Capping Life Sentences in Michigan Could Solve Sentencing Dilemmas

 (Guest post by Arthur Cayce)

Michigan legislators face controversial problems when new criminal justice bills are introduced. First, they must figure out whether or not to bar Michigan courts from sentencing juveniles to life without parole, which federal courts and science have determined is unjust and unconstitutional. A second concern is whether or not banning such sentences would flood Michigan's communities with people who had been convicted for crimes that formerly required long indeterminate or life without parole sentences. My answer to this quandary is simple: cap life sentences. Such proposed legislation should serve the concerns of the Michigan legislature as well as those of the public. 

Legislation banning life sentences would cap minimum sentences at 20-25 years. This eliminates any sentence imposed on individuals with outrageous numbers, such as 150 years to life. Under these new guidelines, those who have committed acts of first- and/or second-degree murder, regardless of the offender's age, or other crimes, would have a fair sentence. This adjustment to the law not only coincides with the science that minds under 25 years are underdeveloped, but it also affords enough time where individuals tend to age out of criminal behavior. 

Yet, these sentences would also come with a contingency, where the judge, prosecutor, or parole board can evaluate the heinousness of the crime and apply the maximum end of a life sentence to 30-50 years. Crimes such as serial rape or murder, or domestic terrorism, which are deemed most horrendous, would require intense rehabilitation and psychological investigation before the person is considered for parole. These revisions are not only fair and constitutional, but they protect the public's interest that justice is served and allows the initiator of the crime enough time away from society for proper rehabilitation. 

That said, since currently the MDOC is not geared for rehabilitation and reconciliation but is founded on philosophies of confinement and punishment, the legislature must implement a new process towards corrective behavior. By doing so, offenders will have the necessary means to correct their thought processes and become successful members of society once leaving the corrections system. 

When proposals like mine have been raised, one question posed includes: Will the legislation be retroactive? The answer is, yes! Offenders who are currently serving life without parole sentences, life with the possibility of parole, or numbers that are effectively life sentences (40-80 or 100-150 years, for example) will go before the parole board or a judge for a second look at their sentence length.

Another concern would be that by making this legislation retroactive, Michigan communities may still face a flood of ex-felons, especially when Covid-19 has correlated with spikes in crime. So, why resentence? First, as science has proven, individuals over the age of 40 often age out of criminal behavior. Second, parole board can "flop" people who have high potential to reoffend as shown by their institutional record. 

The parole board also generally releases offenders back to their home counties or states. This dispersal of ex-felons to their origins will help lessen the fears of Michigan's communities. Furthermore, releasing felons that have received higher education, a vocational trade, or have a strong support system awaiting them after release can reduce repeat offenses. These offenders should be considered first. Also, at the top of the list are those felons who are aged 60 years or older. These prisoners are highly unlikely to commit crimes upon release and are usually a burden on the prison health care system.

This potential legislation, capping life sentences, makes a lot of sense and resolves Michigan's current quandary on how to handle juvenile and young adult offenders.