Federal judge calls Minnesota civil commitment program “draconian”

State lawmakers remain in paralysis as judge threatens action

This is one in a series of on-the-ground reports from clinician Jon Brandt of Minnesota on the high-profile legal battle over the civil commitment of sex offenders in his state, a battle with potentially national repercussions. 

 

Guest post by Jon Brandt, MSW, LICSW*

Three weeks ago, a federal judge issued his long-awaited ruling in a civil rights case brought by civil detainees over the constitutionality of the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP). Although stopping short, for now, of declaring the program unconstitutional, the judge ordered new procedures to make release attainable for the 700 detainees. He warned that he may ultimately find the program to be unconstitutional if he determines that it is essentially punitive or if it confines men who are no longer dangerous. “The time for legislative action is now," wrote US District Judge Donovan Frank.

Now, in mid-March, with about eight weeks left in a short legislative session, Minnesota lawmakers are indicating that they are not likely to find bipartisan support to accomplish the reforms demanded by the federal court. If the state legislature adjourns without taking action, it seems likely that the US District Court will impose federal oversight.

Withholding "unconstitutional"

Fully aware that he is knee-deep in constitutional law and up to his neck in public antipathy, Judge Frank’s Feb. 20 ruling in Karsjens v. Jesson is a demonstration of judicial restraint. Judge Frank expressed several times in his 75-page decision that it is too early, in what will be protracted litigation, to rule on the constitutionality of any part of MSOP. However, his ruling leaves little doubt that he will hold the status quo to be an unconstitutional encroachment on civil liberties:

"[I]t appears that MSOP may very well be serving the constitutionally impermissible purposes of retribution and deterrence. … If, with the benefit of discovery, [the detainees] are able to demonstrate that the commitment statutes are systematically applied in such a way as to indefinitely commit individual class members who are no longer dangerous, or that MSOP is administered as a punitive system despite its statutory treatment purpose, Plaintiffs will likely prove up their claims."

Over the past two decades, more than 700 sexual offenders, deemed dangerous by state courts, have been sent to the program for treatment. Once there, detainees complain, disingenuous treatment and onerous program goals make release virtually impossible.

Judge Frank’s ruling appears to vindicate widespread complaints over conditions of confinement and concerns of civil liberties violations. Noted the judge:

"Whether or not the system is constitutionally infirm, without prompt action on the part of the legislature and [the state Department of Human Services], MSOP’s reputation as one of the most draconian sex offender programs in existence will continue."

Right to treatment?

Detainee at Moose Lake detention facility in Minnesota

If the position of the detainees can be reduced to the maxim that “no one has ever gotten out,” perhaps the State’s (defendant’s) position can be oversimplified to, “MSOP clients have no constitutional right to treatment.”   Judge Frank begged to differ with this latter position, expressing that legitimate treatment is, by judicial precedent, one of the essential constitutional underpinnings of civil detention programs for sex offenders (as distinct from criminal punishment). Judge Frank more than hinted at an ultimate finding in support of the detainees’ position, saying:

"Given the prison-like conditions described by Plaintiffs, and the lack of treatment and essentially no-exit regime alleged in this case, it may well be that, with a fully developed record, the Court will find the totality of the MSOP system to be unacceptably and unconstitutionally punitive."

He noted that it would be unconstitutional, under existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings, to operate a civil commitment program under the guise of providing treatment, if this is just “a sham or mere pretext,” and the true purpose is to punish.

Landmark ruling

Judge Donovan Frank

In his ruling, Judge Frank issued a landmark change, effectively shifting the burden of proof on how clients exit civil detention. Prior to this ruling, in order to gain release, detainees had to clear several tall hurdles. They had to prove they had completed the treatment program, demonstrate their readiness for community re-entry, and get the green light for release from two review panels. Under that scheme, in 20 years only two of more than 700 men gained even a conditional release. Citing substantial case law and programs in other states, Judge Frank turned that process upside down:

“It is unquestionable that commitment, at the outset, must be justified by law. Similarly, … continued commitment must also be justified. A statute that -- as written, as applied, or as implemented -- renders discharge from a sex offender civil commitment program more onerous than admission to it, such that individuals who no longer meet commitment criteria remain confined, raises grave due process questions. In that regard, the Court expresses serious doubts as to the constitutionality of Minnesota’s sex offender commitment statutes and their implementation through MSOP.

“Today, the Court finds that it is constitutionally mandated that only individuals who constitute a “real, continuing, and serious danger to society” may continue to be civilly committed to MSOP. See Hendricks, 521 U.S. at 372 (Kennedy, J., concurring). If the evidence demonstrates that MSOP systematically continues to confine individuals who are not 'a real, continuing, and serious danger to society,' then such confinement will be held unconstitutional."

State government paralyzed

A powerful amicus brief filed jointly by law professor Eric Janus and the ACLU of Minnesota is highly critical of the Minnesota program. Laying out relevant case law, the Brief claims that all three branches of Minnesota’s government have abdicated responsibilities for ensuring the program’s tenuous promises. The Brief observes that after the Federal Court advised the State Legislature in 2012 that urgent changes were needed, the 2013 Legislature failed to act; by executive order, the last two Minnesota Governors put constitutionally questionable moratoriums on releases; and state appellate courts have repeatedly failed to correct program deficiencies. 

Citing “massive deprivations of liberties,” and accumulating evidence that civil detention is punitive in nature, the Brief refers to the Minnesota experiment as an “utter betrayal.” If -- as now appears likely -- another legislative session expires without lawmakers taking action, there is little doubt that the federal court will intervene, perhaps as it did in the State of Washington .

Change coming to MSOP

To reassure, it is not the intent of this legal challenge that dangerous individuals be released into the community. Reforming MSOP is clearly a forensic minefield and Judge Frank has been deliberate in navigating solutions. Drawing on a critical 2011 report from the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor, he appointed experts to conduct an initial review of MSOP. He also ordered the state’s Department of Human Services to assemble a Task Force of prominent stakeholders to explore program challenges and make recommendations. The Task Force issued their first report in December 2012 and their second report in December 2013.

In December 2013, in anticipation of his ruling, Judge Frank wisely appointed a team of four nationally recognized experts (identified in this previous blog) to help credibly guide the process. He asked both parties to the lawsuit, and the experts themselves, to identify the tasks and goals to which the “dream team” should endeavor, and then, leaving no doubt that change is coming to MSOP, Judge Frank’s order exceeded the cumulative list, and established priorities.

In addition to a complete review of the MSOP program, Judge Frank indicated that all current detainees will be reevaluated by independent experts to determine whether they currently meet criteria for civil commitment and, if so, whether they could be treated in less restrictive settings. He ordered reevaluations to begin with those likely to be most eligible for a reduction in custody. He even threw a bone to the 100 or so discouraged (or obstinate) detainees who have withdrawn from treatment:

“It defies reason that individuals who are comatose or otherwise completely incapacitated would be considered so dangerous as to require continued confinement in a secure, prison-like facility. Moreover, an individual who refuses to participate in treatment, but is no longer dangerous, cannot constitutionally continue to be confined in such a facility. See Foucha, 504 U.S. at 77.”

Judge Frank directed his final admonition to state administrators and the Minnesota Legislature, which just convened its 2014 session, stating that the time for “substantial changes” is now:

“If the evidence requires it, the Court will act. But it is the Minnesota Legislature that is best equipped to develop policies and pass laws -- within the limits of the Constitution -- that both protect public safety and preserve the rights of the class. The time for legislative action is now. Time and again, professional assessments have identified grave deficiencies in the program. Regardless of the claims raised in this case, and irrespective of the Court’s ultimate rulings on any constitutional questions with which it is presented, the interests of justice require that substantial changes be made to Minnesota’s sex offender civil commitment scheme.

“The program’s systemic problems will only worsen as hundreds of additional detainees are driven into MSOP over the next few years. The politicians of this great State must now ask themselves if they will act to revise a system that is clearly broken, or stand idly by and do nothing, simply awaiting Court intervention.”

In reserving a ruling of “unconstitutional,” Judge Frank has been shrewd in attempting to force Minnesota’s government leadership to the table.   If state leaders acknowledge the federal court directives, seize good research, understand the limits of forensic psychology, and muster the professional courage to marshal bold legislative initiatives, Minnesota could potentially develop a national model for the civil commitment of sex offenders. If not, Judge Frank has left little doubt that the US District Court for Minnesota will rebalance legitimate concerns of public safety, effective treatment, and civil liberties for those under civil commitment.

Either way, these proceedings are likely to contribute to the national debate about whether civil commitment can be effectively reconciled with sound public policy and constitutional law, or whether civil commitment schemes, now in place in 20 U.S. states, are fundamentally “preventive detention,” derived from “society’s opprobrium” of sexual offenders.

* * * * *

Judge Frank’s  ruling (HERE) is a compelling read for anyone interested in the civil commitment of sex offenders.

*Jon Brandt is a clinical social worker in Minnesota, for 35 years working in the prevention of sexual abuse. He provides evaluations, treatment, and supervision to sexual offenders, and professional consultation and training to colleagues. His previous post on this case, a report on the December 2013 federal court hearing, can be found HERE. To contact Mr. Brandt, click HERE. 

Black swan crash lands on Florida SVP program

Audit finds low recidivism, critiques reliance on inflated Static-99 risk estimates

Dan Montaldi’s words were prophetic.

Speaking to Salon magazine last year, the former director of Florida's civil commitment program for sex offenders called innovative rehabilitation programs "fragile flowers." The backlash from one bad deed that makes the news can bring an otherwise successful enterprise crashing down.

Montaldi was referring to a community reintegration program in Arizona that was derailed by the escape of a single prisoner in 2010.

But he could have been talking about Florida where, just a year after his Salon interview, the highly publicized rape and murder of an 8-year-old girl is sending shock waves through the treatment community. Cherish Perrywinkle was abducted from a Walmart, raped and murdered, allegedly by a registered sex offender who had twice been evaluated and found not to meet criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator (SVP).

Montaldi resigned amidst a witch hunt climate generated by the killing and a simultaneous investigative series in the Sun Sentinel headlined "Sex Predators Unleashed." His sin was daring to mention the moral dilemma of locking up people because they might commit a crime in the future, when recidivism rates are very low. Republican lawmakers called his statements supportive of "monsters" and said it made their "skin crawl."

Montaldi's comments were contained in an email to colleagues in the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers, in response to the alarmist newspaper series. He observed that, as a group, sex offenders were "statistically unlikely to reoffend." In other words, Cherish Perrywinkle’s murder was a statistical anomaly (also known as a black swan, or something that is so rare that it is impossible to predict or prevent). He went on to say that in a free society, the civil rights of even "society's most feared and despised members" are an important moral concern. A subscriber to the private listserv apparently leaked the email to the news media.

The Sun Sentinel series had also criticized the decline in the proportion of paroled offenders who were recommended for civil commitment under Montaldi's directorship. "Florida's referral rate is the lowest of 17 states with comparable sex-offender programs and at least three times lower than that of such large states as California, New York and Illinois," the newspaper reported.

Audit finds very low recidivism rates 

In the wake of the Sun Sentinel investigation, the Florida agency that oversees the Sexually Violent Predator Program has released a comprehensive review of the accuracy of the civil commitment selection process. Since Florida enacted its Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) law in 1999, more than 40,000 paroling sex offenders have been reviewed for possible commitment. A private corporation, GEO Care, LLC, runs the state’s 720-bed civil detention facility in Arcadia for the state's Department of Children and Families.


Three independent auditors -- well known psychologists Chris Carr, Anita Schlank and Karen C. Parker -- reviewed data from both a 2011 state analysis and an internal recidivism study conducted by the SVP program. They also reviewed data on 31,626 referrals obtained by the Sun Sentinel newspaper for its Aug. 18 expose.

All of the data converged upon an inescapable conclusion: Current assessment procedures are systematically overestimating the risk that a paroling offender will commit another sex offense.

In other words, Montaldi’s controversial email about recidivism rates was dead-on accurate.

First, the auditors examined recidivism data for a set of sex offenders who were determined to be extremely dangerous predators, but who were nonetheless released into a community diversion program instead of being detained.

"This study provided an opportunity to see if offenders who were recommended for commitment as sexually violent predators, actually behaved as expected when they were placed back into the community," they explained.

Of the 140 released offenders, only five were convicted of a new felony sex offense during a follow-up period of up to 10 years. Or, to put it another way, more than 96 percent did not reoffend. "This finding indicates that many individuals who were thought to be at high risk, were not," the report concluded.

Next, they analyzed internal data from the program itself. As of March 2013, 710 of the roughly 1,500 men referred for civil commitment were later released for one reason or another. Of those, only 5.7 percent went on to be convicted of a new sexually motivated crime.

Interestingly, this reconviction rate is not much different than that of a larger group of 1,200 sex offenders who were considered but rejected for civil commitment after a face-to-face evaluation. About 3 percent of those offenders incurred a new felony sex offense conviction after five to 10 years, with about 4 percent being reconvicted over a longer follow-up period of up to 14 years.

Logo on wall of sex offender hearing room in Salem, MA

"The recommended and the non-recommended groups differed by less than 2 percent in the percentage of offenders obtaining a new felony sex offense conviction after release," the investigators found. "Such a minor difference is surprising and indicates that the traditional approach to determining SVP status needs to be improved. There are too many false positives (someone determined to fit the SVP definition when he does not, or someone determined to be likely to re-offend but he is not)."

Overestimation of risk was especially prevalent for older offenders. Only one out of 94 offenders over the age of 60 was arrested on a new sex offense charge, and that charge was ultimately dismissed.

Finally, the auditors reanalyzed the data obtained by the Sun Sentinel newspaper via a public records request. Of this larger group of about 30,000 paroling offenders who were NOT recommended for civil commitment, less than 2 percent were convicted of a new sex offense.

What the public is most concerned about, naturally, is sex-related murders, such as that of young Cherish Perrywinkle. Fourteen of the tens of thousands of men not recommended for civil commitment had new convictions for sexual murders. This is a rate of 0.047, or less than five one-hundredths of 1 percent – the very definition of a black swan.

Static-99R producing epidemic of false positives

Determining which offender will reoffend is extremely difficult when base rates of sex offender recidivism are so low. However, the auditors identified an actuarial risk assessment tool, the widely used Static-99R, as a key factor in Florida’s epidemic of over-prediction. Florida mandates use of this tool in the risk assessment process.

Florida Civil Commitment Center

In 2009, government evaluators in Florida and elsewhere in the United States began a controversial practice of comparing some offenders to a select set of norms called "high risk." This practice dramatically inflates risk estimates, thereby alarming jurors in adversarial legal proceedings. The decision rules for using this comparison group are unclear and have not been empirically tested.

The recidivism rate of the Static-99R "high risk" comparison sample is several times higher than the actual recidivism rate of even the highest-risk offenders, the auditors noted. Thus, consistent with research findings from other states, they found that use of these high-risk norms is a major factor in the exaggeration of sex offender risk in Florida.

(It is certainly gratifying to see mainstream leadership in the civil commitment industry coming around to what people like me have been pointing out for years now.)

"The precision once thought to be present in using the Static-99 has diminished," the report states. "It seems apparent that less weight needs to be given to the Static-99R in sexually violent predator evaluations."

What goes around comes around

Due to the identified problems with actuarial tools, and the Static-99R in particular, the independent auditors are recommending that more weight be placed on clinical judgment. 

"It now appears that clinical judgment, guided by the broad and ever-expanding base of empirical data, may be superior to simply quoting 'rates,' which may lack sufficient application to the offenders being evaluated."

Ironically, the subjectivity of clinical judgment was the very practice that the actuarial tools were designed to alleviate. I have my doubts that clinical judgment will end up being all that reliable in adversarial proceedings, either. Perhaps the safest practice would be to "bet the base rate," or estimate risk based on local base rates of reoffending for similar offenders. This, however, would result in far fewer civil commitments.

Consistent with recent research, the auditors also recommended re-examining the practice of mandating lengthy treatment that can lead to demoralization and, in some cases, iatrogenic (or harmful) effects.

Although the detailed report may be helpful to forensic evaluators and the courts, it looks like Florida legislators aiming to appease a rattled public will ignore the findings and move in the opposite direction. Several are now advocating for new black swan legislation to be known as "Cherish’s Law."

As sex offender researcher and professor Jill Levenson noted in a commentary on the website of WLRN in Florida, such an approach is penny-wise but pound-foolish: 

“Every dollar spent on hastily passed sex offender policies is a dollar not spent on sexual assault victim services, child protection, and social programs designed to aid at-risk families…. We need to start thinking about early prevention and fund, not cut, social service programs for children and families. Today's perpetrators are often yesterday's victims."

* * * * *

Photo credit: Mike Stocker, Sun Sentinel

BREAKING NEWS: Montaldi has just been replaced as director of the civil commitment facility by Kristin Kanner, a longtime prosecutor from Broward County, Florida who headed that county's Sexually Violent Predator Unit for almost a decade. Not only does she have a JD in law from the Florida College of Law, but she holds undergraduate degrees in psychology and public policy from Duke. Word on the street is that she is an extremely competent and ethical person. It will be interesting to see how she will be treated by the media and politicians in the event that any black swan crash lands on the facility during her watch.

 * * * * *

The full report on the Florida SVP program is available HERE.  

Related post: 

Systems failure or black swan? New frame needed to stop "Memorial Crime Control" frenzy (Oct. 19, 2010)

Calif. ruling: Release rehabilitated prisoners

California has a long reputation of denying parole to all "lifers," no matter how old, sick, or demonstrably rehabilitated. Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger has been slightly more lenient than his Democrat predecessor, releasing 192 lifers as compared with Gov. Davis' 9 - but that's still only about one percent of the 16,000 who were eligible.

This week, however, for the first time in recent history, the state's high court ruled in favor of a prisoner in a parole case, upholding the July 2007 release of a woman who had fatally shot and stabbed her lover's wife with a potato peeler. The state's parole board had approved the release of Sandra Davis Lawrence four times since 1993, but three governors, including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, overturned the board's decisions. Lawrence spent almost 24 years in prison.


In its 4-3 ruling, the court cited "overwhelming" evidence of Lawrence's rehabilitation while in prison and her suitability for parole, and said parole decisions must be based on evidence of present danger to the public and not merely the brutality of a crime.

The standard, ruled the Court, is as follows:

The Board or the Governor may base a denial-of-parole decision upon the circumstances of the offense, or upon other immutable facts such as an inmate’s criminal history, but some evidence will support such reliance only if those facts support the ultimate conclusion that an inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Accordingly, the relevant inquiry for a reviewing court is not merely whether an inmate’s crime was especially callous, or shockingly vicious or lethal, but whether the identified facts are probative to the central issue of current dangerousness when considered in light of the full record before the [Parole] Board or the Governor.

UC Irvine Law Professor Carrie L. Hempel, who represented Lawrence as part of a legal clinic at USC, said the court's decision "sends a clear message to prisoners that . . . if they work really hard to rehabilitate themselves they are going to get some justice."

The Los Angeles Times has in-depth coverage. The full ruling is HERE. Photo credit: L.A. Times.

- Hat tip: Sentencing Law & Policy

Blanket ban on alcohol verboten, court rules

For those of you who are involved with parolees and probationers: How many times have you seen a blanket prohibition on alcohol consumption as a condition of someone's supervised release? Do you ever see the prohibition imposed on people who have no documented history of alcohol abuse, with random urinalyses to ensure compliance? I see it quite often.

Such blanket prohibitions will be a thing of the past if the courts follow the law as dictated today by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Perhaps emboldened by the Supreme Court's dramatic rulings earlier this week on individualized sentencing (which some are calling as monumental to civil rights as was Brown v. Board of Education a half-century ago), the Ninth Circuit today extended the logic of individualized sentencing to alcohol bans.

The case of U.S. v. Betts involves white-collar criminal Marcus Betts, who accepted bribes to increase people's credit ratings while he worked for the TransUnion credit agency.

The judge imposed as a condition of his probation that he abstain from alcohol, despite acknowledging on the record that there was no evidence that Betts had a liquor problem.

Explaining its logic, the appellate court wrote:

"[There is nothing] wrong generally with supervised release conditions requiring abstention from alcohol. Many people commit crimes when they drink too much and such conditions are often necessary to protect the public and provide correctional treatment. We have upheld abstention conditions where there is some indication in the record of a problem of abuse…. But the decision has to be individualized, not a matter of policy application without regard to the individual defendant."

Those of you who read my blog regularly will recall that only three months ago, the Ninth Circuit held that parolees cannot be required to attend 12-step treatment programs. More on that ruling is here.

The Appellate Law & Practice and Sentencing Law & Policy blogs both have posts on today's ruling, which is also available online. An interesting Newsweek magazine story on the import of this week's U.S. Supreme Court's sentencing rulings is here.

Calif. court overrules governor on prisoner parole

It's always safer to err on the side of predicting high risk. You can never be proven wrong. If a prisoner is released, he can go out and commit a new crime that can come back to haunt the judge, parole board, or elected official who approved release. If he is not released, he has no way to prove that he would not have committed that next crime.

Nowhere is that defensive posture more in evidence than in California. Former Gov. Gray Davis had a reputation for blocking the release of every convicted murderer that the state's parole board approved for release. That was a spectacular record, considering that the parole board only grants parole to the most stellar success stories - 5% of the cases it hears, and even less than that for murderers.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has largely mimicked his predecessor, vetoing about three-fourths of such paroles. But, in the latest example of a recent trend, a state appeals court has overruled the governor's veto. The case involves Curtis Lee, who spent 22 years in prison for abetting a murder. He was 18 when his friend shot another young man to death on an Oakland street. Convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to 17-years-to-life in prison, Lee became a model prisoner, undergoing extensive job training and therapy.

Today's San Francisco Chronicle has the story. The court ruling is here.

9th Circuit upholds lifetime supervision of child pornographer

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday upheld lifetime supervision of a child pornographer after he finishes serving his prison term.

Gordon Cope, 58, was caught with computer images and videos depicting child pornography during an undercover FBI investigation of Internet chat rooms. He pleaded guilty to a single federal charge of possession of child pornography and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

The appellate court held that lifetime supervision was "reasonable" and Constitutionally permissible in light of the California man's previous conviction in 1981 for attempted sexual assault on a minor.

Cope also appealed special sentencing provisions requiring that he comply with forced medications, penile plethysmography, Abel testing, and polygraph testing as part of mandatory sex offender treatment. The appellate court held that such requirements are permissible, but that Cope should have been provided with adequate notice and more explanation of why these special conditions were needed. The case was remanded back to the trial court for such proceedings.

Yesterday's ruling is available online.

CA: Sex offenders win temporary reprieve

Years ago, when he was 16, "John Doe" had consensual sex with a 15-year-old girl at a party. Now, long after he's done his time, the state of California wants to send him back to prison for living too close to a school or park.

"John" (whose name is being kept secret to protect his privacy) is one of four convicted sex offenders who are challenging the constitutionality of the new Jessica's Law and its residency restrictions.

The four are among 1,800 parolees who were recently ordered to move or face prison. Under Jessica's Law, approved by voters last November, sex offenders may not live within 2,000 feet of a school or park.

Yesterday (Oct. 10), John and the other three won a small victory when the state Supreme Court issued a temporary injunction forbidding the state from sending him back to prison until his challenge is heard in court later this month.

None of the four men challenging the law committed crimes against children; their crimes occurred as many as 22 years ago. Their attorneys are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague, imposes unreasonable restrictions, and continues to punish people long after they have served their time.

CNN linked to this post.

Experiment aims to cut recidivism through reducing parole

One of the inmates I evaluated at San Quentin today had violated parole by missing a counseling appointment. The other had tried to beat a urinalysis after drinking alcohol on his birthday. Every day, busloads of "technical violators" like these two young men are dumped off at California prisons, giving the state the highest recidivism rate in the United States. Within three years of release, two-thirds of California parolees are back behind bars; that's twice the national average.

One method of reducing recidivism that is currently under consideration is to eliminate parole for all except the most dangerous of released prisoners. It's been done in other states and, counterintuitively, it may make the public safer. That's because limited resources can be targeted toward identifying and supervising the few very dangerous ex-prisoners.

Parole agents in two Southern California counties will be testing this idea starting next month. If it works, the changes may be implemented statewide next year.

Joan Petersilia, the UC Irvine criminology professor who chaired the governor's Rehabilitation Strike Team, explains the current situation and the need for reform in an op-ed in today’s Los Angeles Times.

Sentencing reform may target parole system

California is the nation’s uncontested leader in criminal recidivism. We send about 7 out of 10 released prisoners back to prison within two years. That’s a far greater proportion than any other state.

Why?

That’s easy to answer. Unlike some other states, California puts everyone coming out of prison on parole. Then, when they miss an appointment with a parole agent or have a “dirty” urinalysis, it’s back to prison for them.

These “technical violators” make up about two-thirds of prison admissions at any given time. Most are non-violent, non-serious offenders. They rotate in and out of prison, staying for an average of five months each time, at an estimated cost of $900 million a year.

Individual parole agents make these decisions, with little or no public oversight.

So, what would happen if traditional parole were eliminated entirely?

That's an intriguing idea that will be debated soon by the American Law Institute as part of its ongoing revision of the Model Penal Code.

The topic came up this week at the annual conference of the National Association of Sentencing Commissions, meeting this week in Oklahoma City. Officials from 27 states - including lawmakers, attorneys, judges, professors, researchers and corrections officials – are meeting under the theme "New Frontiers in Sentencing." And reducing imprisonment through drastic sentencing reform is one aspect of that theme.

"Every state that has tried, beginning with Minnesota and Washington in the 1980s, to deliberately take control of prison growth has had success in doing it," conference presenter Kevin Reitz, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, was quoted by the AP as saying. "An awful lot have done that without sacrificing public safety.”

"We're going to have to do something different,” agreed Oklahoma state Senator Richard Lerblance. “We're going to have to get over the thought that we're soft on crime because we're addressing these issues. We're going to have to get over the idea that we're going to lock them up and leave them there."

The tone of this conference is yet more evidence of the pendulum swing that I’ve been posting about recently. Only, the reformist mood may be slower to reach California, which isn't even a member of the federal and multi-state sentencing consortium.

Hat tip to the “Sentencing Law & Policy” blog for alerting me to this conference. Photo credit: "Remuz" (Creative Commons license).

For more on the California parole system, see "California's Parole Experiment," California Journal, August 2002.