S.B. 873: COMMITTEE SUMMARY - PAROLE INTERVIEWS & APPEALS

Senate Bill 873 (as introduced 2-10-98)

Sponsor: Senator Leon Stille

Committee: Judiciary

Date Completed: 2-12-98

CONTENT

The bill would amend the Department of Corrections (DOC) law to revise the parole interview schedule for prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for life and remove a prisoner's ability to appeal an action of the parole board in granting or denying parole.

"Lifer" Parole Interviews

Under the DOC law, a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life or to a term of years, other than a prisoner sentenced to life for first-degree murder or to life or a term of years for a major controlled substance offense, is subject to the jurisdiction of the parole board after serving either 10 or 15 calendar years. (A prisoner sentenced for a crime committed before October 1, 1992, comes under the parole board's jurisdiction after having served 10 calendar years; a prisoner sentenced for a crime committed on or after October 1, 1992, comes under the parole board's jurisdiction after having served 15 calendar years.)

The DOC law requires that one member of the parole board interview a prisoner at the conclusion of 10 years of the sentence and every five years after that until the prisoner is paroled, discharged, or deceased. Under the bill, subsequent interviews by a parole board member, after the initial 10-year interview, would have to be held "as determined appropriate by the parole board" rather than every five years.

In addition, subject to the Governor's constitutional authority to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, the DOC law requires that one member of the parole board interview a prisoner serving a sentence for first-degree murder (which is not parolable) or a sentence of imprisonment for life without parole at the conclusion of 10 calendar years and thereafter as determined appropriate by the parole board, but not later than every five years, until the prisoner is granted a reprieve, commutation, or pardon by the Governor or is deceased. The bill would delete the requirement that subsequent interviews, after the initial 10-year interview, be not later than every five years.

Parole Appeals

The DOC law provides that a prisoner's release on parole is discretionary with the parole board and that an action of the board in granting or denying a parole is appealable by the prisoner, the prosecutor of the county from which the prisoner was committed to the DOC's jurisdiction, or the victim of the crime for which the prisoner was convicted. The bill would delete the prisoner from the list of people who may appeal a parole decision.

MCL 791.234 & 791.244 - Legislative Analyst: P. Affholter

FISCAL IMPACT

Senate Bill 873 would have an indeterminate fiscal impact on State and local government.

To the extent that changes in prison population reflect the interaction of admissions and exits, and that parole is the primary means of prison exit, adjustments to parole policy and practice could lead to increases or decreases in the prison population. Increases in prison population could lead to increased facility and operating costs; decreasing population would decrease these costs. Based on data from the Department of Corrections, it appears that prisoners serving life sentences have very low probability of parole. To determine if the proposed legislation would further lower the probability of parole, current trends of paroles granted by the parole board were reviewed. As illustrated in Table 1, the parole board has been less willing to grant parole on subsequent parole attempts than its predecessor board had been.

Table 1

To the extent that the parole board would have discretion for scheduling subsequent parole hearings, parole board efficiency could increase or decrease, thereby increasing or reducing parole board costs. Fiscal year 1997-98 appropriations for parole board operations are $1,386,200.

- Fiscal Analyst: K. Firestone

S9798\S873SA

This analysis was prepared by nonpartisan Senate staff for use by the Senate in its deliberations and does not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.