A couple of months ago, I wrote about the provision contained within the most recent state budget, otherwise known as 2009 Wisconsin Act 28, that would make all but the most violent offenders and sex offenders potentially eligible for early release. At the time, I voiced my support for the measure, and I cited data from other states that seemed to support the contention that strong reentry programs, combined with a concerted effort to reduce prison sentences, seemed to be having a positive impact when it comes to reducing recidivism rates.
While I still believe in the merits of reducing sentences for some crimes while focusing on efforts to provide more support for individuals reentering the community after spending time in prison, I’ve come to the realization WI Act 28 may end up doing more harm than good when it comes to keeping communities safe. At the time I wrote my earlier entry, I was operating under the assumption the very worst of the Wisconsin prison system, including sex offenders and violent offenders, would be ineligible for early release from prison and early discharge from extended supervision (parole). However, having had the opportunity to have the practical application of WI Act 28 explained to me, it’s been made abundantly clear to me that the early release provisions of WI Act 28 were poorly thought out and seem to have no rhyme or reason.
Here’s a perfect example: under the new early release provisions, an individual convicted of aggravated battery to an unborn child is statutorily eligible to earn early release from prison as well as an early discharge from extended supervision once released from prison, while an individual convicted of a nonviolent offense such as misconduct in public office is not eligible for early release from prison or an early discharge from extended supervision. Now don’t get me wrong – I’m not arguing misconduct in public office – or any other felony, for that matter – aren’t serious offenses, but they’re certainly not as seriously assaultive as a crime like aggravated battery to an unborn child.
In fact, a quick look at the list of offenses that will be eligible for early release from prison and early discharge from extended supervision shows a good number of violent offenses, including:
Class F Felonies
- Second degree reckless injury
- First-degree recklessly endangering safety
- Assault by prisoners
- Causing great bodily harm by tampering with household products
Class G Felonies
- Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire
- Homicide by negligent operation of a vehicle
- Abuse of vulnerable adults
- Felony intimidation of a victim
- Felony intimidation of a witness
- Second-degree recklessly endangering safety
- Endangering safety (by discharging firearm into a vehicle or building or setting a spring gun)
- Physical abuse of a child (recklessly causing great bodily harm)
Class H Felonies
- Aggravated battery to an unborn child [statute 940.195(4)]
- Aggravated battery [statute 940.19(4)]
- Battery by prisoners
- Battery to jurors
- Battery to probation and parole agents and aftercare agents
- Battery or threat to witnesses
- False imprisonment
- Stalking
- Physical abuse of a child (intentionally causing bodily harm)
Keep in mind the lists compiled above are in no way inclusive of every offense that will be eligible for early prison release or early discharge from extended supervision; there are scores more crimes that I didn’t list, in the interest of keeping this from becoming too lengthy. However, that list includes some pretty violent offenses, and it seems to me individuals who commit the types of violent offenses I’ve listed are precisely the individuals who need to be held fully accountable for their actions, instead of being granted early release simply to save money and clear some bed space in the Wisconsin State Prison system.
Unless the provisions of Wisconsin Act 28 are coupled with a renewed effort to provide adequate post-release services for offenders – services such as alcohol & drug treatment, domestic violence treatment, mental health counseling, housing, and employment – offenders released under the provisions of Wisconsin Act 28 will only end up caught in a revolving door of incarceration while endangering communities across Wisconsin in the process.
Author’s Note: The opinions expressed in this entry are the opinions of the author alone.
Why isn’t this getting more media coverage? I am a law student and discussed this in one of my courses, but aside from that, it’s been kept pretty quiet…
Well, I think one reason it’s been kept kinda quiet is because the law doesn’t actually go into effect until October 1, but another reason could be because the sentencing reforms were included in the state budget, as opposed to standing on their own legislative merits.
So say an inmate is sentenced to 4yrs commitment 3yrs supervision then is subsequently convicted of a burglary with violent circumstances and sentenced to 5yrs commitment 4yrs supervision to be ran consecutive to the original 4 yrs has now served the first four years is a year into it would he be eligible for early release? How do they determine what the bifurcated sentence is?
Leah, it’s a complicated system, but let’s say the person get early release on the first sentence (4 years). The person wouldn’t be released from prison, but would actually just start serving the the consecutive 5 year sentence.
Sorry He is a year into the second 5yr sentence.
So if he is now serving the last five year sentence would he be eligible for the 1 for every 5.4 day credits and if so would the first four years served be considered for the 1 day for whatever it is or would that start over from the completion date of the first sentence? Also do you know how exactly they determine how long the bifurcated sentence is?
Leah, I’d assume the person would be eligible for the 1 for every 5.4 days credit, but I can’t be sure, as I’m not an expert on the new guidelines.
how does a person who is serving a revocation for a rule violation and not committing a new offense fit into this equation? His initial sentence was 1st degree intentional homicide and has served 6 years on this revocation.
Joann, I could be wrong, but as I understand it, someone convicted of 1st Degree Intentional Homicide wouldn’t be eligible for any type of early release program.
well since joann’s original question wasn’t answered, i would like to know the answer…..how does a person who is serving a revocation for a rule violation on his extended supervision and not committing a new offense fit into the equation? this time the situation is that the original charge was 2nd degree reckless endangerment and he hasn’t yet been sentence on his revocation.
jen, a lot would depend on the individual’s behavior, but if the original offense was a felony (class I or lower), then the person might be eligible for one of the early release tracks. As I’ve said throughout this thread, I’m not an expert on the new law; I’m just someone who’s read about it.
Im on probation for two mist. for batterery and got 18 months probation do I qualify for early release from probation?
bubba, just ask your probation agent; they should be able to tell you.
“Aggravated battery to an unborn child” — interesting that you specifically pointed this out as a serious crime when people do far worse to unborn children every day and it’s perfectly legal.
forgot, I know you know the difference between the two, but for those readers who don’t, the difference is that abortion is legal and involves the consent of the woman, whereas aggravated battery to an unborn child is illegal and is done without the consent of the woman involved.
Well im happy casue today just got my early discharge from Parole over my old long forgery case and I know one thing IM GETTING THE HELL OUT OF WI FOR GOOD N NEVER RETURNING
why have more people not been released on this act 28 law such as the convicted drunk drivers, And non violent offenders. I recently dealt with the Wisconsin DOC. And they claim anyone havig to meet special needs or programs would not be eligable for act 28. Is this true or not. I have not found anywhere in the act 28 papers, that state someone with an AODA need has to meet that obligation prior to release. Please let me know what you think about that situation. Thank you
Shane, there are a number of early release tracks available to individuals who are incarcerated, and I can’t speak with absolute certainty as to the eligibility criteria for each track. However, I will say the criteria that I’ve read are pretty broad.
If the program is available “on the streets” the inmate is supposed to be able to do it there. Unless the judge specifies it is to be done prior to release.
The violent felons get 1 day off for every 5.7 served the non violent get 1 for every 3 for h and i felonies. i just got released i had a 7 year sentence for forging a check for $485.00 I got my sentence overturned and let me tell you this the DOC is not releasing anyone that they don’t have to and they are slow at it. I was told that the DOC may even need to be sued to get them to enforce releasing the inmates eligible for release. It is supposed to be done by criteria. Inmates earn PAT (possitive adjustment time) if they stay out of trouble. So relax sex offenders and murderers are not getting out any time early and will a couple months actually matter if they did get 6 months shaved off their sentence? Not really. And Wi went overboard with their truth in sentencing and with all their enhancers. They are crazy. They spent over 100k incarcerating me over a $485 check I stole from work. My job did not want to press charges but cuz I forged it I was now involved with the law. I regret it every day. I work and have not broke the law and I have no intention of doing so ever again. My last felony was in NY in 1989 for possession of drugs.
The act is not all that they say it is. In prison, inmates are only allowed to do one program at a time. So, they ‘deny’ ultimately making a choice from one to another. IF they deny any AODA treatment program they will be denied for early release, NO matter what their crime is OR how they have been as an inmate.
There are TONS of loopholes in this act and they are not making that known to the public.
Many voice their opinions indicating that it is putting the public in danger due to who they are releasing. Read the papers, the bill passed last year, and as of today, I believe 25 have been released and several of those were due to medical conditions….
I agree the State went out of control in some cases of truth and sentencing…it’s like johnny law was saying “look what we can do, you better be have” I agree there are far more serious things people could be in prison for, I think they got a little to lock up happy. An offender that made one mistake and we pay thousands and thousands of tax dollars just so it looks good??? Just so the state could show us their the boss??? Ridiculous.
I am a Probation/Parole Agent. I realize Act 28 is confusing and frustratiing to ALL who attempt to understand it. There are many checks and balances for consideration of release. Also important to note is the agent must state, in his/her opinion, whether or not they believe the inmate can be released into the community without fear of such person becoming assaultive. That is a huge line to sign your name on…for instance, OWI’s are NOT considered to be assaultive offenses. I would beg to differ as a 2000+ pound vehicle is a fairly impressive weapon when someone who is intoxicated is behind the wheel. We are not slow in our determinations either; we have timelines and those deadlines must be met. I don’t imagine the victims out there mind we investigate thoroughly! Probationers are ELIGIBLE for early discharge from supervision ONLY when half of the original term is served, all financial obligations are paid in full, and NO violations have occurred since placement on probation. I do not recommend early discharge for ANY assaultive offense such as battery, DV offenses, or weapon offenses. Victims also are notified and their input is strongly considered first. Parolees and those on extended supervision are eligible as well and offenders should speak to their agents to discuss this further. Though everyone is entitled to their opinion, this legislation was dumped on the Department and we, too, are in transition. We are EXTREMELY considerate when it comes to making those decisions that have the potential to help or harm our communities. ANY assaultive history, whether a criminal offense or behavior on community supervision that may not have been charged, is cause to deny such a release plan. Our priority, above all else, is to protect our communities. Have some faith in us who investigate to ensure this is carried out. Some issues to ponder here would be related to overcrowding; nobody wants taxes increased to house inmates yet nobody wants inmates released early. We can’t have it both ways. WI is in financial ruin at this time. Treatment in the institutions is in great need and often not obtained until release…again, a budgetary issue. This legislation may have been underthought or overzealous but something has to be done. Residents of WI cannot fathom the inner-workings of the correctional system. If you are not satisfied, speak to your representatives and make yourself heard!
You’re absolutely right that Act 28 was dumped on the rank and file employees of the DOC who would be most affected by the provision it contained. It would have been nice if lawmakers had at least attempted to solicit feedback from the folks “in the trenches” to get their thoughts on whether this was a workable plan or not.
There was a meeting in Madison on February 23 at the Dept of Admin building. You all could have had the floor with these issues as it relates to Act 28. There was only 3 people in the meeting and that includes me. Talk is cheat – get active and get involved if you want to make a difference.
if my boyfriend go into a car accident and was drinking and driving also had 8 other misd. such as using a fake name and bail jumping and obstructing an officer and went to court and got 5 months for all of that mean while he is on papers and his p.o wants to revocate him for all the time he has left which is four years does act 28 play at all a part in this? he has already served 3 months and is waiting for his revocation hearing in a few weeks but i just am not really understanding this act 28. also the reason why he is on papers is due to a prior drug conviction… im confused?
zach- first and foremost i want to thankyou for writing this article and its very nice of you to respond back to everyone’s inquiries. would you mind shedding some light from what you understand on the topic of medical conditions under act 28? my husband has congestive heart failure and is in stage three of four. he is in need of a transplant and this will cost the state a quarter of a million dollars. his original sentence is 96mos. from what i hear, wis. doc is all about making money- not spending it. in your mind, do you think a medical condition of this severity would warrant an early release? thanks so much and god bless
Hosana, I couldn’t even begin to know how to answer your question, because I’m simply not as well-versed with the multiple early release tracks and how they’re applicable to inmates. What I will say is that the nature of his original offense will obviously play a big role in any decision to release him early.
I believe that Truth In Sentencing should be abolished.Reason being,it has caused a strain on us TAX PAYERS to house inmates for rule violations.ACT 28 is a joke because their not releasing anyone,parolees are sent Milwaukee’s(H.O.C.)to do sanctions at the state expence.People in state government I believe don’t want to speak up for the “criminal” in fear of not getting electing or,reelected in public office.
Shamika, while I see your point, there are some rule violations that certainly warrant placing someone into custody. As for the sanctions you mentioned parolees being sent to the HOC to do, those sanctions can come only after a parolee has admitted to having violated some condition of his or her supervision, and the sanction time is imposed as the punishment for the admitted violation(s).
All doc wants to do is block all and any releases that’s not helping this economy. They don’t even recognize or give credit to those who are trying to change and have shown positive improvements all they do is reflect their opinions on the negative past behaviors. PPl do change.
And another thing how about all those individuals that work for the doc that like to fratnize and work together to block releases? Isn’t anyone looking into this matter? Everyone is right ACT 28 in a JOKE!!!! I have no faith in our criminal/justice system and I truely believe one has to have a high priced attorney to protect ones liberty interest. And WATCH OUT ALL some judges are up for re election soon so keep yourselves and your love ones safe. Because we the public know that’s when they like to make an example out of us poor people.