 The Wisconsin State Capitol on Sept. 19, 2025. Photograph by Margo Kirchner. By Alexandria Staubach and Margo Kirchner The Wisconsin Assembly's Committee on Corrections on Jan. 7 will hear two bills relating to hygiene products for those in state and county custody. WJI supports and urges passage of both bills. The humane treatment of incarcerated individuals is at the core of Wisconsin Justice Initiative’s mission. Everyone in the government’s custody deserves the ability to care for their bodies, ensuring dignity and promoting the Department of Correction’s administrative rules regarding hygiene. The DOC cannot reasonably require good personal hygiene without providing the basic tools. The bills being heard, AB741 and AB736, move Wisconsin closer to humane treatment of those in custody. AB741 would require the DOC and county jails to provide at least two types of each personal hygiene product on a list in the proposed legislation, including deodorant, antiperspirant, shampoo and conditioner, various soaps and lotions, toothpaste and floss, and shaving cream. The products cannot be sold at more than 125% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. In addition, at least two varieties of culturally sensitive personal hygiene products such as shampoo, conditioner, and natural hair oil must be provided for different hair types, at no more than 100% of the sales price of the product at the highest-grossing retail chain in the state. The bill also requires the DOC or jail to provide each person in their care with a monthly personal hygiene stipend of $25 to purchase personal hygiene products from the commissary. The bill provides the funding to DOC to cover the stipends. WJI has submitted written testimony in favor of the bill. In November 2024, WJI spoke to an individual at Green Bay Correctional Institution who shared that base pay at GBCI is a mere five cents per hour, someone earning a degree makes 12 cents an hour, and the highest paying positions pay 42 cents an hour. The canteen at a DOC institution is a monopoly. Incarcerated persons cannot price shop. AB 741 first limits the cost of hygiene products to prevent price gouging, yet the merchant still makes its profit. The $25 monthly stipend helps the individual in custody afford those products without spending a week or more of pay. The requirement that facilities provide culturally sensitive products for different physical attributes is important for the people held in DOC care and in jails, many of whom are minority individuals. AB736 would requires the DOC and jails to provide free of charge to anyone in custody with an active menstrual cycle at least three brands of tampons in a variety of absorbencies, three brands of menstrual pads in various absorbencies, and one brand of reusable menstrual cup. The facility would also have to provide a means to sanitize inmate menstrual cups as needed. In WJI's view, AB736 should be regarded as critical legislation for women in the care of the DOC and in jails. As noted above with AB741, hygiene products in prisons are exorbitantly expensive, yet menstrual products are a basic necessity for a woman’s health and dignity. Last year, before DOC renegotiated its canteen contract, a box of tampons cost $2.61 for a pack of eight. That is $0.33 for a single tampon. They came in one size. For those unfamiliar, menstruating women often need at least five tampons per day. That number may double for perimenopausal women, who often experience irregular periods with very heavy blood flow and may need more, larger-flow menstrual products. The Mayo Clinic website recommends changing tampons every four to eight hours. Incarcerated women may spend hours working to afford these products, to hopefully keep blood and discharge from leaking and staining their clothes, which they must also pay to wash. For those who have never experienced a period, imagine working several hours or days to afford toilet paper. Placing feminine hygiene products behind a paywall asks women to choose between safe and hygienic products and homemade alternatives that are unsanitary and may cause infection. If insufficient menstrual products are provided, women may even leave tampons in place for many hours, risking toxic shock syndrome. A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. In November 2025, the Prison Policy Initiative released an analysis of prison rules and sanctions that demonstrates how the carceral system punishes women for menstruating—a physiological process over which they have no control. Rules that govern movement limit access to bathrooms, showers, and laundry services. Rules that govern contraband limit access to tissue paper and its proper disposal or punish women for sharing or trading menstrual products or keeping adequate supplies on hand. PPI identified that in Wisconsin, menstruating women may be disciplined under rules regarding damage to state property (if blood stains affect state-owned items), unauthorized transfer of property or possession of contraband regarding menstrual supplies, poor personal hygiene, and refusal to work or go to school.
As stated by PPI, “(t)here is no ‘safety and security’ interest in denying people the basic sanitary products they need to manage normal bodily functions.” The United Nations Human Rights Council in 2024 underscored that countries have the “responsibility to ensure the full realization of all human rights, including those relating to menstrual hygiene, and must take steps . . . to respond fully to menstrual hygiene and other health care-related needs by all appropriate means, including in particular through the adoption of relevant legislative measures.” A carceral system in which women experience restricted access to menstrual products is inhumane. Restricted access to menstrual products undermines a woman’s right to dignity. WJI has submitted written testimony of the bill. AB741 is sponsored by 19 Democratic Assembly members and four Democratic senators, but no Republicans—yet it has received a hearing in the Republican-controlled committee. AB736 is sponsored by 27 Democratic Assembly members and just one Republican Assembly member, but that Republican, Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah), happens to be the chair of the committee. AB736 is sponsored by nine Democratic senators as well. The Committee on Corrections consists of six Republicans and three Democrats.
0 Comments
By Alexandria Staubach
More than 60 people appeared at a virtual Department of Corrections hearing Tuesday morning to comment on the Department of Corrections’ failure to implement a decade-old law that could change revocations statewide. Attendees raised personal, ethical, and legal arguments about the DOC’s proposed new administrative rule to implement 2013 Wisconsin Act 196. DOC proposed the new rule two weeks ago. As WJI reported last week, Act 196 requires the DOC to develop a list of sanctions that may be imposed for the most common violations, offering “clear and immediate consequences for violations.” The law also mandates that any rule developed by DOC take into account the impact of revocation on an offender’s employment and family. Advocates say that the DOC until now has largely ignored Act 196, which passed with bipartisan support. Participants at today’s hearing said the proposed rule remains insufficient to bring DOC into compliance with the law. The Wisconsin Legislative Council has said that the current rule “does not set forth a list of sanctions for the most common violations, nor does it explain what specific evidenced-based responses may be applied to a violation (e.g., when revocation is the required response). Instead, it implies that the list of sanctions and responses will be contained in a document somewhere outside the administrative rules.” Many at today’s hearing shared personal stories about how lengthy and unpredictable terms of supervision have impacted them. “It feels arbitrary and excessive,” said JenAnn Bauer, who has served eight years of supervision, which she said was more than 75% of any possible prison sentence. She said that despite making significant payments toward restitution, fees for extended supervision and her financial obligations to the court system keep growing. “I feel trapped in a cage made of numbers, not bars,” she said. Sean Wilson, Senior Director of Organizing and Partnerships at Dream.org, also expressed concerned about the impact of fees accrued during supervision. He said the proposed rule would actually codify profits into supervision, giving private vendors control over fees. A section of the proposed rule says “a vendor is authorized to charge a fee to probationers, parolees, and persons on extended supervision to cover the cost of supervision and administration of the contract.” Wilson called the DOC’s proposed rule a “missed opportunity” because the rule continues to be “focused on managing people rather than their success.” He said he recognized that DOC faces significant issues in staffing, but elsewhere in the nation departments use technology like kiosks to reduce the burden of check-ins on supervisees who are least likely to reoffend. Marianne Olson, an advocate with Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing who has been on supervision for eight years and has another 18 to go, said “people are being sent back (to prison) not to protect public safety but to punish past behavior,” in violation of federal law. Supervision “should be an opportunity for restoration, not retaliation” she said, calling extended supervision “retaliation disguised as support.” Shannon Ross of The Community expressed concern that the DOC seemingly did not engage any formerly incarcerated people in developing the rule. “A lot of us would be great in those rooms at the end of these things,” he said. WISDOM's Tom Gilbert, who has met with DOC about this issue since 2019, said the decisions that the DOC and its “agents make every day regarding people under your supervision, widely affect families, employers, health care providers, social services providers, schools—in other words, whole communities and this whole state.” The public comment period on the proposed rule will remain open through August 8. Instructions for submitting comments can be found here. By Alexandria Staubach
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections will hold a virtual hearing on July 8 for public comments on proposed new rules that could improve supervision and avoid revocations, though an advocate says the rules could be even better. More than a decade ago, the Legislature passed 2013 Wisconsin Act 196, which says the DOC “shall” create rules for a system of short-term sanctions for violations of supervision conditions, with “a list of sanctions to be imposed for the most common violations.” The rules were to give flexibility in imposing sanctions while providing “offenders with clear and immediate consequences for violations.” Implementation of the law had the potential to eliminate harsh revocation prison sentences and dramatically reduce the prison population. Instead, in 2019, the DOC created an administrative rule that an advocate says gives lip service to the law and continues opaque standards that prop up incarceration as the primary vehicle for revocation sanctions. “The rule was one sentence,” WISDOM’s Tom Gilbert recently told WJI. “It said they will adopt an evidence-based response to violations, which is what they had before the law was passed.” Gilbert calls the current administrative rule “wasted words and paper.” He strongly believes that the current rule does little to address the requirements imposed by the law. “I understand the difference between the word ‘shall’ and the word ‘may,'" Gilbert said. “When I learned about Act 196 and its potential for changing the way things are done and the consequences, I thought this could be a game changer,” said Gilbert. On behalf of WISDOM, Gilbert has been meeting with DOC about the law and rule since 2019. WISDOM is a statewide network of faith-based organizations and others advocating for racial, social and economic justice. In 2024, more than 8,000 people were admitted to Wisconsin’s prisons, and roughly 60% of those admissions were based on revocations, per DOC data. Act 196 was designed to ensure that short-term sanctions for individuals who violate the rules of their probation, parole, deferred sentence, or community supervision are tailored and take several individual factors into account. While correcting the offender’s behavior, providing proportionate consequences, and protecting the public are all objectives, the law requires DOC also to ensure “that efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s employment” and “efforts to minimize the impact on an offender’s family” are made when imposing sanctions. Gilbert said that if DOC followed the law and considered the impacts on a person’s employment and family, it would be a radical departure from its current Electronic Case Reference Manual, which “says very little about these things.” The statute also requires DOC to be transparent about specific sanctions for the common types of rule violations. Before Act 196 passed, and continuing today, DOC has determined revocation sanctions using an evidenced-based, but proprietary, tool called “the Compass,” Gilbert said. “Because it’s a proprietary tool, no one can see how (DOC) arrives at their decisions." Defendants and defense attorneys have no way of knowing what sanctions will be imposed for what violations or how decisions to revoke are made, he said. Proper implementation of Act 196 through an improved rule could require DOC to set forth a clear list of sanctions for the most common offenses. “People would know in advance,” and “that kind of transparency is sadly lacking in supervision today,” said Gilbert. This year, DOC proposed new rules, which are the subject of the July 8 public hearing. After the hearing, interested individuals will have 30 days to submit written comments. Gilbert said the proposed rules “still will not implement the law” because they merely quote the eight requirements of Act 196 and fail to develop the mandated system of short-term sanctions. He called this a “conscious omission, not an oversight.” However, “the release of the proposed Act 196 rules for public comment provides a real opportunity to communicate our vision of a community corrections system that focuses on restoration, both of affected individuals and the communities in which they and we live,” Gilbert told WJI. More information about the hearing and how to make public comments can be found here. Nicole D. Porter, senior director of advocacy with The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., presented "Decarceration 2.0: Charting New Strategies on Prison Population Reductions and Closures" to close to 100 attendees at Wisconsin Justice Initiative's fundraiser event on May 14. Porter discussed other states' recent efforts to reduce their prison populations, the current political climate impacting incarceration rates, and what can be done here in Wisconsin to return incarcerated people to their communities and reverse the past five decades of mass incarceration. Attendees enjoyed a cocktail hour with appetizers and engaging conversation, followed by Nicole's thought-provoking presentation and an informative question-and-answer session. The event was held in the Palm Garden at historic Turner Hall in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. If you missed the event or want to watch Nicole's presentation again, click on the YouTube video link below. We admit we're not professional videographers, but the content is excellent! To better see the PowerPoint slides from the event, click here. Please share the video with those in the justice system, carceral system, and Legislature whose actions impact the rates of incarceration in Wisconsin and with concerned citizens who can use their voices to call for change. Many thanks to the following sponsors of the event: Diamond Level  Platinum Level
Gold Level
Silver Level
Bronze Level
Margo Kirchner Edgar Lin By Alexandria Staubach
Gov. Tony Evers has pardoned more individuals than any other governor in recent history. He has granted a total of 1,436 pardons, which exceeds the total of the next closest official, Gov. Julis P. Heil (1939-1943), by nearly 500. Evers issued 300 pardons in 2024 alone. Evers’ predecessor, former Gov. Scott Walker, granted zero pardons in his eight-year term and even disbanded the pardon board. Although Evers revived the pardon advisory board, the board is not exactly giving clemency away. For some perspective, in 2018 as many as 1.4 million Wisconsinites had criminal records that may hinder gainful employment, according to the Wisconsin Policy Forum. The pardon advisory board conducts hearings quarterly by Zoom. The board currently has eight members, including Evers’ chief legal counsel, Mel Barnes, who serves as board chair; Attorney General Josh Kaul’s appointee, Judge Jeffrey Kremers; and Cindy O’Donnell. Kremers served as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge for 26 years, with seven years as chief judge. O’Donnell served as deputy secretary of the Department of Corrections under Govs. Tommy Thompson, Scott McCallum, and James Doyle. Other board members include Anthony Cooper, Sr., head of an organization working to address violent crime, who served time in prison and was pardoned by Evers in 2021; Rev. Jerry Hancock, a former public defender who now works in prison ministry; Nadya Pérez-Reyes, a former public defender now serving as deputy secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families; Myrna Warrington, director of vocational rehabilitation on the Menominee reservation; and former City of Madison Police Chief Noble Wray. However, at last week’s board hearing Barnes was joined by only Kremers and O’Donnell. The hearing covered 26 pardon petitions. One individual seeking a pardon, Tommy Kirk, Jr., who was originally fifth in line for his hearing, sat through three hours of proceedings because Kremers recused himself from hearing Kirk’s case. Without Kremers, the board lacked a sufficient number of members to hear Kirk. The board kept Kirk on the line waiting for another member to appear, but no one else showed up. Kirk eventually had to return to work. Before leaving, he made his case without a sufficient number of board members present to vote on his pardon application. For many petitioners this was their first application, but some had applications denied previously. A majority of board members must vote in favor of a petitioner for a recommendation to go the governor. Anyone who committed a felony in Wisconsin more than five years ago, has completed all confinement and supervision, has no pending criminal cases in any jurisdiction, and is not currently required to register as a sex offender is eligible for a pardon. But while the technical requirements to receive a pardon are minimal, the governor also requires those seeking a pardon to fill out an 11-page application, which asks about all law enforcement contact, ever, and requires applicants to rehash their crimes “in detail” and explain why the pardon should be granted. Applicants must also pay to obtain certified copies of all court records and authorize the state to do a background check. Letters of recommendation from people who can attest to an individual’s changed ways are given heavy weight. Comments and questions from board members at last week’s hearing suggest that significantly more than mere eligibility is expected, and that near model behavior is required. “For me, pardon is an extraordinary measure,” said O’Donnell to more than one petitioner. Benjamin Zimmer described in detail at the hearing how he purchased one ounce of marijuana at house party in 2012. Zimmer described having to quit nursing school but completing his probation and 100 hours of community service on time and a lack of further encounters with law enforcement in the 13 years since. He listed a host of subsequent accomplishments, from owning his own contracting business to becoming a leading volunteer in his community. According to a letter described by O’Donnell at the hearing, Zimmer even had the support of the judge who originally sentenced him. Nevertheless, Zimmer has been denied previously. Zimmer wasn’t the only individual seeking a pardon for old marijuana crimes. Christopher Teed also described buying one ounce of marijuana at a house party when he was 17—a crime followed by probation revocation and two years in prison. By Alexandria Staubach
A group of system-impacted individuals is building a coalition seeking to disrupt stagnation around criminal justice reform by using connection. Personal connection with legislators will be at the forefront. The group plans to build a relationship with every member of the Legislature, regardless of party or politics. Shannon Ross, founder and executive director of The Community, leads the effort. WJI recently sat down with Ross to talk about the coalition, its goals, and how they plan to achieve them. “As a society we should seek more collaboration,” said Ross. “There are (legislators) who genuinely agree with us,” he told WJI, “and maybe our goals are unpopular with their constituents, but we are going to find a way to connect with them … a way to help their constituents understand.” Coalitions are common among organizations, but this group intentionally includes individuals regardless of what other affiliations or professions they have. Ross hopes everyone involved will have the ability to act independently from positions that other organizations may take. Messaging will be central to the group’s success, Ross said. “We need big numbers,” he said. “We need a lot of engaged people to make this work.” The coalition includes individuals from all over Wisconsin. So far, everyone participating has engaged in policy work and two are already registered lobbyists—numbers the group hopes to expand, Ross said. While the current group members are mostly directly system-impacted individuals, Ross wants to avoid only engaging those who are system impacted. “We need everyone,” he said. Structurally, the coalition is intentionally built in opposition to the experience people have within the system, meaning there is no top-down hierarchy. It is organized from the middle outward, comprised solely of committees. While the group will have a “coalition coordinator,” no one individual will be a central figure. Ross does not anticipate winning that role. He hopes he will be able to fade into the background of coalition’s work. Ross says he was inspired by gridlock in the Legislature. He has observed “a consistent failure to get anything across the finish line that was something serious,” he told WJI. He hopes the group will be able to cross party lines and end what he described as “two decades without any real policy change.” Over the summer, the group participated in a retreat, speaking with Milwaukee County Circuit Court Chief Judge Carl Ashley and former Department of Corrections secretary Kevin Carr, who left that job in 2024. While the group is still fleshing out all of its goals, Ross said he anticipates their short list will include capping supervision, and overturning truth in sentencing will be a long-term project. The coalition is still recruiting members. According to the Wisconsin Division of Community Correction year-end review, 18,909 people were on extended supervision at the end of December. Extended supervision can last decades, requiring adherence to 18 or more rules during all that time. People often find themselves back in custody for rule violations alone. In November 2024, 48% of people admitted to Wisconsin prisons were admitted solely due to revocation of supervision, regardless of whether an individual had new pending criminal charges; 16.6% of admissions were for revocations resulting from a new criminal sentence.  A panel at the Milwaukee Turners' Dec. 7, 2024, celebration of International Human Rights Day. L to R: Melody McCurtis of Metcalfe Park Community Bridges, UWM Professor Ted Lentz, WJI's Alexandria Staubach, and Pastor Walter Lanier. Photograph by Mel Bridges. On Saturday, the Milwaukee Turners hosted a forum at Turner Hall in honor of International Human Rights Day. International Human Rights Day is observed around the world on Dec. 10, recognizing the anniversary of the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Milwaukee’s early celebration included comments from Mayor Cavalier Johnson, Milwaukee Equal Rights Commissioner Chair Tony Snell-Rodriguez, and Steve Watrous from the Milwaukee United Nations Association. Turners Executive Director Emilio De Torre opened the event saying “at home, people of the global majority are not safe in their own skin, and people are not allowed to love according to the dictates of their heart.” Johnson joined the opening remarks by recognizing that International Human Right Day presents an opportunity to reflect and consider how we can make Milwaukee a “more ethical and more inclusive city for the people who do and all the people who will call Milwaukee home.” Johnson recognized that historical injustices to human rights are easily identified in Milwaukee and that the much more difficult challenge is finding solutions to the problems we see. A panel addressed the international theme of “Equality—Reducing Inequalities and Advancing Human Rights.” The panel discussion was led by Pastor Walter Lanier. Panelists included Melody McCurtis, deputy director and lead community organizer for Metcalfe Park Community Bridges; University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee Professor Ted Lentz; and Wisconsin Justice Initiative Policy Analyst Alexandria Staubach. Discussion included housing issues, local and state legislation that might alleviate inequities in the criminal justice system, and research being conducted to make the criminal justice system more transparent in Milwaukee. Plausible solutions were offered by McCurtis, but the city’s recent attempt to pass the “Grow MKE Plan” is not one of them, she said. The plan recommends updates to Milwaukee’s zoning code to permit additional styles of housing in all Milwaukee neighborhoods. But McCurtis said the plan will permit “bad actors” and private interests to benefit from eminent domain, turning housing historically owned and occupied by community elders into short-term rentals. Over the summer, Community Bridges fought adoption of the plan, bussing more than 100 residents to a Common Council meeting to stop the plan's adoption and winning a six-month extension so those who will be directly impacted by the plan have an opportunity to weigh in. Lentz highlighted a data project that presents a broad overview of Milwaukee’s criminal justice legal landscape, analyzing patterns and trends in data collected by a variety of agencies, offices, and facilities that make up the system. The findings recognize racial disparities within the system and the need for data-informed, community engaged approaches for criminal system reform. Lentz’s project continues, with another analysis underway. His full report can be found here. Staubach discussed efforts to pass criminal justice reforms at the state level and the array of roadblocks Milwaukee faces regarding state politics. She highlighted the importance of WJI’s work at the local level, especially in municipal courts, and the need to zero in on what can be done through ordinances and the Milwaukee Common Council. “We have to recognize when we’ve gotten it wrong and do something different,” Staubach said regarding city-funded incentives for derelict landlords, which, in her opinion, line pockets and do little to expand the pool of affordable housing. “We need to change the way we legislate—from top down to bottom up, but it requires the people affected by laws to activate and engage with their local representatives,” she said. Snell-Rodriguez said he “anticipates a pull back of federal civil rights” and said it will be “be time for cities like Milwaukee to rise to the occasion.” By Alexandria Staubach
Earlier this month the Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld the Wisconsin Department of Justice’s denial of Scot Van Oudenhoven’s handgun purchase application based on an previous misdemeanor domestic violence conviction that had been expunged under Wisconsin law. The decision reinforces the narrow effect of expungement on criminal convictions in Wisconsin, where they are difficult to obtain and of limited effect. Expungement seals a criminal court file but has no impact on the conviction itself. Judge Gregory B Gill Jr. wrote for District III appeals court. He was joined in the opinion by Judges Lisa K. Stark and Judge Thomas M. Hruz. Van Oudenhoven was convicted of battery as an act of domestic violence in a 1994 Calumet County case. In 2019, a Calumet County Circuit Court judge granted Van Oudenhoven’s petition for expungement. In 2022, Van Oudenhoven attempted to purchase a handgun in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) denied the purchase based on his misdemeanor battery conviction. After Van Oudenhoven exhausted administrative remedies with the DOJ, he sought judicial review in Winnebago County Circuit Court. Judge Teresa S. Basiliere affirmed the DOJ denial. Federal law prohibits the sale of firearms to individuals who have been convicted of offenses related to domestic violence, but among the exceptions are misdemeanor cases. Possession is permitted where the misdemeanor conviction has been “expunged or set aside.” On appeal, Van Oudenhoven argued that expungement under Wisconsin law has the same force and effect as “expunged or set aside,” which phrase is not explicitly defined under federal law. Van Oudenhoven argued that the U.S. Supreme Court provided a common understanding of the phrase when it said in Logan v. United States that “expungement,” “set-aside,” “pardoned,” and “civil rights restored,” “describe[] a measure by which the government relieves an offender of some or all of the consequences of his [or her] conviction.” Because Van Oudenhoven’s expungement removed “some” consequences of his conviction, the Calumet County court “expunged or set aside” his conviction, he argued. The Court of Appeals rejected Van Oudenhoven’s argument that his conviction had been “expunged or set aside.” “The terms expunged, set aside, pardoned, and restoration of civil rights all, by definition, require state action that removes the prohibition on an individual from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law,” wrote Gill. “The state procedure in question must completely remove all effects of the conviction at issue,” he said. Wisconsin’s expungement law does not remove the effects of conviction; “the statue merely removes evidence of the conviction from court files,” said Gill. Current state law permits expungement for an offense with a penalty of six years or less, as long as the offense was not a violent felony, the person was under 25 years old and had no prior felony record, and the person requested expungement at the time of sentencing. If all conditions are met, a subsequent court may grant a request for expungement after the person has successfully completed their sentence. During the last decade, several bills have been introduced to reform Wisconsin’s expungement and pardon laws. Last session, one bill seemed poised for success. Senate Bill 38/Assembly Bill 37 received broad support, with organizations on both sides of the aisle registering in favor, from the conservative group Americans for Prosperity to the ACLU. The bill also had a bipartisan group of 63 co-sponsors. Although the bill successfully made its way through the Assembly, it ultimately failed to get a vote from the Senate. “Expungement is an issue that has been before the Legislature and the Supreme Court for several years, yet, despite extensive study and discussion, there have been few changes made,” wrote the State Bar of Wisconsin in support of the bill. “Without expungement, every sentence is a life sentence,” it said. Some legislators remain undeterred. Rep. Tip McGuire (D-Kenosha) told WJI “It has unfortunately been a long, difficult road for the expungement reform bill. However, every session brings in new legislators and a fresh chance for us to get on the same page and recognize the importance of getting this done.” “Too many people in our state have trouble finding work or housing because of low-level crimes they committed many, many years ago when they were quite young. I’m hopeful we can properly strike a balance between public safety and rightfully giving people a second chance to build a life and a career for themselves,” McGuire told WJI. According to a 2018 Wisconsin Policy Forum report, an estimated 1.4 million individuals in Wisconsin have criminal records that may hinder their ability to find employment. In Milwaukee County, 30,638 cases closed between 2006 and 2017 technically meet the current restrictive eligibility criteria but have not been expunged, said the report. In 2020, the Court of Appeals held that even minor, technical violations of community supervision rules will bar expungement.
By Margo Kirchner Several organizations and activists this morning called on Wisconsin legislators and the governor to return 17-year-olds to the juvenile justice system and ensure that no 10-year-olds are eligible for the adult criminal justice system. The call came at a press conference outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse organized by Rev. Joseph Ellwanger on behalf of the Milwaukee Inner-city Congregations Allied for Hope (MICAH) Transformational Justice Task Force. Ellwanger was surrounded by more than two dozen supporters of youth justice reform, including two representatives from Wisconsin Justice Initiative. Ellwanger noted that the press conference was motivated by upcoming hearings in the case of a young boy who killed his mother when he was 10 years old. Under Wisconsin law, anyone charged with first degree intentional homicide, even a 10-year-old, is charged as an adult. (WJI guest columnist Roy Rogers previously wrote about the case here.) Hearings for a "reverse waiver" to juvenile court are set for next week in the young boy's case. Several speakers at the press conference referenced research indicating that the human brain does not fully develop until around age 25. Joshua Rovner of The Sentencing Project flew in from Washington, D.C. for the press conference. He noted that Wisconsin is one of only four states that treat all 17-year-olds as adults in the criminal justice system. (Wisconsin is aligned with Georgia, Texas, and Louisiana on that point.) Similarly, Wisconsin is one of just three states that allows a child as young as 10 years old to be charged as an adult for certain crimes, he said. Regarding the pending case, Rovner emphasized that “this is an elementary school child we are talking about.” Wisconsin’s Legislature and governor need “to fix these laws,” Rovner said. Emily Coddington, associate director of the Wisconsin Association of Family and Children’s Agencies, read a statement on behalf of the Raise the Age Coalition, a group of more than two dozen nonprofit and advocacy organizations pushing for legislation returning 17-year-olds to the juvenile justice system. “Wisconsin has failed to acknowledge what 46 other states already know: that raising the age (of adult prosecution) lowers recidivism rates, responds to often neglected mental health concerns and cognitive development research, provides a restorative and rehabilitative lens to youth justice, and begins to address racial disparities in the criminal justice system,” Coddington said. “We know that youth incarcerated with adults are 34% more likely to commit future crimes than youth served in settings designed to meet their unique needs, yet we continue to charge all 17-year-olds as adults,” she said. Wendy Volz Daniels, a clinical social worker and chair of the Felmers Chaney Advocacy Board, discussed how adults held by the Department of Corrections do not receive important anger management and cognitive behavior treatment until shortly before release. Several thousand individuals are on waiting lists for substance abuse and cognitive behavior treatment. “Sending children to the adult criminal justice system ensures that they will not get the treatment and rehabilitation that is needed,” she said. “Children cannot wait,” Daniels said. “Their needs are better served in the juvenile justice system, where they will immediately receive therapy and treatment,” she said. Two system-impacted individuals, including James Price, spoke about their own experiences as youth in the adult system and how children do not belong there. Price said that he “was absolutely scared” when he was age 14 in adult court in the building he now stood before, and he had to make adult decisions as a 14-year-old. Another system-impacted man said that when he was a teen and waived into adult court he “lost anything that looked like help,” including a social worker and psychiatrist who had been helping with his anger management. The Department of Corrections (DOC) called him “an overweight kid with PTSD” when he entered the corrections system, yet he did not receive necessary treatment for 27 years, shortly before his release. Other speakers included Sylvester Jackson, chair of the MICAH Transformational Justice Task Force; Dr. Kweku Ramel Smith, a psychologist and social justice advocate; and Dr. Richard Shaw, pastor of St. Matthew C.M.E. Church and MICAH president. Jackson emphasized that the DOC is “not prepared to deal with mental health and trauma” and “we should not forget that that’s a child,” referring to the pending case. He argued that society should not accept the charging of a 10-year-old as an adult Smith discussed how the education system has different levels of ages because of the vulnerabilities caused by mismatching age with setting, and the lack of such age differentiation in the adult corrections system. Shaw noted that God shows compassion and mercy, yet under current law “we have little to no compassion and mercy on children.” “We are challenging our government, we are challenging legislators, to change this law,” he said.  Wendy Volz Daniels speaks on June 18, 2024. Photograph courtesy of ACLU-Wisconsin. Ben Austen, author of Correction: Parole, Prison and the Possibility of Change, came up from Chicago to talk about not just the problems of America's criminal justice system but why and how we change it. He discussed his research regarding parole hearings, the continued reliance on the facts of past crimes rather than changes in the people who committed them, the difference one or two people in positions of power can make, the different trajectories of corrections systems between America and Scandinavian countries and the absence of a social safety net in America, and some changes to be made from viewing prison facilities as warehouses to places of rehabilitation. Attendees experienced a lively cocktail hour, conversation, Ben's thoughtful and thought-provoking presentation, and the thoughts of others in response to Ben's talk. If you missed the event, or just want to watch Ben's presentation again, here it is! WJI thanks the following sponsors for their support of the event: Platinum
The Colby Abbot and Railway Exchange are historic office buildings in downtown Milwaukee. For information on renting space in these buildings, contact [email protected]. Gold
Silver
Bronze
|
Donate
Help WJI advocate for justice in Wisconsin
|
RSS Feed