Claudia McLean is Second Look Coordinator for the AFSC Michigan Criminal Justice Program. Over the summer, she organized community barbecues across the state. These social events helped connect legislators with their constituents who’ve been incarcerated and/or have loved ones inside. She shares more in this September 2023 interview.
I started work with AFSC on July 10 after graduating from the University of Michigan. I volunteered with AFSC through the Project Community Sociology Department class that partners with local organizations. AFSC does a lot of work with that. I asked if AFSC was hiring; they liked my enthusiasm, so I got the job. It’s really exciting.
My job encompasses a lot of different things and has taken me a lot of different directions. The majority of my work revolves around a legislative hearing we’re hoping to have in the winter or spring on Second Look legislation.
That means meeting one-on-one with legislative directors and legislators themselves or chiefs of staff. The session has started again, so legislators are very busy. We’ll meet these people where they’re at, in person or on Zoom.
We’ll talk with them about what they know about Second Look, their preconceptions, where the legislator stands. We try to level with them, saying this is commonsense stuff and that we’d love to have their support whenever it gets a hearing.
With our big chart on the wall, we’re mapping who are our champions. We note Democrats in the middle who are unsure or represent purple districts. They say they don’t want to vote for something which they think will make them look “soft on crime.” That’s the biggest thing.
There are all these really close districts held by Democrats, and they’re being more timid when it comes to more progressive legislation because they don’t want to lose those seats. We’ve been doing lots of research, talking with lobbyists and legislators themselves about their districts, seeing where they’re at.
We talked with some legislators who say, “Yes, I’ll vote for this,” but almost in a whisper. They can’t champion it because their districts are so purple. Some people we try to reach out to say, “Well, that’s a criminal justice issue, and I don’t deal with that.”
Another aspect of my job is planning and outreach for the Second Look advocacy events we’ve been doing county by county. We’ve held them in the Detroit area, Washtenaw County in Ann Arbor, in Oakland County in West Bloomfield, and recently Grand Rapids, Comstock Park, and the Kent County area.
These events help connect legislators with the network of formerly incarcerated people and their loved ones. It’s a way to meet lawmakers in a different way -- less of an advocacy way, and more of a “This is your constituency, your community, the people we want you to connect with.” It’s helpful to persuade legislators on that level. We’ve had very informal barbecues, sometimes with or without speakers. But it’s community mixing, having legislators talk with people in their constituency.
So this has involved a lot of invitations, a lot of emails, a lot of planning and legwork.
A final part of part of my job is seeing what Second Look legislation will look like once it’s passed. What will the landscape be, how it will affect judges and others, what will those Second Look petitions look like in other places?
Once the bill gets passed, I’ll be working one-on-one with people inside, helping them with their Second Look petitions. I have a malleable position, encompassing a lot of different parts of Second Look.
Q: Aside from the political concerns a purple legislator might have, what other concerns do you hear from legislators? Do any of them have substantive concerns?
Regarding substantive concerns, the only thing we’ve really heard involves the fallbacks or screens built into the bill. There’s a flag that certain crimes will have, such as criminal sexual conduct, domestic violence, first-degree murder, etc. Judges can screen them out if they want to. Once the sentence is potentially reduced, it still has to go in front of the parole board, where victims rights will be heard.
A lot of the immediate concerns legislators might have are already built into the bill – but they just don’t know enough about it. One thing some legislators have concerns about is the 10-year mark [for how long a person has served], which is a negotiating starting point. It could get negotiated upward, but we’re starting low so there’s room. We’re just trying to get it to the table. That 10-year mark would be the first possibility of getting your sentence reduced.
The other pushback we hear, unrelated to the actual make-up of the bill, is what it could do to judges’ dockets. Judges are worried about the “load” of cases that they potentially might have to address. I put that in quotes because that varies between counties.
Obviously, Oakland and Wayne Counties would have lots and lots of people effected by this bill. But if you go to the Upper Peninsula, there just aren’t as many people. Not every single judge would have this additional work. Judges will still be doing their job.
Q: So current law in Michigan allows no second chance for people with long or life sentences?
Michigan subscribes to what’s called “truth in sentencing.” That was a federal government initiative. If you subscribed to this idea, then you’d get federal funding. Michigan was the only state that went hard for “truth in sentencing.” So we have no good time or productivity credits. You serve every single day of your sentence, with no review at all. If it’s mandatory life without parole, you’ll die in prison.
Q: How is the AFSC Michigan program engaging with people who are formerly incarcerated and the families of people in prison. Why is it important for those folks to have a voice?
They are the people whose stories are most compelling when they meet with legislators. We do a lot of work with people inside and people who are formerly incarcerated to help them connect with their legislators. It’s so exemplary when you see people doing well.
The biggest example we have is people resentenced from juvenile life due to the US Supreme Court decision. All these people who had life without parole and thought they’d die in prison – and they committed themselves so much to personal growth and betterment. Judges see that and think, “My gosh, you had no chance to get out, yet look at how great you’ve become and how dedicated you are.”
We have all these people who had life sentences and then did have the opportunity to have them re-looked at. Person after person has been really successful, super dedicated to this work and getting other people a second chance.
They are so compelling when they meet with legislators, and their stories are so impactful. That’s the biggest advantage of working with them -- to lift their stories up and get legislation passed because of it.
Family members, as well, are so important because they have loved ones in prison with no opportunity to get out. They talk about how great their loved ones are and how much they love them.
Q: The AFSC Michigan staff is full of great examples, isn’t it?
Exactly. Lawanda Hollister, Cozine Welch, Pete Martel – a lot of people who work for AFSC and with whom we work are great examples.
Lawanda’s story comes first to mind. She went in at age 17 and served 34 years. It’s 36 years if you include her time on parole. It’s incredible. She always moves with such grace and leads with such a powerful voice. She’s doing so well and has such a great sense of humor.
Lawanda’s now a statewide organizer for AFSC. You can tell she’s a leader and is so dedicated to this. We recently had the opportunity to go to the Genesee County Jail, where she was first arrested. She was from Flint, and she had a visceral reaction to the visit. It wasn’t the first time she’d been back, but it was the first time in a long time.
We had this opportunity to speak with people incarcerated there. Lawanda talked about how easy it could be for her to think, “I have my car, I have my house and partner, I have a job. I don’t need to be involved in things like this. I don’t have to have anything to do with this work. I’m good. I served my time, and so I don’t have to deal with any of this. I could exist as a separate citizen and never think about this again.”
So we had this powerful, moving, in-person discussion facilitated by the Frederick Douglass Project. And Lawanda said, “This is why I don’t just move on. This is why I stay here and do this.”
I hadn’t thought about this before, so it was super eye-opening to hear that from her.
My colleague, Pete, says he’s never heard a better public speaker. She commands every room she walks into.