Another controversy in Wisconsin involves criminal justice and Governor Tony Evers'
new commutation board.
While many applaud the governor bringing back commutations after 25 years, others assail
it for early release of violent criminals.
The board is now reviewing those currently imprisoned looking to shorten their prison
sentences.
Twelve people came before the board earlier this month and more will appear in September.
There are 800 applicants so far.
The rules include no commutation for crimes against children, but by design people serving
long sentences are eligible for commutation, including for first degree intentional homicide.
They must have served at least 20 years of a life sentence, also by design a focus on
juveniles, tried as adults, and sentenced to life or more than 39 years.
Our next guest is former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice and Marquette Law School professor
where she was director of its Restorative Justice Center.
Janine Gasky joins us now and thanks very much for being here.
What do you think about commutations being reinstated in Wisconsin after 25 years?
I think it's a very important move, particularly on some of these cases that, you know, people
have been incarcerated for long periods of time, and I can tell you, as a former sentencing
judge, you know, you want them to be reevaluated as they go through the years.
And you know, I have, I have worked in the community in Milwaukee with a number of formerly
incarcerated first degree murderers who are doing incredible work and were released
either on parole or for other reasons.
I think it's good to look at them and make the decision based on all the factors they
have to consider as to whether they can shorten their sentence, but they can also make them
to parole more quickly.
They can adjust, they can put supervision longer, so the governor ultimately has a lot
of discretion on how he handles each case.
Does reducing the sentence, though, of a person convicted of first degree intentional
homicide, for example, make Wisconsin soft on crime?
No.
I was happy for a quick answer.
You know, I'll give you an example of a defendant that I worked with.
There was a woman who had been active in the community, had done all sorts of good work,
no prior record.
She had a very challenging domestic situation, and she wound up murdering her husband.
You know, the likelihood that this woman was ever going to commit another homicide or
bioinact was really small, and yet she served, she stayed in prison until the day she died.
And I mean, that's just an example.
There's certainly other, you know, a lot of these defendants that they're looking at
are people who committed these crimes when they're 14, 15, 16 years old, and you look
at them 20 years later, and they're different people.
And the one thing I like to emphasize with people is the people that are incarcerated
are supervised 24 hours a day.
So for 20 years, 24 hours a day, they've been observed, and there's a good track record
of how they're doing and whether or not they continue to pose a risk for the community.
So you are involved in restorative justice in a big way.
What is that?
Well, it is a harm victim-focused process, in particular, relevant to this issue is that
victims and survivors who are interested in having a face-to-face meeting with the perpetrator
of their crime, and we did a lot of homicides.
We worked with them for about a year and a half, both sides, and then they looked at
them have a conversation.
It's an incredibly healing process for those survivors who are interested in it, and it's
really an amazing, amazing process.
And those questions that victims have finally can get answered.
But does commuting ascends undermine justice for victims of crime?
No, and this process allows the voice of the victim there.
So the victims are notified.
Now a lot of survivors, 20 years later, are either no longer in contact with corrections
or have moved on, but there are survivors, surviving family members who are interested.
They have a voice, and that's supposed to be consideration.
In addition, I see that on the commission itself, there are victim advocates, people
who are expert in trauma and expert in victims' issues.
There's a former police officer, a poor prosecutor.
So I have no doubt that that will be a factor in looking at whether or not to have someone
released, but it doesn't mean that the victim will have the sole say over the individual.
So the governor's executive order on commutation prioritizes youth offenders sentenced to life
in prison.
Why are juveniles carved out in this way?
Because we have learned, through the years that I've learned since I was on the bench,
the whole development of the juvenile brain and how that changes.
And I guess I should have known that I was a school teacher, but how kids think and
approach things is very different.
And if you wait 20 years and take a look at them, they are usually different people.
One of the individuals that I have encountered in the community was someone I sentenced for
first degree murder at age 14.
It was an awful murder.
And I remember sitting as a jobs thinking, how long do I set the parole of a bill and
date on this kid, because he's salvageable, is he always going to be violent?
And I gave him a pretty significant parole eligibility date.
Well, he's out in the community now.
He actually contacted me.
He served decades.
And he is doing such incredible work with the Medical College of Wisconsin and violence
interruption in the community.
And it was just the most wonderful day for me to meet him and see how different he is
than the young kid that sat in front of me, who killed another kid.
Janine Lieske.
Thanks very much.
Thanks for your thoughts.
You're welcome.
It's so...
Sorry, Rachel.
I talk a lot.
No, you were great.
It was perfect and you had really salient examples and I really appreciate it.
Yeah, it's amazing.
He asked me to go out to lunch with this guy.
I didn't remember his name.
And all of a sudden, he's telling me this story.
What did you send us him to?
Do you remember?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, I think it was likely imprisonment.
I think it was 30 years of vulnerability.
And he got...
Oh, maybe it was 25.
But he got out shortly after that.
It was a pro-boy that was letting people out.
You know, actually, there was a whole big article in the Seven Day Adventist magazine about
this whole case because it was just, for me, it was such an incredible experience.
But halfway through lunch, all of a sudden, I recognized the crime.
And he wanted to ask me why I sent and sent to the sentence.
He never did.
But he also wanted to tell me that I had sent to him, your life is not over, you know,
and that you might have an opportunity to go out.
And he kind of lived with that.
And then he took restorative justice while he was in prison.
So, you know, amazing things.
That's one of the reasons I'm here on an anti-death penalty work, you know, just never know.
Do you remember?
Oh, I'm sure you do.
This person's name?
Yeah, let me think.
Do I take her?
James Price.
How old is he now?
He is in his, I think, his late 40s.
Okay.
All right.
That would be a great story to tell.
Oh, it is.
Well, if you email me, I'll send you the link to the story on this in that magazine.
It's up for a national award.
And they really took pictures of both of us and interviewed us.
So, I'll send that to you.
And you see these together.
Hold it.
Oh, good.
Yeah.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
You're welcome.
All right.
Have a good weekend.
Bye-bye.
You too.