The Supreme Court of North Carolina today rejected a claim brought by dozens of North Carolina lifers that their life sentences must be reduced by good time credits. See News 14 Carolina's story here.
The claims were filed by NC inmates who were sentenced to life terms between April 1974 and June 1978. At that time, the relevant state statute defined a "sentence of life imprisonment" to mean a term of 80 years. With earned good time and merit credits, the inmates claimed that they had completed their sentences and were entitled to immediate release. The Department of Corrections countered that under their policy, credits earned by lifers was not for the purpose of reducing the inmate's sentence, but rather to calculate a release date in the event the sentence is commuted. Alfred Jones - a convicted murderer originally sentenced to death and one of the complaining inmates - successfully challenged this policy in the state trial court. After calculating his credits, the court ordered his immediate release.
The claims were filed by NC inmates who were sentenced to life terms between April 1974 and June 1978. At that time, the relevant state statute defined a "sentence of life imprisonment" to mean a term of 80 years. With earned good time and merit credits, the inmates claimed that they had completed their sentences and were entitled to immediate release. The Department of Corrections countered that under their policy, credits earned by lifers was not for the purpose of reducing the inmate's sentence, but rather to calculate a release date in the event the sentence is commuted. Alfred Jones - a convicted murderer originally sentenced to death and one of the complaining inmates - successfully challenged this policy in the state trial court. After calculating his credits, the court ordered his immediate release.
Fortunately, the state supreme court disagreed. Noting the doctrine of separation of powers, the court emphasized that the judiciary must strongly refrain from meddling with the policies and procedures of the DOC. The court found the DOC's decision to limit use of credits for lifers entirely within its discretion and consistent with its goal of "assuring that only those who can safety return to society are paroled or released and that they have been suitably prepared for outside life." (Jones, at 10.) This goal is particularly important, the court noted, when dealing with inmates (such as Jones) convicted of murder. The court went on to conclude that the limited use of good time credits also did not violate the inmates' right to due process or equal protection, and did not amount to a violation of the ex post facto clause.
While this case is certainly not monumental given its narrow application, it is refreshing to see a court resist the temptation to replace the prudence of the corrections department - who is charged with and ultimately responsible for administration of the prisons - with its own purported wisdom.
While this case is certainly not monumental given its narrow application, it is refreshing to see a court resist the temptation to replace the prudence of the corrections department - who is charged with and ultimately responsible for administration of the prisons - with its own purported wisdom.
Leave a comment