Some people inexperienced with the criminal justice system might think that a "life sentence" always means what the words say. They may be surprised to learn that in some cases it can be around 15 years in prison. In today’s New York Times, Adam Liptak looks at the evolution of Michigan’s parole system, where changes to the practical meaning of a life sentence have prompted one judge to find a violation of the federal Constitution's ex post facto clause.
Michigan shook up the formula of its parole boards in 1992, substituting political appointees for civil servants. In 2001, the board explained its intentions in a presentation to state judges, entitled “A Life Sentence means life in prison.” Now, that shift in thinking is under scrutiny, where a federal judge in Detroit ruled last month that the state had violated the ex post facto clause when it changed the parole rules.
It’s unclear how the decision will affect Michigan’s 1,000 or so other lifers who were sentenced before 1992: “The judge, Marianne O. Battani, has yet to decide exactly what should follow from her ruling, and the state has said it will almost certainly appeal once she does,” Liptak writes.
Other states that have changed parole systems have run into similar objections. A federal court ruled last year that changes by Pennsylvania's parole board violated the ex post facto clause, but last Monday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit said the plaintiffs in the suit may not have had standing to sue. The panel ordered the trial court to look at that issue, but it did not address the central question.
Comments