Public Comment or Testimony | Department Response |
Change title “Ambiguity in Sentence” to “Sentence Clarification.” | Accepted. Change made to 302.23. |
Identify inmates eligible for compassionate release and assist them with the completion of the petition. | Rejected. Currently, inmates are advised of s. 302.113 (9g), Stats. upon admission to DOC. Inmates with extraordinary health conditions in the care of DOC health staff are routinely evaluated for application of s. 302.113 (9g), Stats. Direct assistance by DOC personnel in completion of a petition, presupposes the role of the program review committee in s. 302.113 (9g) (cm), Stats. Resources other than DOC personnel to assist in completion of a petition are available to the inmate. |
Prioritize offenders for programming who are parole eligible. | Rejected. Priority for placement and programming for a single class of offender, for example, those who are “parole eligible" is not required by statute and is more appropriately addressed by DOC policy rather than in administrative rule. Justification for parole releases is not a subject of DOC 302 |
Complains regarding justification DOC uses for revocation of probation and resulting incarceration sentence imposed. | Rejected. Justification for revocation and sentencing is not a subject of the repeal and recreation of DOC 302. No specific suggestions provided relative to proposed DOC 302 repeal and recreation. |
Suggests the Community Residential Confinement statute (Wis. S. 301.046(3)(d)/DOC 327) should be altered to apply inmates serving a bifurcated sentence -- not just parole eligible. | Rejected. Administrative Rule making does not permit changes to Wisconsin statute. |
Suggests early release from the confinement portion of a bifurcated sentence should be moved from the "trial courts" to "the Earned Release Review Commission and the DOC". | Rejected. Administrative Rule making does not permit changes to Wisconsin statute. |
Suggests adding transition/educational programs, community, education, skills, rehabilitation. | Rejected. Establishment of new correctional programs is not a subject of DOC 302 or this process. |
Various issues including tax payer funds, treatment alternatives, mass incarceration, human rights, public safety. | Rejected. No specific suggestions provided relative to proposed DOC 302 repeal and recreation. |
Focus on DOC 303 and PAC 1. Various issues including overcrowding, availability of programming, Truth in Sentencing, rehabilitation, treatment, punishment for mentally ill, sex offenders. | Rejected. No specific suggestions provided relative to proposed DOC 302 repeal and recreation. |
Seeking a change in laws to better support inmates and families, both within DOC and the community, more generally. | Rejected. No specific suggestions provided relative to proposed DOC 302 repeal and recreation. |
Seeking work to be done to release inmates under the old law. Start programs today that will get these inmates ready for release tomorrow. | Rejected. Dissatisfaction with a Parole decision is not a subject of DOC 302. |
Seeking a decrease in the prison population by facilitating early release programs, dispel program requirements such as SO-2 classes and the 10 modules for successful re-entry, do not place low level offenders on a public registry, make an effort to move low level offenders into minimum security facilities where job opportunities can be accomplished, reclassify low level sex offenders, notify all inmates what date they are eligible for early release, and employ additional social workers to facilitate positive movement instead of hiring unnecessary correctional officers | Rejected. The number of DOC program providers facilitating programming is not a subject of DOC 302. Disagreements with application of criteria utilized for early release mechanisms or placement are not supported. Who is required to register on the sex offender registry is not a subject of DOC 302. |
Complains regarding TIS laws and "dysfunctional" parole system. | Rejected. No specific suggestions provided to proposed DOC 302 repeal and recreation. |
Writer requests finding ways to ensure parole-eligible inmates complete their requirements for release and those who no longer are a threat to society are given compassionate release | Rejected. No specific suggestions provided relative to proposed DOC 302 repeal and recreation. |
Concern the language permits prison limits to be exceeded indefinitely under the auspice of an emergency. Wants to ensure emergencies 302.03(22) are not conflated with disturbances 302.03(20). | Accepted, in part. This section is modified to include "disturbances" along with emergencies as this was overlooked by DOC as a reason to exceed prison population limits. The DOC does not "continually remain under emergency status to exceed stated capacities...contrive emergencies...or intentionally create hostile work conditions." |
Factors the department may consider in custody assignment: The writer asserts DOC and Parole do not act independently and parole decisions lack appropriate justification. The writer asserts that is the parole commission won't release and inmate, DOC should. | Rejected. Inmate Classification and Parole are administratively independent in their business process and decisions; and give due consideration to each other's assessments in their independent business processes. It is reasonable for inmate classification to include consideration parole commission decisions as one of the factors in assigning custody. DOC has limited statutory options for release of inmates that are described in other sections of this rule. |
Factors the department may consider in custody assignment: The writer opines the External Classification Risk Tool alone determines custody. | Rejected. A variety of factors are used in assigning custody. Including use of assessments or instruments as one of the factors in custody assignment is reasonable. |
Questions the validity of risk assessment instruments in identifying needs and associated treatment. Questions training staff utilizing these instruments. | Rejected. It is reasonable to utilize results of assessments and screening instruments to assist with identification of program needs. |
"There is no opt out for those reassigned previously completed programs." | Rejected. Inmates may choose not to enroll [see 302.14(2)] |
Opines inmates are not permitted minimum or community custody if they refuse a program. | Rejected. Inmate that refuse a program are not necessarily denied minimum or community custody. "Refusal may affect custody classification [see 302.14(2)]. |
Complains the administrative review request requires proof of the use of erroneous information during inmate classification and an original signature and limited to 500 words not to exceed 2 pages. | Rejected. Classification decisions are within the authority of DOC. A standard of requiring an allegation of the use of erroneous information in arriving at a classification decision to request an administrative is reasonable rather than allowing a review simply because of disagreement with a DOC inmate classification decision. Requiring an original inmate signature is reasonable in ensuring the identity of the submitter. The limit of 500 words and 2 pages provides sufficient room for alleging erroneous information. |
The concern is that street time should count for offenders on extended supervision. The DOC should give credit for "Street Time" because not giving it leads to "Endless Supervision" time. | Rejected. Service of credit is determined by statue and not the DOC. Per statute 302.113(9)(am) If a person released to extended supervision under this section violates a condition of extended supervision, the reviewing authority may revoke the extended supervision of the person. If the extended supervision of the person is revoked, the reviewing authority shall order the person to be returned to prison for any specified period of time that does not exceed the time remaining on the bifurcated sentence. The time remaining on the bifurcated sentence is the total length of the bifurcated sentence, less time served by the person in confinement under the sentence before release to extended supervision under sub. (2) and less all time served in confinement for previous revocations of extended supervision under the sentence. The order returning a person to prison under this paragraph shall provide the person whose extended supervision was revoked with credit in accordance with ss. 304.072 and 973.155. 302.113(9)(c) A person who is subsequently released to extended supervision after service of the period of time specified by the order under par. (am) is subject to all conditions and rules under sub. (7) and, if applicable, sub. (7m) until the expiration of the remaining extended supervision portion of the bifurcated sentence. The remaining extended supervision portion of the bifurcated sentence is the total length of the bifurcated sentence, less the time served by the person in confinement under the bifurcated sentence before release to extended supervision under sub. (2) and less all time served in confinement for previous revocations of extended supervision under the bifurcated sentence. |
