When “life” did not mean life

A Historical
Analysis of Life
Sentences
Imposed in
Michigan Since
1900

September 2006

CAPPS

itizens Alliance on
Prisons & Public Spending

Acknowledgments
The preparation of this report required months of painstaking work by
several members of the CAPPS staff. Jered Leo and the late Sara Mares reviewed
approximately 168,000 records to identify everyone sentenced to serve life in prison
in Michigan from 1848-1985 and recorded data about nearly 4,000 cases. Without
their discipline and dedication this research could not have been completed.
LeAnn Voigtritter entered the information into a computer database. Barbara
Levine supervised the data collection, analyzed the data and wrote the report. Gail
Light assisted in the research, designed the graphics and produced the report.
The cooperation of Mark Harvey, State Archivist, and his staff is also gratefully
acknowledged.

CAPPS

itizens Alliance on
Prisons & Public Spending

115 W. Allegan Street, Suite 850, Lansing, MI 48933 ~ Phone (517) 482-7753/Fax (517) 482-7754
capps@capps-mi.org ~ www.capps-mi.org

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006

When “life” did not mean life
A Historical Analysis of Life Sentences Imposed in Michigan Since 1900

Summary of Findings
The historical record makes it indisputably clear that a life sentence in Michigan did not always
mean “no release.” On the contrary, a parolable lifer’s chances of being released from prison have dropped
dramatically since many people currently incarcerated received their life sentences.
The decline began in the mid-1980s when rapid prison growth overwhelmed the “old” parole board
and lifers were placed on the back burner. The current parole board has affirmatively decided not to release
most of those lifers who, under Michigan’s Lifer Law, became eligible for parole after serving 10 years. It has
adopted the view that “life means life.”
The data can be approached from two directions. When examined by the year in which people were
sentenced, it appears:
• Of 855 people sentenced to life terms for offenses other than first-degree murder from 1900-1969,
nearly 73% were released by commutation or parole. They served, on average, 15.8 years.
• Of 846 people similarly sentenced from 1970-1985, only 8.2% have been released to date.
As Chart 1 illustrates, people sentenced in the 1970s and 1980s, who could reasonably have
expected parole in the late 1980s and the 1990s, have seen their chances for release plummet.
People sentenced
during the first seven
decades of the 20th
century to life terms
for crimes other
than first-degree
murder were nearly
9 times more likely
to be released than
people who received
the same sentences
for similar offenses
during the next 15
years.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

3

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
The second approach is to examine, year by year, what proportion of the lifers who were eligible for
parole actually received it.
Release date

Av. proportion
paroled annually

Av. years
served

1942-1949

7.5%

16.2

1950-1959

7.6%

17.3

1960-1969

14.8%

18.0

1970-1979

12.1%

18.0

1980-1984

5.1%

15.1

Viewed from that angle, it is clear that the parole board released a significant percentage of eligible
lifers annually through the early 1980s. The average years served never exceeded 18.
Although new people reached the
10-year mark each year, the annual grants
of parole steadily reduced the pool of
eligible lifers from a high of 215 in 1946
and 1947. The trend reached its peak in
1973, when 26.8% of the eligible lifers
were paroled, and 1974, when 32 % of
those eligible were released. By 1975, there
were only 39 parolable lifers left who had
served the requisite ten years.

Chart 2: Average Proportion of Eligible Lifers Paroled
1942-1984
20
17.5

Percentage

15
12.5
10
7.5
5
2.5
0
19421944

19451949

19501954

19551959

19601964

19651969

19701974

19751979

19801984

Chart 2 illustrates how average
annual parole grant rates fluctuated over
the course of 43 years. They never fell
below 5%, and during the 20-year period
from 1955-1974, the average annual parole
grant rate was consistently at 10% or
higher – sometimes much higher.

As a result of changed parole practices, people who long ago served the 14 or 16 years their
sentencing judges intended are now being left to die in prison.
• Today, there are 29 parolable lifers who were sentenced before 1970, 404 who were sentenced in the 1970s
and 255 who were sentenced from 1980-1985, a total of 688 people still serving for non-drug offenses.
• The parole board has released drug offenders who became eligible in 15 years when a statutory
change made their mandatory life sentences parolable. However, of all the people sentenced for a
non-drug offense through 1985, only 12 were paroled from 1999 through June 2006, an average
of 1.6 per year. For these non-drug offenders the parole grant rate has dropped to 0.2%.

4

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
When compared to the 12.1% average release rate during the 1970s and the even higher rate in
the 1960s, it appears that for non-drug lifers convicted before 1980, the chance of being paroled was
43 times greater when they committed their crimes than it is today.
Even commutations of non-parolable life sentences for first-degree murder used to be routine.
Nearly 57% of people sentenced for first-degree murder from 1900-1969 were released, in an average of
fewer than 24 years.
A person sentenced to non-parolable life for first-degree murder in the 1950s was nearly seven times
more likely to be released than a person sentenced to a parolable life term for another crime in the 1970s.
Both parolable and non-parolable lifers present an especially low risk to the public when
released. Their overall rate of return to prison is five percent, compared to 30 percent for parolees
generally. As Chart 3 shows, most of these returns were for technical violations of parole conditions.
The available data indicates only 16 of 1,334 lifers released since 1900 were returned to prison with
convictions for new crimes.

Chart 3. Returns to prison of lifers released 1900-2003
29.9

30

Percent

25
16.7

20

13.2

15
7.6

10
5
0

2.3 2.2

0.2

First-degree
murder (648
released)

Total Revoked
Technical Violators

New Sentences

5.4
2.2

Parolable lifers
(688 released)

All prisoners
(10,987 released
in 2003)

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

5

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
consideration and parole of those lifers
completely able to adjust in free life, an
extended parole authority is the most
serviceable and responsive agency for
the accomplishment of ultimate parole
release…” 1

THE HISTORY OF THE LIFER LAW
Before 1885, there was no such thing as
parole in Michigan. In that year, the governor was
authorized to grant parole to any felon except those
who were third offenders and those sentenced to life
terms. From 1911-1921, the governor was allowed
to parole lifers who had served 25 years or more,
minus generous good time credits, but that authority
was allowed to expire.
From 1921-1941, the number of people
serving life for any of 23 capital crimes (such
as second-degree murder, armed robbery, rape
and kidnapping) nearly doubled. The only way
they could obtain release was through executive
clemency. During that period, governors granted
160 commutations and five pardons. Nonetheless,
by 1941, the 863 lifers constituted almost 12 percent
of the total prison population of 7,556. Other states
provided for the parole of prisoners serving life. In
at least 26 states, a term of years for parole eligibility
ranging from five to 35 years was provided by law.
In 1941, the parole board issued a statement
to the Legislative Committee of the State Bar. It
said, in part:
“For two decades, ‘life’ has meant ‘life’. So,
in 1941, Michigan has the largest number of
lifers in the United States, whose cases can
not become eligible for parole consideration.
Whenever a lifer is considered worthy
in Michigan, resort must be made to the
Governor’s power of commutation. Pardon
and commutation are devices for the
correction of miscarriages of justice and
extreme hardship, where no other power
exists to alleviate the distress. They were
never intended for the purpose of submitting
to parole those whose rehabilitation in prison
over a long period indicates the acceptability
of supervised release into the community…
If an avenue shall be provided for the
alleviation of such conditions by the routine

6

In the same year, the legislature passed what
came to be known as the “Lifer Law”. Currently
MCL 791.234, it became effective January 9, 1942.
It created parole eligibility for anyone, whether
serving life or a long minimum term, who had
served 10 calendar years for any offense other than
first-degree murder.2 It prohibited parole if the
sentencing judge objected and established a public
hearing process in order to guarantee complete
public awareness of lifer releases.
The board immediately created the position
of parole eligibility examiner and hired a prison
psychologist to fill it. The examiner’s task was to
identify all the people who were then eligible for
release under the Lifer Law, review their files in
order of the number of years served, and provide
case summaries and recommendations to the board.
A 1942 report by the MDOC said of the law:
“Prison officials say the law has improved
morale among life termers. The Parole
Board now has a definite program for the
selection of meritorious long termer cases
for release action.” 3
THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY
For several decades, the Lifer Law worked
as planned. From 1942-1984, 504 lifers were
paroled with 233, nearly half, serving 15 years or
less. Judges imposed life terms in the belief that
defendants would receive meaningful consideration
for release once they became eligible. Ironically,
faced with the choice of imposing “life or any
term”, many judges chose parolable life terms in
the belief they were showing leniency, because a life
term would bring parole eligibility sooner than a

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
very long minimum sentence.4
However, for lifers whose release, based
on prior practices, would have been expected by
the late 1980s, things have changed drastically. In
1977 and 1978, steps taken in response to increased
crime rates, such as mandatory penalties for
possessing a gun while committing a felony, harsh
mandatory sentences for drug offenses, increased
use of enhanced sentences for habitual offenders
and the elimination of sentence reductions through
generous “good time” provisions, caused the
prisoner population to explode. The overcrowding
that resulted by 1980 led first to a series of 90-day
sentence reductions under the Emergency Powers
Act (EPA) and then to the building of 23 new
prisons from 1985 to 1992.
Lifers who would have begun receiving
serious parole consideration by the mid-1980s
were initially caught in the massive build-up. The
prisons were bulging and the parole board was
overwhelmed. With a pressing need for beds,
the focus was on paroling people with relatively
short minimum sentences who could be released
quickly. Lifers were put on the back burner. Many
had required interviews delayed for years. Dozens
who the board had decided to schedule for public
hearings never had their cases processed.
The treatment of lifers during the mid
to late 1980s was apparently situational, not
philosophical. In the early 1980s, the parole board
began experimenting with release guidelines for
lifers that incorporated the norms of the preceding
decades. A 1982 statutory amendment required
parole board interviews when a lifer had served four
years and then every two years thereafter. Although
reality did not keep pace with intentions, there is
little evidence that the parole board’s attitude toward
lifers had fundamentally changed.
What began as situational became
permanent after a 1992 statute revamped the
membership of the parole board. No longer
comprised of corrections professionals with civil
service protection, the board now consists of ten
political appointees. According to a 1997 MDOC

report: “The intent of the overhaul was to make
Michigan’s communities safer by making more
criminals serve more time and keeping many more
locked up for as long as possible.” 5 For lifers, “as
long as possible” means never being released. By
the late 1990s, the board had explicitly adopted the
policy that “life means life”, effectively coming full
circle to the situation that triggered the adoption
of the lifer law in the first place. With very few
exceptions, the only lifers the board currently paroles
are those whom MDOC documents indicate are
terminally ill and those convicted of possessing or
delivering more than 650 grams of narcotics.6
The parolable lifers allege that their changed
treatment violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of
the United States Constitution, which prohibits
changing the rules after the fact. Specifically,
courts have interpreted the clause to mean that
a change in the law cannot be applied to people
who committed their crimes earlier if the change
would create a significant risk of increasing the
punishment applicable when the offense was
committed. In People v Edward Hill, 7 the Michigan
Court of Appeals considered whether the parole
board’s current “life means life” policy, as applied to
a parolable lifer convicted in 1976 and eligible for
parole under the Lifer Law after serving 10 years, is
constitutional.
The Court concluded that no constitutional
violation exists because, it said, the defendant had
failed to establish a discernible change in parole
board policy and practices. The Court relied on data
showing that from 1941 through 1974, an average
of 12 lifers were paroled each year. From 1975
until the new parole board took office in 1992, the
average number of lifer paroles was four per year.
The Court concluded from these figures that “the
policy of enforcing a valid life sentence has almost
invariably been the policy and practice of the parole
board. Accordingly, there was no government action
instituted after defendant’s sentencing that produced
a significant risk of increasing his punishment.”
The critical piece missing from the Court’s
analysis is the number of lifers who were eligible for

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

7

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
parole each year, i.e., the number who had served
the ten years required by the Lifer Law before the
board obtained jurisdiction. To determine whether
a person’s chances for release have declined over
time, we must know whether the rate of paroles has
changed. What is relevant is not the raw number of
lifers paroled each year, but the percentage of those
who could be paroled. If only 12 lifers had served
enough time to be released in any given year and
12 were paroled, the rate would be 100 percent. If
1,200 were within the board’s jurisdiction, the rate
would be one percent.
THE CAPPS RESEARCH

Michigan Department of Corrections
records were computerized in the mid-1980s. Thus
it is impossible to obtain consistent information
about lifers released during earlier years from the
department’s database. However, the State Archives
of Michigan contain a 3x5 index card for virtually
every person committed to a Michigan prison from
1840 until computers replaced hand-written records.
Researchers for the Citizens Alliance on
Prisons and Public Spending (CAPPS) reviewed the
approximately 168,000 cards and identified everyone
sentenced to a life term, whether parolable or nonparolable. Information was recorded about each
person’s offense, sentencing date, whether, when and
how they came to be released (e.g., commutation,
parole, death, escape), and whether they were
returned to prison for a new offense or parole
violation. Information about other long sentences
the person received was noted, when available.
This review was cross-checked against available
information from the Department of Corrections in
an effort to capture all possible missing data.
The result is a database of 2,026 people
sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder
and 1,770 people sentenced to life for offenses other
than first-degree murder through December 1985.8
Of the 3,796 total cases, 223 were sentenced before
1900. This data can be approached from different

8

directions. By starting from the sentencing date, it is
possible to trace the extent to which both parolable
and non-parolable lifers sentenced at specific times
were released and how long they served.9 Recidivism
rates for lifers can be compared to recidivism rates
for paroled prisoners generally.
Perhaps most importantly, we can
reconstruct the pool of lifers eligible for parole on
a year-by-year basis. When the number of paroles
granted each year is compared to the size of the pool,
it is possible to see how the rate of lifer paroles has
changed over time. Determining the number of
lifers who were eligible for release in any given year
requires several steps:
• Identify everyone who has served at least 10
calendar years on a parolable life sentence
• Subtract those who were serving a long
indeterminate sentence on another conviction
that would make them ineligible for release.
• Subtract those who died, were resentenced,
received commutations or were no longer
there to be paroled for other reasons, such as
an escape or transfer to a mental hospital.
What follows are preliminary findings from
the analysis to date. These findings do not address
every lifer who is currently parole-eligible because
people sentenced from 1986-1992 are not in the
database.10 As more sophisticated statistical tools
are applied to the data, more extensive and detailed
results may be available and minor adjustments to
figures may occur.
Even with these caveats, however, it appears
that the historical record wholly undermines the Hill
decision’s reliance on raw numbers removed from
the context that gives them meaning. Contrary to
the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, “enforcing a valid
life sentence” was far from the invariable policy and
practice of the parole board before 1992.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006

THE FINDINGS

A. The release of “parolable”
lifers: examined by sentencing
cohorts
Table 1 shows, by decade, all the people
sentenced to life terms between 1900 and 1985

for offenses other than first-degree murder. For
convenience, this group will be referred to as
parolable lifers regardless of whether they were
sentenced before or after the Lifer Law took effect in
1942.

Of the 725 people sentenced from 19001959, more than three-quarters were released
by commutation or parole. For fifty years, the
proportion increased each decade. Of those
sentenced in the 1950s, nearly 84% were released.
Although the average time served before release
varied, the longest was 18.1 years for those
sentenced in the 1930s. Lifers sentenced in the
1950s served, on average, just 11.4 years before
being released.
For those sentenced in the 1960s, the
release rate declined to 53.9%, reflecting the decline
in parole grant rates starting in the mid-1980s.
Nonetheless, even for this group, the release rate
exceeded 50% and the average time served was just a
little over 14 years.
Overall, nearly 73% of the people sentenced
to life terms during the first seven decades of the
century for crimes other than first-degree murder
were released after serving an average of fewer than
16 years. Only 180 people, 21.1%, actually died in
prison. Of these, 58 had served fewer than 10 years
and only 62 had served more than 20 years.
The change for people sentenced thereafter
is enormous. As crime rates and total prison
commitments increased in the 1970s, so did the
number of parolable lifers. From 1970-1985, 846
people were sentenced to parolable life terms, almost
as many as in the preceding 70 years. Of the 545
people sentenced in the 1970s, fewer than 11% have
been released. And those who were served more
time than their predecessors – an average of almost
18 years. Nearly three-quarters of those sentenced
in the ‘70s – 404 people – are still incarcerated,
although they have now served between 27 and 36
years.
For the 301 people sentenced from 19801985 (the last years in the CAPPS data base), the
situation is even bleaker. Although they have now
all served more than 20 years, only 10 – 3.3% – have
been released after serving an average of nearly 20
years.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

9

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
The release rate for the entire group of
parolable lifers sentenced from 1970-1985 was
8.2%, compared to 72.8% for those sentenced
earlier. Thus, people sentenced during the first
seven decades of the 20th century to life terms for
crimes other than first-degree murder were nearly
9 times more likely to be released than people
who received the same sentences for the same
kinds of offenses during the next 15 years.
B. The release of “parolable”
lifers: examined by year of parole

nearly doubled to 14.8%. In just the three years
from 1961-1963, 78 lifers were paroled. For the first
half of the 1970s, the parole rate exceeded 18%.
While new people became eligible for parole
upon completing 10 years and some people left
the pool through death or other causes, the steady
pattern of paroles caused the pool to shrink year
by year. Even the sudden drop in the grant rate to
5.0% in the second half of the 1970s appears to be
the result of prior liberal release practices. The yearly
figures that underlie Table 2 show that, although
the pool had declined from a high of 215 in 1947
to 71 in 1973, 26.8% of those eligible in 1973
were paroled. In 1974, the rate was even higher, at

Table 2. Proportion of eligible lifers granted parole
1942-1984

Viewed from the year in
which people were paroled, the
Year paroled
disparities become even more
dramatic. Table 2 displays, in
five-year increments, parole release
1942-1944
rates from 1942-1984. That is,
1945-1949
for everyone sentenced from the
effective date of the Lifer Law
1950-1954
through the last full five-year
period in the CAPPS database, it is
1955-1959
possible to see the parole grant rates
at the time people were sentenced.
1960-1964
The average number of lifers
paroled was divided by the average
1965-1969
number of lifers eligible for parole
in each period (i.e. those who had
1970-1974
served at least 10 calendar years for
an offense other than first-degree
1975-1979
murder and had no other sentences
preventing release) to produce the
1980-1984
average percent paroled annually.
The number paroled does not
include five commutations.
Table 2 demonstrates that for 43 years after
the Lifer Law was enacted, a significant proportion
of the eligible lifers were routinely released. In the
1940s and 1950s, the average parole rate was about
7.5% per year. In the 1960s, the average annual rate

10

Av. no.
eligible/yr

Total no.
paroled

Av. no.
paroled/yr

Av. percent
paroled/yr

Av. yrs
served

185.3

30

10

5.4%

14.2

211.6

87

17.4

8.2%

16.9

175.8

51

10.2

5.8%

16.2

158.4

76

15.2

9.6%

18.1

115.0

97

19.4

16.9%

18.0

77.8

46

9.2

11.8%

18.0

69.2

63

12.6

18.2%

20.3

63.6

17

3.4

5.4%

15.1

144.2

37

7.4

5.1%

15.1

32.1%. Thus, by 1975, the pool had dwindled to
39 eligible lifers. It is not surprising that, after such
an intense amount of “housecleaning”, only one lifer
was released that year.
The average annual size of the pool was at its
lowest from 1975-1979. It more than doubled in
the next five years to 144.2, reflecting the increased

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
number of people sentenced to parolable life terms
10 years earlier. However, the release rate from
1980-1984 held at 5.1%.
The average number of years served by
those who were paroled increased from 14.2 years
in the 1940s to 20.3 years in the early 1970s
before dropping back to 15 years from 1975-1984.
Nonetheless, of the 504 people paroled during the
entire 43-year period, 233, about 46%, served 15
years or less.
CAPPS focused on identifying the lifers’
chances of release at the time they were sentenced.
Because its database ends with people sentenced
in 1985, it did not attempt to calculate the exact
number of lifers who were parole-eligible in each
year after that. Nonetheless, we know that from
1970-1974, 156 people received life terms. If
required to serve an average of 15 years, their release
would be expected in 1985-1990. However, as
explained above, this was a period of rapid expansion
when the time-consuming process of paroling lifers
was given low priority.
From 1975-1979, 389 more people received
parolable life terms. If past practice held, their
average release dates would occur from 1990-1994.
We know that another 301 parolable lifers were
sentenced from 1980-1985, so they might have
reasonably expected release in the mid to late 1990s.
And we know what actually happened during those
years. With the pool continuing to grow and the
raw number of paroles granted being very small, the
rate of paroles for lifers other than drug offenders
dwindled to almost nothing.
After 1992, the new board reconsidered 47
cases in which the old board had voted to proceed
but had not done so. Of these, 16 were paroled
from 1993-1995. These involved 11 convictions
for second-degree murder, four for armed robbery
and one for kidnapping.11 They served, on average,
20.6 years. Eleven other lifers convicted of similar
offenses but not carried over from the old board’s list
were also paroled between 1995 and 1998.
In 1998, the Lifer Law was amended to
permit the parole of “650 drug lifers” who had been

serving mandatory sentences of life without parole
for the manufacture or delivery of more than 650
grams of various illegal drugs. The first drug lifer
release occurred in 1999. It was the only lifer parole
that year. From 1999 through June 2006, of 50
lifers paroled for the first time, 34 – 68% – were
drug lifers.12 The drug lifers had served an average of
16.3 years. Of the 16 non-drug lifers paroled in the
same 7.5-year period, at least five were seriously or
terminally ill.
Only 12 people paroled between January
1999 and June 2006 had been sentenced through
1985 for an offense other than drugs, an average of
1.6 per year. There are 688 such people currently
eligible for parole. Thus, for this group as a whole,
the parole rate has dropped to 0.23%.
A closer look at sub-groups within this
population is instructive. Focusing only on those
sentenced before 1980, 433 are currently eligible.
Only nine were released during the 7.5-year period,
an average of 1.2 per year, for a grant rate of 0.28%.
When compared to the 12.1% average release
rate during the 1970s, and the even higher rate
in the 1960s, it appears that for non-drug lifers
convicted before 1980, the chance of being
paroled was more than 43 times greater when
they committed their offenses than it is today.
When one looks only at the people sentenced
from 1980-1984, the decline in parole grant rates
since the time of sentencing remains dramatic.
Only three non-drug lifers sentenced during this
period were released between 1999 and June 2006,
an average of 0.4 per year. There are 209 currently
eligible, so their grant rate is 0.19%. Compared to
the 5.1% average grant rate during the first half
of the 1980s, for non-drug lifers sentenced during
that time, the chance of being paroled was 27
times greater when they committed their offenses
than it is today.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

11

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006

C. A comparison: the
commutation of non-parolable
life sentences

Table 3. Commutations of sentences for first-degree
murder, 1900-1985
Sentencing
Date

Total
Sentenced

Total
Commuted

Average Years
Served

It is useful to compare the
48
1900-1909
69
16.1
commutation of life terms for first-degree
69.6%
murder with the release of other lifers for
two reasons. First, it confirms what one
1910-1919
127
76
16.9
59.8%
would expect – that release patterns in the
two groups are similar. This not only reflects
1920-1929
289
167
25.9
philosophical and political changes that
57.8%
affect both groups similarly but the very
practical fact that, since 1937, the parole
1930-1939
235
130
31.0
55.3%
board has been responsible for reviewing
all commutation applications and making
1940-1949
143
102
recommendations to the governor.
21.8
71.4%
More instructive is the extent to
which sentences for first-degree murder used
1950-1959
57
84
19.1
67.9%
to be routinely commuted. Table 3 shows,
by sentencing decade, the 1,875 people
1960-1969
112
21
convicted of first-degree murder (or murder,
21.2
18.8%
degree unspecified) from 1900-1985.
Nearly 57% of the people sentenced
443
4
1970-1979
20.5
0.9%
to life without parole during the first seven
decades of the 20th century were actually
1980-1985
373
0
-released through commutation after serving
an average of 23.6 years. As seen in Table 1,
the release rate for people sentenced during
601
1900-1969
1,059
23.6
the same period to life terms for offenses
56.8%
other than first-degree murder was nearly
4
1970-1985
816
73% after an average of 15.8 years. Thus,
20.5
0.5%
first-degree murderers were released at about
three-quarters of the rate of parolable lifers
after serving about 50% more time.
D. A note on recidivism rates
What is most striking is the contrast
between how first-degree murder cases used to be
In its 1943 report on the Lifer Law, the
treated and how parolable lifers are treated now.
parole board reported on the success rates of the
Where a person sentenced to a non-parolable
twelve people who had been paroled so far. It
life term in the 1950s had nearly a seven in
concluded:
ten chance of gaining release in the 1970s, the
chances of release for a parolable lifer sentenced
The record thus far established by the
in the 1970s are barely one in ten.
eleven men and one woman who have been
released, brings to the forefront several

12

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
factors which may now be mentioned
despite the fact that they must avoid the possibility
and backed up by proof. We have always
of a parole violation for twice as long.
considered, for example, that lifers
Table 4. Returns to prison by lifers released 1900-2003
in general constituted the best type
of parolee, that by reason of long
No.
Total
Technical
New
released
revoked
violators
sentences
institutionalization they were much
more aware of the serious responsibility
involved in their release than most
648
15
14
1
First-degree
other groups. While this, of course,
0.2%
2.3%
2.2%
murder
can not be said for all lifers, we had
always believed it would be true for
688
52
37
15
Parolable
the carefully selected outstanding
7.6%
5.4%
2.2%
lifers
group. Our experience in the past
two years has proven, on the basis of
All prisoners
1,837
1,451
10,987
3,288
paroled in
reports from Parole Officers who are
13.2%
16.7%
29.9%
2003
supervising lifer cases, that these men
as a group are much more careful
to abide not only by the laws of the
State but by every regulation of the Bureau
What is particularly noteworthy is how
than any other group. The twelve lifers, as
few of the returns were for convictions of new
a group, have shown an unusual aptitude
crimes. The available data indicates that only one
to stabilize themselves in the community,
of the first-degree murder cases (0.2% of all those
working steadily, saving their money, buying released) involved a new conviction and that was
war bonds, earning promotions on their jobs, for a relatively minor drug offense. It appears that
re-uniting themselves with their families and the other 14 were all returns for technical violations.
taking serious cognizance of the trust the
Eleven were re-paroled.
Parole Board has placed in them. These men
Of the 52 (7.6%) parolable lifers who were
realize and have said many times they know
returned, 37 (5.4%) were technical violators, 29 of
only too well that upon their successes or
whom were re-paroled. Only fifteen of these returns
failures in the community probably depend
– 2.2% -- were for new crimes. While the data is
to some degree the schedule of release for
missing in several cases, it does not appear that any
other “Lifer Law’ cases.13
of the new crimes were murders.
It is not surprising that lifers are especially
The historical record appears to bear out the good risks for release. Because of the length of
board’s belief that lifers make the best parolees. As
time they have served, they tend to be older and
Table 4 indicates, the 7.6% parole revocation rate
more mature. Notably, their crimes actually make
for parolable lifers is one-fourth the rate for parolees them better candidates as well. Research shows that
generally. At 2.3%, the rate for those convicted of
those who commit crimes against people, as the vast
first-degree murder is even more impressive. Add to majority of lifers did, actually have lower re-offense
this the fact that, whatever their offenses, released
rates than property and drug offenders. In addition,
lifers must stay on parole for four years. The average many were first offenders whose crimes, although
length of parole for non-lifers is two years. Thus the very serious, were situational. 14 And, of course,
lifers are far more successful than the average parolee having been given a reprieve from the prospect of

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

13

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
dying in prison, lifers have a unique appreciation for
their freedom.
Over 100 years of experience with over
1,300 cases indicates that the majority of lifers, both
parolable and non-parolable, do not commit new
crimes when released. Whatever justification may
exist for the current parole board’s “life means life”
policy, the data suggest that it is not public safety.
CONCLUSION
In People v Hill, the Court of Appeals said:
“. . . it is unclear why in 1976 legal practitioners
and sentencing judges would have believed that
a sentence of parolable life meant that a prisoner
would be released shortly after they became paroleeligible.” It is now possible to see exactly on what
past practices these judges and lawyers relied.
Sentencing judges or their successors are contacted
before lifers are paroled. They knew in fact that the
majority of parolable lifers were routinely released,
often after serving fewer than 15 years. They knew
in fact that even the majority of people sentenced to
life without parole routinely received commutations,
often in fewer than 20 years. Six decades of
familiarity with the decisions of governors and
parole board members gave every reason to believe
that life did not mean life. Unable to anticipate
that dramatic changes in the parole board would
occur nearly two decades later, judges could only
assume that the life sentences they were imposing
would continue to constitute the same measure of
punishment when the defendants became eligible for
release.
Endnotes
The Lifer Law (Act 173, P.A. 1941), Biennial Report—1942-1943,
pp. 1-2.
1

2

The Lifer Law was subsequently amended to require people whose
crimes were committed on or after Oct. 1, 1992 to serve 15 calendar
years. Because Michigan’s “truth in sentencing” provisions now require
everyone sentenced after certain dates to serve their entire minimum

14

sentences, the provision of the Lifer Law that allowed people with long
indeterminate sentences to be released after 10 calendar years has been
eliminated.
3

State of Michigan, Department of Corrections, Corrections in War
Time, Third Biennial Report, 1941-1942, p. 92.

4

For discussion of a survey of judges’ views on the current treatment
of parolable lifers conducted in 2002 by the Prisons and Corrections
Section of the State Bar of Michigan, see No way out: Michigan’s parole
board redefines the meaning of “life”, CAPPS (Lansing, September
2004), pp 14-16. The Michigan Supreme Court has held that a
sentencing judge’s reliance on the fact that a lifer would be considered
for parole after 10 years is not grounds for resentencing now that the
board has changed its release policies. People v Louis Moore, 468 Mich
573; 664 NW2d 700 (2003).
5

Michigan Department of Corrections, Five Years After: An analysis of
the Michigan Parole Board since 1992 (Lansing, September 1997), p.2.

6

A 1978 statute required judges to impose life without parole for
manufacture or delivery of more than 650 grams. In 1998, the
Legislature abolished that harsh penalty and made “650 drug lifers”
sentenced under it eligible for parole after serving 15, 17.5 or 20 years,
depending on certain circumstances. The board took this statutory
change as a mandate to start releasing drug lifers. It applies its “life
means life” policy to lifers who had always been parole-eligible after
serving 10 years. For a more detailed discussion of how the application
of the Lifer Law has evolved, including statutory changes in the
interview and review process, see No way out: pp. 7-13, op cit., note 2.

7

267 Mich App 345 (2005).

8

The first-degree murder group includes 346 pre-1942 cases where
the degree of murder was unspecified. The non-first-degree murder
group includes 140 cases where judges imposed a minimum term of
years and a life maximum. While this is no longer permitted, the
practice occurred sporadically until 1959. The minimum term of
years allowed the parole board to grant parole independently of the
Lifer Law. For instance, a person serving a sentence of 5-life could be
paroled after serving the five-year minimum minus applicable good
time credits. However, that person could also be held for decades or
denied parole altogether. Cases in the database go in both directions.
Thus, although people serving sentences of a minimum term to life
did not have their parole eligibility determined by the Lifer Law, they
were still parolable lifers because the board had the authority to keep
them for the rest of their lives.

9

The actual sentencing date was used throughout for the sake of
consistency. The “corrected date”, which includes credit for time spent
in jail before sentencing, was missing for many cases.

10

People sentenced after Oct. 1, 1992 will not become eligible until
at least 2007. See note 2.

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

When “life” did not mean life – September, 2006
Of the remaining cases, 8 faced judicial objections. Four were
released in subsequent years, including 1 that resulted in commutation
and 2 where judicial objections were lifted. One person was
resentenced. Five died in prison. One who was released returned
to prison as a technical parole violator. Twenty-two who were never
released remain incarcerated, more than 13 years after the “new” board
was appointed.
11

Nine had been convicted of possessing more than 650 grams and
had become eligible for parole after serving 10 years. The other 25
had been convicted of manufacture or delivery and became eligible at
15, 17.5 or 20 years depending on their circumstances.

12

13

The Lifer Law, op. cit., note 1.

For more detailed discussion of the characteristics of parolable lifers,
see No way out, op cit., note 2.
14

Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending

15