Reading Time: 2 minutes
After reading Wisconsin Watch’s preview about the upcoming commutation hearings — and learning that people convicted of serious crimes, including murder, are among the first cases to be heard — I find it mind-boggling.
I understand that Gov. Tony Evers’ executive order establishing Wisconsin’s commutation process specifically excluded people convicted of any offense on a broad list of disqualifying sex offenses. Yet the order allows someone who took another person’s life to potentially receive early release. That contrast deserves serious discussion.
Wisconsin’s prison system also faces significant capacity and financial pressures, with more than 23,000 people incarcerated in facilities not designed for today’s prison population.
Taxpayers are paying to incarcerate people who have spent two or three decades behind bars, including some whose offenses did not involve death or physical injury.
The commutation conversation cannot be only about the people we all agree should not be released. Where is the conversation — and the support — for those who have demonstrated that they should be considered for release?
This debate also raises questions about forgiveness and second chances. Our federal government has demonstrated that clemency can be used for serious offenses. Shouldn’t our elected state officials at least be willing to have an honest conversation about who has earned a second chance?
When I read about Wisconsin’s commutation bill in Wisconsin Right Now and came across the stories of two men who received decades-long, de facto life sentences for armed robbery — despite no one suffering bodily injuries — I was stunned. One of the men later saved the life of a correctional officer during an attack by another inmate. And both the court and the district attorney agreed that he had served enough time.
There are always two sides to every story. But perhaps elected officials should look more closely at people who didn’t get a fair shake in life, who have paid their debt to society and who are now in their 50s and capable of becoming productive members of their communities.
This isn’t about being soft on crime. It’s about recognizing rehabilitation, proportionality and redemption while confronting the enormous financial cost of keeping people incarcerated indefinitely when they have demonstrated that they are no longer the same people who entered prison decades ago.
Wisconsin has an opportunity to address both a massive taxpayer burden and one of the state’s most difficult ethical questions. The question is whether our elected officials are willing to look beyond the headlines, examine individual cases and support people who have genuinely earned a second chance.
The commutation conversation should be about all of these people — not just the cases that generate the strongest opposition.
Tonia Thornhill is a Milwaukee resident.
Guest commentaries reflect the views of their authors and are independent of the nonpartisan, in-depth reporting produced by Wisconsin Watch’s newsroom staff. Want to join the Wisconversion? See our guidelines for submissions.
Guest opinion: Wisconsin’s commutation debate should look beyond the toughest cases is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.
