Michigan Votes Forum

The mass incarceration has not made much difference in the crime rate. Most who return to prison are back for parole technicalities not for a new crime. These could be handled with community-based sanctions at a more cost- effective cost.

Less cops is okay. All they do is raise revenue for jenny

The facts are only as good as the persons putting them in.

them in are checked, double checked, verified, and checked again. the 'facts' from your slanted websites are simply made up.

if you are allowed to defend yourself. if the state stops trying to take away our guns and our means of self defense i'd feel a lot better about having fewer cops.

four thousand people on probation and five thousand on parole. the crime rate HAS gone down. the MURDER RATE hasn't. now, how is putting MORE people out of prison and increasing the workload of the people responsible for keeping track of those released SAVING US MONEY??? overtime costs money. extra officers costs money. extra cars for them to ride around cost money.

fried too. genesis says so. read it for yourself.

'under sentence', they have to be kept UNDER CONTROL. how do you plan on CONTROLLING them once you let them loose? do you plan on dropping the time off of their sentence? early release DOESN'T cut the sentence short, it cuts the TIME IN JAIL short. you would like it if it CUT THE SENTENCE SHORT. but it doesn't. it simply shortens the time before an inmate is eligible for parole. you still have to convince a parole board that they are ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE. look at the department of justice site for percentages of different classes of inmates released. it's amazing how NON VIOLENT SEX OFFENDERS only get paroled 10% of the time, but VIOLENT OFFENDERS get paroled 30% of the time. it seems that the parole board hasn't gotten the LET MY PRECIOUS NON-VIOLENT INMATES GO message.

for an inmates CARE, CUSTODY, AND CONTROL. nowhere in the law does it say that the state is responsible for an inmates EDUCATION, or his JOB CHANCES, or his SELF ESTEEM. you wish that the state would take on those added responsibilities to MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER. why can't YOU take on those responsibilities if they are so important to you? why can't you use YOUR OWN MONEY to educate those 'poor unfortnate inmates'? why can't you build them a school (or several, michigans a big state) and hire teachers at union scale to teach them (AGAIN) all about what is necessary to 'make it' in this big mean old world. perhaps OTHER liberals would donate some of their hard earned money to this cause. it IS the 'feel good' event of the year. imagine it, if you will. you, spending your own money, showing PERSONAL INITIATIVE, doing YOURSELF what your government isn't supposed to be doing. but i see some snags in the fun... how are you going to COMPELL them to attend? how are you going to COMPELL them to pay attention? simply bleating IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD isn't going to do it. how many of your PRECIOUS INMATES do you think would VOLUNTARILY attend? now, just like cutting expenses, you don't know if it will work or not TILL YOU TRY IT. so you get right on that, and let us know how it works. pack all of your 'feel good liberals' into a room and get them to pay for this 'feel good idea'. it should be easy, it's an idea that MAKES THEM FEEL GOOD. or is that only done with PUBLIC FUNDS?

????????????????????????????????????

You just answered your own question. With all the people out on probation and parole and no increase in the crime rate let's let a few more out and see if the crime rate goes up. And while we're at it if they get in trouble on a technicality let's not put them back in prison let's give them some community-based sanctions. This would be more cost effective. This does not include murders, rapist, violent people.

You have said these same things over and over again. How about somrthing new.

YOU answering the questions put to you? THAT would be new...

you would know that there AREN'T THAT MANY out on parole. and that there are CONSTANT VIOLATIONS that put them back into prison. there goes that RECIDIVISM thing again... now, what about this law will BREAK THE CYCLE of recidivism? nothing. what about this law will help the criminal get a job? nothing. what about this law will help the criminal get released by a parole board that has been 'bitten in the butt' by thousands of recidivist criminals? nothing. so, this is a bad law.

You say there isn't that many out on parole yet for the last several months you have had a fit that any get out. The violations are usually technicalities not a new crime. the rest of your statements you have already answered to your satisfaction so I won't even address them. Letting inmates earn good time is not a bad law. It helps them be responsable for their behavior if they want out earlier.

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/RRH53888/petition.html

stay out is called RECIDIVISM. COMMITTING ANOTHER CRIME WHILE OUT ON PAROLE FOR A PERVIOUS CRIME. patrick selepack is a classic example.

What does this have to do with either bill mentioned? You just hop all over and keep changing the subject.

But I will answer your worry about recidivism. In another posting I mentioned one big solution which is the Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative. Using this progam along with the MPRI Community Placement Program while maintaining strict supervision will help with this problem.

Selepack is not a classic example.

Your questions have all been answered before. You just keep asking the same things over, and over.

Recidivism statistics can mislead (and some people do play fast and loose with them). For example, this comment from a discussion of the issue: "Both new offenses and probation violations are defined as recidivism, including status offenses that wouldn't be crimes if the person wasn't on probation." The second part of that statement is important. This is not pointed out to minimize the seriousness of recidivism -- especially the new (real) criminal offenses committed by parolees and probationers. One other thing to remember, also, is that the prisoners this bill addresses will be released eventually, anyway, even if they have to serve their maximum sentence time. From 2003-07, the Michigan Department of Corrections released 9.063 inmates who had completed their maximum sentences. Of those, 2,911 had previously been paroled but had been returned to prison, and 6,152 had never been paroled. That means for every prisoner who gets paroled before serving max time, two will serve max time and never be paroled at all. Patrick Selepak, darling of the get-tough-on-crime crowd, is a popular but poor reason to argue against paroling convicts who have served less than their maximum sentences. His case, horrifying and horrible as it is, also is exceptional. One problem with big government, always, is that it builds systems to manage for exceptions rather than for norms. That also is what causes massive growth in government. Those who cite Selepak as a reason for rejecting this bill to restore good time credits for prisoners who behave themselves like to cloak themselves as “conservatives,” when in fact they are fans of big government and its tax-and-spend habits. And whether you like it or not, had Selepak not been let out of prison in early 2006 as a result of bungled administration of his parole status, he would have been out about three years from now, based on his records.

Who Posted This?

This should be one billion dollars.

What does that have to do with this bill????

poor misguided poster's comments, shall we? "Recidivism statistics can mislead (and some people do play fast and loose with them). [some people may, but not the department of justice. they play by a strict set of rules. by the way, only NEW crimes are counted in recidivism studies. not technical parole violations. while we are at it, the criminals KNEW that making those 'technical violations' would return them to jail. so why do they do them?] For example, this comment from a discussion of the issue: "Both new offenses and probation violations are defined as recidivism, including status offenses that wouldn't be crimes if the person wasn't on probation." [i'm not sure who said that, but it's not the truth. the truth is, only NEW CRIMES are counted in recidivism studies.] The second part of that statement is important. This is not pointed out to minimize the seriousness of recidivism -- especially the new (real) criminal offenses committed by parolees and probationers. [yes it is. even so, the rate is above 50% even without the technical violations. so your point is moot.] One other thing to remember, also, is that the prisoners this bill addresses will be released eventually, anyway, even if they have to serve their maximum sentence time. [i'd rather have them in jail today, until the very last day of their sentence. that holds off THAT RECIDIVISM till then. by the way, what does this have to do with the issue of letting inmates out early?] From 2003-07, the Michigan Department of Corrections released 9.063 inmates who had completed their maximum sentences. Of those, 2,911 had previously been paroled but had been returned to prison, and 6,152 had never been paroled. That means for every prisoner who gets paroled before serving max time, two will serve max time and never be paroled at all. [now, by your own figures, one third of the numbers released returned to prison. THAT is the problem. why did we even BOTHER to spend the money to release them when we knew good and well that they would only be returning?] Patrick Selepak, darling of the get-tough-on-crime crowd, is a popular but poor reason to argue against paroling convicts who have served less than their maximum sentences. His case, horrifying and horrible as it is, also is exceptional. [his case got SEVERAL parole board members, and SEVERAL public employees fired. it's also getting SEVERAL public offices sued. do you think the 'powers that be' in the 'let's release inmate' part of government want to EVER have that happen again? NO. they have almost halted parole due to ONE mistaken release. maybe they should report it on the news WHENEVER a released inmate re-offends.] One problem with big government, always, is that it builds systems to manage for exceptions rather than for norms. [well, let's thank those that GAVE US big government in the first place. the democrats.] That also is what causes massive growth in government. Those who cite Selepak as a reason for rejecting this bill to restore good time credits for prisoners who behave themselves like to cloak themselves as “conservatives,” when in fact they are fans of big government and its tax-and-spend habits. [no, we are conservatives. you are simply wanting to 'feel good' by releasing your loved ones behind bars.] And whether you like it or not, had Selepak not been let out of prison in early 2006 as a result of bungled administration of his parole status, he would have been out about three years from now, based on his records. [and those people would have lived another three years. they would in fact, still be alive today. congratulations. your 'let my inmates go' philosophy got people killed. face it.]

'you're just going to let them out eventually anyway." i say... what's the rush? if they are just going to commit a new crime or a techinical violation anyway, why even BOTHER to let them out? they aren't saving us money if they come back to jail, so they shouldn't even be considered for release in the first place. eighteen states have gotten rid of their parole boards, and don't have 'good time'. they are doing MUCH BETTER THAN WE ARE because they charge themselves less. their recidivism figures are lower as well. no criminal in his right mind wants to go back to jail knowing he will get flat time.

re-entry initiative spent over two hundred fifty million last year. you are two and a half years behind on your savings so far. that's not counting the OTHER programs spending you would have to save for. where is the money supposed to come from? oh, yeah.. the ever present TAXPAYERS. that's who. frankly, g-ma. i don't want to pay to have some inmate lounge around. i don't want to pay to RE-EDUCATE some deadbeat loafer. i don't want to pay for inmates to be able to watch 'da game' on cable. but you, and your jack-booted liberal goons make me pay for it. whether i want to or not. why can't you come up with some PRIVATE money to pay for such perks?

REPEAT AND REPEAT!!!

REPEAT AND REPEAT. WHO BROUGHT RECIDIVISM UP ORIGINALLY? You need to study about more about about what equals recidivism stats. We do not claim to be mind readers like you do so we can not tell who will return or how many will return to prison like you can. What does this have to do with this bill. I do not know do you ? You keep changing the subjects. Why? Attention getter or diverter that's you.

Prove what you say. And don't just say well this many states do it for less or do not have as high redicivism rates. Why don't they give reasons with proof.

Go south, Go south then.

Isn't this Bush's Justice department?

the justice department is NOT a cabinet position, it's like the F.B.I. it has it's own staff that doesn't change from president to president. stop trying to BLAME BUSH FIRST. it won't work.

get a clue then. how about LEARNING SOMETHING.. no. that would be FAR TOO MUCH to ask of a liberal. and no. i'm not leaving. neither is the rest of the 'internet cafe' gang. we all have work to do here.

they don't need to. the PROOF is in the fact that they are doing it for less than we are. further PROOF is in the fact that their recidivism rate is LOWER than ours. maybe you mean TELL US HOW to do it their way. well, g-ma. i'm glad you asked. first, they elected a majority of conservatives, both republican and democrat. then they looked to see what stupid laws needed changing. they then had the guts to DO something about those laws. if they found a law that was stupid, or repetitious, or duplicated another law, they repealed it immediately. they cut over five hundred laws from their books, simplifying their laws immensely. next, they changed the prison budget process from an "i want to spend billions" budget process to 'PROVE TO ME WHAT YOU NEED' budget process. if a prison cannot prove that a budget item is NECESSARY FOR THE EFFICIENT RUNNING OF THE PRISON AS A PRISON, THE ITEM IS CUT FROM THEIR BUDGET. some of those prisons have only ONE television in the entire facility. NONE of those prisons allows inmates to have phone calls, no matter who pays for it. it's a security hazard. next. they got rid of the parole board, as they weren't doing their job anyway. not only that, the prisoners who WERE paroled were coming back at an alarming rate. so, the got rid of parole altogether. it saved them BILLIONS. now, if you'd like to TRY a few of these things on michigan prisons to PROVE THEY WORK HERE. feel free. until then, you will never know if they work till you TRY THEM. BUT YOU WON'T, cuz it doesn't release inmates.

g-ma. whatsamatta? can't think of any good reasons to save only twenty nine million as opposed to an even BILLION? i can't think of any either. neither can your representatives. so, until you come up with a few hundred million reasons to only save a pittance, we will continue to fight to cut the amount that the state charges itself instead of releasing heinous inmates on the general public. your own figures show that releasing inmates, even the way we do it now, doesn't cut prison population, as a full one third of the people who do full terms have been released before. if this is how you plan on saving us money, forget it. it's how we got into this mess in the first place.

I am answering your postings here because we are getting to far down in the postings to see what is being said. The Justice Department staff does change with each president in office. Some staff is ousted because of some alleged scandal, or depending on your party choice you may or may not be hired. There is political games played here too. Inmates who committed heinous crimes have never been mentioned in being released in any of our postings. The mess we are in at this time is due to the get tough on crime laws passed when Engler was in office, which have not changed and our prison population has gone up and up. What states are doing what you listed? You did not say.

g-ma says... "I am answering your postings here because we are getting to [too?] far down in the postings to see what is being said. The Justice Department staff does change with each president in office. [oh really?] Some staff is ousted because of some alleged scandal, [which scandal would that be, g-ma? you mean like the clinton file-gate scandal, where hillary STILL has F.B.I. files on her opponents?] or depending on your party choice you may or may not be hired. [department of justice hires just like the post office, and the secret service, and the bureau of prisons. you are a federal employee.] There is political games played here too. [yeah, sure. prove it.] Inmates who committed heinous crimes have never been mentioned in being released in any of our postings. [that's because you'd like to think that they won't be eligible for good time too. this bill says NOTHING about the type of crime that will make a prisoner ineligible. only first degree murder will seem to do it, and only if you get life without the possibility of parole. everything else is fair game. you don't bring it up because it is ANOTHER good reason to oppose this bill.] The mess we are in at this time is due to the get tough on crime laws passed when Engler was in office, which have not changed and our prison population has gone up and up. [your 'get soft on crime' governor hasn't changed it either.] What states are doing what you listed? [look it up, g-ma. just type into google the words 'states without parole' and you will get a list. then type in 'states with lower recidivism rates than michigan' and you will get another list. now comes the HARD PART. compare the two lists. think you can do that? probably not.] You did not say. [nor will i. the information will be much more meaningful if you find it yourself. you can also look for this on the department of justice site. it's all catalogued for you there. i'll give you a hint, though. michigan ain't one of 'em.]

hint, g-ma. minnesota is one of those states that doesn't have a parole board, and only has sentencing guidelines. they have the lowest percentage of incarcerated inmates in the country per capita. they also have some of the longest sentences issued. because they charge themselves less per inmate, releasing up to four percent of their prison population would only save them about eight million dollars a year. looks like our neighbor does INDEED do it better. now, g-ma. your job is to look up the rest of the states, and find out what they do better than we do.