Our Response

Our response to the John Howard Association's talking points about HB 1695:

We fundamentally believe that the intent of HB1695 is, at its root, a nobly motivated attempt to address a problem that society should be concerned about - inappropriate prison sentences. We of course challenge those nobly motivated people to also be very concerned about the problems of the impact of crime, not just the later effect on the criminals in prison!

The problem is that HB 1695 as originally proposed not only takes too broad a swipe at the juvenile justice issue without enough research, information, or acknowledging the complexity of the issue, it completely ignores solutions to some of the cases that they are concerned about that already exist in law - clemency and courts of appeals that can re-sentence. As a result, it creates more problems than it solves and poses problems to the entire population of innocent victims who were pulled into the vortex of crime against their will.

We agree that juvenile Life Without Parole (LWOP) should be a very rare sentence reserved only for the "worst of the worst" perpetrators. And we agree that younger juvenile offenders sentenced only under accountability theory (they were only accomplices to the crime itself) should probably not be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Since, in fact, the law currently allows this, and even mandates it in some cases, we would support changes in the sentencing of these juveniles that would more closely reflect their actual participation in the crime.

For example, a juvenile who steals the car that is used in a murder, in our opinion, is not necessarily as culpable for the murder as the person who "pulls the trigger." Yet, there are cases where, in an attempt to use LWOP as a deterrent to crime, these juveniles were sentenced to LWOP. This is one example of current law that we would support review and possible reform of.

We propose for consideration some possible better solutions to the problem:

	Prospectively, that is, going forward, juvenile LWOP only be available to 16 and 17 year olds (the vast majority of those now sentenced to LWOP before the age of 18) at the time of the crime who were the actual perpetrators of a premeditated and aggravated murder.
	Retroactively, each of the juvenile offenders currently serving LWOP in Illinois, once identified through thorough study and expert analysis, where the sentence was mandatory and the judge had no discretion, and where the offender was convicted under accountability theory, would receive either a one-time re-sentencing hearing in a courtroom to a determinate sentence or a special clemency review. Of course, victims would have to all be notified before this legislation was put forward and involved in the planning and discussion, if they so chose, of the bill's language. Victims rights and rights of Due Process of Law would have to be protected by legal experts who would construct the legislation. Prosecutors, law enforcement, and legal experts would have to be consulted as well as victims in the writing of the legislation. This would allow an accountable process wherein defense, prosecution, and victims could be fully engaged, presenting various points of view before a court of law that has accountability in an appeals process.
	The Prisoner Review Board answers to no one, and has no victim component, nor do they review and argue the original crime with any due process. A court of law is the only avenue for proper sentencing or re-sentencing procedure. The PRB should have no place in the proposed reforms.
	The Illinois Victims Rights Constitutional Amendment guarantees a fair treatment of all victims, including the right to be involved and to speak at hearings and proceedings affecting their cases. HB1695, unless it is amended, does not comply with the due process mandated constitutionally in the state. All victims of the 100+ juvenile LWOP cases, since there are relatively few of them, should be found and notified of this contemplated change, much as all the victims' families of Illinois' Death Row under Governor Ryan were notified of changes contemplated in those sentences and were fully empowered to participate in the process.

The John Howard letters:
What is HB1695?
Why Support HB1695?

Our Response to selected points in both documents - Dated summer of 2007 (may not apply to later versions of the bill)

1. If the John Howard Association really means to affect what they see as an over-sentencing of juvenile offenders on the accountability theory, then why do they not categorically limit the scope of this proposal only to that group, rather than writing the legislation in such a broad manner so as to threaten the justifiable sentences of actual murderers? And why should victims' families have to go year after year to fight parole for one who has had a decision on their case already made?

2. Only in a court of law is there accountability and due process. This complex evaluative process can only take place in a court of law.

3. It is clear from these talking points that the facts and evidence of the original crime will not be considered under this model, only the prison record and behavior while incarcerated of the offender. How can a convicted murderer, no matter his age at the time of the offense be adequately re-sentenced without thorough consideration of the original crime and aggravating factors?

4. The implication that victims are somehow being saved from any level of re-traumatization by a "two-stage process" from which they are partly excluded in participating and for which there are no avenues of appeal is ludicrous and raises serious constitutional questions. The only acceptable alternative for a victim's family, as well as law enforcement, prosecutors, the entire judicial and penal system, and the general public is a one-time re-evaluation of what might have gone wrong in some the 100+ cases of juvenile LWOP in Illinois. To suggest that annual hearings for the remainder of all of our lives to evaluate over and over again the same question is irresponsible in the extreme.

5. While the talking points do a good job of articulating who are the most sympathetic cases for potential lessening of sentences, it completely fails to address in any way or to communicate the other end of the spectrum. And that is this -- some of the offenders serving juvenile LWOP are amongst the most dangerous and heinous murderers currently incarcerated in Illinois. These talking points do not want the reader to be aware of this part of the problem. It does not tell you about the many repeated, pre-meditated, and vicious choices made by mature, intelligent, and mentally competent teens. While it is important to look at issues of over-sentencing for juveniles who were not the prime actors in the crime, it is equally important to not let those from whom society must continue to be protected fall into the same category.

6. This proposed bill fails completely to recognize that annual reviews of any kind, especially when victims have not had to be concerned with them for decades, impose the worst possible scenario for victims. When problems with juvenile LWOP could be much more easily addressed through a single re-sentencing process and a determinate sentence, one can only conclude that the authors of this effort completely lack understanding of basic victimology principles.

7. This proposed bill relies on the "strict standards of the PRB" to protect the entire public and legal system. There are so many reasons to doubt that this will take place that we hardly know where to begin. Suffice it to say that the PRB's record has been controversial of late in regards to following the statutes that govern the PRB's policies and procedures, especially with regards to victim notification and participation in hearings.

8. The choice of the Prisoner Review Board (PRB) as the body to make, in effect, re-sentencing decisions directly contradicts public John Howard Association policy that denounces the current sentencing model for C#, or indeterminately sentenced, prisoners from pre-1978 cases. In fact, it seems to add to the C# population, a condition that prison reform advocates have been working against for many years.

9. It is highly unlikely that after twenty years an inmate's potential behavior will be much changed. For example, a guilty multiple murderer sentenced to LWOP at the age of seventeen would be eligible for release at the rather young age of 36. At this time in their life, they are still capable of very destructive behavior. It seems that a minimum of forty years at the very least would be more reasonable in order to put the inmate in an older age range where dangerousness to society would be lessened.