Letter seeking legal aid for "ex post facto" relief
PRISONER’S ACTION COALITION
P.O. Box 151
Fennimore, WI 53809
February 24, 2006
Dear Friends,
This letter is written with the hope that you will take up the cause of Wisconsin prisoners seeking relief from ex post facto violations of the U.S. and Wisconsin State Constitutions. A team of researchers has gathered the relevant case law and formed a legal argument that challenges the policies of the Wisconsin Parole Commission which denies parole based on new criterion, not in effect at the time of their arrest, conviction and sentencing.
Briefly, following are three precedent setting cases that support our claim:
The United States Supreme Court has expansively interpreted the Ex Post Facto Clause to cover a wide range of government actions. See, Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 432 (1982).
In Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1980), the courts held that almost any retroactive application of the law which makes more onerous the sentence or the ability to obtain parole will be held to violate the Ex Post Facto provisions. Any law passed after the commission of an offense is an ex post facto law if it inflicts greater punishment than that in place when the crime was committed, or which alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage.
In Micken-Thomas v. Vaugh, 321 F.3d 374,378 (3rd Cir. 2003), the court held that state prison inmates were entitled, under the ex post facto clause, to have parole boards grant or deny parole based on factors proscribed by policies as they existed at the time of conviction.
Thousands of prisoners convicted prior to Wisconsin’s “Truth In Sentencing” legislation (1999) suffer from a manipulated parole system. Truth In Sentencing brought in a new era of harsh sentencing, and the parole board was presented the task of bringing parole eligible sentences into closer alignment with TIS sentences. This is a clear violation of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Parole Commission Chairperson, Mr. Lenard Wells has admitted that he “has no risk assessment tools” with which to determine the all important “risk to public safety” issue, and therefore “prefers to err on the side of public safety” when considering grants of parole. This is used as a justification for ever lengthening terms of incarceration for parole eligible prisoners. The net effect is to increase punishment beyond that expected by the sentencing court, the legislature, and the prisoner.
Prisoner’s Action Coalition has gathered the names of 180 “old law” prisoners whose family and friends stand ready to mount a public campaign to bring light to this issue. We are also prepared to mount a legislative lobbying campaign to support the proposed litigation. We understand that 180 is a small percentage of possible class members, but our resources are limited and the effort to gather dedicated members began only six months ago.
Other States have successfully addressed this issue and brought about reform of their State parole boards. The Wisconsin Parole Commission remains nearly unregulated, giving an agency of the state more authority than the courts or legislature. We hope you share our concern about the manner in which the laws are being manipulated by the Wisconsin Parole Commission and the far reaching consequences to society, caused by this civil violation.
If this is not the sort of litigation your firm or organization cares to take on, perhaps you will forward this plea to a colleague who might assist us.
If you have any questions, please write or call.
Sincerely,
Frank Van den Bosch
Spokesperson, PAC
608-822-4253
cc. research committee
P.O. Box 151
Fennimore, WI 53809
February 24, 2006
Dear Friends,
This letter is written with the hope that you will take up the cause of Wisconsin prisoners seeking relief from ex post facto violations of the U.S. and Wisconsin State Constitutions. A team of researchers has gathered the relevant case law and formed a legal argument that challenges the policies of the Wisconsin Parole Commission which denies parole based on new criterion, not in effect at the time of their arrest, conviction and sentencing.
Briefly, following are three precedent setting cases that support our claim:
The United States Supreme Court has expansively interpreted the Ex Post Facto Clause to cover a wide range of government actions. See, Miller v. Florida, 482 U.S. 432 (1982).
In Medley, 134 U.S. 160 (1980), the courts held that almost any retroactive application of the law which makes more onerous the sentence or the ability to obtain parole will be held to violate the Ex Post Facto provisions. Any law passed after the commission of an offense is an ex post facto law if it inflicts greater punishment than that in place when the crime was committed, or which alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage.
In Micken-Thomas v. Vaugh, 321 F.3d 374,378 (3rd Cir. 2003), the court held that state prison inmates were entitled, under the ex post facto clause, to have parole boards grant or deny parole based on factors proscribed by policies as they existed at the time of conviction.
Thousands of prisoners convicted prior to Wisconsin’s “Truth In Sentencing” legislation (1999) suffer from a manipulated parole system. Truth In Sentencing brought in a new era of harsh sentencing, and the parole board was presented the task of bringing parole eligible sentences into closer alignment with TIS sentences. This is a clear violation of the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Parole Commission Chairperson, Mr. Lenard Wells has admitted that he “has no risk assessment tools” with which to determine the all important “risk to public safety” issue, and therefore “prefers to err on the side of public safety” when considering grants of parole. This is used as a justification for ever lengthening terms of incarceration for parole eligible prisoners. The net effect is to increase punishment beyond that expected by the sentencing court, the legislature, and the prisoner.
Prisoner’s Action Coalition has gathered the names of 180 “old law” prisoners whose family and friends stand ready to mount a public campaign to bring light to this issue. We are also prepared to mount a legislative lobbying campaign to support the proposed litigation. We understand that 180 is a small percentage of possible class members, but our resources are limited and the effort to gather dedicated members began only six months ago.
Other States have successfully addressed this issue and brought about reform of their State parole boards. The Wisconsin Parole Commission remains nearly unregulated, giving an agency of the state more authority than the courts or legislature. We hope you share our concern about the manner in which the laws are being manipulated by the Wisconsin Parole Commission and the far reaching consequences to society, caused by this civil violation.
If this is not the sort of litigation your firm or organization cares to take on, perhaps you will forward this plea to a colleague who might assist us.
If you have any questions, please write or call.
Sincerely,
Frank Van den Bosch
Spokesperson, PAC
608-822-4253
cc. research committee
posted by F. at 5:21 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home