🔵 By Michael Deweese. Photo by lauragrafie.
Criminal justice in Indiana is in dire need of reform. Right now the Indiana penal system is overcrowded with new inmates coming in every day, and in some cases without enough room to house these inmates. There are several actions that could be taken to alleviate this problem. It is clear to me from my own research and studying on Indiana’s penal system that this problem of overcrowding and injustice as plagued us for decades now. Which has brought me to my conclusion, that to achieve criminal justice in Indiana it is imperative we have a parole board.
These days we hear the words criminal justice reform being used quite frequently to address our current issue of mass incarceration. An issue that has now grown out of control under each party and president in this country starting in the 1980’s under then President Ronald Reagan. Shortly after getting in office, President Reagan declared a “war on drugs” in an effort to stop a drug epidemic that was starting to take hold. The United States created new laws and policies that would call for mandatory minimum sentences for the distribution of cocaine, and even harsher punishments for the distribution of crack-cocaine. Following in Reagan’s footsteps, each president began administering policies aimed at one goal, who could be the “toughest on crime”. In doing so, not only have we became the world’s most punitive criminal system, but also we’ve incarcerated more people than any other country in the world.
So, naturally when people speak about criminal justice reform it is aimed at or based around decarceration, which can be defined as finding alternative ways of dealing with non-violent mostly drug-related crimes, with better solutions than just throwing the book at violent offenders. To better understand what criminal justice reform is and what it should look like, we need to first take a look at what our criminal justice system is and understand how we got to where we are now in regards to mass incarceration, realizing that it is more than just crime that brought this crisis upon us. In fact, according to the National Research Council; the 222 percent growth rate of state imprisonment between 1980 and 2010 was entirely explained by changes in sentencing policy. Half of this effect was produced by an increased likelihood of incarceration per arrest and half by increases in time served in prison (National Research Council, 2014). To add to that, there was a surge of violence, related in large part to the crack-cocaine drug markets of the late 1980’s that had contributed to a rise in homicide rates from 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984 to 9.8 per 100,000 in 1991, crime rates then began declining in the early 1990’s (Cooper and Smith, 2011). So knowing that crime starting in the 90’s began to decline, yet the incarceration rate was still on the rise due to administrative policy is a troubling fact, one that we must all begin to realize. Something must be done about criminal justice reform in the state of Indiana and in this country.
Mass incarceration is a caste system, and it did not occur overnight. You need to know that this system has many hands with a wide variety of laws, institutions, and practices embedded with a deep punitive climate and political culture. Chris Hayes puts it as such, “The beat cop deciding to make an arrest, the local district attorney deciding to charge someone with five crimes carrying a max of forty years rather that one with a max of five – these are individuals who comprise what we call the criminal justice system”. He then goes on to say, “No one takes order from any unified entity. No single actor or group of actors created mass incarceration, and no single group of actors can undo it. We have no single switch to flip. There’s a deeper story here, about how over the same period of time many different institutional actors all moved in the same direction, more years before parole, more criminal statues on the books, more money spent on prisons. The list is endless.” So, by taking what Chris Hayes said, and putting it into perspective in terms of criminal justice reform, we must realize that in order to achieve the goal of what we have to reform the criminal justice system. We have to reform from multiple angles of the system. By simply painting the door we will not renovate the house, but by taking down the house wall by wall and window by window, we can then build a better, stronger house. The same applies when recreating a more fair and equal criminal justice system for all.
I believe that there is power in people and in people a great power. “With great power comes great responsibility.” We must realize that we a re a part of the problem as well. How many of us have sat by complicit and unphased by a beast (system) that belly-grows tenfold every day, as administrations and government with special interest for private profit. They move more money from education, healthcare, and public services redirecting those funds to create new crimes and laws, impose harsher sentences, and build new prisons and jails to hold more prisoners to earn more profits. In their dubious claim of public safety, all the while making taxpayers pay for all of it. So, yes, I do believe it is on us, “the people”, to ask ourselves, when is it enough? Perhaps when more of us prioritize and challenge the political culture and policies of this system, which has left a stain on the ideals of our democratic society, will real reform be possible.
It has now become a general consensus that there is a two tiered class system that exists in America. One that is a benefit to the elite the aristocrat, and one that deals with the marginalized and the proletariat. That same experience, no doubt, applies to the criminal justice system as well. So, there is without question, of why we so desperately need criminal justice reform, and exactly who that reform would help the most. I am reminded of something Bryan Stevenson put so elegantly in his book “Just Mercy”. He says, “the opposite of poverty is not wealth, the opposite of poverty is justice. Finally, I’ve come to believe that the true measure of our commitment to justice, the character of our society, our commitment to the rule of law, fairness, and equality cannot be measured by how we treat the rich, the powerful, the privileged, and the respected among us. The true measure of our character is how we treat the poor, the disfavored, the accused, the incarcerated, and the condemned”. Mr. Stevenson began working in the criminal justice system in the early 80’s, and since then he has dedicated his life to helping mostly juveniles and mentally ill people sentenced to death or given life sentences, some of our most vulnerable people. Our brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, sons and daughters at the lowest point of their lives. Mr. Stevenson has been there for them, not treating them as criminals or monsters, but treating and valuing them as full humans that are still in need of fair and equal treatment. Mr. Stevenson knows all too well about the injustices of our criminal justice system and so finishes the chapter by saying, “we are all implicated when we allow other people to be mistreated. An absence of compassion can corrupt the decency of a community, a state, a nation. Fear and anger can make us vindictive and abusive unjust and unfair, until we all suffer from the absence of mercy and we condemn ourselves as much as we victimize others. The closer we get to mass incarceration and extreme levels of punishment, the more I believe it’s necessary to recognize that we all need mercy, we all need justice, and- perhaps- we all need some measure of unmerited grace.” His words could not have rang any louder. So many of us are in need of mercy from a prosecutor, from a judge, from a victim, and from society. So many of us that are now rehabilitated and seeking redemption, seeking another chance. All of which brings me to a solution I feel is absolutely necessary and imperative in achieving criminal justice reform: A depoliticized, professional parole board.
The parole board was created so that after a prisoner had been incarcerated for a number of years with good behavior and deemed rehabilitated and not a threat to society, that prisoner could then be released from prison and placed on parole. Defined by Burns, Indiana Statues Annotated under Title 11 – Article 9-1-2 states, “(a) The parole board shall: (1) organize the division and employ personnel as needed to properly discharge the functions of the board. (2) Make parole release and revocation decisions under I.C. 11-12-3 and I.C. 35-50-6-1. (3) Make pardon, clemency, reprieve and remission recommendations to the governor under I.C. 11-9-2. (b) The parole board may: (1) Conduct inquires, investigations, and reviews and hold hearings to properly discharge its functions (2) Issue subpoenas, enforceable by action in circuit court and superior courts, to compel any person to appear, give sworn testimony, or produce documentary evidence relating to any matter under inquiry, investigation, hearing, or review. (4) Request from any public agency assistance, services and information that will enable it to properly discharge its functions.”. These are some of other powers and duties that an Indiana parole board must follow, of course with section (a) being must follow, and section (b) the parole board has the option to follow through with.
As far as who sits on an Indiana parole board, and the makeup of that board is also defined by Burns, Indiana Statues Annotated- Title 11 – Article 9-1-1 “(a) There is established, as a division of the department, the parole board, consisting of five members appointed by the governor, not more than three of whom may be affiliated with the same political party. Members are appointed for a term of four years. A vacancy occurring before the expiration of a term shall be filled by the governor for the remainder of the term. In the event of a temporary inability to act of any members, the governor may appoint a person qualified under this section to act in his place during the continuance of the inability. Members may be reappointed. (b) To qualify for membership a person must: (1) hold at least a bachelors degree from an accredited college or university, or (2) have at least ten years of law enforcement experience, and must have the skill, training, or experience to analyze questions of law, administration and public policy. Members shall devote full time to their duties, and ar entitled to a salary to be determined by the state budget agency with the approval of the governor. The governor shall designate one of the members to serve as chairman.
The issue of parole in Indiana is not that we do not have a parole board, but that it does not apply to everyone. The majority of Indiana’s incarcerated population is not eligible to even see the parole board to be considered for parole. Back in the 70’s Indiana’s sentencing policy was made up of determinate and indeterminate sentences, so the judge when sentencing would give a sentence of no less than three years with no more than 10 years. After serving the minimum of 3 years, you would be eligible to go up before the parole board. In the late 1970’s Indiana changed its sentencing guidelines to fixed terms enacting the E.P.R.D (Earliest Possible Release Date) policy, so with good time the minimum a prisoner now would serve would be 50% of what their sentence was. And once the prisoner was released then they would be placed on parole for a minimum of 2 years. Indiana in turn switched to a system of clemency in place of parole. The difference being a parole board having complete power and discretion over a prisoners release, and the clemency board only able to make recommendation to the governor of the prisoner’s release, leaving the ultimate decision to the governor, a decision that is almost always denied due to political safety and the advancement of one’s political career.
The problem that Indiana now faces is that we have a growing rate of incarceration that exceeds the amount of beds we have in prisons across the state. The issue can actually be traced back to yet another change in policy. In 2014, the legislative produced a bill that changed the E.P.R.D of an individual’s sentence from serving 50% to now 75%, with in some cases, when ordered by a judge, 85% of their time before release, signed by then governor Mike Pence and put into effect July 1, 2014. here is yet again another example of how “tough on crime” policy has done more damage than help when it comes to criminal justice reform. With the prisons and jails across the state being overcrowded with no room to place new prisoners. There is now a backlog taking place within the Indiana department of correction dealing with the continuing intake of prisoners, and the stagnation of the already imprisoned population. With that, we’re left with a problem that is getting bigger by the day and in my eyes the only way to begin solving this problem is by putting a meaningful parole board in place.
Creating this parole board would take swaying away from the now used boards that are bases off of various political connections that the governor’s hand pick. We would instead need to turn to a more a-political based board that members have expertise in clinical evaluation, and other psychological training. This board would then be better equipped to do a meticulous review of prisoner’s mental health, life, and behavior while incarcerated. They could do a full review of an individual’s conduct and history, including interactions with staff and inmates, good and bad conduct reports, jobs, programs, education, even interviewing C.O’s, bosses, counselors, and other staff that prisoners deal with on a daily basis. This could take place after an appropriate amount of time has been served, dependent upon the unique circumstances of and role the person played in the crime(s). eligibility for the initial parole review for prisoners would occur after serving 1/3 of their sentence, and coming no later than 15 years into longer sentences. With subsequent parole hearings conducted on a triennial basis thereafter.
Therefor, in conclusion of the facts stated and the evidence brought forward. When dealing with the problem of mass incarceration and criminal justice reform, it would be logical to realize that we need to start releasing the good men and women that have served their time and paid their debt to society. These people have reached a high level of personal transformation and no longer pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. There are many men and women that deserve a second chance, who have been rehabilitated and have brought restoration to their lives. We must realize that because of an act of a crime or in the presence of a crime that happened years ago, and in some cases decades ago still keep them incarcerated. Ignored is their life process and personal character development. The truth of the matter is that the crime of a person has committed will never change, and only that individual can make changes to their life for the better. And for that reason I believe whole-hardheartedly that to achieve criminal justice reform in Indiana we must have a parole board.