Fear is a powerful tool. It instantly invokes behaviors at a subconscious level that most individuals fail to even recognize. Take for example the “fight-or-flight” instinct that occurs when we find ourselves in a dangerous situation. Our bodies instantly react without a conscious thought from us. In a split-second our brain tells our body what to do, and our body does it.
This instinctual reaction to fear is usually a good thing because it protects us. It can also prevent us from making instantaneous decisions that would result in us finding ourselves in dangerous situations. At its core, this gut feeling is nothing more than a form of self-preservation. But what about when the fear is based on a false premise of danger? Can we train our minds and bodies to think and react differently in those situations? The answer is that we must if
we are going to attempt to bring about meaningful prison reform in Michigan.
For years we have been told that in order to make our communities safer, we must lock-up criminals and throw away the keys. We have been told that if we choose to let people out of prison, especially violent offenders, we can EXPECT them to commit the same types of crimes again and again. This is a narrative routinely echoed by those opposing any and all types of prison reform. But is that theory based on facts? Does the data support that conclusion, or is it simply fear-mongering in an attempt to keep the prisons full?
Because the majority of the imprisoned population is serving a sentence for some type of violent crime, any type of meaningful prison reform attempting to lower the prison population must include reforms related to those so-called “violent offenders.” In order to better understand this scenario, and the true facts behind it, we recommend that everyone takes the time to read the 2020 article, “UNDERSTANDING VIOLENT-CRIME RECIDIVISM” by J.J. Prescott, Benjamin Pyle and Sonja B. Starr, Notre Dame Law Review.
Here are just a few of the take-aways:
* The empirical data suggests that policymakers could enact reforms for potential earlier release without any substantial risk to public safety.
* Data confirms that there are diminishing returns to very long sentences – even for violent offenses.
* Lengthy incarceration of individuals for violent offenses has been the principal driver of mass incarceration and it must be addressed in order to substantially reverse it.
* Lengthy sentences have resulted in a much older prison population, who are less likely to reoffend upon release, but who require more extensive and expensive healthcare while incarcerated.
* Violent offenders have a slightly lower average rearrest rate than property-crime offenders, drug offenders, or public-order offenders.
* In 2014, Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending calculated recidivism rates for individuals who were paroled after being imprisoned for serious crimes in Michigan. It found that more than 99% of individuals released following homicide or sex-offense sentences did not return to prison within three years with new convictions for similar offenses.
* In 2009, Michigan expanded the size of its parole board. This resulted in 13, 508 individuals being paroled – an increase of 2020 people over the previous year, and over a thousand people more than any other year in recent history. Despite the increase in the number of people being released, recidivism rates did not increase.
After taking the time to read the article, you will be able to answer for yourself whether or not the data supports the theory of “lock them all up and throw away the key,” or is it nothing more than fear mongering.
