Good Time Still Makes Good Sense

This article is inspired by the 2020 Michigan Justice Advocacy article; Good Time Makes Good Sense (https://mijustice.org/good-time-initiative/).  Five years later, the central point has not changed; it has become stronger. Michigan still does not provide broad good-time or earned-time credits for most people in prison, while the state’s average minimum prison sentences have continued to grow, the prison population has stopped falling as quickly as it once did, and corrections spending remains above $2 billion per year. The result is a system that keeps people incarcerated longer, limits incentives for rehabilitation, strains prison operations, and spends substantial public resources without clear evidence that longer prison terms alone produce greater public safety.

“Good Time” is a sentence-credit policy that allows incarcerated people to reduce the time they serve by following prison rules, maintaining safe conduct, and participating in required activities. “Earned Time” is closely related, but usually focuses on credits for completing education, vocational training, treatment, work assignments, or other rehabilitative programming. These policies do not erase accountability. They create a structured incentive for people to demonstrate change, participate in rehabilitation, and prepare for successful reentry. They also give corrections officials a practical tool to improve safety inside prisons by rewarding positive behavior and program participation.

Michigan once recognized good-time credits, but current MDOC policy sharply limits eligibility. People convicted of offenses committed on or after April 1, 1987, are not eligible to earn or receive good-time credits under MDOC’s good-time directive. That leaves Michigan outside the mainstream nationally: NCSL’s 2024 review found that sentence-credit policies exist in at least 42 states, including at least 33 states with good-time laws and 34 with earned-time laws.

Michigan’s Need for Good Time Has Grown Stronger

Since the original article was published, Michigan’s sentencing problem has not improved. CJI’s updated Michigan analysis found that average minimum prison terms increased 30% over the past decade, from 9.3 years in 2014 to 12 years in 2023. Drug-offense minimum terms increased 33% over the same period. More than 65% of Michigan’s incarcerated population is now serving a sentence of ten years or more. These numbers show that the state is not simply incarcerating people; it is keeping people for longer periods with fewer meaningful opportunities to earn earlier review or release.

Bridge Michigan’s reporting shows how longer sentences are affecting the current prison system. Michigan’s prison population rose from 32,186 in 2021 to 32,986 in 2023, then dipped to 32,411 by December, but facilities remained nearly full because available beds declined after prison closures. In other words, even modest growth creates pressure when sentence lengths are long, release opportunities are limited, and the system has fewer beds than it once did.

Michigan also remains an outlier nationally. Bridge Michigan reported that the average state prisoner’s sentence nationwide was less than three years as of 2018, while Michigan’s average minimum sentence alone reached 12 years by 2023. Because Michigan’s figure is the minimum term before parole eligibility, many people must serve several times the national average sentence before they can even be considered for release.

Longer Sentences Have Not Guaranteed Greater Safety

The original article argued that being “tough on crime” does not automatically produce greater public safety. Updated data supports that warning. Michigan remains tough on sentence length, but recent crime indicators still show elevated violent crime compared with many states. The policy lesson is not that accountability should disappear; it is that accountability should be paired with incentives that reduce future harm. Good Time and Earned Time policies can support that goal by encouraging safe conduct, education, treatment, work, and reentry preparation.

Victims Want Safety, Support, and Prevention

National victim-survey data from Crime Survivors Speak (https://justsafe.org/resources/crime-survivors-speak-2024-national-survey-victims-views-safety-and-justice-1/) shows that many victims prefer prevention, rehabilitation, judicial discretion, and community investment over policies that rely mainly on longer prison terms. The updated data should be read alongside Michigan-specific survivor survey findings, but both point in the same direction: many people harmed by crime want safety policies that prevent future harm, support survivors, and help people successfully return to the community.

Good Time Saves Money and Can Reduce Recidivism

Evidence from other states continues to support the case for sentence credits. Washington expanded earned release time for eligible nonviolent property and drug offenses in 2003. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that eligible people released under the change served an average of 63 fewer days in prison, reduced the average daily prison population by about 160 beds, and had a felony recidivism rate 3.5% lower compared to people who stayed longer. WSIPP’s benefit-cost analysis found that the benefits outweighed the costs, with about $1.88 in benefits for each $1 spent.

New York’s experience is also relevant. Its Merit Time program, created in 1997, allowed eligible incarcerated people to earn sentence reductions through program participation and good conduct. New York correctional materials and later reform analyses report that the program saved hundreds of millions of dollars in prison costs from 1997 to 2006 and that people released through Merit Time had lower recidivism rates than comparison groups. More recent New York analyses continue to cite earned-time expansion as a way to save taxpayer dollars, reduce prison pressure, improve safety inside facilities, and support reentry.

National research also confirms that sentence credits are now a mainstream corrections policy. NCSL reports that at least 42 states have some form of sentence-credit policy. The federal First Step Act created earned-time credits for eligible people who complete recidivism-reduction programming or productive activities, and early federal analysis found that people released under the First Step Act in 2023 served less of their imposed prison terms than similarly situated people released before implementation. These examples show that Good Time and Earned Time are not radical ideas; they are practical tools already used by most of the country.

Michigan Already Uses Good Time in Other Contexts

Michigan already recognizes the logic of sentence incentives in other parts of the justice system. County jails may use “Disciplinary Credits” policies at the discretion of the sheriff, and Michigan has adopted early-discharge opportunities for people who successfully complete significant portions of probation or supervision without violations. These examples show that Michigan policy already accepts the basic principle: when people follow rules, participate in programming, and demonstrate progress, the system can safely recognize that progress.

The Difficulty of Enacting Good Time in Michigan

Restoring Good Time in Michigan is difficult because the issue sits at the intersection of sentencing law, victim rights, prison administration, and political caution. Michigan’s truth-in-sentencing framework requires people to serve 100% of their minimum sentence before parole eligibility, so any meaningful credit system must either work around or amend a structure that was designed to prevent early release before the minimum term. That makes even modest productivity-credit proposals controversial, especially when opponents argue that sentence reductions undermine victims’ expectations or weaken the meaning of the sentence imposed by the court.

The 2024 Safer Michigan Act illustrates the challenge. Senate Bill 861 and related bills would have created productivity credits for eligible people who completed education, vocational training, or other approved programming. The package passed the Michigan Senate in December 2024 by a 22–13 vote and then was referred to the House Committee on Government Operations, but it did not become law before the end of the session. The debate showed that Good Time can draw bipartisan support, but also bipartisan opposition, particularly around public-safety messaging, victim notification, excluded offenses, retroactivity, and whether credits should reduce the minimum term before parole review.

These barriers do not mean Good Time is unrealistic. They show that reform must be carefully designed. A successful Michigan proposal will likely need clear eligibility limits, strong victim-notification protections, transparent program standards, parole-board review rather than automatic release, and reliable data showing how credits improve prison safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. The policy case is strong, but the path to enactment requires answering public-safety concerns directly and building trust among lawmakers, victims, corrections staff, and communities.

Conclusion: Good Time Still Makes Good Sense

The case for restoring Good Time in Michigan is stronger now than it was in 2020. Sentence lengths have grown, a majority of incarcerated people are serving long terms, prison capacity is tighter, and MDOC spending remains high even as the prison population is far below its 2007 peak. Good Time would not eliminate accountability. It would create accountability with incentives: safer behavior inside prisons, greater participation in rehabilitative programming, clearer preparation for reentry, and a path for people to earn earlier consideration through demonstrated change. Michigan should join the majority of states that use good-time or earned-time credits as a practical public-safety tool.

Selected Sources

• Crime and Justice Institute, Staying Too Long: Michigan Update.
• Bridge Michigan reporting on longer prison sentences and prison capacity.
• Michigan House Fiscal Agency and Senate Fiscal Agency corrections budget materials.
• Michigan Department of Corrections policy and population reports.
• National Conference of State Legislatures 2024 sentence-credit policy summary.
• Alliance for Safety and Justice, Crime Survivors Speak 2024.
• Washington State Institute for Public Policy evaluation of earned release time.
• New York Merit Time and earned-time program analyses.