Your task is to predict the verdict of a claim based on the provided question-answer pair evidence. The possible labels are: 'Supported', 'Refuted', 'Not Enough Evidence', 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'. Justify your answer using the provided evidence and select the correct label.

Claim: Gov. Tony Evers wants to release half of the prison population."

Q1: Did Tony Evers pledge to reduce the prison population?
A1: Evers has said for years he wants to address overcrowding in Wisconsin’s prison system. But he and his administration have also expressed the need to do it carefully and gradually.

Q2: Did he claim he would release prisoners?
A2: During the 2018 campaign, Evers told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel he would consider releasing some inmates early, overhauling truth-in-sentencing and treating 17-year-olds as juveniles instead of adults, among other policies. He also said, during a Democratic debate, that cutting the prison population in half is "a goal that’s worth accomplishing."

Q3: Does Tony Evers plan on reducing prison population
A3: State Schools Superintendent Tony Evers said Wisconsin needs to follow the example of states like Texas that have cut parole revocations and expanded drug courts. He said he would consider releasing some inmates early; providing more drug treatment behind bars; treating 17-year-olds as juveniles instead of adults for criminal charges; and overhauling truth-in-sentencing so prisoners could be released for good behavior.

“The fact that we as a state spend more on corrections than (the University of Wisconsin) System tells me the last thing we need is to build a brand-new prison,” he said in an emailed statement.

Q4: Does he plan on reducing half of the prison population
A4: He only said he would want to release some prisoners early and didn't give a specific number of prisoners he intends on releasing
user
justification: Whilst he has praised the goal of cutting the prison population in half, and supported plans to address overcrowding, he has not specified specific details. 

verdict: 'Conflicting Evidence/Cherrypicking'
assistant