A Father's day Hope Becomes a Birthday Promise

On June 24, 2001 I received my very first Father's Day card. I wasn't yet a father, but I was engaged to marry someone who had two children, so I was soon going to be a father. I remember crying (yes, I am man enough to admit I cried) when I received that card. I had dreamt of being a father, but I had never dreamt I would be a father to two children who had lost theirs. It was a big responsibility, and frankly one I was a bit terrified of. I had spent some time questioning my ability to fill that role and wondering if these children would love me and accept me as "dad." That Father's Day card obliterated at least the latter worries. It was a monument of acceptance, a symbol of trust, and one of the most loving things I have ever received. That Father's Day card moved me from filling the role of "dad" to embracing the reality of fatherhood with all of its joys and struggles.

From that day forward I was never "step-dad," but father, daddy, dad. I never thought of these children as my step-kids, but as my own flesh and blood. I didn't replace their father who had passed away, but rather I stepped into the physical place that death left empty. History will testify that I didn't get it all right. I made a lot of mistakes, but I never regretted becoming their dad. 

Today, the oldest of those two children celebrates her birthday, and I wish I could give her the same joy I felt with my very first Father's Day card. I've missed the last ten years of her life, failing miserably to live up to the hopes she had the day she and her sister gave me that beautiful card. God doesn't give us the freedom of do-overs, or I would gratefully go back to that June day in 2001 and begin afresh. I would recognize then, not just the joys that fatherhood brings, but I'd also recognize the duty and responsibility it brought and the humility and commitment it would require. It might still leave me terrified, but it'd also leave me humbled with the realization that I was being entrusted with the delicate love a child has for her father. Alongside the pride I felt that day would have been a deep humility, the humility that is required to be a good dad. 

I can't go back and change the past though. God doesn't give us do-overs. But the beauty of life is that no matter how shameful or messy the chapters are in the story of our pasts, the pages of our futures are blank, just waiting for the ink of action to write new chapters. I'm already writing new chapters, trying to change the story of my life from tragedy to triumph. These chapters are missing characters, but weaved through every page is a promise and intention to live up to the hope printed in crayon by the hand of two small children. Yes, I already failed to live up to that hope--I can't go back and be the father I should have been; however, I can go forward and be the man my children deserved, one who may someday yet experience the grace (and joy!) of again being called dad. 

Happy Birthday, my daughter.

Governor Snyder Signs Objective Parole Bill

On September 12, 2018 Michigan's Governor Snyder signed into law Public Act No. 339, otherwise known as the "Objective Parole Bill." This bill changes the way the parole board considers prisoners for parole, outlining eleven objective standards whereby the parole board may deny a prisoner his or her parole. In Michigan, most prisoners are given a sentence range consisting of an Earliest Release Date (ERD) and a Maximum Sentence. The ERD is the first date a prisoner is eligible for parole. If the prisoner is denied parole at this date, his or her sentence continues until the maximum sentence with parole reconsideration every year or two, depending on the prisoner's sentence. In the past, the parole board could deny a prisoner parole who has otherwise been categorized with a high probability of receiving parole. They could do this without giving any reason for the denial. This practice has been fairly common, leading the average Michigan prisoner to serve 120% of his or her minimum sentence. House Bill 5377 (signed as P.A. 339) limits the parole board's authority to arbitrarily deny a prisoner parole, but a prisoner's offense, institutional record, required program participation, prior criminal record, and other "relevant factors" still serve as a guide in determining the level of probability for a prisoner to receive parole. Now, if the parole board wishes to deny a prisoner when the prisoner scores with a high probability, the board must only use one (or more) of the following eleven objective reasons (paraphrased): 1. The prisoner continues to behave in ways that will put the public at risk 2. The prisoner refuses to participate in required programming 3. There is verified evidence of substantial harm to a victim that was not considered in sentencing 4. The prisoner has threatened to harm another person if released 5. There is objective post-sentencing conduct that indicates the prisoner would be a high risk to the community 6. The prisoner is a suspect in an unsolved crime actively being investigated 7. The prisoner has pending felony charges 8. The prisoner has not completed required programming and the programming is not available in his or her community 9. Releasing the prisoner is otherwise barred by law 10. The prisoner fails to provide an adequate parole plan 11. The prisoner has received a psychological evaluation in the previous three years indicating that he or she would be a high risk to public safety While some of these objective reasons are subject to interpretation (i.e.,what is an "adequate" parole plan?), the existence of a list of objective reasons why the parole board can deny prisoner parole is heartening. Unfortunately, the legislature limited these new standards only to prisoners sentenced after September 12, 2018. Nevertheless, nothing prohibits the parole board from being guided by these standards for all prisoners. Either way, this bill is a great move in the right direction for Michigan.

Michigan's New Eyeglasses Policy Bullies Out the Competition

Several decades ago, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) significantly reduced the use of prisoner labor in factory industry due, at least in part, to manufacturers' dissatisfaction with the MDOC's unfair advantage through the use of what amounted to slave labor. Industries who would normally supply goods to the state had no ability to compete against an industry that used labor with wages lower than sweatshop factories in China. Many prisoners speculate that Michigan's decision to discontinue its industrial factories that made goods for use by the state was actually motivated by the then-governor's ownership (or his family's ownership) in several competing industries. Whether or not this was a motivating factor in changing the state's policy of using prisoner slave labor in industrial manufacturing is unclear. What is clear is that the state of Michigan has since adopted a policy of state-sponsored monopolies and oligopolies. Oligopolies exist when the number of sellers or producers is limited (usually by the government) to a population of buyers. Justified by "security reasons," in the last several decades Michigan has limited its prisoners to using a single source for purchasing store goods (currently Keefe), telephone services (currently Global TelLink), and email and music services (currently JPay). It has also limited prisoners' access to only a few catalog vendors (currently Access/Keefe, Union Supply, and J L Markus) for personal electronics and select clothing. Michigan prisoners used to be able to order personal footlockers, personal coats, and shorts from private vendors, but now prisoners must purchase these only from Michigan State Industries (MSI)--a state-owned manufacturer using prisoner labor at sweatshop wages. Recently, the MDOC issued a new policy restricting prisoner access to eyeglasses, requiring prisoners to now purchase their eyeglasses only from MSI or Prism Optical, a company connected to prison industries. It makes no logical sense to restrict prisoners from purchasing eyeglasses from reputable public vendors. It is unclear what the MDOC's motivation is for this new state-sponsored oligopoly, other than increasing its own revenues through the use of prisoner labor. Clearly, incarcerating its citizens is big business for the state of Michigan. It provides many jobs for corrections officers and administrative staff, while consuming more than $2 billion of the state's budget. It is difficult to ask the state to break its dependence on the prison industrial complex, but is it moral for the state to maintain its legislative and judicial policies of lengthy sentences (currently more than 1/3 higher than surrounding Midwestern states) simply to continue its archaic and unfair practices? True prison reform includes legislative changes to excessively long prison sentences, policy changes to increase rehabilitative and constructive programming, and policy changes that don't abuse power, such as the establishment and perpetuation of monopolies and oligopolies. These senseless policies frustrate the prison population; it ought to also anger the public that the state would limit prisoner access to open markets so only the state and its partners profit.

Will Corrections Officers Ever Support Rehabilitating Prisoners?

I can't imagine it must be easy being a corrections officer. I mean, the job itself looks pretty easy most of the time--lots of sitting around, making regular rounds, writing tickets from time to time--really glorified babysitting. But other aspects of their job can be difficult--stopping violence, avoiding constant attempts at manipulation, verbal harassment--though for many officers in Michigan the actual danger from violence is pretty low, but it is still a constant possibility. That anticipation must be stressful. Of course, being a corrections officer is not exactly a dream job. No officer that I know of dreamt of being a prison guard when they grew up. Police officer? Yes. Corrections officer? No. For some corrections officers, getting this job was after another dream failed, dreams of being a cop or some other goal that didn't work out. For others, it was an easy second career, especially for former military personnel. The pay and benefits are decent--certainly not what they used to be--but it's a fairly secure job. That is, until you start talking about prison and sentencing reform, and restorative justice practices. At one time, Michigan housed over 52,000 prisoners in state prisons, but now the number is below 40,000. That's a good trend, but not if your job is on the line. Perhaps that is why some officers, not all, oppose rehabilitative programming, like college education and vocational training. It might also have to do with some officers still having to pay off their own college loans while watching some prisoners receive a free college education. Sure, the Calvin Prison Initiative is funded by private donations and Pell grants are federal dollars, but still it feels like prisoners receiving a free college education on the backs of taxpayers. I get it. It must also feel like a waste of effort and money, educating prisoners, when corrections officers see a revolving door of returning prisoners. I imagine that must leave many officers feeling highly skeptical of any claims that education reforms people. They've seen it all--prisoners claiming they've been rehabilitated, only to come back again a few months later. They've also seen people leave prison on non-violent cases, only to return having committed a murder or other violent crime. It's got to wear on one's belief in humanity's redemptive value. It's got to stymie one's hope for restored people becoming contributing citizens. Shoot, I'd not want to live next door to some of the people I see leaving prison, and I'm a very optimistic person. Let me make one thing clear: I believe that people who commit crimes are solely responsible for the choices they make. I don't think society drove them to it, or anyone else bears the guilt for a person's decision to be a criminal. Nevertheless, I do believe that society does bear the responsibility to help cure the conditions that lead many people to choose crime. It makes no sense to return people who have committed crimes back to their communities worse off than when the criminal justice system removed them from those communities. Yes, it hurts to spend tax dollars on people who have already harmed their communities, but it hurts more to continue to spend that money for the rest of those people's lives as they return to prison again and again. Frankly, I think being a corrections officer is a thankless job, and I don't know why anyone would choose that job, but I do know some corrections officers who have good hearts and believe in the redemptive value of those of us who probably don't deserve any grace. It might be unpopular (in prison) for me to admit that, but I imagine it's also unpopular for people (including officers) to admit that some prisoners are good people who have made terrible choices. Yet, I know that is the case. If I believe prisoners can be reformed (I do), then I can also believe that cynical officers can change the way they see us prisoners. I can't change their minds alone, but I'll do my part to live with integrity so that they'll see at least one example of a changed life.

How to Be Part of the Thirty-Three

National studies have shown that the average recidivism rates (re-offense rates) for citizens returning from prison is sixty-seven percent.That's an alarmingly high number and clear evidence that the industrial prison complex's methods of rehabilitation do not work. If prison is meant as a deterrent to crime, it's not working for the majority of returning citizens. Instead, prisoners are released into the same or worse conditions that they lived in before prison, often having had criminal mindsets reinforced by years in prison surrounded by other criminally-minded people. Rather than deterring crime, prison has become simply a warehouse to temporarily separate problem citizens from the rest of society. Nevertheless, hidden in this atrocious statistic of recidivism is a sprinkling of hope, for thirty-three percent of returning citizens successfully stay out of prison.

So, what separates the sixty-seven from the thirty-three percent, and what does it take to be part of this successful thirty-three? While no one thing can guarantee a returning citizen's membership in the thirty-three, as it turns out, several factors increase one's likelihood of success upon release from prison, including:

1. Strong family and community support.
Some people enter prison with little to no family or community support. Others lose much of their support while in prison. Policies and practices used by the prison industrial complex, including burdensome phone rates and excessively restrictive mail and visiting policies, have made it difficult for prisoners to maintain healthy family and community relationships. Nevertheless, prisoners who make it a priority to keep healthy relationships with others on the outside are often the most successful upon release.

2. Education and moral formation.
Prisoners who commit to reforming their thinking and behaviors are often the least likely to return to prison. These prisoners recognize the importance of education in broadening their thinking, and the necessity of reforming their moral compass so it is pro-social.

3. A serious commitment to sobriety.
So many prisoners have life-long struggles with addiction. Taking a couple of classes in prison, or even resolving to quit an addiction rarely works. What does work for some is addressing the underlying trauma that often leads to addiction, establishing and maintaining a strong sponsor relationship, and doing the difficult work of honest self-assessment required for a relapse prevention plan.

4. A change in location.
Too many prisoners return to the same communities, with the same difficulties and unhealthy relationships they had before prison. The Department of Correction's policies that make it difficult to parole to a different county only reinforce the likelihood of re-offense for many prisoners. To parole to a different county, prisoners must have a job and housing already established in another county. This is often difficult for many prisoners who have no healthy community connections.

5. A job.
For many prisoners, having a job upon release is essential for success. Many returning citizens find it difficult to transition back into society, and most have very little to return to. The stability and financial security of a job makes it easier to say "no" to the many temptations many prisoners face to chase "easy money." Successfully landing and keeping a job reinforces to many returning citizens their worth to themselves, their families, and their communities.

If states want to significantly reduce their recidivism rates and lower their prison populations, they must develop policies and programs that increase the likelihood that each prisoner will experience the above factors. Additionally, states (and the federal government) must begin to seriously address the systemic issues that often lead to crime, including inter-generational poverty and incarceration, rampant addiction, deficient housing, failing public schools, and glorification of immorality and violence, among others. While a person's choice to commit a crime is his or her own responsibility, if we as a nation are serious about reducing our dependency on incarceration and healing the causes of crime before crimes are committed, we must change our approach. As Albert Einstein once famously said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." A club of only thirty-three percent is far too low a number--it's time for a change.