Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on February 13, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

LOOKS LIKE WE WILL FINALLY GET SOMETHING DONE NOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE IN CONTROL! :) I SUPPORT BILLS 4262 & 4263. THANK GOD FOR MR. CUSHINGBERRY.

Your reps if you support this bill and push for it to be heard. Also call Cushingberry's office to tell him to continue his fight for this bill!

Your reps if you support this bill and push for it to be heard. Also call Cushingberry's office to tell him to continue his fight for this bill!

This bill should pass! Prisoners deserve another chance. I stongly believe that many will learn their lessons once they suffer in prison specially those with family awaiting them. Also, we have to remember that there are some innocent prisoners and some were giving more years than they deserve..we can't say that all prisoners are the same and we can't forget the ones that should be out sooner. What about the one's who's been in prison for 20 or 25 years? After all they are human being, Life should be fair! God will punish who deserve to be at the end.

"issues" in your long list of excuses. several have been covered before, but one or two are 'new'. the first is the issue of "innocent prisoners". that would presume that the criminal justice system is completely faulty at it's core, or else that there are those in this state who would lie in open court, without anyone contradicting them, to get someone who is factually innocent sent to prison. is the criminal justice system THAT faulty? are there that many such people who live here that this is not just a possibility, but a PROBABILITY? unless you are using FACTUAL INNOCENCE as just another in your long list of excuses, that is the ONLY ISSUE that you should be rousing mad about. now, if you ARE using FACTUAL INNOCENCE as just another in your long list of excuses, then you will not be able to tell me of one FACTUALLY INNOCENT INMATE currently in jail. if you happen to know of any, and can provide us with the provable FACTS OF THE CASE, we will have that inmate released immediately. imagine the public outcry when it hears that the state of michigan, as a matter of policy, incarcerates innocent people. i hope you can substantiate this claim.

maybe not everyone is innocent, but alot did not do what they are in prison for. alot was added to their crime to screw them over somehow on their sentence. i know because i was one of them. don't believe me? i'd be more than happy to prove it. my name is jeff. you can call me at 586-216-3980 or email me at ninjaxxxxxxxxx@hotmail.com (that's 9 x's). this is not a joke

SAY THE SAME THINGS OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER. LIKE A BROKEN RECORD! "FACTUAL INNOCENSE, FACTUAL INNOCENSE, FACTUAL INNOCENSE..." PRO-LIFERS AND DEATH PENALTY PUSHERS PLEASE FIND SOMETHING MEANINGFUL IN YOUR LIVES TO DO. PLEASE! THANK YOU!

Mont. Senate OKs ending death penalty; Measure carries 27-22 despite polls showing Montanans back punishment [The Associated Press - Feb 23, 2007] HELENA, Mont. - The Senate on Friday gave preliminary approval to abolishing the death penalty. After a lengthy debate in which lawmakers quoted Jesus, Thomas Jefferson and Ted Bundy, the Senate voted 27-22 to approve the measure. The measure's sponsor, Sen. Dan Harrington, D-Butte, implored his colleagues to "show true political leadership" and do away with capital punishment, despite polls that show the majority of Montanans support it. Proponents of the measure said the death penalty is costly, unfair and does not serve as a deterrent. "I don't think we should be in the killing business," said Sen. Dan Weinberg, D-Whitefish. Opponents countered that the death penalty was needed to help victim's families. "This is simply closure," said Sen. Greg Barkus, R-Kalispell. I QUOTE: "Proponents of the measure said the death penalty is costly, unfair and does not serve as a deterrent." = NO STATE SHOULD BE IN THE KILLING BUSINESS. NO STATE IN AMERICA =

The debate over capital punishment is an active one throughout this country as each state gets to choose whether to enact the death penalty and which manner of execution to use. *There is a federal death penalty statute for those federal crimes that qualify, thus a person may be executed after a federal conviction in a state that has a constitutional prohibition against the death penalty, such as Michigan.*

Filan: Death penalty for murderer will not achieve justice or relieve pain LEGAL ANALYSIS By Susan Filan Senior legal analyst Feb 5, 2007 A woman who is accused of cutting a 7-month-old fetus from her friend's womb will face the death penalty. Tiffany Hall, 24, will also be charged with killing her friend's three other children ages 7, 2 and 1. Their bodies were found in a washer and dryer, drowned, two days after 23-year-old Jimella Tunstall's body was found in a weedy lot. Ms. Hall allegedly confessed to killing the three children for whom she used to baby-sit. The St. Clair County, Ill., state attorney called the slaying "cold, calculated and premeditated." But Illinois has a moratorium on capital punishment since 2000 when the governor put executions on hold. The moratorium has never been lifted. Two questions arise for me in contemplating this heinous case: First, why seek the death penalty if the governor has it on hold? And second, why seek the death penalty at all when, presumably, the reason it is invoked in this case is because a sacred line has been crossed -- the sanctity of life. When an unborn fetus is slain and innocent children are murdered, the outrage is visceral. But why respond to killing by state-sanctioned killing, particularly in a state where the government is loathe to sanction it? Most states have the death penalty, but not all do. Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin do not, according to The Death Penalty Information Center. New Jersey is in the process of abolishing the death penalty. New York has overturned its law as unconstitutional and has not reinstated it. Eight other states including California, Missouri, Maryland, Florida, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio and Delaware have halted the death penalty over the issues raised by lethal injection. Most states use lethal injection as the method of execution, having for the most part abandoned death by electrocution, hanging and the gas chamber. The issues raised by the death penalty debate range from arbitrariness to innocence to legal representation to mental illness to morality and fairness. As a former prosecutor I believe I understand the emotion involved in a murder case. I have seen firsthand the rage and fury and grief that families of murder victims express. The pain is indescribable. But I have never understood how killing the killer in return achieves justice or relieves pain. Why isn't life in prison without parole punishment enough? If we punish killers, because killing is wrong, why is it right to kill a killer? As shocking and gruesome and cruel as Tiffany Hall's alleged murder of her 23-year-old friend, her 7-month-old fetus, and her three children, isn't killing Tiffany Hall equally wrong? If Tiffany Hall is convicted, she should spend the rest of her life in prison without parole. Some would argue that if the victim was not allowed to live, why should the murderer be allowed to live with "three hots and a cot" for life? We also say that one of the reasons one may not take the law into one's own hands is to prevent vigilante justice based on emotion and a thirst for revenge. We have established a system based on the democratic principal that we leave punishment to be meted out by objective, neutral and independent magistrates who dispassionately dispense justice. Wouldn't this negate the need to kill a killer because a killer has killed? Some say the death penalty is appropriate in a case like this to send a clear message that this kind of killing is wrong—that it will act as a deterrent. But there have been decades of studies and yet no conclusive proof that the death penalty acts as a deterrent at all. It is still an open question, and a question that some say may never be answered. To say "if this case doesn't deserve the death penalty, which case does?" raises the question of who decides what crimes are the worst, and who decides whose murder is worse than the other? This smacks of emotion. The law must be based on reason and rationality. That is why we don't let crime victims determine punishment. They may be heard at sentencing, and their remarks considered, but we don't and can't let crime victims drive the criminal justice system. So should we make it all or nothing? Either every murder deserves the death penalty, or no murder deserves the death penalty? This would destroy prosecutorial discretion, which is necessary so that each case can be decided on a case by case basis. Prosecutors aren't sausage makers. Jimella Tunstall, her 7 month old fetus, and her three children deserve justice. But how does a state-sanctioned killing achieve that? How do two wrongs make a right?

won't relieve the pain part. but it will guarantee justice. you just don't see it that way. life without parole or the death penalty, what's the difference? the accused ends up DEAD both ways. one just doesn't take as long.

to answer the question, mr. prosecutor. why IS it considered justice to let the condemned murderer live with three hots and a cot? i await your reply.

"We have established a system based on the democratic principal that we leave punishment to be meted out by objective, neutral and independent magistrates who dispassionately dispense justice." so, why is it when this objective, neutral and independent magistrate dispassionately metes out the death penalty, you oppose it? especially when the objective, neutral and independent superior courts, and the equally objective, neutral and independent SUPREME court uphold the sentences. your opposition to the death penalty should manifest itself in you never seeking the death penalty under any circumstances, not in you stopping others from seeking the death penalty.

that the system should be "all or nothing", then you complain that "all or nothing" would destroy prosecutorial discretion. you simply prefer the "nothing" option, not seeking the death penalty. i believe that every murder case should be seeking the death penalty, then that would allow the discretion to be up to the JURY. because allowing prosecutorial discretion smacks of emotion.

killers are in the killing business, the STATE should be in the killing business, or it should stand out of the way while it's citizens take care of the business it can't.

TROLL question.

instead of griping about being asked a question, why don't you SUPPLY AN ANSWER? NORMAL people ANSWER questions, TROLLS shiver under bridges AVOIDING questions. do you not answer because you DON'T KNOW, or you DON'T CARE? if you don't know, keep asking, that's how you educate yourself. if you don't care, i pity you.

questions too tough for you?

And sing O Troll-o Mio.

MUST BE too tough for him. he can't (won't) reply. ignorance must be blissful for him.

given in to the government's theory that THE GOVERNMENT controls men. you have willingly given up to the government you created control of your liberty. you have willingly given up to the government you created control of your property. you have willingly given up to the government you created control of your life. then, you have the unmitigated gaul to complain when the government takes your liberty, to whine when it seizes your property, and to gripe when it comes in and takes over your life. the government YOU created should SERVE YOU. the government YOU created should DEFEND YOUR RIGHTS. the government YOU created should PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY INTERESTS. the government YOU have created here does none of these things. it may be too late to change everything, but no one here is changing ANYTHING. they simply throw in a bill that agitates the populace, such as changing the hunting season, or mandating helmet wear, and then quietly go on taxing us to death.

Mr. Add Nada to the discussion.

What death row inmates case have you been watching basically they are the same thing and take about the same lenght of time. It's just that one the state has no buisness participating in that's God's job not the state of Michigan.

we wouldn't need to put anyone to death. the bible has several references to death penalties being imposed. God has no problem with man killing in his name. why do you?

It is imperative that these Bills get passed, and SOON!!!!!!! Thank God the Dems are in control now, and thank God for Mr. Cushingberry!!!!!!

I totally agree with kathryn...keep on going Mr Cushingberry...enough is enough

It is imperative that we get these bills on the ballot. Support Cushingberry!!!

Some of your comments sound a bit misguided.. some people with minor sentences go back to prison for parole violations... if you know what a parole violation consists of you will also understand that a person with a parole violation can go back to prison for something as minor as failing to pay court fees..or not being able to secure a job... or not being home at a designated time... or driving... Some of these things are hard for a regular person to do, can you imagine how hard they are for someone who was at one time a prisoner. How do you expect for someone with a prison record to maintain a job. Who will hire them? How will they get there not being able to operate a vehicle? How will they pay court fees if they have no job? Also keep in mind that there are no trials for people who go back to prison. No judges. No jury. Just a hearing before the parole board,already biased because of the knowledge that these people ARE former criminals. Think about it. Support Congressman Cushingberry.

the inmate is supposed to have a job lined up before he is even considered for parole. that is being continually ignored, as i know of several paroled inmates who sit and lounge around all day doing nothing, and who prowl around all night looking to see 'whats happening' and getting into further mischief. where are the parole officers for these inmates? too busy keeping track of the hundreds of recidivists waiting their turn to go back into prison.

I WANT THIS BILL TO PASS FOR THE SAKE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TO PRISON ONCE AND HAVE LEARNED THEIR LESSON.AND HAVE A FAMILY TO COME HOME TOO.

yes, he's in prison. i'm not sure what makes you think he's LEARNED HIS LESSON. yes, he does have a family to come home to, but he had a family BEFORE he went into prison, but he chose to do what it took to go to prison anyway. he doesn't care about YOU, he cares about doing what will send him to prison.

Real life prison system, the inmate has to QUALIFY for the support program that helps inmates that are going home to secure jobs. This is decided by counselers within the facility in which that prisoner is instated. All the programs are this way. For example, an inmate may be sentenced to prison time due to some violent criminal behavior. You would think that to rehabilitate these people, the counselors and warden would consider this person for violence prevention therapy or anger management programs while in prison but if that person does not exhibit that behavior in prison, the counselors tend to advise against it. I do agree though that officials should take more consideration into making sure these inmates are rehabilitated to the best of their ability and that jobs are available for these people well before they are released.

People do not go to jail because they want to and im quite sure they do know the consequences of their decisions before they make them. Everyone makes bad decisions though and sometimes they are irreversible. That doesnt mean they love their families or care about them any less. I support this bill because if you really read it throughly, it really caters to inmates who have commited maybe one or two non violent offenses. And it is not like they are not serving time, the bill is just stating that they may be let off early on good behavior.

on the street, it is to achieve a goal, robbing you of your stuff or your life. if they DO NOT show a behavior in jail, it's ALSO to achieve a goal, that is to be put up for 'good time' and get out earlier to go out and be voilent again. and yes, most criminal decisions ARE irreversible.

I am wondering if anyone knows why the parole board requires the AOP & SOP class before you can be paroled and then they prisons can't accomodate for these classes. Is it fair to the prisoners to not get parole because of this? I believe it is a violation of their right.

it is a privelege. it is granted by the state. it can be taken away by the state. it is NOT granted to all convicts in every case. stop acting as if it is a right, and start acting like it's a privelege. by the way, it's not the prison's job to educate your loved one. if he is uneducated, it's because HE failed to attend the FREE schooling our taxes paid for. he WASTED his time and OUR MONEY. he sits in prison AT OUR EXPENSE, WASTING his time and OUR MONEY. we spend $38,000.00 a year to keep your loved one warm and happy. for that amount of money, we can pay a teacher for a year, or a policeman, or a fireman. with that amount of money, we can completely replace the recreational equipment at a city park, or buy a few hundred books at a library. we could buy a new school bus, or a new snowplow, or make payments on equipment to repair the roads. but no, we have to keep your loved one, who cannot keep himself from doing the wrong thing.

My husband has had all the school he needs at our cost. Incase you don't know the parole board requires inmates to have certain classes provided by the state before they can even be eligible for parole. If this is a requirement they why can't the state accomadate? And you haven't paid any money for my husband to be incarcerated yet, but if he does not receive the class and receives another flop tax payors will be paying for him. If anyone has any advise on how to get this class please let me know.

in the first place, which must not have "stuck" because he has to repeat it in jail. while he is in jail, we pay $38,000 a year to keep him there, thats $104.11 a day. not only that, we have to pay the cops that arrested him, the judge that sentenced him, and the guard that keeps him locked up. the pittance he pays in 'restitution fees' to the county don't even BEGIN to cover these expenses. i believe that IF he is ever released, and he re-offends (almost a certainty) that he should have to do his entire stretch for THAT crime, and any remaining time from the one he got out early on. i also believe that if your 'loved one' is a habitual offender, (not a FIRST TIMER), that he should not even be able to be considered for any good time. he doesn't deserve it, he's already blown his 'second chance'.

My husband is a first time offender. For the first year the Federal government pays the $30,000 for him to be incarcerated not the tax payors. My husband does not need anymore schooling he has been through college and then some. The parole board requires a special class that has to be taken before realese. He has tried for the past year to get into this class and they do not have enough teachers to teach these classes. Why spend our tax dollars after the first year if the state can't accomadate these classes? Why not give them their parole if they are eligible and make the class a parole requirement after they have been realesed at the prisoners exspence. Maybe you need to brush up on the prison system before you come in here talking like you know what is going on. if this bill passes it will save the state lots of money. If they earn it let them go. If you had a family member in this situation you would stand behind the way we all feel about this bill.