One of the money-saving measures under Gov. Jim Doyle's budget proposal has provoked significant backlash. The plan would release up to 1,000 state inmates and potentially save $27.5 million, according to a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel report. Doyle and company are stressing that only nonviolent criminals would see early release, and the offenders who don't violate prison rules could reduce their prison sentences by a third. Additionally, inmates under extended supervision could receive early release, as well as terminally ill inmates or those with expensive, debilitating medical conditions.
""I can't emphasize enough that we believe we can do this safely,"" Corrections Secretary Rick Raemisch said. ""We're not opening the back door and saying it's time to leave.""
Naturally, some aren't jubilant over a potential influx of criminals back into the public, especially Republicans, who see it as an attack on the 1999 truth-in-sentencing law requiring inmates to serve 100 percent of their sentences with no time off for good behavior. In essence, it assails our principles of being ""tough on crime.""
Evaluation and validity of the law aside, Wisconsin has, in principle, supported truth-in-sentencing. Yet, in times of crisis—and by all accounts, our economy and state budget has reached this point—we must lean in favor of pragmatism over principle. Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford and other Republicans assert inmates should serve their full sentences handed down by judges, but when the state is facing devastating budget cuts across the board, we must realistically determine whether continuing to punish low-risk, nonviolent criminals just to make a point—and at significant cost—should take priority over staving off heavier cuts elsewhere in the budget.
To illustrate, suppose hypothetically we are adamantly opposed to McDonald's and all it stands for. If a crisis erupts, there's a food shortage and we're on the verge of starvation, it would be realistic and acceptable to violate that principle of opposing McDonald's if it's next door offering free Big Macs. It's not the most desirable or healthy option and doesn't fix the overarching, large-scale issue, but it helps mitigate the immediate problems—with maybe only some mild consequences to one's blood pressure.
This specific budget proposal aside, the truth-in-sentencing law—the toughest in the country—could benefit from serious revision and reconsideration. Although most truth-in-sentencing laws still allow time off for good behavior and don't entirely eliminate an inmate's chance for early release, Wisconsin has held this standard both for violent and nonviolent criminals. This kind of proposal gains great favor for ""keeping Wisconsin safe,"" but its application to nonviolent criminals is dubious, especially at a cost of approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per inmate annually. The law as is allows no discretion for authorities, projecting a harsh, blanket policy that ignores human differences and individuality.
This initiative will not result in unmonitored, violent criminals—but it could save the state millions during a budget crunch that could be more effectively spent (or saved). We urge the legislature to support this measure—which has been proposed in numerous states with similar language—and to take advantage of this opportunity to fully review and revise the truth-in-sentencing law.
