A Head-full of Historical Information: notes on the parole commission, by Harlan Richards

 

The following is a response from Harlan Richards. You can write him and help advocate for his release here: Harlan Richards
37975
Stanley Correctional Institution
100 Corrections Drive
Stanley, WI 54768-6500
This letter is in response to, and contains corrections for Ben's notes from January 8. We appreciate these insights and strive for accuracy, but expect we'll continue to make small mistakes, given the complexity and opacity of the system we're trying to take apart.

1. Regarding release of paroled prisoners: there is no legal requirement that the record office conduct any sort of review of a person granted a parole. That is a DOC-created process where they search the file looking for an excuse to not release someone. They can do it in a timely manner if they want. A couple of months ago a guy in my housing unit had his conviction vacated by the court and the record office managed to process his paperwork in just a few days.

2. There is no requirement that DCC staff provide rides for paroled prisoners. Most prisoners have historically been picked up by friends or family (or if released from a prison far from home, take a bus) and are merely given a time and date to be at their parole agent's office.



3. Regarding "writs" to the court, it is pointless no matter how meritorious the issues or who drafts the pleadings. The courts are packed with conservatives who refuse to impose any judicial oversight of the parole commission's decisions. If ANY view of the record supports the decision, the court will not second guess the commission's judgement.

In 2015, I received a 36 month defer from XXXXXX based solely on my current offense and prior criminal record. This was upheld by the courts in spite of the facts that I had previously spent X years in minimum and community custody and had an 8 month defer in 2010 and that XXXX was the person who first gave me community custody in 2005 when he was XXXXXX. The court refused to consider my previous custody or placement or XXXXX's previous decision, merely holding that my conviction and prior criminal record was adequate justification for me to go from an 8 month defer in 2010 to a 36 month defer in 2015. I have viewed every appellate court decision in recent years where the parole commission was the respondent and they are all the same. Just to be clear, there is no constitutional right to parole in Wisconsin so a federal lawsuit would be frivolous.

4. The practice of spending hours and hours reviewing files prior to a parole hearing is a new practice started by LaCost and her cronies for the express purpose of finding excuses to justify denying release on parole. Before Truth In Sentencing (TIS) cut down the number of prisoners receiving parole hearings, most hearings did not last more than 15 minutes and dozens of prisoners received hearings by one commissioner in one day. Commission members should be basing their decisions on the person sitting in front of them, not the file created by DOC officials who do everything possible to make a prisoner look like a monster on papers they place in the files.

5. I don't believe anyone is bad mouthing Tate except LaCost and her cronies. There are so few old law prisoners left in the system compared to the total number of prisoners that decisions issued by the parole commission have no impact on anyone except the person getting reviewed. In other words, nobody cares who the commission let's out or when, EXCEPT people like LaCost who have their own agendas.

6. Act 28 - let me tell you what they are referring to. When Gov. Doyle passed Act 28 in 2008, it changed the parole commission to the Earned Release Review Commission ( EERC) and put all the TIS prisoners under its jurisdiction for granting early release. The commission then rewrote all its rules to encompass it's increased jurisdiction and to make release more difficult - which is the current PAC 1. When Scott Walker repealed Act 28, the commission refused to correct its administrative rules and left all the TIS stuff in. Declaratory judgment actions have been filed to try to strike down the new rules and lost.

The commission needs to promulgate new rules which will then be reviewed by the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR). This is normally a rubber stamp process but with the current Republican legislature, anything can happen. However, this is the ONLY involvement the legislature will have in the process. New legislation is not necessary to change the rules.

A committee to change the rules isn't necessary. All that needs to be done is to repeal the current rules in their entirety and reinstate the pre-2009 rules with one modification:

When a citizen is found guilty of a crime and then found "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect" and then committed to a mental institution, there is a statute which mandates when they must be released. Apply that same criteria to paroling decisions

Sec. 971.17(4)(d), Wis. stats., states that the court "shall grant the petition unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person would pose significant risk of bodily harm to himself or herself or to others or of serious property damage if conditionally released . . ."

There are fewer and fewer old law prisoners every year. It would be a waste of time and resources to rewrite the administrative code under these circumstances. It would be cheaper, easier and quicker to just reinstate the old rules with that one modification. It would solve the biggest problem which is the commission's unbridled discretion and require actual objective facts to deny parole rather than the current subjective decision making which has kept us warehoused for decades.

Regarding the most recent notice I'd like to point out that there have been 4 black parole chairmen and one black chairwoman: Deirdre Morgan, Jerry Smith, Alfonso Graham, Leonard Wells and John Tate II. The only decent ones are/were Wells and Tate. The others were Republican ideologues.


Also, Tommy Thompson's infamous letter was 1994, not 1984.

If there is any way I can help you or provide you with additional information that you can't find elsewhere, let me know. I've been in prison over 35 years and was an active litigator for much of that time so I have a head-full of historical information about the DOC and the parole commission.