FOR LINKS TO PRISONERS REQUESTING RELEASE CLICK HERE: https://secondchancewi.blogspot.com/p/posts-of-prisoners-ready-forrelease-in.html
Pardon /clemency application and Board Coming.
Here are some tools:
Lifers were regularly given pardons and clemencies in the days before Tommy Thompson.
Here are the documents each governor had to supply to the legislature informing of the relief given. We obtained these documents from the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau who were very helpful. These pre Walker pardons are
important as they include many lifers and show that at that time common belief
was that 25% is enough time for punishment.
Harlan Richards wrote a report on the records below and made this alert request in our newsletter:
1) report on past pardons by H Richards:
2)Clemency/Pardon
In Wisconsin : Action Requested
Wisconsin has a long history
of granting clemency to imprisoned citizens to allow them to be released from
prison early. Until the Mass Incarceration Movement hijacked our criminal
justice system in the mid-1980s, imprisoned citizens were permitted to request
commutation of sentence from the governor. Gov. Thompson created the "extraordinary
circumstances" requirement for prisoners which has prevented anyone in
prison from receiving clemency in the last 30 years. The standard is virtually
impossible to meet.
Gov. Evers is restarting the clemency process after Gov. Walker shut it
down during his time in office. New forms are being created and it is crucial
that the "extraordinary circumstances" requirement be abolished.
Friends and family should be asked to write to the governor to oppose this
requirement. Otherwise, imprisoned citizens will be barred from seeking
clemency.
If you want your name added
to the list to receive the new clemency forms, write to:
Corissa Mosher, Asst. Director of Constituent Services/Office of Gov.
Tony Evers/P. O. Box 7863/Madison, WI 53707
Here are scanned documents with the LRB's comments:
these are the documents submitted by Governors telling legislature of releases they granted
this from LRB senior Librarian, Pat Reichert,
the reports you are looking for were published in the Senate
journals, some of which are available online -- but only back to 1981.
My colleague from the Wisconsin Historical Society Library sent me
this information, in case you want to look at the original documents ; it
should be the same information that was published in the journals. The
links are to UW catalog records:
urls executive clemencies 1970 to 1986
Attached is the executive
clemency report from Gov. Knowles for Jan. 1969 to Jan. 1971 that the LRB has
in its Wisconsin documents collection. It is 9 pages and on legal size
paper (8 ½ x 14”). I also OCRed the file so you can perform a keyword
search within the document (Ctrl-F). OCR (optical character recognition)
is not perfect and if the original is too faint or the paper is too crinkled it
can’t recognize the text.
Gov. Lucey pardons from
Jan. 1971 to Jan. 1973 as found in the 1973-74 Senate Journals (pages
174-179). Lucky for me, the journals were smaller back then and I can fit
two pages on one 8 ½ x 11” page. This file is 13 pages long.
Gov. Lucey pardons from
Jan. 1973 to Jan. 1975 as found in the 1975-76 Senate Journals (pages
378-409). This file is 16 pages long.
Gov. Lucey pardons for
1975 as found in the 1975-76 Senate Journals (pages 2300-2315). From this
point on, the report covers calendar years. This file is 8 pages long.
Gov.
Lucey pardons for 1976 as found in the 1977-78 Senate Journals (pages
150-159). This file is 5 pages long.
Gov. Lucey and Acting
Gov. Schreiber pardons for 1977 as found in the 1977-78 Senate Journals (pages
1520-1537). This file is 9 pages long.
Acting Gov. Schreiber
pardons for 1978 as found in the 1979-80 Senate Journals (pages10-19).
This file is 5 pages long.
Gov. Dreyfus pardons for
1979 as found in the 1978-80 Senate Journals (pages 1094-1097). This file
is 2 pages long.
Gov. Dreyfus pardons for
1980 as found in the 1981-82 Senate Journals (pages 140-147). This file
is 4 pages long.
And for good measure, I scanned the 1981 report
from Gov. Dreyfus (1981-82 Senate Journals, pages 2046-2053); 4 pages long.
It
looks like WHS Archives does have the pardons from the Secretary of State’s
office: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9911124663502121 (“Record includes copies of executive orders to
directors of penal institutions listing terms of pardon, name of institution,
parolee, and director, court of conviction, length of term, crime, and
signatures of the Governor and the Secretary of State. No records exist for
1948-1955.”)
There
is also a catalog record for “Pardon papers” that includes 1970-1976: https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/999464258602121. This record has a finding aid. The record also notes
that there are some restrictions because of confidentiality.
Your patron can contact the
archives to find the materials and get help accessing them: askarchives@wisconsinhistory.org.
Pat Reichert
Senior Legislative Librarian
Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau
608-504-5853
Compassionate Release
For Old Law Prisoners, those convicted before 2000, there are three paths for release that are becoming unblocked. We are slowly seeing the disaster our punishment forever ethic has wreaked on our communities and budgets and souls. Recently a very ill and elderly prisoner in TCI got paroled on her second compassionate release try- Nancy Ezell Congratulations! This is the first sign of a new vision for up till now compassionate release was not recognized for Old Law Prisoners:.
1)Here is link to Executive Order 31, Compassionate Release for old law prisoners.
there are two important facets here:
a) it is the parole chairman who decides on release, the warden only figures parole eligibility ( OL prisoners are eligible after serving 25% of their original sentence)
b)You do not have to be dying to get this- extraordinary circumstances are defined here:
."Extraordinary circumstances" means
advanced age, infirmity or dIsability of the Inmate, need for treatment or
services not available within the correctional Institution, a sentence to a
term of Imprisonment that is substantially disparate from the sentence usually
imposed for a particular offence, or other
circumstances warranting an early release which are made known to the
sentencing court pursuant to section PAC 105 (1) (a), Wis. Adm Code
2) LAIP will help old law
prisoners prepare their Compassionate release applications . You must go to
them and ask for help, either by filling out their application which is
supposed to be available in your law Library, OR write them directly with your
request: LAIP c/o Frank
Remington Center. UW Law School; 975 Bascom Mall, Madison WI 53706.
AND PAROLE
the “13 questions”
There is no pardon application yet, no
pardon board and no parole chairman. FFUP has been getting hundreds of these
“request for serious release consideration” forms and I apologize for the
confusion- these are not applications. It was suggested by a member of Evers
transition team that I make up a list of “low hanging fruit” so our new
governor would see an overview of people ready for release and the obvious fact
that these people are not dangerous. I
sent the questions it to a few litigators hoping to update the logs FFUP has
and they spread like the proverbial wild fire- a testament to the effectiveness
of the grape vine in there when what is passed around is wanted.
With this wealth of information and
combined with the cases FFUP has put online over the years , we will end up
with quite a tour of prisoners wrongly held in the WIDOC. I am getting some
typing help from IWOC and am getting them up online in a way they can be
effectively viewed- IF you have family members who like to mess with websites
or are interested in help me get this to work- send them to me- feedback and
ideas needed also needed. They will
eventually all be linked here in a way where individuals can be
found as well as categories of release need- it may be a good educational tool
and force for sanity.
Everyone who sent in the form or wrote me
requesting it ,will go in a list to Governor Evers and they have links to the second
chance blogs and will be repeatedly reminded to view them.
But actually changing the guideline and /or
rules that govern Parole is , I believe , the surest way to ensure that those
who are ready for release can be release. And this can be done without drama-.
A parole chairman WILL be appointed and we will resubmitting our parole rule petition right behind it.
this form newsletter- letters needed in Support-
Parole and
resubmitting our parole rule petition using statute 227
This is ready to go –
remember it? We submitted it to the WIDOC a few years ago to
a lot of promises and fake action by the WIDOC. NOW may be the time. Either the
Guidelines or the rules below would give Governor Evers a way to reinstate
parole to the way it was before the infamous Tommy Thompson memo without
political drama. It would ensure that those ready would be released while those
too dangerous would have a chance at rehabilitation with a new WIDOC which will
have a chance to reclaim its rehabilitation mission( population dramatically
reduced) .This statute requires that the rules get a good review. The arguments
for the new rules have been redone since first submission and the whole thing
is about 22 pages and it will be resubmitted
as soon as there is a parole chairman to receive it. Letters in support are
needed to go with it- see example at end of this section. (8)
FINAL RULES PROPOSED in our Petition for Parole Rule changes using
Statute 227
Here are the broad outlines of what we
would like to achieve for
WISCONSIN'S OLD LAW INMATES (
GUIDELINES)
1) For inmates sentenced for
crimes committed prior to December 3 1st, 1999, the mandated 25% of
their sentence shall be considered sufficient time for punishment. Afterwards,
release on parole shall be granted, absent substantive extenuating
circumstances, based on conduct and accomplishments while incarcerated.
2) If parole is not granted,
the Parole Board must state in written detail the specific requirements an
eligible inmate must meet to be granted parole. This cannot contain a catch-all
provision that might allow the decision-maker to base his or her decision on a
factor of which the inmate has no control such as "insufficient time for
punishment" or "seriousness of the crime". Also, There is no
statutory requirement that a prisoner be transitioned to a minimum security
prison before release. Yet unwritten rules today usually require it and
overcrowded conditions leave many parole -ready inmates waiting years for the
next transition. If timely transition to a lower level security prison is not
possible, prisoner who can otherwise show himself ready for release shall be
paroled without regard to the security level of the prison in which he resides.
Likewise, working outside the prison before release, although laudable, is not
a prerequisite for release as there are many times the applicants for these
jobs than there are openings.
3) Also, availability of
programs and prison overcrowding cannot be a factor in determining release
eligibility. The Department of Corrections and Community Supervision shall provide
parole eligible inmates access to the programs/facilities necessary to complete
the requirements for their parole release within 90 days of denial of parole
for reasons of programming. If this is not possible, the prisoner will be
allowed to complete the program in the community or it will be waived
4) The Parole Board shall have
the widest possible view of the prisoner. In addition to allowing victims and
victim advocates to testify at the hearing, prisoners shall be able to invite
family members and advocates. Also, the prisoners shall be allowed to submit
letters of recommendation by WIDOC
staff and WTDOC volunteers who have worked with him/her. Staff and community
members who are against the release shall be allowed to speak.
5) The decision whether to
release an inmate shall be made based on testimony at the hearing and documents
in the prisoner's file only and the prisoner shall be able to view and contest
contents of his/her file beforehand.
THE PROPOSED RULES ( stuff we added to existing rules is in bold)( sorry for the small font but space is precious and this
IS readable)
Below is a Rewriting of PAC 106 (16) through (20) with proposed changes
inserted
Here we have expanded and added details in order to fold the new rule
proposals into the existing PAC rules
PAC 1.06(16) thru (20)
A RECOMMENDATION FOR A PAROLE
GRANT OR RELEASE TO EXTENDED SUPERVISION ORDER MAY BE MADE AFTER CONSIDERATION
OF ALL THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:
(NEW RULES IN BOLD PRINT)
PAC 1.06(16)(a) The inmate has
become parole or release to extended supervision eligible under s. 304.06,
Stats., and s. PAC 1.05.
PAC 1.06(16)(b) Once a prisoner has served the statutorily imposed
minimum amount of time necessary to become parole-eligible, the Parole
Commission shall recognize that the prisoner has served the "sufficient
time for punishment"- portion of his/her sentence. ) For inmates sentenced
for crimes committed prior to December 311t, 1999, the mandated 25% of their
sentence shall be considered sufficient time for punishment, for those with
life sentences, it is 13 '/2 years. For Prisoners sentenced pre-1981, parole
eligibility for those serving life sentences started at 11 yrs,3 months.
PAC 1.06(16) (c) The inmate has
demonstrated satisfactory adjustment to the institution.
PAC 1.06(16) (d) The inmate has
not refused or neglected to perform required or assigned duties.
PAC 1.06(16)(e) The inmate has
participated in and has demonstrated sufficient efforts in required or
recommended programs which have been made available by demonstrating one of the
following
PAC 1.06(16)(e)(1) P.A.C.1.06 (16)(e) 1.1 Inmate has participated in the
community OR
PAC 1.06(16)(e)(2.) The inmate can complete programming in the community
OR PAC 1.06(16)(e)(3) The inmate has not been able to gain entry into
programming because the program was not available at his institution. In cases
where the inmate is in administrative confinement, a non punitive status, all
efforts shall be made to see that programming required for release is
successfully taken. If the inmate requests such programming and a good faith
attempt to supply it is not made, this lack of programming shall not be used
against the inmate when deciding readiness for release.
PAC 1.06(16)(e)(4) Where such inmate chances to obtain favorable parole
is contingent upon his completion or participation in such program or
treatment, the Parole Commission and Program Review Committee, shall work
together in securing an inmate a space in required programs and treatment, as
required by DOC 302.15 (4)(9) WI Adm. Code.
PAC 1.06(16)(f) The inmate has
developed an adequate release plan.
PAC 1.06(16)(g) The inmate is
subject to a sentence of confinement in another state or is in the United
States illegally and may be deported.
PAC 1.06 (16)(h)Inmates who committed their crimes before 1999 who were
ordered by the judge to be deported upon release, shall , if permission is
given by the host country and the inmate, be deported to his or her country of
origin.
PAC 1.06(16)(i)In order to assess whether or not release would pose an
unreasonable risk to the public and would be in the interest of justice, the
Parole Commission shall be afforded the widest possible view of the prisoner.
Therefore:
PAC 106(16)(i)(1) In addition to permitting victims and victim advocates
the opportunity to be heard at each hearing, the Parole Commission shall permit
interested parties to speak at parole hearings on behalf of the prisoner. These
interested parties may consist of family, friends, members of the prisoner's
support group, clergy, employers or other advocates as well as prison staff who
support release.
PAC 106(16)(i)(2) The Parole Commission shall also permit two
institutional staff and/or community members who voice opposition to release to
speak at the hearing. In addition, Correctional staff or any person in the
community will be allowed to submit written testimony in opposition to the
parole. (9)
PAC 106 (16)(i)(3) The commission may use the independently scored findings
of evidence-based-practice evaluations used initially to identify essential
program needs during the Assessment & Evaluation process and subsequently
used to evaluate current dangerousness to the community in preparation for
release. IF these test scores are used in the assessment, copies of the
questions and answers and test results shall be made available to the prisoners
before the parole hearing. He/she shall be able to comment on test process and
fairness.
PAC 106(16)0)All documents used in accessing whether to release an
inmate shall be made available to the prisoner. (9)
PAC 1. 06 (19)If parole is not granted, the Parole Commissioner must
detail in writing, exactly what specific, achievable requirements the prisoner
needs to satisfy to become suitable for release. These requirements cannot
contain any highly subjective, catch-all provisions that might allow a
decision-maker to base his or her decision
on immutable factors over which neither the prisoner nor the Parole Commission
has any control such as "seriousness of the offense" or
"unreasonable risk to the community" without detailing exactly what
achievable requirements the prisoner needs to satisfy to become suitable for
release. Any such requirements shall then be endorsed for prompt
implementation/action in the written decision of the hearing in which they were
made.
PAC 1.06 (20) Once the prisoner has been issued a deferment, the Parole
Commission shall not increase or repeat that deferment for any reason other than
the following:
The prisoner's negative institution conduct based upon a lawful finding
of guilt made by Department of Corrections personnel authorized by rule to make
such findings;
The prisoner's refusal to participate in essential programming mandated
by the court or • The negative removal of the prisoner from such essential
programming during the current deferment period for a well documented cause.
PAC 1.06 (21)In every case, each Parole Commissioner shall be required
to maintain continuity in the decision making process by continuing with the
case plan set forth in any written decision which was made subsequent to the
implementation of these proposed rules.
IN addition we add this rule which honors the education effort made by
many old law prisoners. A similar provision was in the 1989-90 statutes
(304.06(1 r) (a) (2):
PAC 1.06 (22) a parole eligible prisoner who came into prison without a
high school diploma, GED or HSED, and has attained his HSED or GED shall be
paroled unless the prisoner has received a major provable behavior conduct
report within the last one year or if his current parole review that indicates
his or her release would post a significant risk to the public. Also a prisoner
who gained a college degree or completed a vocational course while in prison
shall be paroled if there is no provable evidence within the last one year to
show that his or her release would pose a significant risk to the public.
We need more supporting letters to
include with the petition. Please ask your families to help.
Example
of a letter:
template: Name and address; BASICALLY-
ask you family member to give a quick summary of your story- here is one
example “I Support this parole rule change petition. I have had a loved one in
prison for----- years. He has been eligible for parole since --- and each year
that he goes in front of the parole commission he is given the same excuse,
“has not served enough time for seriousness of crime.” He has completed every
program required of him and meets all of the criteria for parole but he is
given deferment after deferment which has begun to make him feel hopeless.
There is no one that governs the parole commission which means that they are
free to make up rules as they see fit. This is unfair and completely
discriminatory. It is time for change. It is time for actual justice for these
Old Law Prisoners. Out with the old and in with the new!”
send letter or email to FFUP via Peg Swan pgswan3@aol.com; 29631 Wild Rose Drive, WI 53518. It will be
included in the doc that goes to parole chairman and Governor.
