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.

Political Posturing Aims for Re-Election, not for Problem Solving

 For the last decade, or so, criminal justice and prison reforms have trickled through legislatures around the county. Some of these reforms have been motivated by Supreme Court cases, like the ban on mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). Other reforms have been through grassroots efforts. These reforms have been largely encouraging, though often slow in execution, for those of us in prison. But I sense a shift changing in the conversation, and it's making me nervous. 

The last couple of years have seen significant increases in crime rates in some major cities, and probably modest increases in many smaller cities. This is a disturbing trend. But rather than seeking to address the causes of the recent rise in crime, some politicians are seeking to weaponize tragedy for political gain. 

One such subject that has become increasingly politicized is bail reform. Many politicians and reform advocates considered bail reform low hanging fruit because it was largely uncontroversial and addressed an area of the criminal justice system that disproportionately affected low income people and racial minorities. The argument was that bail reform was necessary to fix occasions where people lost jobs and their children because they could not afford even low bail amounts. The discussion on bail reform centered on non-violent, low-level offenses. 

Unfortunately, many of the bail reform policies have had imperfect application. When a few judges released potentially violent offenders who committed more crimes after their no-bail release, some politicians capitalized on these occasions to deride bail reform in its entirety. They are dead wrong. Bail reform is necessary, even if it needs tweaking to prevent some offenders from committing more violence. We should not trample on the rights of many to justify holding a few. 

When politicians weaponize tragedy, they create fear in the public and motivate people to vote for their party. Just such a strategy is happening as I write. Rising crime rates are not caused by bail or sentence reforms. Bail reform stems from recognizing the injustice and inequality in our criminal justice system that has historically favored those with money and social privilege. Sentence reforms stem from scientific evidence that longer sentences do not lead to greater rehabilitation and do not make communities safer. 

Demands for harsher sentencing, the return of unjust use of bail, or even no-fly lists for unruly plane passengers will not make America safer. These are bandaids that have already proven to be a very costly failure, both monetarily and in terms of broken families and lost years for those incarcerated. Politicians ought to tackle the root of the problem, like economic and job insecurity, crumbling mental health, and the unbearable tension caused by constant political infighting. 

But tackling these issues will not gain votes. The public feels safer with harsh responses to crime, not calls for solving root problems. And so, we continue this senseless rollercoaster of criminal justice policy changes. 

Let's let history teach us something, shall we? Let's look back at the complete failure of the criminal justice policies from the '80s and '90s that led to mass incarceration in America. And let's not repeat these mistakes by thinking the iron fist of the law will solve the causes of crime. It won't. It'll only lead to greater heartbreak for millions of Americans. 

It's time we turn the catchphrase "Smart on Crime" into action. Let's continue to make smart reforms that lower incarceration while making investments in communities (including prison) that address the causes of crime. Yes, crime needs to be punished, and communities need to be safe by removing offenders for a time. But let's not think that historical policies of "lock 'em up and throw away the key" work. They didn't then, and they won't now. It's time that America begins holding politicians accountable for their political slight of hand that aims to do one thing, and one thing alone: get them re-elected.

What Good Time Legislation Would Mean to Me

 When Michigan citizens voted in so-called Truth in Sentencing, eliminating opportunities for Michigan's prisoners to earn time off their sentences, they likely did so thinking it was the right thing to do. Certainly, victims of crime deserve justice for the harms we've caused them. But the authors of the Truth in Sentencing legislation failed to explain to Michigan voters how longer prison sentences equated to justice. 

A basic concept in the field of psychology highlights the fact that positive reinforcement is more effective in changing behavior than either negative or positive punishment. Punishment certainly has it's place in the justice system. Crime should be punished. But removing all positive reinforcements, like reducing sentences for demonstrating good behavior, reinforces that Michigan's justice system's primary goal is retribution. 

This outmoded singular concept of justice fails to acknowledge that most prisoners will one day return to their communities. If we fail to reinforce good behavior while prisoners are serving their time, how can society expect these returning citizens to highly value good behavior upon exiting prison? Most prisoners committed crimes because of misplaced or immoral value systems. Good time legislation will not fix this problem, but it assists in reinforcing the value of positive moral behavior. 

I am currently serving a 17-45 year sentence for criminal sexual conduct. I deserved to be punished for my crime. I needed the time that prison has afforded me to rethink my own value system, to correct faulty thinking patterns, and to build a moral value system that respects all life and seeks to defend the vulnerable in our society. I'm ashamed of my past behavior, but I've fought hard to use that shame to compel me to change. I would have done this work with or without so-called good time legislation because it was critical to my own journey. I have done all of this work of transformation without the help of the Michigan Department of Corrections. Their goal is to simply warehouse prisoners until their release date, fulfilling their obligations on paper rather than focusing on transforming lives. 

To be fair, the work of transformation is difficult and probably expensive. But it cannot possibly be more expensive than funding a revolving door into prison. That's one reason why the Michigan people ought to value the hard work that prisoners do, often on their own, to become safe, contributing citizens who will not only be safe in their communities but who will also work to make amends for the harms they've caused. When prisoners demonstrate initiative to transform their thinking and behavior, society ought to reinforce those positive behaviors. 

Since coming to prison, I have worked on addictive thinking and behaviors, including becoming a group leader for Celebrate Recovery. I have also earned a bachelor's degree in Faith and Community Leadership through Calvin University (www.calvin.edu/prisoninitiative), and written a book about prison for loved ones on the outside ("Insider's Guide to Prison Life"). Additionally, I've worked to help other prisoners better themselves through developing and facilitating college prep classes, facilitating life skills classes, tutoring trades and college students, and participated in restorative justice dialogues. These are only a small sample of the important rehabilitative work I've done during my last thirteen years in prison. 

To be sure, my own journey of transformation will continue on the other side of these fences. I anticipate maintaining a growth mindset for the rest of my life. Those I've harmed deserve at least that much from me. If Michigan decides to reward prisoners who are focused on becoming safe, contributing citizens, it would mean that I can continue giving back on the other side of these fences. It would also mean I can help care for my mother, and help my brother with his business. It would mean I can begin to find ways to help heal the wounds I've caused, and if that is not possible, to help prevent others from causing the same kinds of wounds. 

Justice can never be measured in years. Instead, it should be measured by what prison intends to accomplish. If Michigan simply wants to get offenders out of communities for as long as possible and return them to their communities unchanged, or sadly often worse off, it should not pass good time legislation. If, however, Michigan wants to join the other 49 states in reinforcing good behavior and self-directed rehabilitative efforts, then good time legislation makes sense for Michigan. 

What Exactly Does it Take to Qualify for Parole from Prison?

 The book of Proverbs says, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick" (13:12), an experience probably shared by nearly everyone. One doesn't have to be incarcerated to experience deferred hope. It's a common human experience. 

In prisons, the object of one's hope is often freedom. Most prisoners are eligible for freedom at some point, though many more are not. Yet, those with non-parolable life sentences sometimes still hold onto hope that their condition will change. Perhaps a law will change, or new evidence will change their sentence, or, the ultimate unicorn, a governor might commute one's sentence. These all leave a shred of hope dangling precariously in the middle of the powerful trap jaws of disappointment. With nothing else to hold onto, it's difficult for prisoners to avoid reaching out for this hope, even if disappointment has snapped it's vicious jaws down time after time. 

One subset of prisoners, those with parolable life sentences, face a unique situation. Their sentences are technically for one's natural life, but the parolable part means they can be paroled (after 15 years in Michigan) if the conditions are right. But those conditions are not spelled out. So these prisoners are left to try their hardest to demonstrate rehabilitation. The problem is that with a life sentence, they are not eligible for more programming in prison. They are forbidden, by policy, from participating in programming that will demonstrate an effort to rehabilitate. 

Still, many of these prisoners find a way to put in the work. Such is the case with a friend of mine, whom I'll call K.D. K.D. was sentenced, as a juvenile, to parolable life in prison for committing a murder while he was high on drugs. Since that time, K.D. has participated in as many programs as he could find a way into, including training seeing-eye dogs for the blind, and earning a college degree. He has also attended and now helps lead voluntary substance abuse classes. He's done all he knows to do to demonstrate he is rehabilitated. 

In recent years, a U.S. Supreme Court case deemed it unconstitutional to sentence juveniles to a mandatory life sentence. But parolable life sentences are not considered "life" under this ruling. Thus, K.D. does not qualify to be resentenced to a term of years. This should not pose much of a problem since after serving more than two decades in prison he is already eligible for parole. But the victim in his case belonged to a family with political connections. And thus begin the vicious jaws of disappoint to snap shut. 

After having to wait five years since the parole board last expressed no interest in releasing him, K.D. has worked even harder to demonstrate that he is rehabilitated. Yet, despite all of the positive demonstrations in his parole file, the parole board recently announced they were, yet again, not interested. In Michigan, the parole board does not have to give a reason for their denial, either. They simply state, "No interest." 

When a judge sentences an offender to a parolable life sentence, his or her intention is that the offender has a chance to leave prison, provided the prisoner demonstrates rehabilitation. Parolable life sentences were never meant to be used as a tool to curry political favor. Although victims' families have a right to file objections to the release of a prisoner serving a parolable life sentence, those objections ought to be taken into account in light of the prisoner's demonstrated work of rehabilitation. Objections must be measured against the backdrop of demonstrated rehabilitation; otherwise, what's the point? 

The chance at freedom ought to be real to those who qualify for it, not dangled forever out of reach after being served on a platter of hope. Prison is supposed to be part of a system of justice, not a system that perpetuates injustice. Favoring those with political connections is just such an example of injustice. If the justice system never intended to release someone, they should not have issued a sentence based on the hope of eventual releases. 

Today, K.D.'s hope for release is not dead, but he must wait another five years to find out if what he does between now and then will be enough. He must wait another five years to find out if political games, not demonstrated rehabilitation, continue to determine whether or not he'll leave prison.