A Criminal Proposition

In a recent interview by the Lansing State Journal, Gov. Jennifer Granholm admits, "There is no getting around the fact that our state is in crisis." The economy of Michigan is facing a severe decline. The automotive industry, a symbol of Michigan business, has started floundering. Even with these dire issues, the state of Michigan continues to put two billion dollars into the correctional budget every year.

When faced with a challenge, should we begin cutting off the limbs of stability? Gov. Granholm believes so. In order to help our statewide income, she has created a proposal that aims at closing several jails and reducing the 51,500-prisoner population down by 5,500 by this fall. Her means of meeting such a goal requires speeding the paroles of 5,000 inmates. Where are those five thousands criminals going to end up after the closing? They will move in next door to unsuspecting citizens, rent our apartments, and walk down the same streets as our children. Gov. Granholm’s proposition to sacrifice safety is far too high a price for the citizens of our state.

Closing a few prisons will temporarily relieve our pecuniary stresses, but it does not solve the issue. Overall, we will continue to decline in the amount of money our state is bringing in. At the same time, already overpopulated prisons across the state will need relief from the increasing pressure of transfer inmates. If every correction facility cut down on the amount of money they spend, we could have the same results of closing a few prisons without the repercussions. However, going along with Gov. Granholm’s plan will leave us in the same predicament we are currently in. When the need for money becomes dire, after the correctional facilities are drained, how long can we expect our taxes and our schools to go untapped?

How exactly are Michigan prisons using those two billion dollars every year? According to Paul Karsten Fauteck, author of Going Straight: An Ex-Convict / Psychologist Tells Why and How, incarceration for a single inmate is about $22,000 per year. That is about the same income of the average person outside of prison, although it is still higher than the income of many American citizens. If prisoners could easily live off $17,000 per year, which is still higher than minimum wage, why doesn’t Gov. Granholm want to revoke their life of luxury? We shouldn’t be rewarding our murderers, rapists, and pedophiles with a higher quality of life than we ourselves experience.

The educational programs installed in prisons for the benefit of convicts are still very controversial. They require their own supply of money to keep running, but are the results saying it’s worth it? Rates of recidivism are high, as about 60% to 70% of released prisoners are re-convicted within three years. Gov. Granholm’s proposal conveniently left out that statistic, hoping that what the voters don’t know won’t hurt them. The truth is that paroles are already being cut in half, as with the example of John Outlaw. After being convicted of two murders in 1976, he was sentenced to 150 to 300 years in prison. However, he will soon be released, to the horror of Richard Rysiewicz, who is the son of one of the men that John murdered. "It’s not about revenge," Richard said. “It’s about being worried that he’ll do this again, do the same thing to another family.”

The fear that early-released criminals will act again was all too true for one Olivia Payne, whose sister was a victim. "He just got out of jail for doing two years for rape," Payne said, "he came out three months later, he raped and strangled and stabbed and killed my sister." The man she is referring to, Frederick Thomas, had been sentenced to 75 to 150 years for his previous conviction. He is also due for release, thanks to a Prisoner Review Board who was in "overwhelming" support to free the two murderers, according to a report done through CBS.

The very cause of the governor’s proposal lies in the hopes of helping jumpstart the Michigan economy, which largely rests upon bringing bigger businesses into the state. Although there may be other ideas for attracting influential companies, a supply of money is needed to set the foundations of any industry. Unfortunately, the effects of the governor’s proposal will interfere with any aspirations for entering a time of growth and prosperity. All businesses are seeking out a supply of eager workers who will contribute to an increase of income. These ideal workers are relatively stable, as not to pose a threat to any company. The overlooked opposition to such flowering businesses remains in the quality of workers themselves. With a drastic increase in the number of criminals being released back into our quiet society, Michigan towns and cities will lose the lure and employment opportunities. Unsafe placement is a threat that businesses avoid by instinct. Worrying about rats burrowing into one’s business is enough reason to move on to another state with better opportunities for security. Even if we did not consider future employment issues, we would still have to take the jobs away from the staff at those several Michigan prisons set up for closure.

The evidence clearly shows us that Governor’s plan to shut down several prisons will be harmful for all of the employed citizens of Michigan and for those who are currently searching for job offers. Her proposal states a flawed method to handle the situation at hand, focusing more on the temporary relief than any resolutions. If we hope to increase our statewide income, remain secure in our current careers, maintain a reasonable tax rate, and encourage the future’s growth of development, all we need is one voice from our state to propose a more valid solution.


[Written March 9th, 2007]