This blog is dedicated to securing safe the release of WI prisoners who are parole eligible, rehabilitated and ready to be good citizens. These are the "Old Law Prisoners". The existence of these 2800 plus prisoners and the waste of lives and taxpayers' money their continued incarceration causes is a closely held secret. We intend to help expose this debacle and help fix a broken parole system. Much here for good learning, Read on.
Summer Newsletter with latest on release of Old law Captives
Is rehabilitation a Consideration? by Darrick A Alexander
Is rehabilitation a consideration? by Darrick Allen Alexander
IS REHABILITATION A
By: Darrick Arnold
Alexander - May 22nd", 2015
Greetings: should the Wisconsin
Parole Commission consider whether or not an incarcerated person has been
rehabilitated during interviews for release to field supervision?
to restore to good health or useful life, as through education or therapy, to
reinstate the good name of, to restore the former rank, privileges, or rights
of , to restore to a former state (Webster's II New College Dictionary , 1995).
When a person is sentenced to a
term of imprisonment in the Wisconsin Department of Corrections there is an
inherent expectation that the department's goal and objective, is to
REHABILITATE that convicted person.
Indeed, the concept, principle, and application of
rehabilitation is presumably the foundation upon which an incarcerated person's
release back into society is built.
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Mission Statement (attachment A), decrees at point *6 that the department will
“provide opportunities for the
development of constructive offender skills and the modification of thought
processes related to criminal behavior and victimization".
Wisconsin Department of Corrections Vision Statement (attachment B), decrees at
point *5 that the department shall “promote
the integration of offenders into the community so that they become valued and
Each of the foregoing decrees is explicit in stating
that it's goal is to reduce criminal behavior (thinking) and restore a sense of
safety to victims and the community through the rehabilitation of the convicted
Assuch, it appears
that it is imperative that the Wisconsin Parole Commission actively engage
evaluating and assessing whether or not the parole eligible incarcerated person
has been rehabilitated when that person sits before the parole commissioner for
consideration of release to supervison by the Division of Community
However, the Wisconsin Parole
Commissions record is-silent in such regard. The parole action
summary report (form DOC-1208) completed by the commission staff does not list
REHABILITATION as one of the considerations when making the decision of whether
or not to release the incarcerated person to field supervision.
Instead, the DOC-1208 form typically
cites a degree of risk to the public (without identifying or qualifying the
risk), and insufficient time for punishment. Each of which cannot inherently be
accurately assessed without determining whether or not the individual has been
Serving no disrespect to the Wisconsin
Parole Commission, however, it appears that the commission's vision is short
sighted because it never makes a subjective determination of whether or not the
individual incarcerated person has been rehabilitated. Rather,-the commission's
vision appears to be overwhelmed by the nature of the offense and the
ambiguously elusive sufficient time for punishment semantics.
I state with confidence that jurists of
reasonable minds could arrive to a consensus that the Wisconsin State
Legislature envisioned that at some point the Wisconsin Department of
Corrections would began assertive and effective rehabilitation efforts in
regards to each of the parole eligible persons in it's charge. This is why the
Legislature set forth parole eligible dates for specific criminal offenses. All
time served prior to that parole eligible date the incarcerated person sits in
his/her punishment phase of the sentence.
Once parole eligibility has been
achieved the incarcerated person transitions from the punishment and enters
into the rehabilitative stage of his/her sentence, which entails essential
programming and movement through the designated levels of custody and security
in preparation for reintegration into society.
Although the release from prison is only
a consideration upon parole eligibility, the punishment phase is not a factor
after the said eligibility has been met. I believe that jurists of reasonable
minds would agree that although the Wisconsin Department of Corrections has
autonomy in its daily operations, legislative guidance is warranted in regards
to how the department should interpret and apply the law as set forth by the
Wisconsin Administrative Code and the Criminal Statutes.
The Wisconsin Administrative Code and
the Wisconsin Statutes inherently assess the suitability or unsuitability for
release from prison based upon the rehabilitation of the inmate, however, the
Wisconsin Parole Commission's record stand silent in that regard. With all due
respect to the commission it's vision and attention appears to be overwhelmed
by the nature of an offense rather than the subjective determination of whether
or not the incarcerated person has been rehabilitated. Legally, there has to be
an administrative determination on record of the commission opinion in regards
to whether a person has been rehabilitated; irregardless of the immutable
nature of the offense. If the incarcerated person has not been classified as
being incorrigible the Wisconsin Parole Commission must make a record stating
it's opinion in regards to a person's rehabilitative classification; the law
requires such determination.
The decision of whether or not to grant
or deny a person release to field supervision inherently involve what a person
is and what he may become rather than solely the nature of his offense, without
I've been physically incarcerated for
the past 30 years plus on a parole eligible life sentence. I've been considered
for release to field supervison for consecutive years since 1998. Not once has
there been an administrative evaluation, assessment, and explicit statement in
regards to the commission's determination of whether or not I've demonstrated
that I've been rehabilitated. Likewise, there no explicit statement that the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections has functionally engaged in efforts to
assist me to become rehabilitated. In the same vein, there is no documented
evidence in my prison case management file which suggests that I have not been
functionally rehabilitated. If after serving 30 plus years in prison the
collective efforts of prison staff and myself works to my rehabilitation.
My educational achievements, extra-
curricular accomplishments, active marketable job skills, pro social network,
acceptance of full responsibility, religious beliefs, disappearance of
disciplinary problems, places to live actual employment upon release on record,
DOC licensed psychologists current reports, and more, serves the conclusion
that the legislative goal of rehabilitation in my individual case has been
realized and achieved, but again, never explicitly nor implicitly set forth in
the parole commission's reports because my rehabilitation has not been
considered by the commission.
Nevertheless, the aforementioned
rehabilitative factors of record support the truth that it is unlikely that I
represent a risk to reoffend against the peace and dignity of the State of
Wisconsin or any other providence.
In closing, the Wisconsin State
Legislature has developed and passed law ( Wisconsin stats. § 301.068 ) , which
provides a means by which the unlikelihood of my risk to reoffend is further
lessened via community services resources upon release (attachment C).
the Wisconsin Department of Correction's administrative task to promote my
rehabilitation and reintegration is supported by the Division of Community
Corrections resources per Wisconsin Statutes § 301.068 (2014).
does not exist a gray line between being convicted of an offense and being
criminal minded. Each has their own nature and are mutually exclusive of each
other. However, rehabilitation is effective in each consideration.
It is imperative that the
Wisconsin Parole Commission assess whether or not a parole eligible person has
been rehabilitated when making it's determinative decision of whether to
release that person to field supervision; and set forth in the parole record
written documentation that such determination has been made.
Very Truly Yours
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
GOD BLESS YOU ALL
• The nature and degree
of supervision and control of an offender
should be directly related to the risk of harm he or
she poses to others.
• Over time, change in
the nature of the control and supervision
exercised over offenders should be a function of changes in the risks they present. They must be required to "earn" reduction. They should be
subject to the level of
supervision appropriate to the risks they pose.
• Early intervention to control risk is essential.
• The core of
programming to control risk must include active supervision of offenders.
• Offenders must not be
allowed to remain anonymous in the
community, free to threaten or harm others. Correctional staff must be actively involved with
offenders, police, members of
the community and offender families.
connections to family members and other mature
(1) The department
shall establish community services that have the goals of increasing public safety, reducing the risk that offenders on
community supervision will reoffend, and reducing by 2010-11 the
recidivism rate of persons who are on probation, parole, or extended supervision following a felony conviction. In
establishing community services under this section, the department shall consider the capacity of
existing services and any needs that are not met by existing services.
(2) The community services to reduce recidivism
under sub. (1) shall include all of the following:
(a)Alcohol and other drug treatment, including
residential treatment, outpatient treatment, and aftercare.
(b)Cognitive group intervention.
(c)Day reporting centers.
(d)Treatment and services that evidence has shown to
be successful and to reduce recidivism.
(3) The department shall ensure that community
services established under sub. (1) meet all of the following
(a)The community services target offenders at a medium
or high risk for revocation or recidivism
as determined by valid, reliable, and objective risk assessment instruments
that the department has approved.
(b)The community services provide offenders with
necessary supervision and services that improve their opportunity to complete their terms of probation, parole,
or extended supervision. The community
services may include employment training and placement, educational assistance, transportation, and housing. The
community services shall focus on mitigating offender attributes and factors that are likely to lead to criminal
(c)The community services use a system of
intermediate sanctions on offenders for violations.
(d) The community
services are based upon assessments of offenders using valid, reliable, and objective instruments that the department has
(4)The department shall develop a system for
monitoring offenders receiving community services under this section that evaluates how effective the services are
in decreasing the rates of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment of the
offenders receiving the services.
department shall provide to probation, extended supervision, and parole agents
training and skill development in reducing
offenders risk of reoffending and intervention techniques and shall by rule set forth requirements for the
training and skill development. The department shall develop policies to guide probation, extended
supervision, and parole agents in the supervision and revocation of offenders on probation, extended
supervision, and parole and develop practices
regarding alternatives to revocation of probation, extended supervision, or
(6)The department shall annually submit a report to
the governor, the chief clerk of each house
of the legislature for distribution to the appropriate standing committees
under s. 13.172 (3), and the director of state courts. The report shall
set forth the scope of the community services established under sub. (1); the
number of arrests of, convictions of, and prison sentences imposed on
Offenders receiving the community services under this section; and the progress toward recidivism reduction.