Last week’s discussions in Eau Claire about parole transparency were important. While a newer state law has changed the rules regarding how and when people convicted of serious crimes may be released, some older cases remain outside of that framework.

There are two things that strike us about that. The first is how this illustrates a key protection people in the United States enjoy with regard to how laws change over time. The Constitution bars passage and application of ex post facto laws. In other words, the law applies as it is written at the time of an offense, not how it is at a later date.

The protection is in Article I. The purpose is to both protect people from changes and prevent absurdity in convictions. Take prohibition, for instance. Those who manufactured alcohol during prohibition, outside of a small handful of closely controlled circumstances, could be charged and convicted for doing so. Without a prohibition on retroactive application of laws those who manufactured alcohol prior to prohibition could, theoretically, have been similarly charged. The nation’s laws changed, and did so within the prescribed means of doing so. But the ban on ex post facto laws meant people couldn’t be prosecuted for doing something that, at the time of the act, was entirely legal.

That’s an important issue for justice. It would be patently unfair to have every single person living with the possibility that unforeseeable changes in the future might deprive them of their liberty. Even when we don’t like the outcome, it is critical that this principle be respected.

The other issue is arguably bigger, both for individuals and for society as a whole. The reality is that the vast majority of people in prison or in jail will eventually be released. Federal statistics from the United States Sentencing Commission tell the story.

Between 2016 and 2021, a total of 709 people convicted of federal offenses were sentenced to life in prison, about half of them for murder. That’s equivalent to 0.2% of the total inmate population at the federal level.

Another 799 people received what are, functionally, life sentences. Those are cases for someone who is, say 30 years old and receives a 90-year sentence. It’s not life, technically. But the odds of a person living to 120 and being released at that point are so vanishingly small that it’s not a practical consideration.

State figures are a little less certain, since Wisconsin puts that data in as a percentage of inmates at state prisons. The figures vary considerably. It probably surprises no one that maximum security facilities have higher percentages of inmates serving life sentences — it’s 14% of the population in Columbia Correctional Institution, but only 1% at the Robert Ellsworth Correctional Center. But, since both of those figures is higher than what the federal government reports, it’s reasonable to conclude state facilities have a higher percentage of people serving life sentences overall.

Even with that in mind, though, it’s well worth noting that more than eight out of every 10 inmates at Wisconsin’s most secure prisons are eventually expected to walk out the gates and back into society. It is in Wisconsin’s best interests to do the best we can to reintegrate people successfully. Some hurdles are unavoidable. Simply going from a highly-regimented life to one with far fewer rules is one. But others can be addressed.

It’s entirely appropriate that Wisconsin take steps to notify victims and their families when inmates are getting out, especially in cases where there may be reason to take precautionary actions. That’s basic protection for the public. Remember, though, that the vast majority of people will eventually leave custody. That’s how the system is supposed to work, too.