|
|
|
We know that the issue of Juveniles who kill is a profoundly complex and troubling one on all sides of the question. The discussion that is happening right here in Illinois may be very indicative of where the conversation will go nationally and is a very nuanced one. Thanks to the work and commitment of Illinois Victims families of these juvenile murderers serving life sentences, we are setting the standard for how victims should be included in the sentencing reform questions nationally. A note of thanks to all of our friends from the bottom of our hearts! The calls and letters being sent to Springfield opposing HB 4384, standing up for the safety of our community, and the needs of victims have been just more touching than words can say! The public will on this matter is clear - victims families should not be put through parole hearings for the rest of their lives every year in order to try to free killers sentenced to natural life. Contents of this page:
HB 4384 is no longer a threat to victims families! The news March 25, 2008 is good. Victims families were heard- for the FIRST time since advocates for juvenile killers two years ago in Illinois started the effort to potentially free them. And not surprisingly, once the victims families present that came to tell their incredibly powerful stories of death and trauma, and were heard by those who supported the legislation to free these killers sentenced to natural life, the bill was sent back to the drawing board. As we predicted. What a waste all this has been. Waste of so much time, and money, and effort, and agony, and pain. Representative Molaro is to be commended for his courage and his wisdom as the bill's sponsor for saying that he was wrong to not start with the victims last year and build a victim-sensitive approach from the start. He is a model of how to admit mistakes and begin anew. Staff from the John Howard Association would be well to follow his example. At this meeting Rep. Molaro started over again - heard our voices, listened, and promised to follow up in the right way with whatever next steps they take. Still no notice to the whole list of families, except for the families we recently found through the work of this website. But Rep Molaro agreed to respect principles of notification from this point forward. We hope to help see this happen in the near future. We know that the defense lawyers and the prosecuting attorneys in the state can now focus on a serious conversation about some possible areas in legal technicalities about how certain young inmates move through the criminal justice system and look for ways to improve the process. We look forward to being able to be a part of that discussion, while safe in knowing that our loved ones' killers duly sentenced to natural life, are safely and permanently behind bars. Representative Molaro told the John Howard Association's staff that wrote the bill that it was "off the table" as of now especially in these areas of concern: 1. No retroactivity! Since John Howard's anti-victim position has for over the last year been the key problem, we were especially glad that they finally heard from the other experts what they have refused to hear from us. We are gratified that everything we stood for in this conversation has been vindicated. We have in fact WON. Thank you to the elected officials who stood with us - Mayor Daley, Representative Acevedo, Rep Beth Coulson, Rep. Chapin Rose, Rep. Dennis Reboletti, States Attorney Dick Devine, and many others. Thank you to the media who supported victims, such as the Chicago treasure John Kass. Thank you to the amazing law enforcement heroes, Kurt Kaner, Ron Holt, victims family members themselves, who spoke for us. And to the Illinois FOP for standing up against this bill - you are the ones who put your lives on the line every day to protect victims. Thank you for who you are and what you do. Thanks most of all of our friends and family and supporters who were our "army" in Springfield with letters, phone calls; making possible the attention that was finally given to our voices. The victims families of juvenile killers sentenced to natural life who dropped everything in their lives to come and speak and open their veins literally to share their pain - NOT an easy thing to do - are all heroes. We are still angry that we had to do this, and that we had to take so much time to do something that the advocates for reform should have done from the start. We call on the "Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children" to stop their recent anti-victim strategy and CHANGE THEIR WAYS with regards to the victims of these crimes. Resources, time and attention must be paid to the victims of these killers. We hope this process can now FINALLY begin. It will not be easy for these advocates for the killers. They have already made huge mistakes. Their report was insultingly anti-victim and poorly written and published. They have refused up to now to do the work of notifying victims that we have asked for over the last year. They have not given a dime of their resources to the victims. Much of their approach has been insensitive and even openly at times arrogant. They must respect principles of Restorative Justice, admit and understand the harm they have caused, and now begin anew, or their project will be doomed to suffer the same fate as this ridiculously premature and ill-conceived legislation.
CONTACT the Bill's Sponsor and the Committee that would hear any future versions of this bill
SUNDAY's CHICAGO TRIBUNE LEAD EDITORIAL SUPPORTS OUR POSITION ON JLWOP www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0224edit1feb24,0,4718532.story ed note - Our position
all along - JLWOP sentencing for younger killers should be (and IS) RARE, but
occasionally, sadly, necessary. When the killer is one of those few "worst of
the worst", the victims do not deserve to be sentenced themselves to a lifetime
of parole hearings to keep the killer in prison. The sentencing law can be
reformed to make it better, especially going forward. But not on the backs of
victims, the entire leadership of our law enforcement and judicial system that worked so hard to
apprehend and imprison
these killers, and most of all, the public safety. The advocates of this bill
have known this all along but have ignored everyone's advice and gone ahead with
their reckless proposal, traumatizing victims families.
HELP US DEFEAT HB 4384!
JOHN KASS, renowned columnist for the Chicago Tribune writes TWO columns about JLWOP and Victims
Column
Number One link to Tribune website where you can post and read
comments from all over the nation chicagotribune.comReal victims of child killers will never get early releaseJohn Kass February 20, 2008
The same crowd that figured crooked George Ryan was owed a
Nobel Prize for his opposition to the death penalty -- even though his
corruption came with its own body count -- is at it again. Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
Kass Column Number Two
link to Tribune where you can post and read comments also from all over
the nation www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass_05mar05,0,4523136.column
FLAWS WE FOUND IN THE REPORT:
The Report can be viewed at the Northwestern Law School website By Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins
ED. NOTE (Critique of the report is below): Finally
we can respond to a report that represents 18 months of agony for our family.
Advocates who have shown only concern for the "rights" of killers, and not for
the very real rights or lives of their innocent victims have given no effort at all to
outreach to the families of the victims affected by their study.
We have been
talking to them out of the deepest concern for the other victims families who have
yet to
be told of the work of this coalition. We only knew about it because
of a professional association one of us had at Northwestern Law school. The report is not what we were
told at its inception it would be - it does not document anything about the
103 cases other than race, age, county and a small handful of anecdotal
experiences of difficulties. They ended up not telling those stories because they found that almost all of them
were guilty mass murderers with not much to recommend them for sympathetic
re-evaluation. So the report, which was supposed to profile these 103 cases,
gave no information about their crimes, their cases,
or the patterns that these larger stories could tell. This report is an
advocacy piece, plain and simple, filled with propagandistic and incomplete
arguments, for guilty violent offenders who represent
the worst of the worst in our criminal populations - at the expense of their
innocent victims.
The Coalition's message received wide coverage in the
media. Media interviews on the day of the release of the report were
exhausting and did not explain the problems with the report's recommendations
in any coverage we saw. I was misquoted in several outlets -I never said
that parole might sometimes be acceptable - it would not be ever the way to
address concerns over this sentence - and I never said all these cases would
be death penalty eligible - and I never said I was not informed about the
report - only that the other families were not - I never said the punishment
should fit the crime. The number of times I was misquoted got tiring!
Its another conversation for another day, but when victims
are under this kind of stress to begin with, the media needs to learn not only
how to interview them, but the importance of getting it right when they report
. . .
We did however enjoy viewing the overwhelming public
support evidenced on the NBC5 news poll - should Juvenile killers sometimes be
able to receive a life sentence? 78% were with us - that yes, it was sometimes
appropriate. 22% said no. And blogging on the topic stood, thankfully,
strongly on the side of victims and public safety and appropriate life
sentences for guilty mass murderers.
We offer here some critique of the report. And we repeat - we believe in Restorative Justice. We want all offenders to acknowledge their wrong, make restitution where possible to their victims. We want all human beings to get better, to grow and to be able to do good, to have hope, to help others, and to make the most of their lives. We want human rights for all - free or in prison. We continue to work hard for that. And we promise to continue to converse responsibly, as we have been, with all who want to reform an imperfect system, as we do, and to help to bring understanding to the victims as well as the offenders.
We believe that honors systems in prisons for long term and
life sentences should reward reformed prisoners so that they can move to lower
security prisons for the remainder of their terms and have the chance to go to
school, mentor other troubled youth, and still have some quality of life where
they can still have a positive impact on the world. We want all that for all
the juvenile lifers as well. We want anyone who has been wrongly or overly
sentenced to use clemency and appeals to right the wrongs in their cases and
we would work to support that. We also know that most of them must just
honorably serve their sentences and if they rehabilitate during that time, and
we do earnestly hope for that, then they should be given program opportunities
in prison for a life that allows them to help others, make restitution to
their victims, and earn some privileges in prison for the remainder of their
sentences. But the fact that most of these "juvenile lifers" are guilty
and dangerous murderers who should spend the rest of their lives in prison is
a fact acknowledged in the very report itself.
See the JLWOP Names page for the only list of offenders and victims that the authors of this study have given us. It is not complete and was only given to us a few months before the release of the report. We have asked for ALL of their information and it has not been forthcoming.
A PAGE BY PAGE critique of the report is below, first some
general overall observations about some of the flaws we find with this report:
1. The use of the term "Children"
to refer to these killers.
The report repeatedly references
these juvenile killers as "children" because they are under 18 at the time of
their offenses. And though that may be technically allowed with some readings
of international law, the common usage in America is that "children" are
younger, even single digits, and that those 13-19 are called teenagers or
adolescents, or in legal matters, juveniles. Almost all the offenders were
either 16 or 17, and have killed multiple people. And though the report says
just once (if you blink - you will miss it!) that no 13 year old has
gotten the sentence, it repeatedly implies that because Illinois law has the
potential to give life to a 13 year old (it never has), there are 13 year olds
in Illinois serving life sentences. Casual reading of the report would have
most walking away saying - how awful! 13 year olds.
But there are none. And there are
hardly any 14 year olds (4). And almost no 15 year olds (12). The largest
group (50) of them were 17 when they killed and many were within weeks of
being 18. And there were 37 sixteen year olds.
In Illinois 17 year olds are treated
as adults in sentencing and in the Department of Corrections. Legally
adults.
In some states adult is legally
defined as 16 for many purposes. And we all know that 18 and 21 are legal
definitions in many places for different kinds of things like being drafted,
smoking, drinking, etc. The report's citing of the "general age of
majority" throughout the nation does not apply in this case. The law defines
ages differently for differing legal purposes - for driving, voting, drinking,
signing contracts, getting married, etc. Criminal law is no exception. These
younger killers are legally defined as adults. And with most of them 16 or 17,
to continually call them children just to provoke emotional response in the
reader not only insults both the victims and the offenders, but drives a HUGE
wedge into any reasonable conversation that we all might like to genuinely
have on this troubling issue.
The definition of "adult" varies
widely depending on what you are talking about. But when the law defines cold
and calculated massive criminal behavior as adult enough to be tried and
sentenced as an adult, in those thankfully rare circumstances, they are not
children.
Half of the 103 "children" killers
covered by this report were 17 at the time of their crimes.
87 of the 103 cases - almost 86% -
were 16 or 17. Only 16 of the cases were 14 or 15 at the time of the crimes.
The report should have concluded if it were truly data driven that Illinois
does not have a serious problem with LWOP for juveniles. Certainly not
compared to other states.
The emotional impact of the title of
the report is not substantiated by the actual data. (We note here that the
Coalition told us in our early conversations with this Coalition about what
the report would be about the actual facts of the cases - it was not.)
We do not understand the mixed
messages - in the report and in the media the Coalition said they were not
advocating release for these killers. In fact they thought most should stay in
because of the seriousness of their crimes. But they wanted them all to be
regularly reviewed in any case. No matter the consequence of that process to
the victims families.
SO - under Illinois Law they are
all legally adults because they have met the criteria in the window of
sentencing transfer to adult courts based on the extreme seriousness of their
offenses and other factors. The law clearly says in the teen years their
culpability is determined case by case with the seriousness of the offense and
the conditions of the individual crimes. Using the term both legally and
normatively, they are not children.
Particularly painful is the section
in the report
where we hear quotations from the offenders themselves describing their
troubled upbringings. We know most young people do not even come close to
reacting to the "parents who died" or "parents who were gone all the time with
work" or "parents with substance abuse problems" or "parents who were abusive"
by killing other innocent human beings. There is nothing in the way of
a causal connection between bad parents and excused killing that has been
demonstrated in this report. And to do so would be an ridiculous insult to the
millions who have made far better choices in the wake of poor parenting. And
what of those among the 103 Juvenile Lifers that had perfectly good upbringing
and chose to kill for the sheer entertainment of it? Those kinds of cases (we
know personally they are there) are of course not mentioned in this
anecdotally selective report.
The real children in this report are
the many child victims of these killers.
Nowhere in the report are the stories
of the child victims, or any of the victims, even mentioned. But the
writers and researchers of the report do know those stories, from their
exhaustive research. Why they chose not to tell those stories is clear. It
would detract from their attempts to get sympathy for the killers.
Another example of provocative word
choice in the report: Calling the determinate sentencing system
established in a massive reform effort in 1978 by the Illinois General
Assembly a "scheme". We know that is a legal description of
sentencing patterns in the United States, but for the lay reader it is
pejorative.
2. Clemency is not even
considered.
Clemency by a Governor as a solution
to problematic sentencing, which is THE method prescribed in both our state
and national Constitutions as the way to correct incorrect sentences, is
completely dismissed by the report. In one small sentence, not well thought
out, it simply cites a backlog of clemency petitions, and therefore concludes
that clemency is an unworkable "solution" to a "systemic problem".
First, the report never proves a
systemic problem.
The 103 cases are not profiled in any
way. 2 years of a massive team of researchers and the final report reveals
nothing about the 103 cases except age, race, and county. Where is the
data they gathered?
Left out . . .deliberately -
because it did not support their agenda.
Second, the report proposes bringing back a
parole system wisely dispensed with in Illinois back in 1978 because it was
racist, expensive, ineffective and a monstrous bureaucracy, and is a FAR more
complicated "solution" than simply working to address the backlog of clemency
petitions on the Governor's desk.
Third, according to what we have been
told, not even one of the 103 reported "Juvenile Lifers" have even applied for
clemency. They have not even tried.
Other approaches to possibly
reforming the JLWOP system are not even discussed, underscoring the narrowness
view of the report. This is inexcusable for scholars functioning at this
level.
3. Statistics are distorted and
misinterpreted in several places in the report.
For example, it says that only six
states give out the JLWOP sentence more than Illnois (making us #7), implying
that this makes us one of the worst states in the nation on the issue. In
fact, since we are the 5th largest state in population, we are actually giving
the sentence LESS often than most states for our size.
Actual sentencing numbers bring this
point home even more clearly. Illinois is not the "big problem" when it comes
to Juvenile LWOP, especially when compared to other states that have it.
Another example of a KEY FAILURE of this report:
It cries
racism when it says that Illinois' incarceration of African American Juvenile
Lifers is "starkly higher" than the national average. 72% of Illinois' 103
juvenile lifers are African American compared to the national "average" they
say of 60%.
But that presentation of the
statistics fails to take into account that Cook County, which is half of
Illinois' population, and the source of the vast majority of the Illinois
JLWOP sentences, has the highest African American population BY FAR of any
county in the United States. According to the 2000 US Census, Cook County has
1.4 million African Americans. No other county, including Los Angeles, New
York and Houston, the other huge population centers, even come close. LA is a
distant second with 990 thousand. We are half again as large as that largest
population center in the USA when it comes to percentages of African Americans
residing here. New York and Houston areas have almost only a third of our
number.
So actually, given the actual
populations, Illinois' racial distribution in sentencing of these cases is
probably far LESS racist proportionally than any other place in the nation. To
get exact numbers would require knowing how many JLWOP cases come out of each
county but a simple survey of the larger counties render the argument of this
report regarding racism of Illinois' JLWOP sentencing to be an exaggerated
one.
A map of the United States on page 24
of the report , which
actually does the better job of showing where Illinois stands compared to the
rest of the nation in numbers of JLWOP cases, does not explain another
significant factor when comparing states - that large heavy-sentencing states
like Texas, which the map says does not have Juvenile LWOP, actually until
recently executed its juvenile murderers. That is until the Supreme Court
ruled it unconstitutional. The map should have included those 9 states which
formerly executed juveniles convicted of capital crimes. The map makes Texas
look "humane" next to Illinois, which is of course ridiculous. There are less
JLWOPers in Texas because up until two years ago they were all executed. (I
personally went to Austin, TX and stood with the family of Napoleon Beasley to
oppose his execution. The Supreme Court case came too late to save him.)
4. The treatment of victims in the
report ranges from ignorance and insensitivity to outright cruelty.
Reading this report, one might almost
conclude, if one did not know better, that there were no victims of these
crimes at all, save perhaps the "children" killers themselves.
We got VERY tired during media
interviews done with the release of this report to hear members of the
Coalition say how much they had sympathy for the victims. Members of the
Coalition that did media interviews out and out misrepresented their contacts
with victims during the process of writing this report. Unless they have been
keeping victim contacts a secret from us, the only victims of
these 103 juvenile lifers that they talked to are the victims families of the
killings done by David Biro, and possibly one other interfamilial murder where
the victim and the offender were all in one family. The other victims families
that they say they have been talking to are NOT the victims of these cases but
of others.
Here is one of the most outrageous
and hurtful points of all this:
They did NOT bring or welcome victims
"to the table", despite our pleas for over a year that they do so, as they
said in media interviews on the day of the release.
At this point more than any other, I
winced in pain. To the advocates for the "juvenile lifers" I say this loud and
clear: Hypocrisy and lip service on the victim issue must be stopped in
this dialogue.
They did not inform people whose
lives would be horrifically affected if what they were proposing would become
law. They have demonstrated no compassion for victims or shown ethical
responsibility because if they had, all the affected victims families of the
killers in this report would have been delegated some of the vast resources
available to the Coalition and be at the very least advised of this process -
as we have begged them to do for 18 months.
While twice the report actually
refers to their crimes, and says they are "serious", not a one of the actual
crimes is even briefly discussed in this report that supposedly was to give a
picture of all the cases - the result of almost two years of interviews and
research by their coalition.
Reading the report its as if, because the murder victims
are gone, and the killers remain, they are all that matter.
No thought is given at all to the
life sentences being served by the survivors. And their proposed solutions at
the end of the report do not address, not a single one, the needs of victims.
In fact it is as if they actually calculated - what would be the way that
could bring release opportunities to these juvenile lifers that would do the
most to cause additional harm to victims families? And then proposed it as the
only way out . . .regular parole reviews.
In a state that does not have parole
or indeterminate sentencing.
That requires victims families to
re-engage with the offender regularly for the rest of their lives.
Trading a life sentence for the
guilty killers to the innocent victims families.
We know there are other "solutions"
for any problem cases they find -
we have proposed them and will continue to - for those few cases where there
may have been genuine injustice. They only make the case for one in the
report,, however - Marshan Allen.
We understand that is because there
were no other "sympathetic" stories they could find among the cases. Most all
were multiple murderers that if they were just a few months older would have
likely received death penalty trials - truly the 'worst of the worst'.
More ways the report is callous to
victims:
In the section of the report labeled
those "Most Affected" by the crimes of the Juvenile Lifers, the shocking
number one on their list was the families of the offenders.
The victims' families were number
two.
The rest of the public is not
mentioned.
Enough said.
And we want to just cry when we think
of the hundreds of thousands of dollars, significant grant money, impressive
staff support and time donated by a major law firm, and countless hours over
several years put together this report and this coalition by some of the
finest minds in the city of Chicago, all to document the prison sentences of
these 100 killers. With over 48,000 prisoners serving in the Illinois
Department of Corrections, and 2.2 million nationally in prison, most for
non-violent offenses, many cases of genuine innocence still desperately
needing attention, a vigorous death penalty still alive and well in the United
States, and violent crime wreaking havoc on our lives and our economy, the
choice to put these kinds of resources into a report like this just stuns us.
Gun violence alone in the USA is killing 82 people a day on average, and those
injured who survive are costing our economy $100 Billion dollars a year.
The absolute best way to PREVENT
young people from facing life sentences for murders is to work HARD to limit
their access to guns. No other step they could take would make as much of a
difference. The choice to devote the staggering financial and personnel
resources that went into this report to try to liberate and bring sympathy to
these killers, in the wake of the much more profound needs of their innocent
victims, just eludes us.
Other states such as the state of
Tennessee have documented the terrible price paid by children of the VICTIMS
of murder. Statistics show that many of them end up in foster care, on food
stamps, in deprived financial situations where they cannot go to college, and
even in the criminal justice system themselves. Where is the concern for these
children?
Among the more painful moments of
reading the report was the section "in their own words" where we hear
quotations from the offenders serving life sentences for multiple or
aggravated and coldly calculated murders about the sadness in their lives.
The sadness in their lives.
Sadness that they don't get to see
their families because of how far away the prison is. Sadness that their
friends don't want to write them now that they have committed multiple murders
and have been put away for life. Sadness that they will never get married or
have children of their own. Sadness that they don't get to go to college
except via correspondence.
The point at which I lost it (this
really has been a traumatic process personally) reading this list of
complaints was the point where one killer said he just wished he could live a
normal life. So did, I am sure, the hundreds of murder victims whose lives
were ended by these same sad "children".
Words fail me as a murder victims
family member of one of these Illinois JLWOP cases - how do I try to explain
how that all sounds to me? How can we get the authors of this report to see
how that reads to the rest of us? I suppose this is simply the dilemma faced
by so many victims whose needs are so often ignored. What I can only take away
from this section of the report is that the authors of this study either
deliberately chose to be hurtful to victims, not caring because it interfered
with their agenda, or that they never gave how this all would sound to the
"outside world" a single coherent thought.
The glaring flaw in the whole report
is the complete failure to address even a single detail of the nature of the
crimes that landed them in prison serving life sentences in the first place.
But to do so would make this a very different report - one that would most
likely bolster, strongly, the case for imprisonment.
Remember, every single one of the
inmates in this report have had full and exhaustive due process in courtroom
after courtroom after courtroom. And while flaws do exist in the criminal
justice system, as we have said many times very clearly, and we repeat,
innocence is an extremely serious matter that must be addressed, the report
itself admits that there are only a few cases where innocence is being
investigated and where parole might actually be granted if they were to be
reviewed in that way.
Finally and worst of all, the "fair
notice" the report pays lip service to, that victims should have about these
proposed sentence changes for the killers of their loved ones - sentences that
they were told were permanent - should only happen AFTER the legislation to
provide release opportunities to those sentenced to natural life is made LAW.
Too late for them to have any input at all into the process.
5. Overclaims throughout the
report
Elsewhere on this page are the
refutations for the Brain Overclaim Syndrome this report expectedly relies
upon - that culpability is not possible with less than fully formed
neo-cortexes. Why then do we ever punish our children? To help them learn and
grow - that's why. Because actions have consequences. Because sometimes you
need to be removed from the rest of us when you are out of control. Because
you need to understand there are limits. Because you need to learn right from
wrong. Most of all we know that every child - every person - develops
differently. Some are more mature, some less at a given age. Some have better
reasoning, some less. Some have better judgment, some have less. And
culpability is not determined by chronological age, but by the developmental
advances of that individual person.
The killer in our family's case was
fully and completely culpable.
Contact me for details if you want the evidence. He was not in any way
"categorically less culpable".
Outrageous is the only way we can
respond to the authors of this report who have repeated over and over in the
media and the report this "problem" with juveniles sentenced to natural life
for crimes committed as "accomplices" only - sentenced under accountability
theory. Illinois law holds them equally culpable - no matter the age - of
anyone tried as an adult. However, they hold this out as a point of sympathy
for younger offenders.
Just one problem- they could not
document (other than Marshan Allen, the poster boy for their report) any
examples of or documentation of this actually happening. One researcher told
us that they couldn't actually find any of those cases.
So why are they talking about it in
the media and in the report in their attempts to discredit the sentence?
A final significant concern is the
way the report mischaracterizes what is happening in other states about the
JLWOP sentence: in fact the report says on careful reading that only one
state, Colorado, has acted to abolish the sentence - and that state not
retroactively - only prospectively. And the prospective changes
provide for the first parole review to not happen for FORTY years. And what the report does not tell the
reader is about the bitter and divisive debate that has ensued in Colorado for
years, and where retroactive changes to the sentences served by the 45 JLWOP
prisoners was not done because it was incredibly problematic for a long list
of reasons. Retroactive changes in sentences are a significantly different
matter than prospective changes. The activists there at the Pendulum
Foundation have
spoken very supportively to me, and the position we have taken on this
website. Emails they sent us are found on this section of the website. In
it, they advise the advocates of the Illinois "Coalition for the Fair
Sentencing of Children" to work with victims such as us, to accept prospective
changes in sentencing, and to not fall into the trap of creating opposition in
the murder victims' families of these offenders, but instead to do the hard
work of listening to and working with victims' families, something that the
Illinois advocates have yet to even attempt, but should have before publishing
the report. We have never opposed prospective changes in sentencing laws
because they are not a victims rights issue. And a review after 40 years is
not the problem for victims families that the "at
10 years in with parole reviews every two years" that has been proposed (HB
4384) - just a nutty proposition. A 17 sentenced to life getting out when
he is 27? And he is not going to still be dangerous?
Finances - why doesn't this report
take some responsibility for the massive costs they are proposing for Illinois
taxpayers - to create a brand new parole bureaucracy (something the state
wisely discarded in 1978) - all to help these cases of guilty multiple
murderers get regular reviews that even the report's authors admit would not
nor should not result in them being released for the most part. This is not
sound public policy.
Also, simply because other states,
less than 10, have proposed bills to reform JLWOP does not mean the "tide is turning"
as the report champions. It does not take the support of more than one
legislator to file a bill. It does not provide any evidence for a groundswell.
In fact, those states don't have, in most cases, even close to the number of votes needed in their legislatures to pass such legislation. California's proposals were just soundly defeated. Other states are not, as the report claims, "changing their laws" as if this is some trend. Bills in any state that propose to abolish JLWOP, or any other broad systemic criminal justice reform would need broad bi-partisan coalitions to pass - something that is very difficult to accomplish politically. Advocates in Illinois are off to a bad start in their one-sided approach if that is their ultimate goal.
And so members of the Coalition who
rushed to legislation before the long hard work of education and outreach to
victims and the public was even attempted, have done not only the victims, but
the offenders they say they are advocating for, a real disservice. They have
turned victims into adversaries. They have discredited a responsibly conceived
effort by being unwilling to have the hard, open listening conversations
needed to build bridges of understanding strong enough to cross the gaps
formed by violent crime. They have tried and failed to win our sympathy for
what really is just a tragic, tragic situation - young people willing and able
to kill so many, so easily.
A PAGE BY PAGE COMMENTARY ON THE REPORT:
Ed note: If the author's had brought a final draft of
this report to us before publication, we would have offered these same
thoughts and helped them to write a better report.
Page 1
Regarding the note about the use of photographs throughout
the report - they acknowledge that there are photos of both Illinois JLWOPers
and also "other children" and there is no labeling in the report which is
which. Very propagandistic. Especially when photos throughout show such young
offenders - most of the JLWOPers now are well into 20's, 30,s 40s.
Page 3
They thank the "victims families" who they talked to in the
writing of the report. Though we hope they talked to others, we know only that
they talked to Jeanne and Jennifer Bishop, my family. If they talked to
others, they deliberately did not tell us and we think that is horrible, if it
is true. If they did not talk to others, they should not imply by their
wording that they talked to many victims families.
The few victims families we have found through our own
efforts with NO assistance from the writers of this report have never talked
to any of these researchers. They were shocked to hear about it, as we were,
and deeply grateful to us for finding them. The disruption and time that this
has cost our lives is staggering in its breadth. But we find the new
relationships we have gained in the process to be nothing but a gift and truly
joyous for us.
But this "thank you" to us on page three is more painful
than if they had just left it out. The "constructive dialogue" called for here
is what we have TRIED to do all along and have been thwarted at every turn.
Now that the report is released we have not been contacted for the follow-up
we were promised. We have not begun a dialogue, and the "recommendations
fashioned" do not at all account for our concerns.
If you want to thank us, members of the Illinois Coalition
for the Fair Sentencing of Children (ICFSC), find and inform all the victims
families. It is never too late to choose to do the right thing.
But that has still not happened, two years into their work
and months after the release of the report.
Page 6
Re: The quotation on the picture of the sad looking young
inmate that says "How can you say someone can't change?"
We cannot dismiss strongly enough the assertion of the
report that concluding that truly guilty and duly processed aggravated
murderers should serve their entire sentences somehow means that we don't
think they can change.
This website is filled with discussion about
restorative justice and rehabilitation.
Of course people can change, and more than anyone who
wrote and supported this report, WE wish that these killers would change.
If for one moment the ICFSC would walk a mile in our shoes,
I am sure they could figure out the depth and truth of that.
Page 7
This is the first place the report names 13 year olds as
being able to receive this LWOP sentence and it is done in several places in
the report. Only once does it mention that NONE HAVE.
Also, from the start, the report assumes that the arguments
used before the Supreme Court regarding the juvenile death penalty should and
could also be applied to juvenile LWOP. That is of course an intellectually
dishonest argument, as the penalties are strikingly different. To be
able to apply the same legal reasoning to LWOP cases as to the death penalty,
huge bodies of research and public consensus would have to be achieved, and
actually given the differences between the two penalties, we sincerely believe
that this will never happen.
Also, this page uses the word "consensus" to refer to their
growing views that juveniles should not be sentenced to life. They need to
look up the word consensus again, and also broaden the circle of people they
talk to.
The only consensus we see in our nation is that guilty and
heinously aggravated murders should spend their lives in prison, if not out
and our be executed.
Finally, this page obfuscates the issue of Colorado
"abolishing outright" the JLWOP sentence. In fact what Colorado did very
minimal. They made only prospective changes, not retroactive, as the ICFSC
advocates (which is by the way so legally problematic as to assure that it
will never happen in Illinois); AND only after 40 years served of the sentence
before a parole review, a virtual life sentence in any case; AND in a state
that already has parole, which Illinois does not. To cite Colorado in support
of their report actually only services the position that this website takes on
the issue.
Page 8
Where the report cites things such as marriage and alcohol
consumption as examples of how laws are different about children, we have two
responses. First, of course, which is why the varying age limits for different
things only supports our position that culpability and responsibility varies
depending on what you are talking about. So second, we point out the obvious -
MURDER is very different.
Murder is different than marrying, drinking, etc.
Duh.
My two daughters knew when they were 6 that it was wrong to
kill, however. There is no reasonable argument that can be made that these
juvenile killers did not know what they were doing was wrong, unless they were
severely mentally ill, in which case they would not receive this sentence
anyway.
And unless they can show that these killings were done on
impulse (since they cite impulse control as a brain issue) then culpability
does not change. The killer in my family's case plotted the murder for months,
very carefully. He even practiced the skills he used that night. It was not an
impulse and he knew it was wrong and he was not mentally ill, and he tortured
and murdered an innocent pregnant woman and her husband. The three LWOP
sentences he received were the right sentence for him.
Page 9
Re: Parole as an incentive to change - we repeat as above,
no one is saying these younger killers can't and shouldn't change. They should
and they must, though many will not. But to link their situations to a
constant argument for parole, which really has little connection to their
changing, or not changing, process does this whole issue a real disservice.
The authors of this report are wearing blinders that are
not allowing them to see what else is out there.
MANY other conclusions are possible when looking at reform
and societal responses to the lives in prison of younger killers.
Also on this page, another call to dialogue with victims.
How can they ethically call on legislators to do something
they themselves have refused to do?
Page 10
Re: "the law simply dictates that if the child commits one
of the crimes outlined in the statute, he or she is beyond redemption and is
not entitled to a second chance - ever."
Two major things wrong with this sentence. First, most of
the cases of JLWOP the killer had an earlier record, and had many second
chances. Some of them have been repeat murderers. Some of them were out on
bond for juvenile violent crimes and committed these heinous crimes after
already being released for other offenses, or while waiting trial. If they had
actually published the facts of all the 103 cases, second chances would not be
on the table as a serious point of contention in this discussion. Second, to
use the spiritually-laden term "redemption" to refer to what LWOP means is
simply wrong and hurtful.
Redemption for these killers? I pray for it, daily.
Redemption for the victims' families? We all need to work
for it.
But serving their sentences for these crimes has nothing to
do with their redemption.
Page 12-13
The report implies that judges are asking for more and
lesser options when sentencing these killers. We know of many JLWOP cases
where the judges affirmed strongly that this was indeed the right sentence,
and further, some expressed the desire to do worse in terms of punishment,
given the facts of their crimes.
We know of only one - Judge Dwyer in the Marshan Allen
case, that asked for that option. If there were more judges and more cases, we
feel sure this report would have made a BIG deal out of that.
And the report on this very page PROVES that the courts and
appeals can work to correct this sentence. The Supreme Court of Illinois
overturned this sentence in People v Miller case. And Marshan Allen and
Charles Green got new hearings because of it. The appeals system can work and
should be made to continue to work even better.
Just because other JLWOP cases have not gotten new trials
does not mean it isn't working. It could just mean that the cases were not
deserving, as we generally suspect.
Also, there is a logical flaw in the wording of this
particular argument - the Miller case specifies a JLWOPer who was only an
accomplice, sentenced under accountability theory. Then the report implies
that all 103 JLWOPers should be given new trials because of the Miller ruling.
This was a significant point in the course of our
discussions with the ICFSC over the last year - how many JLWOPers were
sentenced under accountability? They thought at first, they told us, there
could be many. But they reported to us at the end of the study there were very
few.
Of course, NO specifics have been forthcoming. The ICFSC
only gives specifics when it supports their argument.
But since we now have had affirmed by their study that in
most of these cases only the actual killer is the one serving the sentence, we
are confident that we can have a more reasoned discussion about what the laws
should be for accountability going forward.
And we also note, there is accountability, and then there
is accountability. There is the Marshan Allen, just along for the ride who did
not know what was happening inside the house. And then there is the
older gang banger who hands the gun to the younger gang member and orders him
to kill the innocent victim. In that case, accountability is MORE serious than
the "trigger man" in terms of culpability.
So the laws about accountability need to be VERY carefully
reviewed, if that is what they wish to make their case about. But to blur the
lines in their report is not helpful.
Page 13
The report says "clemency is not the answer" because it is
rarely granted and there is a backlog of cases.
They said this, we suspect, because in our meetings with
them we said often that this was in fact the solution prescribed in our
nation's laws and Constitutions, state and federal, regarding the check and
balance for a system not working as it should.
In fact, clemency SHOULD be rarely granted. It should be
exceptional, extraordinary, and only when all other branches of government
have failed thoroughly and utterly, which is sometimes the case.
And the backlog issue has two very much easier solutions
than bringing back a parole system to Illinois that is very costly, hugely
discriminatory, wildly ineffective, and horrifically traumatic on victims
families. First, fewer inmates should apply. They should self regulate to only
apply if they are truly deserving. Instead they apply whenever they can
because they have little else to do. We need to give them better things to do.
Second, the backlog should be addressed politically and through public
education at the Governors' or President's desks, throughout the nation.
It would be far easier to mount a public education campaign
about how and why clemency should be working more efficiently as a system in
our nation than it would EVER be to build the political case necessary to free
these younger killers duly sentenced to life.
We strongly urge the ICFSC to take up that campaign.
RE the quotation on p 13 from Kentrell S - "I am America's
child. You made this and now don't sweep it under the rug" - I have two
observations.
First, we can't tell from one quotation but the theme in
this report is not to address responsibly the issue of accountability by these
killers. It does not help to build their case to make excuses for what they
have done, and to try to pass off blame. Quite the contrary, the more the
advocates for the JLWOPers learn to address what the killers are responsible
for, and the more they can begin the restorative justice dialogue about
acknowledging harm and working for restitution, the better off they will all
be.
Second, we agree - there is something VERY wrong with our
nation on this issue. We see the level of violence committed regularly by the
young people in this nation to be alarming beyond words. Especially because it
is NOT seen in other nations. Lets take, just for example, Finland. Why aren't
there juveniles committing aggravating murders? Could it be because they don't
have the NRA, the gun industry, and the easy access to ridiculous levels of
firearms? Could it be because they have good education, jobs training, health
care, welfare, and a responsible view of how to build a community where all
are valued and problems are addressed collectively by the government that the
people are invested in? Could it be that they know prevention is the answer
and that the USA has not figured that out yet?
I would assert that my personal work to keep guns away from
kids in our nation does more to keep young people away from serving a JLWOP
sentence than anything that the authors of this report are doing. I invite
them to join my work in that area if they really want to stop young people
from serving life sentences. And they could support
Fight Crime Invest in Kids as I
do. And they could support the Victim Impact Panel programs for the Cook
County Juvenile Probation program that does more to take young first offenders
and help to turn them around than most any program in the nation. (This
program has been severely curtailed under Todd Stroger's budget cuts - I
suggest that the ICFSC go to work on that!)
RE the inset box on page 13 lower left - the age of
"juveniles" in Illinois is 17, not 18, and yet they use this as their
demarkation line in the report.
This is problematic for several reasons - first there is NO
consensus nationally about the age line - it is widely different all over the
nation. They should work for federal consistency if they think this is an
issue.
However, clearly a reason they include 17 year olds in this
report is because it bolsters their numbers and makes the problem look bigger.
There would only be just over 50 JLWOPers without the 17 year olds.
But in Illinois the 17 year olds are ALREADY criminally
adults anyway. And while the ICFSC supports bills to raise that law, it will
not be happening in Springfield any time soon because 17 year olds make up the
bulk of the crimes and they are a huge expense criminally. If the age is
raised to 18, then all 17 year old criminals become the responsibility of the
County Governments in the state. None of them can afford this and they are all
fighting it for that reason.
This report takes liberal leaps with the law when including
17 year olds in this report when it briefly acknowledges "for the purposes of
this report" they are defining juvenile criminals where they want to - under
18 - instead of addressing the laws in Illinois and many states as they are.
MORE TO COME
chicagotribune.comOnline at the Tribune site you can post comments and join the debate! Group proposes abolishing life sentences for juvenilesVictims advocates oppose abolishmentBy Michael Higgins Tribune reporter February 14, 2008
In a move that angered victims rights advocates, a
coalition of lawyers and academics on Wednesday called on Illinois to abolish
sentences for juveniles of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
"Real victims of child killers will never get early release"
John Kass, Column, Chicago Tribune February 20, 2008 The same crowd that figured crooked George Ryan was owed a Nobel Prize for his opposition to the death penalty -- even though his corruption came with its own body count -- is at it again. This time -- instead of trying to save the lives of murderers on Death Row while fitting puffy angel wings on Ryan's shoulders as the former governor prepared for his corruption trial -- some georgeryanistas have new victims to rescue. Child killers. Not just any child killers, but killers who've taken one or more lives while they were under 18, technically making them minors when they committed murder and now they're in prison for life and don't like it. The Illinois Coalition for the Fair Sentencing of Children is pushing legislation to spring these convicted murderers, to give them parole hearings after 10 years behind bars, even though they've already been spared a death sentence by receiving life without parole. The coalition wants to save 103 souls -- now get this -- because the killers are themselves the victims. The coalition argues that the murderers' brains weren't fully formed when they killed, that peer pressure forced them to end a life or lives, and that life without parole is unacceptable. The coalition has even come out with a study to bolster their point of view -- that the prisoners were themselves victims of a cold and unfeeling America. They've got a legislative champion, State Rep. Robert Molaro, a Chicago Democrat, to carry water for these murderous victims of a callous (at least they didn't say capitalistic) society. There's something not quite right about all of this. It smells. Is this about helping an entire class of killers or just one? I don't know. If you do, please call the Chicago Tribune and let me know. In their report -- "Categorically Less Culpable" -- the georgeryanistas put together a list of victims most affected by our indifferent imprisonment of youthful murderers. You might think the victims were people who had their lives cut short on purpose. These include kids who had their brains blown out, or their throats cut, or were shot in the back and died in their sister's arms or children who were raped and tossed out of windows. Other, older victims were stalked, adults killed in their homes as they begged for their lives, the husband and the wife and their unborn child; or others, whose bodies were subjected to the invasion of the muzzle of a sawed-off shotgun. All of these were killed by teenagers. But according to the georgeryanistas, you'd be wrong if you thought the dead are the victims. The main victims are the killers and their families who've been deprived of their love and comfort. Under the heading, "Those most affected by juvenile lifers' crimes," are the families of those killers. They're listed first, above the families of the dead, which shows you where the real victims rank in the georgeryanista hierarchy. "Those with whom we did speak told us how difficult it has been to cope with their family members' sentences," read the report. "Like the inmates, the family members said it was difficult to visit, because the prisons are far away." That's terrible, not being able to visit as often as you wish. It's horrifying, to have loved ones so distant, kept against their will so they can't feel your loving embrace. But there's another distance too. Death. And whether you believe as many of us do, in heaven and hell, or if you're existential about it and think of the vast nothingness, the distance is still pretty damn far and there are no visits. These are the real victims. And their mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers. They're victims too. Should some sentences be reviewed? Yes. But by established practice, not through some blanket legislation forcing the families of the dead back into court every two years for parole hearings to relive the horror. "Children are simply less culpable than adults," a coalition member was quoted as saying. "Because they are not yet fully formed, children are capable of change and rehabilitation and reform." Perhaps. But their trigger fingers are fully formed. And their knife hand. And they know it's wrong to kill if you might get caught. One of the killers eligible for parole under the Molaro plan is Johnny Freeman, who was three months shy of 18 when he grabbed 5-year-old Shavanna McCann at the Henry Horner Homes. He raped her and threw her from a 13-story window, as she screamed "Mama" before she fell in 1985. In their arrogance, the georgeryanistas didn't include interviews with the families of the murdered in their report. We've spoken to two of those families, and I'll be writing a column about them soon. "We'll be the ones on trial, again and again, every two years," said Ruben Pulido, whose 13-year-old son, an honor student, was murdered by a gangster on a bicycle. "Why do we have to be the ones on trial?" ---------- jskass@tribune.com Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune
****
THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES POSTS OUR LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN RESPONSE
TO THEIR ARTICLE ABOUT THE JLWOP REPORT
Justice for victims' families?
Forcing families of murder victim through regular parole hearings for duly sentenced "juvenile lifers" only transfers the life sentence to us. These few cases were not "routine" killings; all of them were heinous and calculated multiple or aggravated murders. Illinois eliminated parole in 1978 because it's a discriminatory, costly and ineffective bureaucracy. The advocacy report actually confirmed that they found almost no examples of error in these 103 cases. The "racial bias" issue has also been misunderstood because the minorities under this sentence are mostly from Cook County, which has the highest minority population of any county in the United States -- 1.4 million in 2000 census. Minority representation is actually lower proportionally from Cook County than other regions in the nation where the sentence is more frequent. Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, illinoisvictims.org
Talking points on HB 4384 - filed January 2008 in the Illinois General Assembly
View the bill at www.ilga.gov |
