Links
Our proposal to the HJR 80 Committee regarding the necessity of victim
notification and Restorative Justice principles
The full text of HJR 80 as it was passed by the Illinois General Assembly
A list of the members currently appointed to
the HJR 80 Legislative Study Committee
Press Releases on how HJR 80
will affect crime victims
Materials distributed by the
HJR 80 Steering Committee discussing their agenda and intent as well as
quotes from the Illinoisprisontalk (IPT) website clearly showing what they
want from HJR 80.
Download our factsheet
on HJR80 in PDF format
Media Coverage of
HJR 80
Sign Our Petition and Send a Message Supporting Victims of Crime in
Illinois
Spring 2008 UPDATE
NOTICE - April 21 cancelled
We continue to have questions and
concerns: Victims of all of these "C number" prisoners who face proposals for early release
have still not been notified, despite our pleas to do so! In May of 2007 - a
full YEAR ago - we submitted a proposal to the Sentencing Subcommittee chaired
by Craig Findlay of the Prisoner Review Board and WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN
ANSWER and the subcommittee has not met.
Our proposal was to use the Prisoner
Review board's regular communications network, already easily in place, to
notify all C number prisoner victims families that possible change in how
releases are determined are being considered. Victims have a right to know all
this and have some input into the process.
Previously this spring:
It seems to us that the Long Term Prisoner Study Committee
and this whole HJR 80 project is at a standstill. There has not been a meeting
of the committee in months. The promised January meeting never took place.
Subcommittees are not meeting and the chair of one has reported that he just did
not think it was going anywhere. The funding has been cut, the chair Rep Art
Turner did not come to the last meeting, and there has not been any
communication to any members of the committee that has been official of any
future plans.
This is fine by us - it was a mistake in the first place.
Once we got the efforts of this website on the job, we got
victims, victim advocates and prosecutors appointed to this study. Then we got
them to take retroactive sentence reduction off the table. After that, the wind
seems to be gone from the sails of this committee. Prison health care and
programs should have continued to be studied but may die with what was their
real, if not hidden, agenda all along . . .to end determinate sentencing in
Illinois and bring back parole to Illinois - the most anti-victim,
discriminatory, wasteful and expensive bureaucracy possible in criminal justice.
It would just be nice if we knew for sure. Thousands of
prisoners, many victims, public leaders, and interested citizens would be
treated more respectfully if some concrete decision was made about the
committee's work.
Not to mention the Illinois Taxpayers who have
already invested tens of thousands of tax dollars into the work of the
committee. For apparently nothing.
Representative Turner - what is the outcome of this
expenditure of money, time and hassle for many - and outright agony for victims?
If we get an answer, we will be happy to post it here.
DECEMBER 2007 UPDATE
For the first time since last May, the full Long Term
Prisoner Study Committee met at the State of Illinois building on December 10.
The highlight of the meeting was the impassioned, articulate, thought-provoking
testimony given by several members of families of murdered police officers whose
killers are C number or indeterminately sentenced prisoners. They came in
opposition to proposals submitted by the Campaign for C Number prisoners and the
John Howard Association that had been presented to the Sentencing Subcommittee
on November 30 that were being passed on to the full committee for consideration. These proposed reforms would make it easier for C number
prisoners to obtain early release. Here is a brief summary of the meeting:
*Chairman Representative Art
Turner did not come to the meeting, and did not send word of his non-attendance
and so we all waited for 30 minutes to even start the meeting. Many in
attendance had taken time off work and gone to significant effort in order to be
present and there was barely a quorum of committee members.
*Several members of the committee
complained about the repeated lack of adequate notice to members of this
committee by the chairs and subcommittee chairs. No minutes are being sent out, no advanced notice of meetings with
adequate time to prepare, no materials to preview, and significant proposals
being put before them without professionally responsible structure with which to
consider them.
*Reports from other
Subcommittees: The Healthcare Subcommittee submitted a report from the NAARPR
documenting significant concerns in Illinois prison health care, and proposals for
reform, including family input on medical decision-making. The IDOC has a new
medical director and a formal request was passed from the study committee to obtain
information needed by this committee to make decisions about the health care recommendations. The Program Subcommittee has begun to gather information about what
educational programs IDOC has and is considering recommendations to increase
those offerings, with obvious concerns about where those additional resources
would come from. One area of interest is to find better ways to utilize the many
volunteers who potentially could provide free valuable programming for
prisoners. And the Program Subcommittee considered favorably a proposal from
IllinoisVictims.org that would help begin pilot programs that prepare prisoners
for possible Restorative Justice processes, if the victims in their cases so
chose. (It is our position that if a prisoner is prepared to truly
apologize to the victims families and dedicate him or herself to make his life
right again, and if the victims family wants to hear it, those opportunities
should be provided.)
*Report from the Indeterminate
Sentencing Subcommittee: The Prisoner Review Board members who chair and are on the
subcommittee supported proposals for reforming the current method by which
indeterminately sentenced prisoners from before 1978 are evaluated for release.
These proposals from the Campaign for C Number Prisoners and the John Howard
Association included that standards for the number of votes needed on the PRB to obtain
release could be lessened to a majority of members present, as opposed to 8 of
the 15 members, as it is now. This, along with a more "objective" Risk
Assessment tool, a sort of scorecard for prisoner behavior, was met by stiff
opposition from the Fraternal Order of Police, law enforcement victims families,
and members of the Chicago Police Department present who gave moving and
powerful testimony about the need to keep cop killers and other "worst of the
worst" offenders behind bars for the life sentences they were clearly intended
to serve. After this amazing series of testimonies, even advocates for the
prisoners admitted with committee members who pointed out that those 279 cases
of C numbers that were left were probably that small number of the worst who
should never get out. Some victims who testified questioned the PRB members
motivations to keep their jobs over doing what was best for the citizens of
Illinois, in trying to find ways to continue justifying the need for their own
jobs in the wake of
dwindling numbers of C number prisoners. PRB members on the subcommittee have
supported adding whole new large classes of indeterminate prisoners, such as
geriatrics, sex offenders, and juveniles tried as adults for the most
heinous crimes, to the indeterminately sentenced category. Testimony given by
law enforcement and victims, along with some committee members made clear the
very positive reasons why Illinois switched back in 1978 to determinate
sentencing. Committee members reported being deeply touched by the victims
voices. One victim informed the committee that had they had more than 48 hours
notice of this meeting, the room would be filled with victims and supporters who
would not go away until they had obtained assurances that these horrific
criminal acts would in fact result in the life sentences they were clearly
intended to get. Tension arose when the Prisoner Review Board
Chairman Jorge Montes got personal and criticized a prosecutor also serving on
the committee for "pandering" to the audience of victims when he
expressed concern over some practices by the Prisoner Review Board. Mr. Montes left
the meeting early, citing other commitments, after he continued the exchange
that so angered the victims families present that they called him disdainful of them in
testimony after he left. These victim families have had to deal with the PRB
every single year for the last three decades, in some cases. Examples were
given in testimony of PRB members who had lost taped testimony from victims that
sat in her car for over a year, and other grievances.
Finally, our proposal requesting
notification of C number victim families of the work of this study committee,
something easy for the PRB to do, was not acted on, once again. We formally submitted the
proposal in May of 2007. And we know that such notification is the only way that
this committee's work can be in compliance with the victims rights to
notification of all matters affecting their cases articulated
in the Illinois Constitution. We remain concerned that the work of this
subcommittee may be doomed if they do not bring all of the stakeholders in this
discussion to the table.
The next full meeting of the Long Term Prisoner Study Committee is expected to
be soon - in January 2008.
WHAT SHOULD WE DO ABOUT
THE "C NUMBER PROBLEM"?
After the painful exchange at the December 10, 2007
meeting of the Long Term Prisoner Study Committee where victims families
of murdered law enforcement and fellow officers supporting their fallen
comrades gave excruciating testimony about the importance of keeping "cop
killers" and other "worst of the worst" behind bars for life, we feel it
is important to repeat what we believe is the solution to what advocates
have called "the C number problem".
We were especially moved by the sensitive and
thoughtful testimony of James Sayles, himself a former C number prisoner,
now released, who has distinguished himself with a very positive life. He
had no victim opposition to his release. And he now works with the
Campaign for C Number Prisoners. His testimony on December 10 was
respectful to victims pain, and he completely admitted that most of the C
number prisoners now remaining in custody should probably never get out.
But he continued to make the case that some reforms should still be made
to their release system.
It is important to note that we have not ever taken
a position opposing reforms to the C number system, but we have insisted
on two things:
1. All indeterminately sentenced prisoner victims
families be notified of the process of discussion about possible changes
to the system so that they may have input if they so chose. They are key
stakeholders in this process and should not be denied their rights to fair
notification for timely input into a process so vital to their lives.
(This website does not speak for victims and this position is just that of
the webmaster.)
2. That the annual reviews, which are a very painful
and massively disruptive process in victims lives, be eliminated and
replaced with some less frequent process.
We have proposed a one time review to deal with this last group of
inmates that we believe most to be meant quite appropriately to serve a
life sentence, but we will be open to other serious proposals where all
voices are included in the discussion.
The position shared with me by some States
Attorneys in Illinois has been that when Illinois switched from
indeterminate sentencing (flexible parole was available with regular
reviews) to determinate sentencing (a much better system),
which only allows release based on the good behavior of the
inmate calculated on a fixed formula of days earned, that someday the
number of those prisoners remaining for parole eligibility would reach the place where
those left are the "worst of the worst" and should never get out.
There is now widespread consensus, even among prisoner advocates, that we
are either at that point, or nearly at that point.
The only dissent seems to be from some who have
expressed to us in other conversations that their general view of the
PRB's function is to release a certain number of these prisoners each
year, no matter what.
Most of these cases are men sentenced to the longest
sentences they could have been given at the time of their crimes -
hundreds of years in many cases. There were no life or death sentences
available in those days. Some Judges actually expressed from the bench in
their trials that they wish there were those options at the time. Many of
the prisoners at the time of transition from indeterminate to determinate
were given the option of choosing a fixed sentence or "taking their
chances" with the Prisoner Review Board for release.
With thousands and thousands of C number prisoners
starting in the late 70's, there are now less than 280 left. They have
been up for review every single year and they have repeatedly not met
release standards. Since the law requires, among other things, the
requirement that the release cannot "deprecate the seriousness of the
original offense", and that the inmate has to have the ability to function
well on the outside, and have demonstrated remorse, as well as meeting
other conditions, we believe it is time to recognize these last
cases, with only a small number of exceptions, will not likely ever be
able to meet standards for release, and stop these annual reviews.
It is time to bring an end to this futile annual exercise.
The pain on victims families of this annual process
is simply too awful for words and for each of us that have been closely
watching what they go through, it has been agonizing. It is not a picnic
for the inmates, either, and it is very costly to taxpayers.
We will support legislation that will
dramatically reform the functioning of the Prisoner Review Board with
regards to indeterminately sentenced prisoners (to
better enable them to focus on their many other duties), which we believe is a
costly, unnecessary, and overly large bureaucracy. We believe that the
annual nightmare of reviews for victims families can now end or be
significantly reduced, and that a much less burdensome system can be
created to deal with the last cases.
And we know (because we have been told by legal
experts we trust) that there are a handful, or less, of cases left among
the C numbers that may have served more than their appropriate time and
should be released. We would prefer this evaluation take
place in a court of law that has some accountability and a better
environment for victims. But we know that it will take some expert lawyers
to figure out the best way to sort out who these few cases might be and
what would be the best way to resolve their situations without continuing
the whole problem ad nauseam.
Here are some other reforms that we would support:
1. Term limits of 5 years for the PRB members, or
some similar limit- it
has been clearly shown that some long term members of the PRB develop
understandable psychological and emotional attachments to inmates that they have worked
closely with for many years. This has jeopardized their objectivity in the
review process. This would be the most important single reform that could
be made to the PRB. When we have the chair of the PRB beginning in
documentary films to say that he is "an advocate" for a certain prisoner,
and we have another woman on the PRB telling the press that she has "a bed
waiting" for a certain inmate upon his release, we know that the
objectivity needed to do the job on behalf of taxpayers in Illinois has
been compromised.
2. A reduction in the number of PRB members and a
streamlining of their functioning. Though we understand
they have many other duties, it seems to us that as the number of C number
cases has reduced significantly, the number of members to handle
those cases could be reduced correspondingly. The numbers of the PRB
have increased over the years by previous Governors as the number of
inmates in the state has risen. The PRB manages many other aspects of
prisoner life in the state. Another possible reform would be increasing to three
the number of PRB members on each C number case. We believe it is counter
to the original intent of lawmakers that the PRB continue in perpetuity
managing indeterminately sentenced prisoners and that someday that
function should "sunset" or be redefined after completing this
task.
3. Increasing significantly the number of years
between reviews of C numbers (or see #4). It has been proven that at this
point the yearly and even occasional three year set reviews of C number
prisoners is a futile exercise resulting in great pain and suffering for
the victims, expense for taxpayers, and yielding no appreciable change in
the C number population.
4. A one time review by a special court to
re-sentence, or some other alternative, all the inmates to end the
periodic reviews all together.
5. Mandatory obedience to the enabling statutes of
the PRB that require that PRB members have a specific background in law
enforcement, criminal justice, psychiatry, victimology, law - both
prosecution and defense, etc. (see
PRB statutes) This will reduce criticism of the PRB as a patronage job
and bring balance and credibility to its work. If the PRB does not get
victims or victim advocates on the board, the tensions that have arisen
between victims and the PRB could continue unresolved and some of the
manifestations of imbalance that we have seen in recent years could
continue. This entity manages 48,000 inmates in the Illinois Department of
Corrections. For one of the 15 members not to be a crime victim or someone
trained in victimology and coming from a victim perspective is not only
counter-productive but unfair. This board also currently has no law
enforcement voices or psychological experts. The Governor and the Senate
should move deliberately to change this.
6. Whatever recognition in law needs to be
appropriately made that acknowledges the bulk of this last population of
indeterminately sentenced inmates will serve out their lives in prison.
And we would not support any expansion of indeterminately sentenced
prisoner populations such as geriatrics, juveniles tried as adults, etc -
it is a bad system.
And then reforms we support about sentencing in
general, which would be key to meeting the genuine concerns of prisoner
advocates:
7. Shorter prison terms going forward, over all, for
most crimes except the most premeditated and violent. Abolish the
death penalty and make LWOP available only as its alternative.
Seriously re-examine felony murder statutes that hold accomplices equally
culpable to the actual "trigger men". Overall, with our nation's prison
population reaching 2.2 million, and millions more "in the system" on
probation, etc., it is clear
for example that prison terms often, especially for non-violent crime, are just too
long. This is especially true in drug crime where a public health approach
is the better way to treat the problem.
8. Liberalizing of earned credit time and mechanisms for many longer
determinate sentences, such as increasing the number of days off they
can earn as time passes, when an inmate's good behavior distinguishes
him. (This would obviously not apply to "llifers").
9. An easier system for good behavior in prison to mean transfer to
lower security prisons with more opportunities for education, programs,
restorative justice, visitation, mentoring, work, and other services to
the outside world.
10. Programs across the prison system should be improved and
standardized across IDOC to increase re-socialization skills and improve
the risk factors for release for all inmates eligible.
11. Greatly improve prison health care so that the
Human Rights of the incarcerated are not violated.
We look forward to a discussion that will finally
bring all stakeholders to the table to do the hard work of
reform. So far that has not happened with this Long Term Prisoner Study
Committee. The time is long past due. We repeat our call for the very
manageable task of inviting all victims families for input - the process
will have no integrity without them - and we would
recommend that other leading legal experts be brought to consult such as
Senator Cullerton and Larry Suffredin. The Sentencing Subcommittee of the
Long Term Prisoner Study Committee can make this happen.
It should.
Posted 12-11-07
"Geriatric Release" Effort for Prisoners
Sentenced to Life
PUBLIC HEARINGS to be held on April
30, according to proponents for the bill, though this is not officially
posted on the Illinois General Assembly's website.
We know this bill is going NOWHERE - there is no serious
support for shortening sentences of prisoners sentenced to life or long term
sentences. The public generally wants these most violent offenders to serve
their sentences and we know that this bill does not have support in Springfield
needed to even pass out of committee.
However, any bill can have hearings held on it, to satisfy
the bill's sponsors and proponents.
We ask you,
Rep Eddie
Washington, how can you hold hearings on a bill that would retroactively
undo life without parole sentences for guilty horrific murderers, and NOT NOTIFY
OR INVITE THE VICTIMS of these crimes?!
There are perhaps 4000 plus prisoners in Illinois prison
sentenced to 30 years or more that could be affected - that means tens of
thousands of victims in those cases. If they all knew that the sentences of the
killers and violent offenders could be potentially undone, if this bill were to
be passed, is there ANY DOUBT in anyone's mind that the hearing room on April 30
would be FILLED with very concerned victims and citizens?
But the room won't be filled except for advocates for the
prisoners.
We think the advocates for this bill should feel shameful
for holding hearings on this bill without inviting affected victims.
As soon as we have a time and place for this hearing - we
will post it here.
CONTACT
US with questions.
NOVEMBER 2007 UPDATE -
The
Elderly Prisoner Sentence Adjustment act, HB 4154 - the latest attempt at legislating
early release for long term and life prisoners that they were not able to win in
courts and through appeals, has been filed. The bill has a lone sponsor, Rep
Washington, who we recently met with to discuss this bill's future.
He has invited us to submit our alternative proposals to
him in writing, which we are doing. More on that at the bottom of this update.
Though clearly the early release advocates are starting to
learn the importance of writing victim sensitive legislation (the legislation
includes victim notification of each hearing that an inmate applying for early
release), our concern mainly is that once again the victims of these offenders
will not have a chance to be notified before the legislation is written
and while it is being debated.
We understand there may be public hearings on this bill in
the next few months. Who will find and notify the thousands of affected victims
families so that they can weigh in on something so important to them?
Here is the bottom line - most all offenders serving life
and long term sentences (most of whom are convicted murderers and accomplices to
murder) will want to apply for this "geriatric" release
(and frankly we don't agree with the bill that 50 is "elderly" - most states
that have geriatric release provisions set 65 as the age).
Life without parole sentences will become meaningless.
Thousands and thousands of victims families cases will be
directly affected, and possibly changed retroactively if this legislation
passes.
Without question, they should be notified of this proposed
legislation while it is still being debated.
Our voices must be heard in this process. We have a right
under the Illinois Constitution to be informed of all matters pertaining to our
cases.
We have national legal experts in victims rights who have
done a
study on how retroactive sentence reduction without victim notification is a
violation of victims rights, and would be actionable legally.
We implore the state legislators and the advocates for
prisoner early release to not move forward on any legislation that would so
affect victims lives without taking the time to build the larger conversation
necessary to include any victims who wish to participate.
The alternatives we propose to this bill will be centered
around these points:
1. Abolition of the death penalty should be the top
legislative priority for them, and many victims can work with them hand in hand
to accomplish that. Until that is realized, all other human rights reforms of
the criminal justice system should be secondary.
2. Since almost two-thirds of the prisoners in the
Illinois Department of Corrections are there for non-violent drug-related
offenses, we strongly suggest systemic reforms focus on a public heath approach
to drug crimes, and reserve prison sentences for those guilty of the worst and
most violent crimes.
3. If those interested in prison reform are genuinely
trying to shorten the duration and severity of prison sentences-- that they feel
"tough on crime" has simply gone too far -- then that is where their legislative
efforts should start. Abolish the death penalty; reserve LWOP for the true
"worst of the worst" - make it rarely used and only in the most extreme cases;
and make all other prison sentences a fixed number of years - less, if they want
to, than the numbers of years currently prescribed in law. Remember, all
sentences with a fixed number of years are eligible under the current law
already for "earned release". The current law is that any sentence of a
number of years, that is a non-life sentence, the prisoner can earn up from 15%
to 50% off the sentence for good behavior.
4. Create a true Restorative Justice program in the
Illinois Department of Corrections. Of course much resources would need to put
into educating the public about the value of such programs, but it would be a
most worthwhile effort. This program could inform the earned release system
currently in place. But it cannot be tied to sentencing in general because that
taints the process. And of course RJ is only possible in some cases, not all.
Victims have to be willing and able. The offender has to be willing and able.
Often that is not the case for a wide variety of reasons. There are many
possible models, but victims are central to all of them.
5. Work on crime prevention as much as you do on providing
relief for violent offenders.
If the proponents of early release for inmates would take
these steps up as their agenda, they are far more likely to succeed and they
will help more prisoners and more families in the long run.
"Elderly" release in this bill is defined as 50 years old.
Life sentences are proposed to be reduced to as little as 25 years. This bill,
if adopted as law in Illinois, would mean that the Life sentence does not mean
what it says anymore. Given the many other urgent priorities that our
legislature needs to act on, we find this bill irresponsible and poorly thought
out. And if prisoner advocates feel that prison sentences are too long in
general, then why don't they move to simply reduce penalties for given crimes?!
This would accomplish their goals while not putting victims families through the
constant uncertainty that this elderly release proposal would bring. And it
would not require a costly new bureaucracy devoted to dealing with prisoners.
If more resources become available, they should go to victims first.
October 15, 2007 Update
Before the meeting we asked:
We have some hard questions
for the Long Term Prisoner Study Committee Chair, State Representative Art
Turner and Sentencing Subcommittee Chair Craig Findlay of the Illinois Prisoner
Review Board. We understand that they are both busy leaders in our state. We are
busy working professionals as well.
We don't know the answers to
these questions, and sincerely hope our worst fears are unfounded, but we are
forced to raise them nonetheless and will hope for prompt, thorough, and
transparent answers:
1. Why is this meeting being
held on Monday Oct 15 with so little notice? This especially in light of the
fact that previous set dates were never observed, and cancelled without notice.
The professional members of this committee are not being communicated with in a
full enough way that they can really do their job.
This will not be the first
time that very little notice has been given to committee members. Its almost as
if this project still wants to be done in secret, especially from victims of
these crimes, as it was originally conceived, despite the fact that it has been
funded with taxpayer dollars, and is a function of our elected legislature.
2. Why were committee members
never informed officially of the cancellation of the September meeting date that
was promised last May?
3. Why didn't the
subcommittees meet at all over the summer months, as they were supposed to? Why
didn't Sentencing Subcommittee Chair Craig Findley of the Illinois Prisoner
Review Board respond to requests for information from crime victims
representatives serving on the subcommittee? Why didn't Chair Findlay make the
time to hold even one subcommittee meeting in the last almost five months? Why
didn't Chair Findlay call a meeting to address the serious questions being
raised by concerned victims about his stated intention to retroactively bring
back indeterminate sentences to long term prisoners?
This sentencing subcommittee
does not have the "incomplete membership" excuse that other subcommittees
(Health and Program) have. Chair Findlay and other members are available, and
yet he has not called the "summer" meetings that were planned in May when they
met in Springfield.
4. How can the notice of
Monday, October 15's meeting include the promise that subcommittee chairs will
make "progress reports" when there have been NO meetings of those subcommittees
and therefore no progress made? Are the subcommittee chairs allowed to dictate
policy without a single meeting being held?
There has been no input from
committee members appointed to this committee who are representing, among other
things, the interests of crime victims. How much longer will
proposals made last May by crime victims to
this committee go un-acted upon and un-acknowledged?
5. Is is a coincidence that
the date and time for this committee meeting was set, suddenly, at the same date
and time as our long-published public event with
Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine? Since we have been the lone
"watchdogs" on the work of this committee, we find the sudden announcement of
this date and time a little too coincidental, especially since we know that
committee leaders do read and check up on this website.
6. Is there a conflict of
interest to have sentencing subcommittee Chair Findlay, who serves on the
Illinois Prisoner Review board, in a position where he is making recommendations
about bringing back indeterminate sentencing to Illinois, as he has told us,
which would extend the need for and importance of his own personal job?
We are especially concerned
about this question. If the Long Term Prisoner Study Committee makes a
recommendation to the Illinois Legislature to bring back a system of parole that
was rejected entirely in the state of Illinois back in 1978 as a hugely
inequitable and cumbersome bureaucracy, then that will carry weight with this
General Assembly. But the only people who stand to directly financially benefit
from the return of such a system are the paid members of the Illinois Prisoner
Review Board, who oversee now the very small remaining number of prisoners from
before 1978.
There are only 294 of those
prisoners left. Are members of the PRB concerned for their jobs so much so that
they are maneuvering for a return of the old system or other significant long
term responsibilities (such as juvenile LWOP) that will
increase the need for their positions and guarantee the long term existence of
their jobs, as those 294 age and die off?
Why aren't crime victims and
victim advocates appointed to this study committee given a voice at least equal
to that of the committee chairs who have not even allowed a meeting to take
place?
7. Why are members of this
committee not being empowered to do the real work of this committee, instead of
putting off all the "voice" onto a hired researcher with a perspective selected
by the committee chair? This researcher has been paid by taxpayer dollars and
yet committee members appointed by legislative resolution, appointed by
bi-partisan leaders of state government, have not been heard or consulted at all
in the direction of this study?
8. Why haven't the required
public hearings been held when the final report of the committee is due next
month? According to the enabling Resolution HJR 80 and HJR 21, public hearings
were to be held before a report was issued. Phase I of the report was already
sent to the committee, and the fate of Phase II is pending. No subcommittee
meetings or public hearings have yet been held.
The Phase I report's
treatment of victims was incredibly one-sided and only addressed the topic of
victims interested in having a reconciliation with prisoners, in other words
those victims whose interests would not conflict with the early release of
offenders. Victims in that category are far from representing most victims.
There has been no attention
to or treatment of the voices of the majority of these victims who would not
want the offenders released and who have still not been notified of the
existence of this study.
9. Why, when the committee
chairs promised in writing last year that "retroactive sentence reduction was
off the table in this study", have they continued to let go unanswered our
serious questions about the true purpose of this study? When the Long Term
Prisoner Study committee was re-authorized in the passage of HJR 21, there was
no change made to the wording that made clear the purpose of the study - to
eliminate the Life Without Parole sentence in Illinois.
10. Why hasn't Representative
Turner kept the Committee members informed about the serious budget veto and
political climate issues in Springfield that affect this study and its members?
We sincerely hope that Chair
Art Turner and Subcommittee Chair Findlay will answer these questions.
After
the meeting we can report . . .
that it looks like the
Sentencing Subcommittee is either no longer relevant or is no longer
functioning. All work of the Long Term Prisoner Study Committee seems to be
focused on the Health Care and Programs Subcommittees, a move which we fully
support. We have always found the Sentencing issues completely problematic, but
that subcommittee still has not meet.
Questions that still remain:
What will happen to the
funding veto of this committee's work? What of the sentencing subcommittee? Is
everything being told to all the members of the committee that the Chair of the
Committee and subcommittees know?
September 2007 Update
As anyone who follows
Illinois news is aware, 2007 has seen one of the most complicated and protracted
budget battles in state history. As of September 2007 a full budget agreement
still has not been reached and the legislature is still in session from the
beginning of 2007. Health Care, taxes, transportation funding, and many other
issues complicate the negotiations between the various factions in Springfield.
The latest version of the
budget submitted by the Legislature to the Governor has been subjected to quite
a few line item vetoes, which means a single budget item can be removed by the
Governor without vetoing the whole budget. The Governor has said he is
attempting to eliminate "pork" for "pet projects" of some legislators in order
to find more funds for health care priorities.
One of those line item vetoes
was used on the funding for the Long Term Prisoner Study Committee.
Our calls to the Chair of the
Committee, Representative Art Turner, have not been returned, even though a
staffer promised to "look into it" and get back to us by the end of the day
(which did not happen). We asked for the professional members of the Committee
to be given some sort of notice about the meeting scheduled for September 24. No
information was forthcoming, even though committee members had been told in May
to plan on this date.
One committee member was
told, and shared with us, that there may be a postponed meeting in October. But
nothing is sure.
WHY DOES THIS COMMITTEE NEED
FUNDING?
In fact, in our opinion, it
does not. All members of the committee are volunteers, appointed by leaders of
the state named by the Legislature. They could continue to meet (as the Death
Penalty Reform Study Committee has already committed to do in the face of
similar budget cuts) and investigate issues relating to Long Term Prisoners,
such as the health care crisis, and the need for more rehabilitative programs.
There are plenty of volunteers who could write up the findings of the committee
members.But from the start the Committee Chairs chose to turn over all the "real work" of the committee to a professional
researcher from Southern Illinois University. We don't know why - perhaps this
is standard practice for all legislative study committees. Now that work is halted with the
line item veto.
We have never understood why
the costly professional researcher was doing the work of the committee that they
could have been doing much of themselves. The subcommittees seemed to never have had any
meetings of substance to speak of - the Programs subcommittee NEVER met. The
Sentencing subcommittee had only one meeting and did not meet or follow-up at
all this entire summer, as it was supposed to. Our calls and emails to the
Sentencing Subcommittee chair Craig Findlay of the Illinois Prisoner Review
Board asking about the meetings that were supposed to be taking place all along
were met with a non-committal response.
And the HJR 80 Long Term
Prisoner Study Committee was supposed to hold public hearings. They never did.
We never understood also why Chairman Turner told members of the committee that
the researcher would be issuing the report of the committee (that they would
have no comment on until after it was submitted) and only after that would
public hearings be held. We have never understood why committee member and
public input would not precede the writing of the report. It was never clear how
committee member input and public input was going to be included in the final
report of the committee.
Public hearings were
mentioned in the enabling resolution as required, and first, in the work of the
committee.
So in fact now, without
funding, the committee work could continue if the Committee Chairs would simply
continue using the people on the committee to actually do the work that had been
tasked to researchers. Public input can be gathered as well at no cost.
SHOULD THE LONG TERM PRISONER
STUDY CONTINUE?
We are not surprised that
this ill-conceived effort is floundering at this point. The initial "under the
radar" strategy used by its original advocates was poised to cause untold
suffering to the many victims families in Illinois whose lives in the wake of
horrific tragedy are built on the sentence being served by the offender in their
cases. And it seems that the priority being given to it by its leadership is not
enough to sustain it in light of other competing priorities.
Though the study potentially
could help bring needed relief to many genuine miscarriages of injustice in the
prison system, such as health care conditions that constitute clear human rights
violations, it also has been a violation of victims rights right from its very
inception.
In fact, this website, this
organization would not exist if the study had not necessitated it. We began this
website
because we were outraged that changes in sentences to inmates were being studied
by the Legislature without victims most deeply affected being notified, as is
their constitutional right, as well as their strong personal right..
If the study dies because of
budget cuts, we will not grieve a great deal.
We know how much victims
who found out about it were upset by its implications. And we ask that if the
study is ever taken up again, either sooner or later, that it treat the victims
ethically from the outset, with full notification and empowered participation.
Our response
to and analysis of the untitled report submitted by researchers from the
Illinois Prison Talk website on the costs associated with incarcerating
long term prisoners
