Would it surprise you to know that every person who has been sent to prison is expected to become “rehabilitated”? No, probably not surprising. But would you be surprised to discover that not everyone in prison will get the opportunity to demonstrate their rehabilitation and at least get a chance at a second chance? That sounds unreasonable to me, but in Oklahoma it is true.

If you are convicted in Oklahoma under the 85% statute, you will serve 85% of your sentence, no matter how long that sentence is. In some cases, commutation of a sentence is available for those who can reasonably show that their sentence is unjust and excessive. But that has nothing to do with rehabilitation.

So if you have to do 85% of 30 years, what motive is there to try and become a better person when you know your second chance is that far off? Why try and get sober? Why take classes? Why try and stay out of trouble? Everybody is reward oriented. How many of you would be going to work if you were not going to receive a paycheck? How many of you invest in markets that only lose money? Do you want to experience results when you exercise?

How can we reasonably expect a person who has been convicted to go to prison and “get better” when we have taken away the light at the end of the tunnel? Isn’t a large part of incarceration supposed to provoke change and rehabilitation and correction? It doesn’t seem congruent to throw someone away and then expect them to make a change without offering a pathway for the reward of a second chance. But that is precisely what we do under the 85% laws.

Why can’t there be an addition to our procedures whereby an “85%” might receive an early chance for release based solely on tangible behavioral change? Not because of mistakes in the court process or due to legalities, but because they now exhibit changed behavior that can be tracked and perhaps even rewarded. This process could be decided by a court, or DOC, and would require a standard of measurement that would be used to determine that a prisoner has truly had a change of mind.

Here is the cost of not rewarding good behavior: negative behavior. Let me demonstrate. If your boss came in today and caught you reading this commentary and docked your pay for the next month, would you still give them your best effort for the next month? Now what if that same boss stated that you could get your regular pay back earlier if you demonstrated by your efforts that you have learned your lesson? You would work hard and take them seriously and might even actually change your mind about reading my blog. (You can wait until you get home.)

Is it unreasonable to desire a provision to be made in our 85% laws that would allow an individual to be reviewed during their incarceration for change in their decision-making patterns? I mean, I truly want to be fair to all sides here, but the course of our justice system should not be determined by victim’s any more than it should be administrated by active criminals. Either one would be unbalanced and unjust.

Now consider, what should be the reward for someone who receives a life sentence in Oklahoma and makes the decision to enroll in every program and limit their misconduct, to the point that they are obviously using a different process for making their decisions. If a person with no light at the end of their tunnel still decides to make a change, doesn’t that deserve reward?

I suppose what I am most concerned about is nothing changing. Our men and women who make up our prison population are in a cycle. Some of them get out and come right back. This causes the “85 percenters” to become embittered because they have likely changed yet will not ever be recognized for their change in behavior. Faith is lost in the system. What is the point? But there are those in our prisons right now, diligently seeking the means to change. Most of them have received long, 85% sentences. The state has effectively gotten their attention. The design of incarceration has been successful for these individuals. They have not lost hope, and they continue to make the decision each day to become better. Now is the time for them to receive recognition for their diligence and be reintroduced to the world. And if we were cheering against them after they did what they did, we should be there to cheer for what they are doing now.