Points our new Michigan AG should consider
We’ve
complained a lot, over the years, about the performance and the role of
Assistant Attorney General Scott Rothermel in Michigan Parole Board Public
Hearings. We were rather surprised that Rothermel, who served under former
State AG William Schuette, continued on under newly-elected Democrat Dana
Nessel. We believe that if AG Nessel, whose philosophy and that of former AG Schuette
are miles apart, chooses to keep Rothermel on the job, she could and should
steer him in a different direction.
I bring up
these issues after reviewing two independent surveys which grade Michigan’s
parole system at C-minus.
Prison Policy
Initiative says, for example, that Prosecutors should not be permitted to
weigh in on the parole process. Their voices belong in the courtroom when
the original offense is litigated. Decisions based on someone’s transformation
or current goals should not be contaminated by outdated information that was
the basis for the underlying conviction or plea bargain.
In a very
recent Public Hearing, Rothermel twice mentioned that the Wayne County
Prosecutor’s Office strongly opposed parole for that inmate, based on the
nature of the crime (which occurred in 1994!).
PPI also
contends Survivors of violent crimes should not be allowed to be a part
of the parole-decision process. The parole process should be about judging
transformation, but survivors have little evidence as to whether an individual
has changed, having not seen them for years.
The second
agency to grade parole systems was Citizens United for Rehabilitation of
Errants (CURE). CURE clearly states what
we’ve been saying for years: The “nature of the crime” or “seriousness of
the offense” should NOT be the reason for parole denial.
At the
conclusion of every Michigan Public Hearing, AAG Rothermel explains that he
does not have a vote, but that he simply represents “the people of the State of
Michigan.” He then goes on to recommend no parole for EVERY prisoner
convicted of an assaultive crime.
History has
shown that the Parole Board pays little attention to such recommendations,
because many of those same inmates are granted a second chance. But, with new
emphases, our new AG could make the participation and the contributions of her
AAG far more effective and meaningful.
We applaud
the dramatic changes we have seen in the office of Michigan Attorney General. It’s
time for that kind of change in the Parole Board Public Hearing process as
well.
Comments