the program will be used to supplement,
not supplant, other federal, state, and local funds. Awards are
made to States and Territories whose correctional policies,
programs and truth-in-sentencing statutes meet the VOI/TIS grant
eligibility requirements. Eligible states may make sub-awards to
State agencies and units of local government.
for look at full justice deparment summary of VOI/TIS
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

U.S. Department of Justice
Fact Sheet

for look at full justice deparment summary of VOI/TIS Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 click here(make link)

Below are the pictures of the documents we have obtained , grants and assurances, and large print translations made.

1)translation:Statutory Assurance Violent Offender Incarceration Program—Tier 1
The State/Territory of Wisconsin assures that it has implemented, or will implement, correctional policies and programs, including Truth-in-Sentencing laws that ensure that violent offenders serve a substantial portion of the sentences imposed, that are designed to provide sufficiently severe punishment for violent offenders, including violent juvenile offenders, and that the prison time served is appropriately related to the determination that the inmate is a violent offender and for a period of time deemed necessary to protect the public.
Certifying Official .
Signature
2/25/97

2)translation of important paragraphs:
Michael Sullivan. Secretary
P.O. Box 7925 Madison, Wl 53707-7925
May 2, 1997

Dear Mr Sullivan,
I am pleased to inform you that I have approved the supplemental award to the Wisconsin Department of
Correction; under the FY 1997 Violent Offender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive (VOI/TIS) Grant Program. The amount of this award is 1,502,767 to assist your State in developing additional prison and jail capacity for violent offenders. This base allocation is awarded for having met the tier I eligibility requirement of the program. Office of Justice Programs
Office of the Assistant Attorney General
Laurie Robinson

3)In 1998 our document shows a supplemental grant of 1,121,802, again , the same wording.

4)And IN 1999, it was 3,425,694. And then Mr Robinson states:"To date your state has receive $12,476,558 through the VOI/TIS program...."

national disgrace

2008-11-27T09:12:00.000-08:00

DID YOU KNOW?? NATIONAL DISGRACE

1)The United States has less than 5% of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners. The United States leads the world in producing prisoners
2)A generation of growth has produced prison populations that are now eight times what they were in 1970. And there is no end to the growth under current policies.
3)For the same crimes, American prisoners receive sentences twice as long as English prisoners, three times as long as Canadian prisoners, four times as long as Dutch prisoners, five to 10 times as long as French prisoners, and five times as long as Swedish prisoners. Yet these countries’ rates of violent crime are lower than ours, and their rates of property crime are comparable.
4) By far the major reason for the increase in prison populations at least since 1990 has been longer lengths of imprisonment. according to the Department of Justice’s own study, between 1990 and 1997, the numbers of prison admissions increased by only 17% while the prison population increased by 60% . This larger increase in the prison population can only be caused by a longer length of stay.
5) It costs about $25,000 a year to house a person in prison. Between 1985 and 2000, spending on corrections rose at six times the rate of spending for higher education. Essentially, policymakers are faced with a choice of whether they wish to contribute to an expanded prison system or provide vital social services. They can no longer do both.

"good time"explained

2008-08-04T21:21:00.000-07:00

Should Wisconsin Department of Corrections re-enact "Good Time" for Offenders

an exploration of the effects of no parole

by Wisconsin prisoner
Prior to the 1983 Wisconsin Act 528, which became effective June 1, 1984 the Wisconsin Legislative body in conjunction with the Former Health & Social Service Department, now known as the Department of Corrections, did away with the concept of "good time", replacing it with the failed system of "mandatory release" which has been the subject of many complaints and legal actions.

Under the old "good time" system prisoners who lost their good time credits through disciplinary actions due to bad misbehavior reports were given an incentive to be good as a way of earning back time that they lost, further, some states like Illinois, a sister state to Wisconsin gave other incentive for prisoners to do good, they had a system where the inmate serve what is known as "half time" the inmate who was sentenced to ten years would automatically have an projected release date of five years. The prisoner was allowed to earn "good time" for going to school and earning a G.D. or HSED of 90 days which move the release date of the prisoner.

While many proponents that oppose "good time" for "mandatory release" those proponents who advocate for longer sentencing did not and they have not considered the damage that the prison budget has done to states budgets overall. In fact, recent news report showed eight states : Rhode Island, New Jersey, Michigan, Wyoming to name a few have pushed for their legislature to release violent offenders.

Wisconsin's current "Mandatory Release" system does not work because the parole board system is fractured and has been since the Former Governor Tommy G. Thompson forced out then Parole Board Chairman John Husz. Time and politics have teamed up to alter reality, with the present state of affairs resulting in minimal parole releases, and the climate which has created a significant increase in penalties handed down under truth-in-sentencing laws we must go back to rewarding incentive based programs such as awarding "good time" for rehabilitative prisoners or those whom has rehabilitated themselves.

"Good Time" can not only serve to ease overcrowding in the states prisons, but relieve some of the burden off taxpayers to foot these enormous billion dollar ("yes") billion dollar budgets to operate the states prison system. Many offenders throughout Wisconsin prisons has had their stay prolonged due to loss of their mandatory release dates, time that they can not get back no matter how good they become. So why not reward these inmates for their good behavior by restoring their loss time and implementing programs that will reward the offender good conduct credits for completion thereof.

A Look at parole Chairman and How the system works- a 2008 nespaper article

2008-08-04T20:34:00.000-07:00

A Look at the parole Chairman and how parole works.

Q. How many prisoners are elligible now to be paroled?
A 4,812. They were sentenced Before Truth In sentencing came about and were elligible for parole after serving 25% of their time if they proved they were ready. They are called "old Law Prisoners and a majority of those are being denied due process and kept illegal in prison.

Q Why Should this Concern you?
A Waste of many, Waste of lives.
B We need to release who have change their lives. Most of these old law prisoners were wild in their youth and are now 40 -60. They have changed their thinking around and could be valuable additions to our communities. Instead, we are spending 20 plus thousands a year PER prisoner to jam our prisons full od people who do not need to be there.

Here is a recent article from the Milwaukee Journal about the then new parole Chairman.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Doyle's parole chief defends tough tack on releases
By Jason Shepard

Last summer, just after Gov. Jim Doyle appointed Alfonso Graham as chairman of the state's Parole Commission, Frank Van den Bosch started hearing from disheartened inmates in Wisconsin's prisons. The inmates were slated to be paroled only to have Graham revoke their releases. \

"There is great frustration throughout the prison system about Al Graham's reversals," says Van den Bosch, a prisoners-rights advocate who runs the Prisoner Action Coalition from his home in Montfort, west of Dodgeville. "A lot of these guys are giving up hope that they have any real chance at parole, and families are becoming more and more angry at the system."
Inmate Aaron Greer write that a commissioner determined last summer that he deserved release, 16 years after he was convicted of first-degree sexual assault and burglary. Greer says he spent years in prison rehabilitation programs, and his family prepared a detailed plan to support his reintegration into society Yet Graham, he asserts, overruled his release "without any reasons behind his decision whatsoever."

DeMara Cumby, now serving a 28-year sentence for armed robbery, writes that he was slated to be released last August after a commissioner recommended his parole. But one day after returning from a work-release program, Cumby says he was locked up, transferred, and told Graham had revoked his parole grant and instead ordered him to serve another two years before being reconsidered.

"I haven't had any infractions," Cumby writes. "On the contrary. I've shown positive adjustment over many years, which is supposed to be the determining factor when considering parole. I do not think it is the chairman's position to set an individual backwards unless warranted."
Letters from other inmates, sent to Van den Bosch and Isthmus over the past year, tell similar stories. Stricter laws, sterner judges and statutory changes like "truth in sentencing" have led to longer state prison sentences across all [ classes of crimes. This has spiked prison populations and driven corrections spending to nearly $1.1 billion a year, topping slate spending on its university system. An Isthmus analysis of data from the Department of Corrections confirms what Van den Bosch and state inmates are saying: The tough-on-crime mantra has also thrust itself dramatically into the parole system.

During the first six months of Graham's tenure, the parole-grant rate dropped significantly from what it had been under Graham's predecessor, Lenard Wells. From June 2006 to November 2006, Graham granted parole in 12.5% of possible cases, down from 17.2% from December 2005 through May 2006, when Wells was in charge. In all, of the 4,705 inmates up for parole in 2006, 688 were granted release.

Now more inmates are being denied parole until they grow close to their mandatory release date. This increases costs to taxpayers — the current annual average in Wisconsin is $29,600 per inmate — while reducing the amount of time that newly released prisoners are under the watch of parole agents.

The dramatic shift in practice came after Wells abruptly resigned in the middle of Doyle's last re-election campaign. Wells had come under fire for his decision to grant parole to a man who killed a Milwaukee cop 30 years earlier. At the same time, a Republican attorney general candidate inflamed anti-immigration sentiment by asserting that 77 illegal immigrants were paroled between 2003 and 2006. (The candidate, Paul Bucher, failed to mention that the state, under Doyle, regularly sought deportation hearings for these parolees.)

Wells told a Capital Times columnist that he resigned voluntarily so his decisions wouldn't be used against Doyle in the campaign. In response, a Doyle spokesman announced that Doyle "is confident" his new pick "will not parole a cop killer."

For most of the 20th century, parole was a corrections tool used to motivate criminals to "earn" release from prison by bettering themselves through good behavior, rehabilitation programs and education. It also allowed the system to correct for inappropriately harsh judges.
In the 1990s, parole came under attack from tough-on-crime politicians who played to fears that criminals were getting released from prison without sufficient punishment, then going on to commit more crimes. Their solution? Lock up lawbreakers, and throw away the key — at least for longer periods of time.

Wisconsin eliminated parole in 2000 as part of one of the nation's harshest overhauls in criminal-justice sentencing. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel projected the move would cost taxpayers $1.8 billion in new spending for inmates admitted through 2025.

At the end of 1999, 94% of Wisconsin's adult prison population had a set parole-eligibility date Now just 4,812 inmates, or 22% of the total population, remain sentenced under the "old law" This means they are eligible for discretionary parole after serving 25% of their sentence, and must be released after serving two-thirds of the sentence.

(Inmates sentenced after Dec. 31,1999, never see a parole commissioner. Many serve every day of their sentences, although some inmates convicted "of less-serious crimes are able to petition judges for release after serving three-quarters of their sentence.)

An inmate eligible for parole is granted a hearing before one of five parole commissioners. This person decides whether to recommend parole or deny it and set the next eligibility date. Crime victims are allowed to provide outside information; inmates' families, lawyers and advocates are not.

Commissioners weigh several factors: whether the inmate has served "sufficient time for punishment"; shown signs of positive improvement based on treatment and education programs; developed a viable plan for success upon release; and presents an "acceptably reduced level of risk" to the public.

Graham has overseen the hirings of two of the five commissioners, Danielle LaCost and David White, both in August 2006. LaCost has worked in corrections since 1995, White since 1978. The three other commissioners, in order of seniority, are Jayne Hackbarth, a 20-year DOC veteran who was appointed in 1999; Steven Landreman, employed by DOC for 14 years and appointed in 2001; and James Hart, a 32-year DOC employee appointed in 2002.

The chairman of the parole board has the sole authority to accept, reject or modify a decision from a commissioner. His decision is final.

Like his predecessor, Al Graham is an African American former Milwaukee police official. In addition to his Milwaukee pension from his days as assistant police chief, Graham has collected a paycheck over the past decade from the state Department of Justice, mostly recently by working in a unit called the Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Effort.

Graham says he first met Doyle years ago when the then-attorney general spoke at police-academy graduations in Milwaukee. As AG, Doyle hired Graham at Justice; as governor, he called on Graham after Wells resigned.

Van den Bosch thinks the governor purposely picked a more hard-line parole chief to shore up his tough-on-crime credentials "Gov. Doyle put in Al Graham because he knew he'd batten down the hatches before the election," he says. 'Al Graham has got conservative perspective that's pro-punishment and pro-incarceration. That's why he was put into that office. It's his philosophical position that guys serve a lot of time."

Graham says he calls 'em.as he sees 'em, but concedes that it's a difficult post "I have that hard job of saying, 'No, today we're not going to let this lifer out because of what he's done, based on the facts before me, based on the witnesses that may be out there protesting, based on the victims, based on the district attorneys and judges."'

He admits he's heard "a lot" of com plaints that he's tougher than Wells but says, "I've not looked into the parameters of my predecessors. I've talked to the governor about my views and perspectives and said here's how I plan to do it, and I didn't get any negative feed back. This is how I'm going to continue until I hear differently."

When his commissioners recommend release for killers and pedophiles Graham says, he scrutinizes the facts more thoroughly than other cases. As a cop, he says, "we locked up these people up for life, and we didn't think we'd ever see them again. Now, I've had to modify that view a little bit based or what I've seen here."

This year alone, Graham guesses he's had about 20 cases of recommended releases for inmates convicted of homicide. He estimates he's overturned about 25% of them. "Before I put my signature releasing a person who's been sentenced to life, I'm going to take a hard look at that."
As for Greer and Cumby, mentioned above, Graham says he rejected both because he felt they hadn't served enough-time for punishment based on the severity of their crimes.

Sometimes, Graham gets intimately involved in the board's decisions. When it came time to release a Marinette County man convicted of attempted homicide 22 years earlier, Graham received a letter from the victim, a man in his 60s who is still disabled from the attack. The man was fearful for his life, and said he'd move rather than live in the same town as his released attack-

"Here's a guy who expressed a legitimate concern," Graham says. "He said he's a tax-paying citizen whose safety is being put at risk because of my decision."
And so Graham called the local district attorney, police chief and the man's parole officer to talk about the release, which he granted.

"Do I worry about that one case? Only because it was the first I had where I could not justify in my mind keeping this person any longer. I fight the urge to call the victim and say, 'How are you doing1.'"' But Graham admits to calling the police chief after the release to make sure there hadn't been any problems.

"There are no easy cases," Graham says. "In every case, there are families out there on all sides. There are prosecutors and judges and police officers. There are community organizations. And there's the public, whose safety to me is always the most important factor."

He continues: "Are there some who I could have released who may have gone on to do well? There's a chance. It's a question of the law of averages, reducing the risk, and hoping that community and family support is out there and the inmate is released saying I'm going to do the best I can. If I erred, it was on the side of public safety If I had to go right back to day one, I would do everything the exact same way"

State Sen. Lena Taylor (D-Mllwaukee),chair of the Senate's Committee on Judiciary and Corrections, moved slowly to confirm Graham's nomination because of her concerns. In July, more than a year after Graham took over, her committee unanimously approved his nomination, but only after Taylor said Graham admitted to a "growth process" during his first months.
At an April public hearing, dozens of people testified against Graham's nomination based on his rejections of parole grants. The complaints received scant media attention, with the notable exception of Wisconsin Public Radio's Gil Halstead.

Following the hearing, lawmakers sought assurances from Graham that he and his staff would work harder to communicate with prisoners, their families and advocacy groups. Taylor's committee also requested a study of risk-assessment tools used in other states that could reduce the needier discretionary decision-making. (The report was slated for release in July, but Graham says it's not yet ready)

Another concern is the lack of available programs that inmates must complete to be eligible for parole. Some of the programs aren't offered where the prisoners are housed, forcing them to seek transfers to other facilities if they have any chance of winning release Graham admits this is a burden and says it's "a fair concern" that inmates are being denied parole because they haven't completed programming that's not offered at their facility

Van den Bosch worries that postponing parole can undercut an inmate's chances for success upon release. It's yet another example, he says, of politicians being more tough than smart on crime A smart approach would recognize the importance of rehabilitating criminals, giving them incentives, training and the opportunity to lead productive lives.

"No matter how long you extend someone's time in prison, you're not automatically going to have a better citizen when he comes out if you don't provide the skills and programs needed," Van den Bosch says. "The costs to society are much greater when you have people who get out and are unable to function."*
'

Parole Commission Chair Al Graham: 'I have that hard job of saying, "No, today we're not going to let this lifer out because of what he's done.'"