Michigan Votes

2007 House Bill 4548 (Revise parole guidelines )

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Rep. Paul Condino on March 29, 2007, to explicitly establish in statute that the state’s parole guidelines should protect the public while also reflecting a prisoner's actual current risk for reoffending and encouraging positive institutional conduct and participation in institutional programs. The bill establishes certain specific factors that may indicate these things, and revises certain procedures to try to match up the indicators with the specified goals in the parole decision process.
    • Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on March 29, 2007.
      • Reported in the House on December 5, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on November 13, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on November 13, 2008.
  • Passed in the House (57 to 48) on November 13, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Paul Condino on March 29, 2007. Passed in the House (57 to 48) on November 13, 2008. New Comment

1) Thank You [by Anonymous Citizen on November 19, 2008]
Send a thank you to your local representative if they voted for this bill.
It is now up to the Senate to pass this.
Contact your Senator and encourage them to vote for this bill.
here is a link that lists all of the senators and their information.
http://senate.michigan.gov/senators/senfull2007.htm

Reply New Comment

Line

2) Hopefully the Senate [by Anonymous Citizen on November 21, 2008]
will pass this too! Please take the time to email/call/write your Senators to urge them to take action on this. This is a step in the right direction to keeping control over the parole board members and allowing the inmates who are completing everything asked of them, to be paroled, not flopped.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) About time!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 16, 2008]
This is a step in the right direction to revamping the parole board gestapo!!
Reply New Comment

Line

4) INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAMS? [by Anonymous Citizen on September 5, 2008]
Rehabilitation is a joke in prison. There are no institutional programs that actually help prisoners return to society with the tools they need to be productive and succeed. The drug programs help, but prisoners need more than a simple class that teaches them to write resumes and conduct interviews. We can't get the interview in the first place if we don't have skills and education to put on the resume. You want to help prisoners? Bring back some degree programs. Or trade programs with actual need in society, such as nursing programs or a technology related field. Without new ways of thinking and without new skills to apply, all the prisoner knows is the same thing he knew when he came to prison, and once thrust into the world it won't be long before he reverts back to what he knows. It is literally hard to even begin conversations once released. What do we talk about? How much Jo-Jo lifted in the pit last week? But with new skills and broader education we actually become members of society. Doesn't education level correlate with crime rates? The facts are there, no matter how you twist the numbers we know that what is going on now isn't working. Abolish parole for nonviolents, minimize parole agents, use the savings to establish real life programs of education and training in careers seeing shortages of qualified people. If you don't begin actually helping than we all hurt.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) THE PEOPLE SHOULD VOTE FOR PAROLE BOARD MEMBERS! [by Anonymous Citizen on September 5, 2008]
Soon I will initiate a petition to amend section 791.231a. I believe the current parole board and it's practices are harming Michigan. I am on parole. I committed a non-violent crime 10 years ago at 18 years of age. I have seen it go from being hard to get out of prison to the current practice of impossible to get off parole. It is literally as though they want to keep as many of us on parole as possible until (somehow) society's agenda once again turns to building more prisons and unnecessarily housing more prisoners. Enough is enough, how long must we live fearing that one day we will arbitrarily be torn away from our families. Actually with parole costs increasing exponentially why not do away with parole altogether. We already have mandatory minimums. I got sentenced to 3 years. Did 6 and am still on parole yet have committed no new crimes. I'm 28 and have yet to live life without fear.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Did you know .... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 11, 2008]
that the Parole Board out of 10 members has 4 ppl is the "public people?"

"The "Citizens'" Parole Board

One would like to think that a battered woman's petition for clemency would be approved or denied according to the merits of the woman's case and her prison record. Unfortunately, in Michigan, as elsewhere, it is the composition of the Parole Board and the occurrence of high profile crimes by recent parolees which ultimately determines whether a petitioner is released.

The current Michigan Parole Board has shown itself to be extremely unsympathetic not only to women seeking clemency, but to many prisoners seeking parole. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, about two-thirds of Michigan prisoners who applied for parole were released. 58 In 1995, the Parole Board approved only about half of the appeals it heard. 59 The Parole Board's reluctance to grant parole is causing the Michigan prison population to soar, even when the number of incoming inmates is declining.

Between 1985 and 1995, Michigan's prison population has skyrocketed from 17,744 to 41,112. 60 A report to the Michigan Sentencing Commission states that if the Board continues these parole practices, the prison population will reach 65,000 by the year 2007. That is an increase of 20,000 in ten years. 61

Tight Parole Board control has caused a drastic increase in prison population for two reasons:

1. Michigan's indeterminate sentencing policy allows the Parole Board great power over a prisoner's out-date. 62 Under an indeterminate sentencing system, a sentencing judge gives prisoners a minimum term proportional to the crime committed. The Parole Board then sets the exact amount of time to be served according to post-sentencing factors. The current Parole Board does not assume that the prisoner should be released at the end of the minimum sentence.

2. The current Parole Board revokes parole for minor and technical violations of parole conditions. Critics contend that while the Parole Board's function should be to assess whether a person poses a danger to society, it has, in fact, become a re-sentencing court. 63 This re-sentencing function is especially dangerous since prisoners do not have a right to counsel or to dispute inaccurate information at their hearing.

The Parole Board's reluctance to grant clemency or parole can be traced to an incident in 1992 in which a parolee committed a series of rape-murders. 64 The ensuing public outrage led to formation of a "law and order" Parole Board.

From 1976 to 1992, Parole Board members all had corrections experience and civil service protection. 65 Following the 1992 incident, the Board was stripped of its civil service protection and completely reconstituted. Today, the Director of the Department of Corrections appoints Parole Board members. Stature requires that at least four members have no prior Department of Corrections employment. Thus, the Parole Board has gone "from a professional Board with corrections experience to a 'citizens' board not required to have any experience with prisons or prisoners." 66 (See appendix 7 for an up-to-date list of Parole Board members.) Because the Parole Board may be held politically accountable for the actions of parolees, it may deny parole or clemency to any controversial candidate."


The Parole board cannot be as strong in power as they say they are IF they have to "hire" the public people to make the rulings for them
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Great News! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2008]
Glad for the HB passing those bills, but what about this one. What is happening on this?
Sitting in the house for a second reading.
It will probably sit there and die. It's all politics and employement.
They have to keep those unionized c/o's employed.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) hey g-ma. [by crazycajun on May 31, 2008]
why don't you put your support behind THIS bill?

it CHANGES THE PAROLE LAWS and ACTUALLY MANDATES ACTION.

it is an HONEST ATTEMPT TO CHANGE WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN BITCHING ABOUT.

the only thing it DOESN'T do is mandate early release, that must be why you don't support it.

that, and your grandchild has ALREADY BEEN PAROLED, you do no longer care about parole reform.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) one would THINK [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2008]
that THIS would be the thread that g-ma and company would support, but NO...

they support RELEASING INMATES instead of FIXING THE PROBLEM THEY CONTINUALLY BITCH ABOUT.

typical liberal.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Good grief! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2008]
Please keep Charlie Brown and g-ma out of this one. Just like you.
This bill would right what is wrong with the parole board process now. If this is passed, and if the GOP has its way, it won't pass it, it would allow the parole board to really do a better job at determining whether an inmate is really ready for parole.
The only problem is that the parole board members will have to take out their own personal bias from their decision making. They will have a hard time doing that.

Also, can you use a more civilized language when you post here? thank you.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) how would it do that? [by crazycajun on May 30, 2008]
Please keep Charlie Brown and g-ma out of this one. Just like you.
This bill would right what is wrong with the parole board process now.

[how, all it mandates is CONSIDERATION.]

If this is passed, and if the GOP has its way, it won't pass it, it would allow the parole board to really do a better job at determining whether an inmate is really ready for parole.

[how can this bill pass? it's dead in committee
and even the chairman of the committee won't consider bringing it back up on the floor.]


The only problem is that the parole board members will have to take out their own personal bias from their decision making.

[they can't. it's mandated by law. they have SOLE DESCRETION as to whether an inmate gets parole. unless you take away that discretion, their biases are what helps them make those decisions. now, take away the RESPONSIBILITY for releases gone wrong, and i'm sure the parole board will just go nuts releasing inmates.]

They will have a hard time doing that.

Also, can you use a more civilized language when you post here? thank you.

[have you even read all the posts here? i think not. i've personally been called everything from a twisted individual to a son-of-a-bitch for simply disagreeing with a liberal. now, if you want civilized language, all you have to do is get the libs around here to stop all their stupid name calling. it's just that easy. besides, i have no control over what OTHER posters write, only what CRAZYCAJUN writes. and CRAZYCAJUN sometimes feels compelled to tell it like it is.]

Reply New Comment

Line

12) exactly HOW would [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2008]
this law change anything that the parole board does other than to make them CONSIDER good time credits.

that's all this bill can do.

it mandates NOTHING but consideration. it says NOTHING about mandating that they do ANYTHING after they CONSIDER whether or not the good time credits mean anything.

as long as you give the parole board DISCRETION in who gets paroled, you will have the problem of NOT EVERY OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE INMATE WILL GET PAROLE.

when you take discretion away, you no longer NEED A PAROLE BOARD.

they are only a 'whipping boy', standing by to take the blame if they can't decide who gets paroled.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Good News! [by sandie_221 on May 19, 2008]
We have good news to report! On May 15, the Michigan House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed HB 5329, 5830, 5831 and 6015. These bills would help some people who are serving very harsh mandatory minimum drug sentences for offenses committed before March 1, 2003 (the date previous sentencing reforms went into effect).



Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM) and other advocates and groups have been working since 2003 to expand upon the ground-breaking sentencing reforms that made Michigan a national leader in “smart on crime” sentencing policies. Thanks to the unflagging support of FAMM members, we’ve cleared another hurdle in the legislative process that leads to fairer sentencing laws.



In other heartening news, Governor Jennifer Granholm commuted the mandatory sentences of two FAMM members last week, Sally Smith and Ronald Seegar. To read more about Sally Smith, a long-time FAMM member, click here.




Next steps


Now FAMM’s legislative work moves to the Senate, where we will work hard to keep these reforms moving through the legislative process. FAMM will keep you informed about movement of the bills through ealerts, the FAMMGram, and our website, www.famm.org.



Please take time to also thank your Michigan representative for supporting smart and fair sentencing laws!


Explanation of the bills passed on May 15:


HB 5829, sponsored by Rep. Bert Johnson (D-Detroit), affects individuals who are currently incarcerated. This is the main bill in the package. It includes language that:


- Expands the 2003 early parole eligibility provisions for some individuals who are serving consecutive drug sentences for offenses that occurred before March 1, 2003. Sentences for conspiracy and for some substantive offenses committed before March 1, 2003, will be treated as concurrent (served together rather than one after another) for purposes of parole eligibility only (sentences do not change). Please check the bill for details and call Tom Burkert (information below) with questions.
- Makes individuals serving life without parole for second drug offenses eligible for parole after serving 15 years.
- Provides parole eligibility at half of the minimum sentence for each under-50 gram offense committed before March 1, 2003, that is in a string of consecutive drug sentences.
- Provides parole eligibility at 17.5 years for individuals who committed over-650 gram offenses prior to March 1, 2003, and were sentenced to a term of years.
- Provides earlier parole eligibility to some "650 lifers" with a prior low-level drug offense.

HB 5830, sponsored by Rep. Mark Meadows (D-East Lansing):
- Repeals the repeat drug offender law (this does not effect those whose offenses were committed prior to the effective date of the new law.)

HB 5831, sponsored by Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge):
- Makes technical changes to the criminal code to make the probation language consistent with the 2003 reforms.

HB 6015, sponsored by Rep. John Stakoe (R-Highland Township):
- Allows prosecutors to charge individuals who commit repeat drug offenses as habitual felons under the same provisions used for other repeat offenses. (This does not affect those whose offenses occurred before the effective date of the new law.)

PLEASE NOTE: These bills may change in the legislative process. We do not know how long it will take to finally win these reforms – the session ends on December 31, 2008, and action on the bills can happen at any time. We will need everyone's active support to ensure that the bills continue through this process.

Remember – under the proposed reforms affecting individuals serving mandatory minimum drug sentences for offenses committed prior to March 1, 2003, the parole board will determine in each individual case the appropriate time for parole – just as they do now. These proposals do not change sentences, as that would be unconstitutional.

You can find copies of the bills at www.michiganlegislature.org. If you need instructions finding the bills on the website, or would like a copy of the bills mailed to you or have questions, please contact Tom Burkert at tomburkert@famm.org or (517) 487-1261, Mon. – Fri., 9 AM to 5:30 PM. Tom can help you understand the bills, determine what to say in your call, and identify your own legislator. Please leave a message with your name and phone number, if you do not reach him immediately and he will call you back.



Thanks again for your support! Please stay involved and look for more information from FAMM in the near future.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) unfair proale boards [by dillionc on May 15, 2008]
5-15-08
My son should have been home.He has been ther for three years and again turn down. He is a good kid and never has been in trouble in his life. He has never been in any trouble in prison, and his scores are out standing, his work is out standing he has done everything required of him classes and then some more he worked hard to get home to his family we had jobs lined up for him, a place to stay, we would have looked into a school for him but we wanted to wait until he was more closer to come home. Not all Michigan is doing is wasting money by keeping him thereand wasting a young mans life.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) denied parole also [by Anonymous Citizen on May 22, 2008]
Well, I got the parole notice of decision today, here is what it says:
12 months continuance: reconsideration date: 08/28/2009

Substantial and Compelling reasons for guideline departure: "P needs to develop a better understanding of his addiction for alcohol and why he continues to choose to drink and drive. Needs to get involved in RSAT to reduce risk."

He's been on the waiting list for 5 months now.

The Prisoner's prior post conviction corrections history includes:
-A history of probation failure
-A history of parole failure
-Continued substance abuse under parole/probation supervision
-Commission of crime while under supervision
-New criminal behavior on parole/probation

He was stopped for a "road rage" incident that his truck "looked" like the truck in question. It wasn't him and he was never charged with that crime, so all he got was OUIL 3rd.

Regarding the prior post conviction sanctions, it is our belief the prisoner:
-Fails to understand correlation between failure(s) and risk
-lacks insight into earlier failures
-provides excuses for failures

He stated at parole hearing that he took full responsibility for his own actions and his own lack of judgment and stupidity.

Recommendations for corrective action which may facilitate release:
-Demonstrate responsible behavior by earning positive reports in any programs you may be involved in.

Has these with AA, work pass, no major or minor tickets in the 13 months he's been in so far

-Enter into or continually involve yourself in substance abuse programming.

Again, attending two AA meetings a week and 5 months on waiting list for RSAT

-Identify and develop a positive placement program addressing methods to control substance abuse.

Is set up with a counseling center in our hometown, has an AA sponsor, and AA meetings to attend

-Identify and develop community resources to address special needs identified through group therapy.

Has parole plan outlined: has employment, has transportation, has counseling, has person to install ignition lock on my vehicle, willing to wear SCRAM-alcohol tether, has AA sponsor.

So I'm at a loss as to what more they want.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) i think their problem [by crazycajun on May 22, 2008]
is with him TAKING RESPONSIBILITY IN A VISIBLE, not just VERBAL manner.

just a thought.

you have to BE responsible, not just SAY you are responsible.


Reply New Comment

Line

17) visible responsibility in prison? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2008]
You have really got to be kidding everyone when you make a statement "TAKING RESPONSIBILITY IN A VISIBLE" manner?
How would you do more in a place where being visible is not a good idea and they don't want you to be visible.
This inmate sounds as if he has done VERY VISIBLE things to achieve "corrective" behavior or "rehabilition". I isolate those words because in the MDOC, they mean nothing.
They just see an easy low maintenance inmate that they can get 30,000 + a year for and keep a LOT of people at the MDOC employed.
That is what this is all about, not the safety of the public. The parole board does not really care about the safety of the public.
It is a LIE!
Reply New Comment

Line

18) what are you talking about? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 27, 2008]
a misguided poster wrote...

"You have really got to be kidding everyone when you make a statement "TAKING RESPONSIBILITY IN A VISIBLE" manner?

[no, i'm not kidding. it's the ONLY way to impress the parole board, and that is the only way out of prison without doing your entire stretch.]

How would you do more in a place where being visible is not a good idea and they don't want you to be visible.

[first off, being IN prison is not a good idea to begin with, so THAT was a stupid thing to say. second, who cares whether or not they WANT YOU TO BE VISIBLE? rehabilitation isn't about doing the EASY thing, it's about doing the RIGHT THING.]

This inmate sounds as if he has done VERY VISIBLE things to achieve "corrective" behavior or "rehabilition".

[i beg to differ. all he is done is the MINIMUM THAT WAS EXPECTED OF HIM in order to qualify for parole.]

I isolate those words because in the MDOC, they mean nothing.

[so do the EMPTY PROMISES made by inmates daily. they all PROMISE to be good, not to re-offend, not to assiciate with known felons. none of them DO ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE PROMISES.]

They just see an easy low maintenance inmate that they can get 30,000 + a year for and keep a LOT of people at the MDOC employed.

[no, they see a TYPICAL CRIMINAL that has no other skills in life other than those that will end his sorry ass in jail. he can't even lie well enough to get parole.]

That is what this is all about, not the safety of the public. The parole board does not really care about the safety of the public.

[no one here cares about the 'safety of the public'. the public is only here to pay the bills, not be protected by government. when are you going to wake up out of your publicly schooled malaise and realize that?]

It is a LIE!

[yes, it is. but YOU VOTED FOR IT... SEVERAL TIMES.]

Reply New Comment

Line

19) Not true.... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
According to another post: [i beg to differ. all he is done is the MINIMUM THAT WAS EXPECTED OF HIM in order to qualify for parole.]

He has gone above and beyond what was expected of him in order to qualify for parole. How do you expect him to get into the required classes when he was moved once a month for nine months straight for no other reason than to keep going back and forth across the bridge?

He has a high school diploma, he would like to get out and take some college classes to better himself. He has employment waiting for him. He has substance abuse classes, an AA sponsor, outpatient counseling, willing to wear tether, ignition lock device all on the "outside". So what else do you propose he do to make him more viable for parole? BTW he is a non-violent offender.
Reply New Comment

Line

20) he could have [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
not chosen to do the stupidity that sent him to jail in the first place, but that would be too much to ask, wouldn't it?

him being moved should have no impact on what prison programs he is eligible for, and which ones he can participate in.

i doubt seriously that he is being moved 'just to cross the bridge'.

perhaps there is something we are not being told.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) You are right... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
He was stupid for putting himself in there in the first place. He knows it and I know it. But he is ready to change his life around. Yes he was moved a lot...he had to go to court in a southeastern county and they knew it but yet the MDOC put him in the U.P. They brought him back down for court, only to take him back up to the U.P. again. He was not moved for any reason, he has never had any major or minor tickets, it's stated right in his Parole Eligibility Report (which I have in front of me) so don't assume he was moved all these times for "some reason".

I'm simply stating that getting to one place and waiting a week or so to be classified in order to get into AA classes or to go to church, then going for three weeks and then getting moved to another facility to start the process over again is a waste of time and money. He finally got to the only place where Residential Substance Abuse classes are offered and he's been on a waiting list for 5 months. So the parole board gives him another 12 months to wait. If they want him in substance abuse classes so bad, there are some very good programs and an inpatient program 20 minutes from our house. They could let him out on tether and mandate that residential program at his expense, not the taxpayers.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) okay.. let's look at their [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
logic.

your house is close to where he got the drugs that got him into trouble in the first place.

let's try this. let's release him till he fails his first RANDOM drug test. we don't have to know WHERE he is, like a tether tells us. we need to know what he's putting into his system, like a urine test tells us.

these need to be done on a RANDOM basis, as in, HE DOEN'T KNOW WHEN THEY ARE COMING, and they need to be done OFTEN ENOUGH that they don't allow him ANY LEEWAY in taking drugs.

passing ALL those tests, given for the rest of his term, would show that he has CHANGED.

failing ONE would show he hasn't.

how about it?
Reply New Comment

Line

23) And an alcohol tether [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
SCRAM (you can look it up) would tell us if he's put one drop of alcohol in his system. That is the kind of tether I'm talking about. He would pay for it himself, not the taxpayers, while he is attending inpatient alcohol treatment and AA classes and working at his job.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) I said nothing about drugs! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
I'm not sure where you got the drug idea from. If you would read my post, I said he was going to AA and he was arrested for OUIL 3rd (that alcohol). He has never done any drugs and therefore he would never fail a drug test. Of course he can get alcohol (beer) near our house, since we live by grocery stores and gas stations. Come on, you want to keep him in prison because of that? That is what he needs the substance abuse treatment for....beer.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) no, he needs substance [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
abuse treatment for his INABILITY TO DRIVE A CAR WITHOUT BEER.

and for his INABILITY TO OBEY THE LAW.

he is severely lacking in BOTH skills.

now, a RANDOM test is just that, RANDOM. he would be tested at RANDOM TIMES OF THE DAY AND NIGHT to make sure he is compliant with the terms of his release.

if his 'problem' is beer, then a breathalyzer test might be a way to go as well. i think he should have to do both. just to make sure he's not 'dabbling' in other drugs while he's out.

by the way, HE MADE the choice to drive, not once (which could have been called a MISTAKE) but THREE TIMES. which can only be called STUPIDITY.

let's say that we enforce the THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT rule and stop him from driving drunk again, EVER.

three times caught means HOW MANY TIMES HE WASN'T CAUGHT?

there could have been HUNDREDS.

how do you DEFEND THAT?
Reply New Comment

Line

26) dx1e1s Hello I am Russo [by Anonymous Citizen on September 23, 2008]
dx1e1s Hello
I am Russo
Reply New Comment

Line

27) wIFGIBCtffnpBETTvEm [by Anonymous Citizen on August 20, 2008]
vRYeff FFFIILLUUUSSS4,
Reply New Comment

Line

28) So what are you proposing? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2008]
Keeping him in prison for the rest of his life to ensure that he doesn't drive?
Reply New Comment

Line

29) no, i'm proposing that [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2008]
he never be able to get a license to drive, ever.

that MAY NOT STOP HIM, but if he has CHANGED, and REHABILITATED as you say, he won't drive again.

i know, that chances of THAT are pretty slim, seeing as since he's ALREADY violated the law THREE TIMES, but it's worth a try.

oh, by the way, put it in writing that when he violates the law THIS time, he gets TEN YEARS FLAT TIME.

that might slow him down some.
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Also, there is a community corrections agency [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2008]
that is 5 miles from our house that does do random drug tests and Breathalyzers. He would have to call in every morning and find out if he needs to go there that day within 1/2 hour to test.


Reply New Comment

Line

31) I agree crazycajun.... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 23, 2008]
He has shown responsibility in the 13 months he has been imprisoned. He has been on the waiting list since November for RSAT, he has taken it upon himself to go to AA meetings at every place he has been at in these 13 months (he has been moved 9 times) and not for anything he has done. He has gotten good reviews at every place, he has gotten jobs, he is now on a work pass to work for the DNR. Now that he has been at one place for 5 months, he has attended AA twice a week, attends church twice a week, was asked to be unit rep, has support letters from family and friends, has employment when he gets out, has a home to come home to, has transportation to his job, AA meetings, one-on-one counseling set up.

He and I are at a loss as to what more they are asking for when he is a "high probability for parole" and has done everything asked of him.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) and exactly why [by Anonymous Citizen on May 22, 2008]

should a person "take responsibility" for any crime he did not commit in order to secure his release from prison? those of us who have been awake for a fair number of years are well aware that the totalitarian Communist Bloc demanded exactly that of people the despots imprisoned, as a condition of their release back into society.

aren't we superior to the communists and socialists we so despise, new?

what ever happened to the concepts of justice and truth which, from a morality perspective, go hand in hand?
Reply New Comment

Line

33) i don't know. [by crazycajun on May 22, 2008]
we are talking about immoral people who kill for fun, and who lie just to hear their heads rattle.

why should a person take responsibility for a crime they didn't commit?

well, if they are let off for one crime, they get to do the time for the one they confessed to.

now THAT IS STUPID.

unless they are just trying to clear their concience.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) abuse of power, again! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 13, 2008]
My son was just denied parole even with a high probability. The trial judge said no propensity
to commit crimes, no threat to socieity. All
prison work reports were as high as you get. Even
has a job when he gets out. His AOP was all
excellent, again high probability for parole.
No prior record, no tickets in prison. The trial
judge gave him a downward departure, that leads
me to believe that the parole board just doesn't
think he's done enough time.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) I agree... [by Anonymous Citizen on May 22, 2008]
My husband also had a high probability for parole, has completed all asked of him, no major/minor tickets, on work pass, etc.

Judge agreed to recommendation by parole agent who did pre-sentence investigation to a minimum of 10 months. He's been in 13 months so far and was just given another 12 months, which will start in 3 months. So the parole board has determined that 10 months wasn't long enough and has given him a total of 25 months. Nice to know they have that much power...NOT!!
Reply New Comment

Line

36) maybe it's the people [by Anonymous Citizen on April 13, 2008]
who the parole board has to answer to that believe that your loved one hasn't done enough time.

maybe it's the parole board, afraid of being bitten on the ass again by another 'good' inmate gone bad.

you do know that we hold the parole board responsible for EVERY crime committed by paroled inmates. if they hadn't let them out early, THAT crime wouldn't have been committed.

imagine how we can reduce our crime rate by simply NOT PAROLING INMATES?


Reply New Comment

Line

37) Are you serious? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2008]
The parole board is basicallyonly trying to save their own asses....No one can honestly determine what choices another person is going to make based on what they have or havent done before even if you have known someone your whole life this coudnt be determined.. cause look at alot of the reasons ppl are in prison...ultimatly murderers or sexual offenders should have their parole guidelines be more thoroughly examined..considering their crimes, but probation violators and drug offenses come on jail time would be less expence for taxpayers and more room in prisons...then the parole bard wouldnt hav to worry about their sorry asses gettin blamed for releasing prisoners
Reply New Comment

Line

38) You're right! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 15, 2008]
Imagine how low the crime-rate would be if we just locked everyone up! Or perhaps there should be a police officer in every household, or even better; we should all have members of the armed forces staying in our houses to make sure that we can't even think about doing anything "wrong" i.e. illegal.
Reply New Comment

Line

39) and maybe [by Anonymous Citizen on May 2, 2008]
Its the poltical scare tactics that the Michigan Votes Trolls and their party use.
Reply New Comment

Line

40) the people? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 14, 2008]
Who gives a flying rat's *&^.
It is quite obvious that they don't want to let anyone out of prison because it makes them $$$$$.
It keeps the correctional officers employed and since that is about the only work in Michigan in most of the areas where there are prison, guess what?
They are going to keep inmates in there until they max out.
It doesn't really matter how 'good' the inmate has been. In fact the better they are the more willing the PB will keep them in there.
The MDOC does not go by their own policies, there is no oversight for parole denials. Engler made this (*&%%y mess and Granholm doesn't want to clean it up.
Take a look at what's going on in Detroit. The majority of the politicians in Michigan are crooked as %$#@!
They all have their hand in the cookie jar at some point and as long as they are scratching each other's backs it doesn't make any difference.

Also, NOT PAROLING INMATES has not reduced the crime rate!
Reply New Comment

Line

41) COULD YOU BE ANY MORE RIGHT [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2008]
I TOTALLY AND 100000000% AGREE WITH EVERYTHING U JUST SAID.....ITS ALL BULLSH*$ WITH THE STUPID ASS GOVERNMENT....ITS ALL ABOUT THEM AND UNFORTUNITLY IT WILL PROBABLY STAY THAT WAY...MY ADVICE (AND IM GOING TO TAKE IT MYSELF) IS TO WRITE,CALL JUST BASICALLY COMPLAIN TO THE GOVS OFFICE...IF ENOUGH PPL DO IT MAYBE SOMETHING CAN GET DONE ABOUT IT......IF ANYONE AGREES AND DOES IT THE BEST OF LUCK TO YOU!!!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

42) Time To Reform MDOC Parole Practices [by Anonymous Citizen on January 15, 2008]

Here’s what the Citizens Alliance on Prtsons and Public Spending says:

--------------------------------
HB 4548: enforce parole guidelines, help ensure appropriate parole decisions

Michigan’s high incarceration rate is due, in part, to the failure of current parole guidelines to adequately guide parole board decisions. Refining and enforcing the parole guidelines will:

* Produce fairer results in individual cases

* Make a critical government process more transparent and accountable

* Reduce corrections spending

The statute presumes that people scoring “high probability of release” (that is, low risk for re-offending) will be paroled absent “substantial and compelling reasons”. However, the standard cannot be enforced because prisoners cannot appeal board decisions. Over the last ten years, the parole board has reduced the proportion of people with high scores who are paroled from 81 to 53 percent. The chances of being paroled are now virtually the same for people who score high and those who score average.

Parole decision-making does not involve “early” release. The only people affected have served their minimum terms. Many people with high probability scores have excellent prison records and have successfully completed available programs. Some are denied parole even though they have been working daily in the community, or are subject to deportation, or their codefendants have been released. Some are denied for a year or two and then paroled, with no apparent gain to public safety from the extra time served.

The board routinely denies parole based on its own view of the offense, effectively engaging in resentencing. Also common are subjective assessments of the person’s risk based on brief unrecorded interviews by a single board member.

The board does not even calculate guidelines scores for more than 800 lifers who became eligible for parole after serving 10 years. These lifers are routinely denied release for five years at a time without any assessment of their current risk to the public.

This legislation would:

* Make the parole guidelines function much as the sentencing guidelines do for
judges, with an appeal process for departures from the guidelines in high
probability cases

* Require that interviews of people with high guidelines scores be recorded

* Require the calculation of guidelines scores for parolable lifers.

HB 4548 would not compel the release of any particular prisoner. But individuals who have been treated unfairly would have recourse and a body of law defining “substantial and compelling reasons” for not granting parole would develop.

Depending on where the cut-off point for defining “high probability of release” is set, return to the 80% parole rate for people in this category could save more than 5,000 beds and $125 million.

--------------------------------------

As a Michigan citizen-taxpayer, I have three primary concerns about parole that are addressed in this bill.

First, of course, I am concerned about public safety. I believe this bill provides for that in a very reasonable way.

Second, I am concerned about the cause and quality of justice from beginning to end in the criminal justice system. Justice is not achieved exclusively through punitive vengeance. Punishment for the crime tempered by mercy for the individual is the key. Along with sentencing guidelines and sentences that prescribe a range of punitive prison terms for the crime, parole creates the flexibility to achieve real justice for the individual. This bill provides means to restore justice to parole system.

And third, as a taxpayer, I endorse fiscally responsible operation of our state agencies. Getting our parole system back on proper track will help reduce the number of inmates held in our state prisons at taxpayer expense, without compromising public safety.


Reply New Comment

Line

43) Parole Boards... [by Randi on January 14, 2008]
I have a dear friend who is in prison, he got sentenced in Oakland County Michigan. I agree with one of you, Oakland is one of the most corrupt places out of all of Michigan. They are the number one County in Michigan who sends the most people to prison. It does not surprise me that the cops were more interested in putting drunk drivers in jail. Our Justice system is nothing but about getting more money. People who do work for the government are extremely over paid. Is it because they are guarding “menaces to society”? The government needs to take a closer look into our justice system.

I wrote Governor Granholm a letter about how out of whack our justice system is, and her assistant wrote me back and said that our justice system is it’s own and the government can not do anything about it. Hmmm… If the government has no control over what happens in our communities, what the hell are they even doing there, besides to collect tax money from people who can not afford their high living prices to begin with. Quick fact * The correctional facilities in Michigan get $31,000 per prisoner per year. There is our budget problem right there. With our justice system as corrupt as it is no wander a felon gets more money than I do in one year. Or even my father who worked for a road commission for 38 years. He drove slippery roads to protect people. My uncle who is a cop, does not even come close to what a prison gets for one inmate.

The prisons are over crowded, many of them should just get a fine and be let go, and the government says they take no part in it. Well maybe it’s time they should. It would save our state a hell of a lot of money and our loved ones would be home with us. Molesters, rapists, murderers, and along that field should be properly evaluated by a psych ward, prison is just a ticking time bomb for them to do it again and try not and get caught.

Here is a case for you, try and explain this one… (true) a man went to prison for having sexual relations with a 15 year old girl when he was 20. This girl new what she was doing, she agreed to it, and she is just as guilty as him, am I not right? Girls now a days are having babies at 13. C’mon… ok with that case in mind how much time do you think he should have gotten… he got 6-15 years. That parole bored is not going to think twice about flopping him another two years to get another $62,000 from our working people. With that case in mind… how about this one. *True* A guy raped both of his younger sisters when he was a teenager, when he was around 18 he raped a 6 year old by cutting her underwear of with a knife… hmm seems like he would have gotten a long time just for one sister… guess what he got… 1 year county jail time. How corrupt are those two cases, someone please explain that one to me….

Parole boards are mean greedy selfish people who are not in it for the safety of man kind or want to see prisoners leave, they want money. Simple as that. Our government has always been for the money…. Parole boards should not even be in there. Instead have the prisoners evaluated by a doctor. Have them examined by people who do believe in second chances.

Why wont people speak up? It is not for the people and by the people, it is for the government and by the government. In closing… one day voices will be heard, and we will over come power, and something will and shall be done. One day… we will be one and make our voices heard through out their loud voices. Someday we will get through the ropes that tie our hands, and the duck tape over our mouths, someday… we will be free….
Reply New Comment

Line

44) I cannot agree more! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 14, 2008]
Oh, how right you are....as I have seen this corrupt system as well. Get this, someone I know had a suspended license, which was the result of two impaired drunk driving offenses over a course of 6 years. Yes, bad mistakes during those teenage years! This person tried to get his license back, but was unsuccesful (yet another foolish money game)and had to provide for his family. To make a long story short, this man was involved in an accident, and a death occured. However the other individual failed to stop at a stop sign, and a life was lost. Some may say that this person should have not been on the road at all, which has some bearings I suppose. However, a 2-5 year sentence is not fair when this was just an "accident." This person went in front of the parole board (after serving 2 years) a month ago and was denied with a 12 month flop. He had zero misconduct tickets, and scored the highest score (39) on his work evaluation report. All of his classes were completed, but yet he was considered a "menace to society." Now tell me how a parole board can decide the fate of one's life over a mere 15 minute interview? The hearing is not even taped...and the PB memeber can type whatever they feel or do not feel in their notes. The statements are all "canned" statements. I was present at the hearing, and it was flawless...he cried and accepted full responsibilty for his crime. I personally do not even think their files are even looked at. For example, we had over 50 letters from the community, replicable job offers, and housing placement in line. But instead, They flop him to waste another 31,000+ dollars as I am living off the state's money. I have children, and my daycare is paid for and I get foodstamps....this totals over $600/ month that could be eliminated if this inmate was released back into society. I find it hard to believe that this individual is a "menance" as he uses a chainsaw on a gatepass for work....come on now! Prisoners should also be able to appeal the PB decision for this reason exactly.... This bill needs to pass, and a lot of the budget problems could be eliminated by simply listening to the public!!! I do not want my tax dollars to house a prisoner that poses no threat to society!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

45) Menace to Society [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]
Didn't you know that every prisoner in MI is considered a "menace to society" by the Parole Board?
Imagine the $$ we could save if we had no Parole Board?
My son is incarcerated and has been for 8 years. His first time up for parole he had all good scores, good block reports, excellent work reports, but was flopped for 12 months. The second time up for parole, his PER scoring was even better than the first and the PB member then told him that he needed the AOP class. this class was never ever mentioned in anything during his incarceration. he was even seen by a psych early in his incarceration and was told he didn't need this course.
He was flopped for 18 months.
There is no rhymer or reason as to how or why the PB decides on parole. And, their own bias about a case heavily influences their decisions. this was very evident in my son's case by the PB interview's behavior in the interview.
If the interview's were recorded, I would bet 1 mil $$ that their behavior would change.
This bill does not guarantee that an inmate will receive parole, but does guarantee them a fair shake during the parole review process. If the inmate has been trying to do everything they are told they have to do and their unit counselor, who sees them day in/day out gives them a good report, then why not take the chance on them with parole.
It is less expensive for the MDOC to monitor a parolee than to keep someone incarcerated well beyond their minimum time.
yes, some people want to say that the sentence the inmate received should be fully served.
Not true, that is why there is a minimum and maximum set. The minimum is supposed to apply to people who are trying to correct their behavior and the maximum is there if they can't.
In any case, eventually the inmate will be released when they "max out".
And, I've personally heard from correctional officers that "it's not like there will be empty beds!".
Reply New Comment

Line

46) because the parole board [by Anonymous Citizen on February 7, 2008]
is responsible for it when (not IF) the fellow re-offends.

they don't want to take that kind of chance.

as it is, HALF of the people who DO get paroled re-offend within twelve months.
Reply New Comment

Line

47) Parole Board [by Anonymous Citizen on March 12, 2008]
Do you know why most inmates on parole re-offend?
Sure the Parole Board doesn't want to take a chance, but it seems they take the chance on individuals who have not proven themselves worthy of being granted parole.
If you have ever had anything at all to do with the MDOC and parole you would know that about 85% of the inmates that are paroled re-offend.
Why?
Because there is no place for them in society. There is nothing for them. No jobs, no skills. Most return to the same place where they got in trouble in the first place.
And, these are the ones that they parole. Because the PB knows that they will re-offend and return to prison. It is like a revolving door. Therefore the MDOC jobs are secure.
The ones that they don't parole are ones who have family support, have jobs waiting for them if they are paroled, have worked hard at becoming a better person.
But, we will label them as "felons" and that will stick with them the rest of their life. Even though they have paid for their errors.
There is no forgiveness, no recovery, so let's just keep them all in there.
That way everyone who is out of work in the "Great State of Michigan" can get a job as a correctional officer.
Haven't you ever seen the movie, "Escape from New York"?
Reply New Comment

Line

48) In a light most favorable to the prosecution [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2008]
That is the statement that is used repetitively in appellate decisions.
The court system, meaning the prosecutor and judges, are required by law to review cases based on this statement.
They automatically assume that because charges were brought against a person that they are guilty.
That is also the way the general public thinks. That can be proven by watching the news when they interview people. Of course the news is biased, they only get ratings based on the interviewee representing a bad opinion about the accused.
No one wants the truth or the facts. neither one count in most court cases.
For example, on New Years Eve, the Oakland sheriff department was hell bent on making sure that drunk drivers were arrested. When what they should have been doing is working in conjunction with the general public places to coordinate a ride home for people who look too intoxicated to drive home. Be at the bar.

Don't forget that now that the Auto industry has gone awry, the only real place for jobs is the correctional department.

A recent study about goverment workers and their pay clearly showed that the state of Michigan has the some of the highest paid correctional officers and government workers in the country.

If the state is in such a crunch, which now they announced a surplus of money, why didn't they re-negotiate their salaries?
Reply New Comment

Line

49) re: most favorable light. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2008]
'in a light most favorable to the prosecution. That is the statement that is used repetitively in appellate decisions.

[which have nothing to do with parole hearings. appeals are a separate issue. appeals are for straightening out mistakes, people are fallable, but even with the mistakes, the 'appellant' has been already found guilty by a court of law. his guilt is not up for discussion, whether or not his rights have been trampled is.]

The court system, meaning the prosecutor and judges, are required by law to review cases based on this statement.

[just as they are required to view all accused as INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. in an appeal, THAT PART has already been taken care of. in a parole hearing, the convict has the burden of proving to a parole board that he has been rehabilitated. not an easy task in front of a group which has been given the task of only releasing those that won't harm the public again.]

They automatically assume that because charges were brought against a person that they are guilty.

[no, they know that the inmate has been already FOUND GUILTY. there is no assumption involved.]

That is also the way the general public thinks.

[no the general public thinks that when a trial is over, the verdict reflects the facts presented. remember, the defense has the ability to dispute any 'facts' that aren't true in court. if he can't, GUILT IS PROVEN.]

That can be proven by watching the news when they interview people. Of course the news is biased,

[yes, it is LIBERALLY BIASED, meaning that they support the side that is going to allow the softest treatment of prisoners and the earliest release of inmates. remember it's the TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS who are trying to keep their jobs by keeping your loved ones in jail.]

they only get ratings based on the interviewee representing a bad opinion about the accused.

[they also get ratings by PRESENTING THE FACTS. the news media is all about PRESENTING THE FACTS, opinions are for us to form, not them. if you are willing to allow the news media to form your opinions for you so you don't have to think anymore, you deserve what you get when they do it.]

No one wants the truth or the facts.

[especially democrats who allow the news media to think for them.]

neither one count in most court cases.

[but once again we aren not talking about court cases, or even appeals. we are talking about PAROLE HEARINGS. or at least we SHOULD BE.]

For example, on New Years Eve, the Oakland sheriff department was hell bent on making sure that drunk drivers were arrested. When what they should have been doing is working in conjunction with the general public places to coordinate a ride home for people who look too intoxicated to drive home. Be at the bar.

[interesting, even entertaining, but what does it have to do with parole? NOTHING.]

Don't forget that now that the Auto industry has gone awry, the only real place for jobs is the correctional department.

[parole boards are part of the judiciary, not the corrections department. again, what does this have to do with parole?]

A recent study about goverment workers and their pay clearly showed that the state of Michigan has the some of the highest paid correctional officers and government workers in the country.

[so?]

If the state is in such a crunch, which now they announced a surplus of money, why didn't they re-negotiate their salaries?

[because we are too indoctrinated by the unions to vote democrats out of office. now, that question is finally answered. now, what does the amount a prison guard gets paid have to do with parole boards?]
Reply New Comment

Line

50) Parole board [by Anonymous Citizen on January 14, 2008]
The Parole board is not part of the judiciary system, you idiot. It is under the state and works side by side with the MDOC.
Reply New Comment

Line

51) so do the police, but they [by Anonymous Citizen on January 14, 2008]
are not part of the judiciary.
Reply New Comment

Line

52) Parole Board again [by Anonymous Citizen on March 12, 2008]
The parole board is part of the MDOC. do your homework before you barf!

http://www.senate.michigan.gov/sfa/Departments/Overview/OVcor_web.pdf
Reply New Comment

Line

53) House Bill 4548 [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
I'm so very sorry what the previous man went through due to our unjust judicial system.

What happened to our justice system which should stand for truth and justice but instead will do anything possible to get a false conviction? I can tell you first hand I am scared of our judicial system as it is anything but true justice.

A aimilar situation happened to a friend of my daughter's. My daughter's friend is now in prison on a criminal sexual assacult charge and this kid never did anything criminal in his life.

He was one month from graduation from college and worked all his life to become a professioanl baseball player. A woman he went to college with accused him of brutually raping her. This woman told one lie after another in court and shortly after the conviction mocked the "rape shield law"
on her facebook. We have not only witnesses but picutres from her facebook and pictures of her hanging out in this young man and his roommates apartment. This is a case of revenge because this woman could not take rejection from someone she liked. Neither witnesses nor pictures ever got to court.

The detective on campus did a one-sideed investigation, evidence was destroyed and didn't get to court. The prosecutor not only knew the detective lied on the stand but he lied as well to persaude the jury to convict an innocent college student. If this case had been investigated fairly by the campus detective it would have never left campus but now a young college student at this point in his life is in prison, and on a 25 year sex offender's list. The woman who did this to this kid is a mental case that can't handle rejection but no evaluation was done on her. She had absolutely no evidence except her lying tongue to prove this kid's innocence. The detective interviewed three of her friends and absolutely none of the young man's friends. One of the woman's best friend testified after this alleged rape supposedly happened that they all went to a friend's house to party and not once during the entire night did this woman say anything about being raped. All three of the woman's friends testified she did not say anything to them about being raped. Furthermore, her best friend testified this woman told her she wanted to leave the party and go to a friend's house and get some "_ _ _."


Can you imagine of the money the State of Michigan
could save by doing a thorough investigation of these so called "rape cases?" No innocent person should experience the prison environment.

The state attorney general's office was contacted and after numerous phone calls and being transferred all over, a woman from the state attorney's office sent me a letter stating they had over a hundred cases like this one and wished us luck. What a response? I was so disappointed I didn't even read the entire letter.

My prayers to all the innocent people in the Michigan prison system. I pray God will watch over each of you and no more harm will come to you. I also pray that this crooked law be changed to protect true rape victims and the innocent. May God have Mery on such an injust judicial system (detectives, police officers, prosecutors, lawyers and judges). I witnessed this terrifying
injustice and the most heartbreaking memory I can't get out of my mind was the young man turning around for the officer to put handcuffs on him and take him to a cage. On his way out the judge said to him you must have anger problems. What a living nightmare for this kid and his family and friends.



Reply New Comment

Line

54) once again... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2007]
the people of michigan are corrupt enough to allow these kinds of travesties to occur. they simply sit there and say 'so what'.

but remember... it was that lying woman who started it all.


Reply New Comment

Line

55) what do we do about [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2007]
the lying women out there?

why did she lie?

what purpose was behind it?

certainly no good came from it.

why are women so quick to revile the prison system they work so hard to send their men to?


Reply New Comment

Line

56) so, where are the just [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
people who are supposed to by crying out for justice for these people?

they are silent. they allow this to happen. they are INDEED CORRUPT.

they have handed over the power to arrest, try, convict, sentence, and excecute the sentence, yet there is no oversight by the people to make sure that the people's rights are not violated.

then again, there isn't anyone willing to 'fight the system' from the inside. willing to 'stay the course' and fight. at least not from this person's story.

he 'gave up' and copped a plea.

was it 'the system' that caused him to do it? was it his poor attorney (a product of michigan schooling, no doubt)?

or was it the fact that every cop, every attorney, every judge, and every citizen who could possibly be on the jury indeed IS that corrupt and disrespectful of the truth, and of justice?


Reply New Comment

Line

57) Not so silent [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
They are not so silent as you might think.
There are a lot of people that go through the judicial system to try and present their case, who have to "prove" their innocence.
That is because, once accused, you are guilty until you prove otherwise, not the other way around.
Look at how the media behave. They are a circus and no better than what happened in Salem, MA., over 400 years ago.
That is one of the reasons that the judge in the Steven Grant case did not allow cameras in the courtroom. Because the TV people got in the face of each potential juror as they left the courthouse.
Everyone has to have their own 15 minutes of fame.
I have a loved one incarcerated and after the trial was over, two of the jurors contacted me and told me that they voted for guilty because if they didn't they thought he would get life at a new trial.
One of these jurors told me that the jury foreman threw water in her face.
They took 6 days to come to a decision. They told me that the judge threatened to confine them if they didn't reach a verdict.
In todays world people feel inconvenienced to sit on a jury. Especially if it is a long drawn out trial.
My son wasn't tried in a courtroom, he was tried in the media for 12 months before his trial.
A friend of mine kept track of how many times the newspapers and TV had something on the case during that time. We accumulated 4 pages, double columns of items.
I personally believe that one day the media will be the ones losing their 1st amendment rights because of what they do. The behavior of the press to think that the public should know everything and that they are the courtroom will infringe on a person's right to due process.

Please contact your representative and state senator to urge them to vote for this 4548.
This bill will save money and give back the items that Engler took away.

And before anyone starts, this bill does not just "let everyone out of prison". That just doesn't happen, especially here in Michigan.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) more about my story [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
I am the one who wrote the long winded narrative about my situation. An individual asked me what sanctions the appeals court gave out....the answer is NONE. The appeals court simply ruled that I didn't need a "Ginther Hearing" (a hearing in which I could show I had ineffective counsel) and that I was entitled to a rehearing on my plea withdrawal issue, since that would put me back into the "pre-sentencing" phase of the process. They did order the judge to look at my witnesses more closely, mainly because since my case was based solely on her credibility versus mine, I was entitled to have any witnesses I wanted to testify that could combat her credibility...even witnesses that were not present at the time she claimed I tried to sexually assault her.
Also, I DID try to remove her from being my attorney at the time she didnt file the motion to withdraw my plea, but the judge refused to do so.
What is more interesting, since I was asked here about WHY it took so long for me to file an appeal, was that Michigan had passed a law back in the mid nineties that denied appellate attorneys to people who pled "no contest" or "guilty" to any crime. Those people had to file their cases in "pro per" (by themselves). This law was struck down as being unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005, but not after I had spent a lot of time and effort spinning my wheels. It was only when my parents got me a competent, paid attornet did I ever start to see actual positive results from the court system. The fallback from the U.S. Supreme Court overturning that law is that now there are close to 50,000 cases (estimated from the Michigan Bar Journal) that are now eligible to receive court-appointed attorneys. This has clogged the appeals court and will now cost the State of Michigan even more money than if they would have let these people have their attorneys in the first place.
What this tells me that even if a law is on the books, it doesnt necessarily make it a constitutional and just law. There are many laws on the books, such as the "Rape Shield Law" that is abused and takes advantage of the loopholes within it. Namely that no reference can be made of her sexual history, even if that history has a bearing on your own case. My point in case is that Angela had tried to do this before to another guy, stalking him and doing sexually aggressive things, yet I couldn't bring this up in court. Yet the prosecutor could bring up any little thing about my history he wanted to...even if it was about an argument I had with another girlfriend that the prosecutor tried to show that I was "verbally and potentially physically aggressive". I had NEVER laid a hand on a woman in any criminal way whatsoever!! But that doesnt matter within the state of Michigan.
So people, I have no real anger or sadness, mainly because that accomplishes nothing. I even forgave Angela mainly because if I didnt, I would never get past it and trully move on with my life. I wanted to be forgiven, so I must forgive, too.
If anyone has any questions about the prison system, let me know. Or about the appellate system. I now have a WEALTH of information that could be useful to anyone who needs it.
Reply New Comment

Line

59) facts [by Anonymous Citizen on December 9, 2007]
you want facts? First of all, it wasnt my loved one...it was ME. And I will be happy to provide you with any facts that you want. Lets start with the fact that I was dating a 26 year old woman who I have known for years. We will call her Angela. She was a friend of the family and our church. She used to live in my parents house because she needed a place to stay when she just had her baby (back in 1996) from another relationship. I had become friends with her over the time she was at my parents and after a couple of years, we became boyfriend/girlfriend. This was in 2001. After a period of three months, she started to become mentally unstable and was diagnosed with having "Dissociative Identity Disorder", otherwise known as "multiple personality disorder". I didnt follow her psychiatric history very well, mainly because once our relationship started going sour, I had started dating another woman. We will call her "heather". Once Angela found out I was dating Heather, she started acting like a stalker, calling Heather up at her job and following her around. I tried to get Angela to stop and even went in to the police to try to get a protection order, but Heather had to do it. This became Heather's problem, since Heather had an outstandingf warrant for not paying a speeding ticket (in the amount near $1000) and couldn't go to the police until she cleared her warrant.
Anyways, to move this along, Angela found out she was pregnant about three months after we broke up. Heather and I moved in with each other and Heather got pregnant too. I went over to Angela's to tell her about Heather's preganancy, in the hopes that Angela would leave Heather alone. Well, about two hours after I left, there was a call to the police stating that I had tried to sexually assault her.
The police came to my house and started questioning me about where I was at and what I was doing that afternoon. They wouldn't tell me what they were there for or who it was about, so I told them to go to hell. (I don't have positive experiences with the police) Well, needless to say, I was arrested for Criminal Sexual Conduct in the 2nd Degree (assault with intent to sexually penetrate). I was sent to the county jail and given a $75,000 bond, which I couldnt pay, so I had to sit there.
I then was appointed a court-appointed attorney who looked like she knew what she was doing. She told me that CSC cases are based upon credibility and Angela's credibility was shakey, at best. She also stated that she felt we could get this case thrown out at the prelim hearing.
Well, needless to say, it didnt get thrown out. Angela took the stand and actually "switched personalities", when she was caught changing her story. The judge said that it didnt matter, because he felt she was "testifying in her "first, or primary, personality" and couldn't know the truth.
Then my attorney started to research the case, interviewing witnesses, and noticing that the police were making a habit of not putting positive statements towards the defense into the police report. Not to mention that when the police were faced with facts that could prove Angela perjured herself on the stand (such as being asked if she had harassed Heather in any way and she denied it, even though we had phone records and witnesses to prove otherwise), they refused to interview these witnesses themselves and the prosecutor himself told the police to stop investigating. (this is documented in the report, too)
So, I offered to take a polygraph, mainly because the prosecutor told me that if i passed it, he would then require Angela to take it, and if she failed, I would go free. Well, I took TWO of them and aced them both, but you want to know what? The prosecutor declined to give one to Angela, stating "The law doesnt require the complainant to have to take one". Pretty honorable there, right?
A few more months go by, and it has now been eight months of me sitting in jail. My court-appointed attorney stopped taking collect phone calles from me and wouldnt return my families phone calls. Heather tried repeatedly to go to her office and see her in person, but she was never there. My trial date was set for January 13, 2002, yet none of my witnesses were being contacted to show up for trial.
On the day before my trial, my attorney decided to grace me with her presence and told me that I would now have to take a plea because "98% of CSC cases that go to a jury end up in convictions" and that if I were to lose at trial, I would get ten years in prison. I was stunned, mainly because this whole time, I was under the impression that there was ZERO consideration of taking any kind of plea.
After talking to my family and Heather, I still was determined to take my chances at trial. The next morning, My attorney came to tell me that none of my witnesses showed up and that I had to take a plea or face doing a decade in prison. Since I had no idea how a trial was supposed to go, or how my sentencing guidelines were supposed to be, my resistance fell apart and I agreed to plead "no contest" in exchange for a two year prison sentence.
About two weeks after my plea, Heather came in to see me on a visit and told me that she hda run into several of my potential witnesses and they told her that they were never subpoenaed or communicated with in any way by my attorney or the court to show up at trial. I had almost 25 witnesses that could contest every point of contention in Angela's complaint. These people would be able to exonerate me, if given the chance, and they were willing to testify, because they knew what kind of person I was. I had never before had any kind of crime of violence, not even a domestic dispute. But because a woman said I did something, the police, prosecutor, and even the court appointed attorney, fell into line and did what they could to get a conviction out of the case. I was basically out-maneuvered into going to prison for something I didnt even remotely do. If you don't know anything about CSC cases (which I didnt, at the time)thenlet me inform you that it is the only criminal charge on the books in which the police or prosecutor doesnt not need corroborating evidence to obtain a conviction from a jury. They dont need DNA or anything else. When I was over at Angelas that day, I did not even take my clothes off or touch her inappropriately. But there were no witnesses to prove my side of the story. All it took was for her to SAY that I did it.
As it played out, I tried to withdraw my "no contest" plea. I had about three weeks before my sentencing and I wanted to fire my attorney and go forward with a trial, now that Heather was in contact with my witnesses. Again, my attorney ignored all of my phone calls, and I didnt see or hear from her until the day of my sentencing. I then asked her to withdraw my plea and she said I couldn't unless I had "exonerating" evidence to prove my innocence. I still insisted on withdrawing my plea and she grudgingly went into the court room with me. She then told the court that I wanted to withdraw my plea and the judge asked why. My attorney then stated that I had "evidence" to show my innocence and I needed time to show this evidence to the court. The judge looked skeptical and ordered my attorney to file a motion with the evidence in it. She agreed and it was adjourned. With no contact from my honorable attorney, a week went by and we were back into court. She had filed no motion and the court asked why there was none, to which she stated "there was no basis for a plea change". The judge looked incredulous got mad, stating that this had better not have been a waste of his or the courts time. He asked me why I wanted to change my plea and I told him that I had numerous witnesses that could contest what Angela had stated. The judge said "so what?".."if they weren't there in the apartment what does it matter what they say?" He denied me my request and sentenced me to 2 years in prison.
After I got to prison, my family hired an attorney and the attorney found SEVERAL mistakes made by the police, the prosecutor, my court appointed attorney, and the court. The police and prosecutor were supposed to have done a mental exam screen on Angela, because multiple personality disorders cause the person to be a habitual liar and to have the individual live in a "fantasy" state. Since my case was based solely on credibilty (there were no forensics or DNA due to no direct physical contact between us that day), her credibilty was at serious issue. Second, my attorney lied to me and i had it on record about my witnesses in one of her letters to me. Third, the court was supposed to excuse my attorney from being my attorney, due to ineffectiveness issues, and was supposed to not make a decision on my plea withdrawal based solely on a discussion with me, especially when I was supposed to have "qualified, competent" representation.
Be it as it may, I continued to spend time in the prison system beasue of the backlog of appeals in the court system. As I spent time in the system as a "sex-offender" I got to know several people who were in similar situations like myself. I read through their police reports and noticed catching similarities in how they were treated by the police, prosecutor, courts and even their own attorneys. That isnt to say that most of the people in there were not guilty, but that there were ALOT more people in there that were either overcharged to induce a plea, or the police or their own attorney didnt do enough research into the cases to determine the extent of the alleged crime.
I had to go to "sex offender" class, mainly because I couldn't get a parole without completing it. I saw the parole board in september of 2004, and received an 18 month continuance (or "flop", as it is known in prison), mainly because the board felt I had not served enough time to justify being released. I had NO prior convictions for anything and I hadnt even received a speeding ticket in over ten years, yet the board felt that even though I had served the time given to me by the judge, that I had to do 18 months more. I was seen at my parole hearing by Mr. Atterbury, and I had to sit there and listen to him degrade and verbally abuse me in front of my girlfriend, who was there in my support. I was told that I was a "menace to society" and that there was nothing that could show that I wouldnt go out and do this type of crime again. Go figure, I hadnt done it to begin with.
So, my appeal was heard in the summer of 2006, and I got a rehearing on my plea withdrawal issue, because the appeals court found several "serious flaws" within my court transcripts that led them to believe that I had not recieved a fair and impartial hearing. My conviction was overturned and I was put back into the "presentence phase" of the court process, with a paid attorney this time to represent me. The judge was more respectful this time of my situation, especially when we had several psychiatric reports done by Angela's psych that showed she was going through a "delusional time of her life" at the point she filed the charges.
The prosecutor still refused to drop charges at that point and the judge adjourned his decision for three weeks to look at the case.
Ironically, the parole board then suddenly decided that I was "no longer a threat to the community" and gave me a thirty-day fixed date, which meant that I was going home in less than thirty days. I had already served over three years by that time.
The judge decided to let me withdraw my plea and the prosecutor then decided to postpone the expected trial date by six months, due to my release from prison and that my right to a speedy trial was no longer valid, due to my newly found freedom.
After about two months of legal wrangling, the prosecutor decided to drop the charge, but not after he tried to get me to plead to a ninety day domestic assault. I declined and he dropped everything shortly thereafter.
So, reader, you can sit there and accuse people of not giving all of the facts, but let me tell you one thing...if you havent went through what I went through..all of the emotional distress and financial chaos this caused, not to mention the lost time with my children, then dont sit there and judge them. I CAN say that the system has some serious issues and that it IS all about CONVICTIONS and not the truth. If I hadnt had parents who cared about my release and paid all of the money for a competent attorney, then I would STILL be in prison for a crime I did not commit...not to mention being a registered sex offender on top.
So, reader, is there any more facts you would like to know about this situation? I have the right to my opinion and it is a more valid opinion based on ACTUAL experience, not bitterness and wanting to beat up other people just because you can.

Reply New Comment

Line

60) so, what sanctions did [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
the appeals court grant you?

didn't you file false imprisonment charges???

your paid attorney should have done this for you gratis, as the payola from the lawsuits should keep him in mercedes benzes for ever.
Reply New Comment

Line

61) so, in other words... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
you didn't insist on changing attorneys, or bring up the ineffective representation at an appeal hearing (automatic in this state), nor did you contest the MANY reversible errors in the case during an appeal.

your friends didn't file independent reports with the district attorney, forcing him to at least pay attention to them and forcing him to put their statements into writing for the judge and the court to revue.

your attorney also violated your rights by NOT subpeonaing your witnesses. the PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE should have made sure that they did that, i take it no one contacted you about possible witnesses, even after you brought them up in court?

all these things WOULD have been grounds for appeal IF you would have taken care of them immediately. but you waited two years.

and oh.. women are always right when they file sexual charges against men, didn't you know that?

did you ask for a 'rape kit' to be used on her?

of course not...
Reply New Comment

Line

62) in response [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
i DID insist on changing attorneys...the judge wouldnt let me. Also, bringing up the ineffective assistance of counsel in the appeals court is through a "Ginther Hearing", yet with the law prohibiting convicts who plead "no contest" or "guilty" to having to file their briefs "in pro per" (by themselves with no court-appointed attorney to help), I had to wait until such time where my parents could afford comptent representation. I tried to file "in pro per", but the appeals court shot down my appeal as being "frivolous", and didnt even address any of the issues.
As for my friends filing reports on their own...who was going to tell them to do that when they really had no idea what to do in the first place? They werent attorneys, and were waiting for someone to contact them. I dont blame them for being naive, mainly because me and my friends had little or no experience with the court system or what to expect or do.
As for people contacting me about my witnesses, I knew they existed and what they had to say in my defense, but neither my court-appointed attorney nor the prosecutor, nor the judge seemed to really care about what they had to say. I, myslef, had no idea what to do with their statements. Isn't this supposed to be the domain of my court-appointed attorney? Isnt the "truth" of the matter supposed to be the domain of the prosecutor and judge?
Not to mention that I didnt wait two years to file my appeal after my conviction. I filed within the 42 days limit BY MYSELF, in pro per, because I had no other way to do it. I just wasnt experienced at doing it and the law at the time did not provide me with adequate counsel to help me. It got denied, just like pretty much other people's appeals in similar situations, because nobody cared about convicted felons. That is, until the U.S. Supreme Court overturned this unconstitutional law. But my parents finally hired an attorney after they saved up enough money to pay for one. but isnt that the problem here in Michigan, if not AMerica? If you have money, the system works (somewhat). If you have no money and are considered "indigent", then you pretty much are totally screwed.
As for a "rape kit", like I said in an earlier posting, there was no physical contact, thus no rape kit. Even Angela admitted that I never got as far as actually "raping" her, but that she felt that I "intended" to do so. That is why the charge i had "assault with INTENT to penetrate" is one of the easiest charges for the prosecutor to convict on. All he has to do is have the woman state that she "felt" like she was going to be raped. So yes, I realise that when a woman in this state says you did something, the law in Michigan states that it MUST be true.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) you also plead [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
'no contest'. which says 'yeah, i did it.'


i know you felt helpless, but the one who put you there was the woman who lied. she lied and got away with it.

she has 'multiple personality disorder' and was allowed to testify in court dispite it. this shows a callous disregard for anything involving sexual charges.

sexual charges are serious, but in this state they are treated worse than murder. this is sad, because in the grand scheme of things, this state is willing to persecute a person for life for a sexual charge and let murderers run free.

it's even more sad when a person convicted of sexual charges is burned to death and the majority of the citizens don't care.


Reply New Comment

Line

64) the prosecutors [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
aren't interested in 'the truth'.

they are interested in 'the facts'.

if you plead not guilty, they have to make their case.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) continuing my story... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
Prosecutors are really not interested in "facts", but "truth", as they would see it. In my situation, the police and the prosecutor got it in their heads that Angela's story was more credible than mine, thus that became their "truth". If I had taken it to trial and not pled "no contest", then the prosecutor would have presented his "facts" as "truth", because he has to get a jury to believe his perspective as "truth", which is also supposed to be "fact", when it comes to a trial.
Unfortunately, in todays society, there are prosecutors out there who "twist" the facts to conform to what they want to believe. They then ignore evidence and "facts" that contradict their beliefs, because like so many humans on this planet, it is hard for them to admit they are wrong in their thinking.
For example, when the police came to my door at 2 am to confront me on what Angela had told them, they used the fact that I told them to "go to hell" when they wouldnt tell me why they were there as "evidence" or "fact" that I had something to hide. Yet isnt there another perspective that would say that someone who is woken up at 2 am and is getting mind games from the police would have perhaps a negative comment to say to them? So this is just one of the many "assumptions" that prosecutors and police make every day when it comes to filing charges and then attempting to convict them on the charges.
All I can say is that Angela doomed herself and I had witnesses and reports to back my story up. What about all of the people who are not so fortunate to have witnesses like I had? I KNOW there are people in prison right now who were put in prison by vindictive and lying ex'es, usually due to a bad breakup, or the guy was caught cheating and the woman wanted revenge, or due to custody issues with their children.
The laws are extremely weighted towards the one who files the complaint. It is not so hard for the prosecutors in this state to "make their case" and get a person convicted. So yes, I can say that the courts are no longer about justice, but about convictions.
Wasn't it Gov. Engler who said he would rather build a new prison in his own backyard than let prisoners go home? I know of a judge in Kent County (Grand Rapids) who made it public that it was his goal to give out a MILLION years in sentences before he retired. Does that sound like justice is blind and fair?
Reply New Comment

Line

66) i think that [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2007]
if i had a judge that said that, the district attorney would work to have him removed from office. it's hard to make convictions stick with statements like that...

at least it is in other states than michigan.


Reply New Comment

Line

67) about the judge... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2007]
His name is the "Honorable Judge Leiber", and he did get "reprimanded" from the Bar Association and from the State of Michigan, but that was as far as it went. The prosecutors dont want to get rid of him because he makes it easier to convict people they want to convict. Sure, a few people here and there who have the connections and money to appeal their case may get a better day in court down the road, but they are willing to live with that. The majority (my educated guess is around 95%) of the people convicted do not have the connections or means to fight their cases.
So, the ones that were overcharged or even factually innocent are usually the poor and uneducated. Even the ones who had a felony or two on their record, but may have not done anything wrong are usually "strong-armed" into taking a plea. Mainly because it is those people who know how unfair the system is and when told they would get double or triple the time, if they go to trial and lose, usually take a plea to a chrage they wouldn't normally do, if they had a clean record.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) every court case before [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2007]
this judge should start with...

"in light of your previous statements, your honor, i request a change of venue."

let's see just how many appeals can be won that way.

as far as his remaining in office, it shows that the people here ARE that corrupt to allow it.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) and it's your attorney's [by Anonymous Citizen on December 12, 2007]
job to defend you, using the TRUE FACTS and the truth. yours didn't.

it doesn't seem like she even took the chance to. did she reccomend that you plead no contest?

that should have told you something right there.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Bull [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
You say
"if you plead not guilty, they have to make their case."

The deck is stacked in their favor. The way it works today is that you are guilty until you prove otherwise. The prosecutors, cops and detectives all will lie through their teeth.
The one that wins in a courtroom today is the one that lies the best.


Reply New Comment

Line

71) isn't it sad that [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2007]
your state has been set up to send you to jail?

isn't it sad that your state is SO CORRUPT that they can willfully ignore the united states constitution and no one cares?

isn't it sad that the citizens of this state have worked hard to make it that way?

isn't it sad that the legislature has worked extremely hard to make it that way?

isn't it sad that the citizens of this state keep re-electing those very same legislators?

yes, this is a sad, sad state, and it's in a sad state of affairs.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Unbelievable! [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
Like I said, It's real hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys anymonre. Most prosecutors are lazy and just want to close cases, they really don't give a hoot that they have the right person or not. Cops are worse. Good Luck.
Reply New Comment

Line

73) google [by Anonymous Citizen on December 9, 2007]
just type in "wrongful conviction" in the Google search and notice how 214,000 hits show up....yup, i guess that is coincidence, too. But i guess everyone has to live in their own perfect little world of "Leave it to Beaver". It really cracks me up how some people actually think that ALL of the police are upstanding citizens who would NEVER lie and somehow are immune from politics and pressure, not to mention the prosecutors who get their names in the paper every time they get a high profile conviction...which helps their political career.
Now nowhere in here did I say that ALL of the police and prosecutors lie and twist facts to get convictions, just that SOME of them do....yet somehow this post will get attacked by some individual who thinks that I said that ALL are crooked...go figure...he/she is either a cop or prosecutor or should be one, because he/she is a pro at twisting the facts

Reply New Comment

Line

74) so give us the [by Anonymous Citizen on December 9, 2007]
untwisted facts so we can know the truth.

tell us how this miscarriage of justice happened.

tell us how they 'railroaded' your loved one.

why is it that whenever someone who says that their loved one was railroaded is asked for the facts of the case, they refuse?

could it be that they have something to hide?

or is it easier to vent their frustrations at 'the system' if the public thinks that they have been wrongfully convicted?

not one of the dozen or so people on this site who have been challenged to provide real evidence of wrongfull conviction have been able to do so. are you going to be the first?

good cops are eager to nail bad cops and bad attorneys and bad politicians.

just give them something to work with.
Reply New Comment

Line

75) i've googled [by Anonymous Citizen on December 9, 2007]
wrongfull conviction and they all talk about the POSSIBILITY of someone being wrongfully convicted of murder and being put to death.

they don't list any michigan inmates who were wrongfully convicted. please give the details of your case so that we can bring those who have wrongfully convicted your loved one to justice.

i can't believe that you think that ALL police, and ALL prosecutors, and ALL judges, and ALL the members of the jury, and ALL the people who live in your county are all that corrupt that they get together every so often and pick a totally innocent person off the streets and convict them and sentence them to many years in jail.

please explain how that happened to you.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) innocent [by Anonymous Citizen on December 9, 2007]
i love it when people honestly are that naive to think that the justice system is perfect and doesnt make mistakes, or that prosecutors dont twist the facts to get a conviction, or that cops dont lie on the stand to promote a theory that isnt true...just ask me and i will give you hundreds of recent cases, from the duke lacrosse team, to the Chicago police department sending over 100 people to death row based on corruption and manufacturing evidence. It got so bad in Illinois, that the governor had to halt the death penalty because he had no idea who was innocent or who was guilty due to the police and prosecutors office.....so for someone to come in here and try to tell me that the system only prosecutes and convicts the guilty is highly ignorant of the facts that are on Google, if you want to look for them.
Reply New Comment

Line

77) innocent [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2007]
just because a jury finds you guilty doesnt mean that you did it..look at claude mccollum in lansing...he was convicted of first degree rape and first degree murder EVEN when there was evidence that clearly showed he was innocent...now the attorney general's office is investigating to see how the police and prosecutor screwed up....so dont tell me that there are not innocent people locked up...the majority of crimes that result in convictions does not have the benefit of DNA or forensic evidence...it usually boils down to underpaid and overworked court appointed attorneys going up against prosecutors who really dont care about anything but CONVICTIONS AT ALL COST...it is a joke to believe that just because a jury found people guilty, that they are, in fact guilty...that is ignorance at its best...if that premise was true, then I guess the Innocence Project (who by the way have cleared the names of over 500 people either convicted of rape, murder or other crimes that had forensic evidence to test) should disband and they should throw those people back onto death row. For every innocent man that gets cleared through DNA or other forensic evidence, there are two more that dont have the benefit of such "clearing" forensic evidence and have only credibility to convict them


Reply New Comment

Line

78) so you are trying to tell [by Anonymous Citizen on December 8, 2007]
me that twelve people voted unanimously to convict even though there was evidence to prove you innocent?

is that what you want me to believe?

let's see.. that would require every cop on the force, every prosecuting attorney, every judge, and every citizen in the town you live in to be corrupt. so corrupt that they will purjor themselves and risk jail time to get you prosecuted.

is that what you want me to believe?

are you trying to tell me that you are factually completely innocent, and were wrongly prosecuted?

and just how did you get chosen out of everybody in michigan to be the scape-goat?

was it a random drawing? or does the system have it in for you?
Reply New Comment

Line

79) Close [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
" that would require every cop on the force, every prosecuting attorney, every judge, and every citizen in the town you live in to be corrupt. so corrupt that they will purjor themselves and risk jail time to get you prosecuted."

Probably not every one yet but there are lots that will lie.

As for "risking prosecution" you are delusional, they don't eat their own.

Reply New Comment

Line

80) so, tell me... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2007]
are YOU that corrupt?

it would take EVERYBODY in the county to be that corrupt. not just a few, not just SOME but EVERYBODY.

i notice that no one is ranting and raving but YOU that this miscarriage of justice has occured. that makes you the only NON-CORRUPT PERSON IN YOUR COUNTY. all the rest must be that corrupt or worse.

how many thousand people live in your county?


Reply New Comment

Line

81) House Bill 4548 [by Anonymous Citizen on December 7, 2007]
I pray this bill will be passed. Prisons are full of inmates who have served their ttime and should be released.

In addition to serving time, this state should consider the level the prisoner is at. If he/she is at a level one, then release them.

20% of prisoners in Michigan are innocent in prison. CAN YOU IMAGINE LOSING YOUR DIGNITY, PRIDE AND YOUR LIFE FOR SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T DO.

The Michigan Department of Corrections needs to take a look at the Michigan Rape Shield Law and re-examine the many young men that are in prison because this law has been so severely abused by women who are not only taking rights from innocent rape victims but rights from men who are more innocent then you or me. There are loop holes in this law that the mentally criminal mind uses to destroy an individual's life. Do you realize anyone convicted of a rape crime is placed on a sex offenders list for 25 years. This penalty is worse than murder, especially if the person is innocent, as in my case.


Reply New Comment

Line

82) if you are innocent... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 7, 2007]
why were you convicted by a jury of your peers? twelve good men and true found you guilty of what you were charged with. they found the facts were true, and they found that the state had indeed made their case.

please make yours.
Reply New Comment

Line

83) 2007 House Bill 4548 [by Anonymous Citizen on December 7, 2007]
I strongly agree with the previous comment. What purpose does the parole board serve? When a person is incarcerated in a prison environment he should be released after he has fulfilled his required time in prison with no further penalties.

I have a loved one now in prison who was falsely convicted on a rape charge that didn't happen. This young man was a model citizen and during his young life never even received a speeding ticket. A woman who couldn't deal with rejection ruined his life forever. Any law which only a person's testimony is needed to convict someone needs to be changed to protect true rape victims and the innocent. This young man's life is over unless the appelant or supreme court sees the truth.

Since this incident happened to my loved one, I have talked with many, many professional people who know of someone or a loved one in the same situation, "innocent in prison." PLEASE HELP ANY WAY POSSIBLE!
Reply New Comment

Line

84) i HOPE THIS PASSES [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
I THINK THEY SHOULD GET RID OF THE PAROL AND GIVE PARDONS LIKE CANADA. THIS WOULD BE A HUGE SAVINGS. THEY HAVE SERVED THE TIME AND NOW SHOULD BE FREE TO TRY TO BLEND IN WITH THE FREE WORLD.
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Woohoo! [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2007]
This is wonderful news.
Now if the actual floor vote will commence before the holiday break, and the house passes this bill, it will be on to the real fight, with the Senate.

The state senators need to do what is right, not only for the inmates, but for the people of this state. This will save money!
Reply New Comment

Line

86) what can we do to help this bill pass? [by Anonymous Citizen on September 1, 2007]
The Michigan Parole Board has too much power, and nothing to over see them. They let out this man, Matthew Makan who went and murdered 5 woman, but will not let my husband out who would have a job, support, and has children, and has done everything they have said to do. Is there anything we can do to help pass this bill? What is the status on it? I can totally understand why people who have nobody in the system cannot understand what we who do have to go through, but it could just as easily be you someday. It is only a matter of fairness and being reasonable in deciding who should be released. They blanket everyone with the same coat, and do not let people out who should be let out, yet release people who obviously have no where to go or any support. The system is not fair or constitutional.
Reply New Comment

Line

87) Constitutional rights [by Anonymous Citizen on September 7, 2007]
You are correct that the review process by the MI Parole Board is unconstitutional. The process that they use that includes considering the crime that the inmate is serving for, as part of their review is like applying "double jeopardy".
The MDOC says it is not, they told me so in a letter.
However I have had attorney's tell me otherwise. The key would be to have a class action lawsuit filed by many inmates that would go to the federal level indicating that the MI parole process denies them due process (14th amendment).
I state this because MI is a state that adopted truth in sentencing. When Engler signed that into law, it was for 2 things.
1. To get money from the Federal Government.
2. To grow the prison business.
TIS here in MI is a farce and not fully implemented. In Englers 1998 state of the state address. Item E outlines everything he wanted done to "fight crime".
1. Get Tougher on Drunk Drivers
2. Sentencing Guidelines
3. New Prisons
4. Make Prisoners Work
5. Scrap Prisoner Appeal of Parole Denial
6. Operation Night Hawk (his war on gangs)
All of these things were enacted by the legislators in Michigan and has done little to nothing to deter crime. Yet has done everything to increase our costs in the prison industry.
They keep saying in the news how much the budget is for Corrections, the 07-08 budget is even higher, I believe the new proposed budget is 2.1 Bil.$, which just passed yesterday.
There are few new articles in the Detroit Free Press about this issue. The opinion written is a good one. Just search on the word prison and you can find them.
Reply New Comment

Line

88) too all that dont understand [by Anonymous Citizen on July 16, 2007]
As I personally sit here and read what some of you have wrote about other peoples loved ones it makes me sick! If you have never had anyone in the system thats been kept being their ERD you could never understand and never will. Everyone that commits a crime is not bad, in fact most of our top respected job titles held by people we as americans elected into office have committed some type of crime, they just never got caught, and that goes for most everyone in this world. At some point or another, darn near everyone has broken some type of law. Please do not sit there and tell another person their loved one WILL re-commit. In most cases the reason people do go back on a violation is because the people we consider "parole officers and field agents" are in a position to help offenders, but instead of helping they bring them down and make it harder for them to get ahead in the world. Their job is to help rehibilate and instead they do the opposite... For just one second try and imagine, you losing your life, your family, your job, your money, your possessions, for about 5 years and then you get locked up with someone telling you when you can eat, sleep, shower, go outside, all of it, and then try to re-enter into a world where your just shoved out and told get a job, a house, money, pay your bills, and do it all or I'll send you back to prison.. maybe you'll think twice about opening your mouth to bad mouth someone else's loved ones... I for one think this bill is fantastic!
Reply New Comment

Line

89) fabulous bill!!!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 11, 2007]
This bill is much needed at a time where 40% of inmates are eligible by law for parole but are being housed for MONEY!!!!!!! The parole board is not following guidelines, using the crime, which has already been considered during sentencing, instead of the probability score and behavior during incarceration, to decide parole. Basically what they are doing is OVERRIDING the judges sentencing, so why do we need judges?