Parole and Conditional Release

This is just observation, but look at the situation in the state of Michigan as an example of what might happen if paroles are abolished. The potential for inmates to serve full terms in Michigan if not granted parole at their first review is nearly 100%. There are currently 51,049 (approximately) in Michigan's 48 (soon to be 43) correctional facilities. Michigan has one of the highest per capita prison populations in the US, and paroles the fewest inmates (those who are sentenced to any term with the verbage "life" in the sentencing language will never be paroled per the former chief of the state parole board and Patricia Caruso, the current Director of the MDOC, "Life means life.")

What does this all mean? Well, up until 1995 the MDOC was not only self-sufficient, the DOC industries produced a surplus for the state. Currently, the MDOC budget is $1.9 billion dollars, over 20% of the state's discretionary spending. MDOC inmate populations in the '80's and '90's was around 20,000. By 2002, that number had doubled, and by 2004 the population of the MDOC had climbed to it's current range. In 1949, only around 50,000 felony convictions had been handed down in Michigan (as determined by prisoner identification numbers--Michigan does not reissue prisoner numbers). By 1989 that number had climbed at about ten percent per year to around 180,000. By 2004 the numbers were over 500,000. And, by 2009 that number began approaching 800,000. To sum that up:

• 1949 = 50,000
• 1989 = 180,000 (up by 130,000 in forty years)
• 2009 = 800,000 (Up by 620,000 in twenty years)
  

In reality, while paroles are still issued in the state of Michigan, they are so limited as to approach the odds of winning the lottery. The manner in which parolees are determined to warrant parole is similar to lottery winner selection as well. Effectively, Michigan is essentially a parole free state. Yet, the convicted are still being sent to prison rather than probation alternatives.

Part of the motivation for this is the obvious bottom line; prisoners in Michigan equal money. The state claims it costs on average $30,000 a head to house prisoners for one year. The MDOC is the largest department of government in the state, hiring nearly 15,000 people in and after 1995 during the state's hiring freeze. The bulk of inmates housed by the state are kept in "pole barns," dormitory style housing units meant for roughly 180 inmates but housing over 250. This increases the transmission rate of diseases and promotes fictitious social interaction among inmates (the unofficial death rate at one of the state's "Medical Care" facilities was around 20 inmates per month in 2004 & 2005--the MDOC's prison hospital Dwane Waters is located within one mile of the facility, G. Robert Cotton Correctional Facility, and ambulance services were available on site 24/7, yet medical personnel response times ranged from thirty minutes to over an hour). Think for a minute how veal is raised or milk cows are penned, and then let the concept of pole barns creep back in.

Michigan has paid exorbitant settlements for repeated inmate abuse, most recently $1.5 million to approximately 150 female inmate plaintiffs for sexual harassment and abuse (ranging from verbal harassment to violent rape--although only two prison staff have ever been convicted of any sexual crime against inmates in the past ten years, as reported by the state's newspapers.) In 2004 the Detroit Freepress reported that over 155 births had taken place to women who had been incarcerated in the MDOC for periods of time longer than one year--Michigan does not permit conjugal visits--now do the math. To juxtapose another observation, also in 2004, the Grand Rapids Press reported that twenty law enforcement officers and one city councilman in Kent county had been arrested for crimes with a sexual component. Of the twenty-one men, two of the State Police officers were transfered and promoted, two Sheriff's deputies were suspended (one with, one without pay), no punitive action was brought against any of the other officers, and the initial charges resulted in only one conviction...against the city councilman. The charges ranged from soliciting a prostitute, to sexual extortion, to attempted sex with a minor, to trafficing in child pornography. What can be drawn from this? Michigan does not typically pursue charges against law enforcement officers--Michigan encourages corruption.

Thirty thousand dollars a head, times 51,049, equals $1,531,470,000, that's one billion, five hundred thirty-one million, four hundred seventy thousand dollars. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of dollars that inmates generate for the state in the few prison industries that remain in operation (one is a panel-home building program that is run from two facilities: Freeland near Saginaw and Mid-Michigan Correctional in St. Louis), as well as prisoner craft and artwork, and prisoner grown produce sales. Now, remember, the MDOC budget is $1.9 billion. Where does the other $5 million in official state funding go? What about the uncounted thousands, tens of thousand, hundreds of thousand, or millions in prisoner generated revenue? Well, no one seems to care. At least, no one has seen fit to search for it yet. Instead, whenever the states beloved Canadian Governor ever mentions anything about Michigan prisons or inmates, she invariably uses the language, "Violent Offenders." Keep in mind there are fewer than a thousand murderers in the MDOC. Assault is usually a jailable offense in Michigan, unless a weapon is used (actually used not brandished or threatened). That leaves alcohol related cases, nonpayment of child support, multiple drug convictions, internet crimes, and crimes with a sexual component (ranging from public urination--no fooling--to rape). They are a dangerous group. In fact, the state has only three high security facilities that house fewer than 1300 inmates each, and it is shutting one of those down if the federal government decides against sending the Gitmo terrorist to Standish. The majority of Michigan inmates are stored in the state's level ones and camps, all minimum security, all pole barn type housing, all with work crews that leave the facilities every day.

What would happen if the parole system was shut down? The individual states in the US would probably take a lesson from Michigan and build and "refurbish"--that's a funny concept that hasn't been discussed--more prisons, to house more inmates, to make more money.


---- Oh, the "refurbishing" joke? The "Seven-Block" unit of quarantine at Southern Michigan Correctional Facility has been condemned, closed, given a paint job and a new street address, and reopened with a slightly different name at least three times in the past ten years. You'll notice no mention of "structural repair" or "reconstruction" in the previously outlined "refurbishing." Also, the majority of the work done in the "refurbishing" projects is done exclusively by inmates with inmate or civilian contractor supervison. Seven-Block is one of the oldest structures used by the MDOC at almost 100 years old. At least prison officials exterminated the birds and some of the rodents that used to infest the building.
Merged Answer:What are the pros and cons of abolishing parole?

The cons of abolishing parole are that parole is used for several reasons. It is less expensive to supervise a parolee than to incarcerate a prisoner. Parole helps to control institutional crowding. A person on parole has an opportunity to contribute to society. It is also believed that prisoners behave better when they are working toward parole. At the same time, society still receives some protection because the parolee is supervised and can be violated for the most minor of transgressions. Parole is also a method of rehabilitation, because it gives offenders supervision and guidance during their reentry into society.

However, growing caseloads for parole officers are large, and they can't provide the supervision their parolees need. The best parole supervision can't keep a parolee from committing another crime. Decision to parole is inexact; the more deserving may be denied parole, and the less deserving may be given it.