Sign In
  • WisBar News
    July 06, 2009

    Some proposals from special committee studying prison overcrowding survive governor’s veto

    Gov. Jim Doyle embraced “risk reduction” sentencing, provision of services to offenders exiting prison, and wider options to sanction those who do not fulfill conditions of their supervised release. Other ideas from the Justice Reinvestment committee, such as a goal of reducing recidivism rates by 25 percent, were rebuffed.

    July 6, 2009 – Among his budget vetoes issued June 29, Gov. Jim Doyle trimmed some measures recommended by a special legislative committee to reform Wisconsin’s criminal justice system in the face of spiraling costs associated with an exploding prison population.

    The Special Committee on Justice Reinvestment Oversight issued four policy recommendations incorporated into the state budget following months of meetings to consider findings of the Council of State Government (CSG) Justice Center.  The committee included members of the Legislature and representatives of county government, the judiciary, prosecutors, public defenders, and others.

    No cap on extended supervision

    The committee voted in favor of a proposal to rework Wis. Stat. § 973.01 (2)(d) to limit the term of extended supervision to no more than 75 percent of the length of the term of confinement in prison, excluding Class B and C felonies as well as certain sex offenses.

    CSG researchers had found that prolonged periods of extended supervision represent significant resources for the state and increase the odds a supervisee will be returned to the crowded prisons.

    But Doyle rejected this measure, explaining in his veto message that “[a]ppropriate sentences depend on several factors related to a specific offender and often a one-size-fits-all approach cannot take into account a violent past or other aggravating factors contained in a case.”

    “I am maintaining language for shortening extended supervision sentences, through the ability of the Department of Corrections to discharge a person from supervision after two years,” Doyle said. “This release creates an incentive for an offender to comply with the rules of their supervision and earn discharge through rehabilitation, which better protects public safety.”

    New revocation procedures

    The committee voted for a proposal setting the period of reconfinement in prison following a revocation to either six months or the total length of the remaining sentence, whichever is less. The Department of Corrections would be authorized to extend this period up to 90 days for violating a prison regulation and/or refusing to participate in required programming or treatment.

    Doyle struck the language containing this idea, terming it another instance of a “one-size-fits-all approach.” Further, Doyle raised a constitutional concern with the provision.

    “Placing an arbitrary maximum term of reconfinement on offenders who are revoked from their extended supervision and then allowing the department to deviate from the maximum when they determine a person poses a substantial risk is problematic from a due process point of view and could result in multiple petitions filed against the reviewing authority,” Doyle said.

    Doyle embraced the portion of the budget embodying a CSG finding that supervising agents should have other options to sanction a supervisee for failing to uphold conditions of release besides sending him or her back to prison. Likewise, Doyle retained provisions following CSG’s recommendation that the DOC provide specific types of services accompanied by a system for monitoring their effectiveness.

    Community supervision and services

    Following a CSG finding that unemployment, mental illness, and substance abuse are major causes for recidivism among those on supervised release, the committee recommended $8 million for services to aid the severely mentally ill at high risk for reoffending, $12 million for a transitional employment program, and $10 million for community services such as alcohol and drug treatment.

    This $30 million dollar amount became $10 million in the budget presented to Doyle, who approved it, citing the money for treatment, employment services, and access to mental health care as part of the budget that “better prepares and supports those individuals when they re-enter the community so that they do not return to the criminal justice system.”

    The special committee had set a goal of reducing recidivism rates for persons convicted of a felony by 25 percent between fiscal years 2007-08 and 2010-11, but Doyle rebuffed the effort to set a target number.

    “[T]his is an arbitrary figure that will be hard to measure in the short time prescribed in the language using accepted best practices for measuring recidivism rates,” Doyle said.

    Risk reduction sentencing

    The committee proposed legislation authorizing “risk reduction” sentencing when a court determines it is appropriate and the defendant is agreeable to treatment or programming ordered by the DOC based on its risk assessments and needs evaluations. Under this type of sentence, an offender who successfully completes this specified programming and treatment must be placed on extended supervision after 75 percent of term of confinement.

    Doyle highlighted this innovation, stating that its inclusion in the new budget law “[p]ermits judges to order risk reduction sentences to provide offenders with a chance to redeem themselves and decrease time spent in prison, while learning skills and receiving services that will prepare them for successful reintegration into the community.”

    But the governor disagreed with the special committee over the amount of discretion the DOC should have to modify a risk reduction program. The committee had rejected an amendment that it feared could potentially authorize an offender’s release without completion of the programming or treatment due to lack of DOC resources.

    Tony Streveler, a committee member and DOC policy advisor, explained the law should give flexibility for those cases in which an inmate is on track to complete treatment, but may only finish a week or two beyond the 75 percent mark.

    The Legislature added a provision reflecting that concern to the budget, and Doyle used his veto to fine tune the law to capture an individual’s particular situation in treatment.

    “Section 2699m specifies that the Department of Corrections may modify an inmate's risk reduction program plan if programming or treatment specified in a plan is unavailable to the inmate because of the inmate's security classification, the department discontinues the programming or treatment, or there is a waiting list for the programming or treatment,” Doyle observed.

    “I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the specification of details related to modifying program plans because it unnecessarily limits the department's ability to modify an inmate's plan,” Doyle explained. “This partial veto preserves the intent of the provision to direct the department to develop a program plan for the inmate that is designed to reduce the risk of reoffending and allows for flexibility to modify the plan as needed.”

    Alex De Grand is the legal writer for the State Bar of Wisconsin.

    Earlier articles

     

     

     

     



Join the conversation! Log in to leave a comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY