Q&A WITH JOHN RUBITSCHUN: Parole: The issues, concerns

[mabear]

Q&A WITH JOHN RUBITSCHUN: Parole: The issues, concerns

Detroit Free Press
June 9, 2005
BY JEFF GERRITT
FREE PRESS EDITORIAL WRITER

As chairman of the state Parole Board, John Rubitschun has a thankless job. The 10-member Parole Board grants 12,000 paroles a year and, as Rubitschun points out, it doesn't get complimented for the 11,995 of them that don't make the headlines. Parole Board policies are vital for public safety, and for managing the state's costly prison population, which is nearing 50,000.

Former Corrections Director Bill Martin appointed Rubitschun, 53, to the board in 2001. A former probation and parole agent and manager, Rubitschun began his career with corrections in 1975 and has a law degree from Thomas M. Cooley Law School. He is also an adjunct professor at Michigan State University.

He spoke last week in Detroit with Free Press editorial writer Jeff Gerritt. Here are excerpts:

QUESTION: In 1992, former Gov. John Engler changed the Parole Board from one made up of civil servants to one consisting of political appointees. Was that change for the better?

ANSWER: I think so. I don't think having civil service protection dictates how one votes, and I think there a lot of advantages to having people with diverse backgrounds. I have a minister and a former sheriff, community activist, government official, defense attorney, legislator and state representative, as well as corrections professionals. Director Patricia Caruso has appointed seven of the existing 10 members. (Three appointments are up in fall 2006.) So this is not John Engler's Parole Board.

Q: To what extent are the board's decisions influenced by outside pressures, like prison crowding or public sentiment to get tough on crime?

A: We have a well-informed, well-educated board. To say that we operate in a vacuum would probably be less than accurate. But no one is coming to the parole board and telling us who to parole, or who not to parole, or how many people should be paroled. It's hard to deny that high profile cases have some impact. In 1992, the parole rate was about 65%. But I don't think 65% was ever the correct share of people who should have gotten paroled. I believe that it was too high then. (Now it's about 50%.)

Q: What are the parole rates for the different class of offenders?

A: I believe we parole about 15% of the sex offenders that we see on an annual basis. For assaultive offenders, it's somewhere between 35% and 40%. For the non-assaultive group, it's about 70%, and for drug offenders, it's about 80%.

Q: You release 12,000 people a year. Statistically, some of them are going to commit crimes, even under the best of circumstances, aren't they?

A: Yes, I agree with that premise. If you release that many people, crimes are going to be committed. But we've been more careful about releasing sex offenders and people with assault records.

Q: Inmates aren't eligible for parole until they have served their minimum sentences. Besides that, what are some of the other things you consider in a parole decision?

A: Ultimately, our responsibility is to not release people unless we believe they no longer pose a risk to the public. That's the threshold. We want them to have completed their recommended programming. We want them to have been well behaved in prison. If prisoners are misbehaving and can't follow the major rules in prisons, they will likely not be able to comply with parole supervision. We also want to ensure that they have a viable parole plan. We don't want to parole people who are simply going to a flophouse, or worse. We're looking for them to have community support. That's why we support the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative.

Q: With that effort, the state will give parolees more help in finding jobs, housing and assistance. Do you expect the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative to increase parole rates?

A: To the extent that prisoners are better prepared for release and have a stronger safety net, I would expect that some people who did not get paroled before would get paroled. We've been involved with the Re-Entry Initiative from the start because we want people to succeed and make that difficult transition from prison to the community. When that happens, who benefits? The public. They have safer neighborhoods, better citizens and lower recidivism rates. Ultimately, we have fewer people in prison and more money to spend on other endeavors.

Q: Inmates no longer have the right to appeal a parole denial. Should they?

A: The Legislature took that right of appeal away (in 1999). I don't believe there's a need for an appeals process for parole board decisions. We work within a framework of parole guidelines. We make decisions on 24,000 cases a year, and we parole about half of them. So 12,000 prisoners a year didn't get the decision that they hoped for. You're talking about a gargantuan process if all of them had the right to appeal our decisions.

Q: Michigan prisons hold roughly 15,000 inmates who are past their earliest release date. Is that number too high?

A: Well, about half of those have already been paroled but they came back. We have done some things in terms of looking at people who are past their minimums. We've accelerated their reviews to see if we could make a decision a little earlier. We're also trying to bring fewer parolees back by utilizing every available sanction in the community. Up until 2004, on average, 3,000 parole violators a year returned to prison. We're on pace to have about 2,000 parolees go back this year.

Q: Currently, lifers who are eligible for parole aren't entitled to regular, face-to-face meetings with the Parole Board. A bill has been introduced in the state Senate that would require the board to see parolable lifers every five years. Do you favor that plan?

A: Requiring an interview every five years was the law, and the Legislature changed it in 1999. There was just not that many lifers being paroled, even with the Parole Board seeing them every five years. They thought the Parole Board could better utilize its resources by seeing people who had a higher likelihood of parole. Of course, the Parole Board is going to do whatever the law requires, but I believe the review the lifers get now is adequate.

Q: How do you feel when someone the Parole Board released commits a serious crime?

A: I try not to make this an individual decision. This is the decision of the Parole Board, even though it took only two votes. In my mind, it's a collective decision. All 10 of our names are on that parole, not just the two who signed it. I seriously believe that we stand together, or we fall together. Naturally, we look at a case like that to make sure that we looked at all the risk factors and predictors and did what we were supposed to do.

Q: Many inmates, especially those recommended for assaultive offender programs, are unable, through no fault of their own, to complete recommended programming by the time they're up for parole. How many inmates get a parole denial because the prison system couldn't deliver the appropriate programs?

A: I don't have specific numbers on that, but the fact that some people have not completed their programs is not something we're proud of as an agency. We're trying to be more responsive. In those cases, the Parole Board is, more and more, deferring a decision for maybe a few months and waiting for them to complete the program, instead of pushing the decision back for a whole year.

Q: The average Parole Board interview lasts 20 to 30 minutes. Is that enough to make a good decision, or should the Legislature expand the board?

A: Much more than the face-to-face interview time goes into each case. The file has to be screened and summarized along with the parole guidelines. Probably a couple of hours go into each case in preparation by support staff. Another parole board member besides the one doing the interview must also review the file. On tough cases, many board members talk it over with their colleagues. I don't believe we need an expansion of the Parole Board.

Q: No one can deny, especially since new DNA technology, that not everyone convicted of a crime is guilty. Can you let the possibility of innocence affect a parole decision?

A: We can't second-guess a jury. We don't have the resources to do what the appellate courts are charged to do. There are other legal avenues of redress. I have paroled some people who claim they're innocent. Admitting guilt is not a prerequisite for parole, but it's a big factor. I'm more concerned about whether someone is going to return to criminal behavior.

[october]

Gee, my husband completed the class plus others plus had good reports on work and behavior but too bad the Parole Board didn't do their job and make sure they had up-to-date records. When I recieved the report on their decision, they went by old records that he did not complete the class! I am writing back to them on that. They even flopped him longer this time! My husband has done everything recommended from the last flop and has an excellent place to come home to. I beg to differ with their way and what they think they know. I don't think they know what's up.

[deb]

Thanks for sharing this... It's interesting to read his comments...

Deb

[Tuberose]

Why don't you let the reporter that did this interview know that october. I'm sure your story along with the others I've read here would be a good follow up for him.

[october]

That's a good idea Aquarian! My letter to the Board and the Govenor is almost done and I will also send this reporter one too. I will do whatever it takes for someone to finally look into this.