FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: State Rep. Sue Tibbs
Capitol: (405) 557-7379

OKLAHOMA CITY–(November 29, 2007)—Parole recommendations sit on the governor’s desk more than 300 percent longer today than they did five years ago, experts told the Criminal Justice and Corrections Subcommittee today during an interim study.

In 2001, the governor took on average 17 days to approve or deny parole recommendations made by the Pardon and Parole Board; today, the governor takes on average 76 days to approve or deny those recommendations, an increase of 347 percent.

State Rep. Sue Tibbs requested the study to discuss ways to speed up the parole process and reduce congestion in the state’s prison system.

"We can’t hide from the fact that our prisons are bursting at the seams," said Tibbs, R-Tulsa. "While there are literally dozens of reasons for that problem, the Legislature has the responsibility of looking at every area and determining where efficiency can be gained. The fact of the matter is that our parole process is unnecessarily bottlenecked by the governor’s office. We could save a lot of money and reduce the strain on our prison system by streamlining our system."

Oklahoma statute requires the governor to act within 30 days of receiving the parole recommendation; however the law has never been enforced. Consequently, the average recommendation sits on the governor’s desk more than twice as long as state law allows.

Tibbs said the increased time the governor is taking to act on recommendations is costing the state millions of dollars each year and adding to an already overcrowded prison system.

In 2006, the Pardon and Parole Board sent 1,644 recommendations to the governor. To date, he has approved 1,139 (84 percent) and denied 196. Nineteen of those recommendations are still pending. Approximately 245 of those inmates were discharged from the system because their sentences had expired while awaiting action by the governor.

According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, it costs the state $56.98 each day to incarcerate an inmate, meaning the governor’s delay may have cost the state an extra $2.9 million last year. [Calculated by multiplying $56.98 (cost of incarceration/day) x 46 (average days awaiting action beyond statutory limit) x 1,139 (# of recommendations governor approved)]

In addition, out of 9,850 total inmates who were eligible for a clemency hearing in 2006, nearly 2,500 waived their right to a hearing before the parole board. A representative from the sentencing commission suggested many inmates waive their right to parole because they could be discharged before the parole process has concluded. Upon discharge, inmates are not required to be supervised while parolees are.

Tibbs said speeding up the parole process would encourage more inmates to choose parole rather than waive, thereby subjecting more of the total number of inmates released to supervision, which studies have shown significantly reduces recidivism rates.

Oklahoma is the only state that involves the governor in the entire parole process. According to a representative from the Oklahoma Sentencing Commission, only two other states - Maryland and California - involve the governor in any part of the parole process. In those states, the governor only has the authority to approve or deny parole recommendations for inmates who are serving life sentences.

Tibbs said several proposals for speeding up the parole process should be considered by the Legislature during the upcoming session.

One proposal would completely remove the governor from the process, while another would provide the governor the authority to act only on parole recommendations involving murder or life sentences.

Removing the governor would rid the state of the cost of duplicating the work of the Pardon and Parole Board, Tibbs said. Currently, the governor’s staff reviews the same information as the board and either accepts or denies their recommendations. Tibbs said the state could take part of the governor’s appropriation and redirect it to the parole board so it would have the resources to do a more thorough investigation of the inmate upfront, thereby reducing the need for the governor to review the board’s investigation.

Another option would be to leave the governor in the process, but make effective automatically the board’s recommendations if the governor takes longer than 30 days to act. Tibbs said such a proposal would allow the governor to take longer to review recommendations involving murder or life sentences.

Because the governor’s role in the process is authorized by the state Constitution, any change would require a vote of the people.

Tibbs said she has not decided whether she will introduce legislation incorporating those ideas during the 2008 legislative session.