Last month Gov. Evers announced the formation of a Commutation Advisory Board to consider shortening the remaining sentences of some individuals in our overcrowded prisons. The board hasn’t yet considered any cases, but some politicians have already decided it should automatically reject applications from everyone convicted of certain kinds of crime. The governor’s own proclamation ruled out clemency for those convicted of sex offenses, reinforcing the common but erroneous assumption that every person in that category poses a continuing danger to society. Now Wisconsin Watch has reported that two of the candidates to succeed Gov. Evers have expressed their opposition to commutations for anyone convicted of murder.
At first sight these may seem like reasonable exclusions. As a society, we want to express our condemnation of both sex offenses and murder. But we should know a lot more about the people serving the longest sentences in our prisons before we deny them any chance to present their cases for commutation.
How many people convicted of murder or a sex offense might be affected by these blanket exclusions?
The most accessible statistics are those for Old Law prisoners (individuals convicted before the advent of Truth in Sentencing in 2000). According to the Parole Commission website, nearly 1,600 men and women whose crimes were committed in the 1990s or earlier are still in prison, 26 years later. Two-thirds of these individuals were convicted of either murder (540) or a sex crime (527). A large proportion of them are not yet eligible for parole, and the parole process is so uncertain that the rest have no guarantee of release within their lifetimes.
Why shouldn’t someone who committed a serious violent crime be locked up for life?
Our religious traditions encourage us to seek the redemption of wrongdoers and their reintegration into the community, if at all possible. And we know as a practical matter that people can and do change as they mature. A person who committed a violent rape or murder at 20 is likely to be a very different person by age 45. (In fact, research shows that the likelihood of violent behavior drops with every decade of age.) If they have used their time behind bars to become a good, responsible citizen, does it make sense to keep punishing them at taxpayers’ expense for the sins of the person they used to be?
Why is it reasonable to consider clemency for individuals convicted of murder, in particular?
As volunteers for an organization that advocates for second chances, we have taken a close look at the records of some 200 potential candidates who have already spent 26 years or more in prison for violent crimes. Although the majority were convicted of “first-degree intentional homicide,” either alone or as parties to the crime, very few of their crimes resembled the media image of first-degree murder. At the time of conviction the typical candidate in this group was a teen or very young adult who did not set out to kill anybody but impulsively overreacted out of anger or fear. Sometimes they were trying to protect themselves or someone else. Some were abuse victims who fought back against their abusers. A few seem to have played only a small part in a crime committed by others. But it was the “tough on crime” 1990s when many of these young folks were convicted. They were prosecuted to the full extent of the law and given such extreme sentences that they may never be released unless they receive a commutation.
Apart from the original crime, what factors should matter most in decisions about clemency?
Historically, Wisconsin governors used commutation both to rectify unjustly harsh sentences and to recognize exemplary evidence of rehabilitation among prisoners. As a result, commutation provided both a reward for the recipients’ hard work and good behavior and a valuable incentive to other prisoners to follow their examples. As we reviewed the records of potential candidates, we saw many impressive examples of personal growth, consistent job performance, degrees and vocational licenses earned, achievements in the arts, participation in volunteer efforts and leadership and mentoring of fellow prisoners. We need more people like these in the state workforce, and their return could also contribute to the well-being of their families and local communities. We hope the governor’s new commutation board will pay at least as much attention to the mature men and women these candidates have become as to the mistakes they made when they were young.
Sherry Reames, Mark Rice, Joyce Ellwanger, and Harlan Richards are members of the WISDOM commutations committee. WISDOM is a statewide network committed to bringing diverse communities together to work for racial and economic justice.
Guest commentaries reflect the views of their authors and are independent of the nonpartisan, in-depth reporting produced by Wisconsin Watch’s newsroom staff. Want to join the Wisconversion? See our guidelines for submissions.
