|
|
|
This section of IllinoisVictims.Org gives information and links to the Illinois institutions that monitor and control convicted offenders after they have been sentenced for crimes committed against victims. Victims in Illinois are urged to take pro-active responsibility to monitor the prisoners in their cases. Victims will not receive information about the offender in their cases unless you have signed up and have asked to receive such information. You can sign up HERE to be notified about the offender in your case. Even if you sign up, you will only be told when the offender is moved or released. You will not be told, likely, of any possible legislative proposals to reduce or change their sentences retroactively, if such proposals would occur. What is the Prisoner Review Board? The Illinois Prisoner Review Board was created in the 1970's when Illinois eliminated parole and changed its sentencing structure to a determinate sentencing model for convicted criminals. Since determinate sentencing could not be made retroactive, many of the prisoners already in the Department of Corrections remained eligible for parole. Most of these prisoners have since been designated C# prisoners. Approximately 270 of the most violent offenders remain incarcerated under this system today - those that have been repeatedly denied parole year after year. The vast majority of prisoners in the Illinois Department of Corrections have been convicted since 1978 and therefore the PRB has NOTHING to do with their release dates or their sentences. The determinately sentenced prisoners make up the vast majority of inmates - approximately 48,000 - only 270 or so are still left from pre-1978 and are still released by PRB decision. So it is important for the public to understand that most prisoners being released are done so automatically by the formula of their sentence and their good behavior credits and the PRB has nothing to do with their releases. Many victims misunderstand the role of the PRB is this matter. The PRB is an independent governmental agency which is "quasi-judicial" in nature and autonomous. 15 members are appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate. The PRB oversees good conduct, preparation and transition for release at the end of a served sentence, and parole for C# prisoners. The PRB also reviews clemency petitions, several hundred a year, and after examining inmates' suitability for release may recommend clemency to the Governor for approval. C# prisoners are not subject to the Governor's approval and are released upon the PRB's recommendation. Several of these cases have recently been highly publicized. The PRB is required to provide notification to victims' families upon release of inmates. It is also required to notify the victim's family of upcoming hearings. The advance notice for victims' families and the communications with them by the PRB's victim advocate seem to be inconsistent with the board's responsibilities as outlined in law and some victims have told us that they have not been properly notified of upcoming hearings, or that notification from the PRB ceased after a certain period of time.. We believe that the dialogue we have begun with the PRB about their relationship with the victim community has been helpful and that previous errors in which they would only notify victims' families after a release had occurred, which violated the victims' rights and the enabling statutes for the PRB, are now being corrected or attempting to be corrected. The PRB began in 2008 the practice of certified mail to the victims. We know that victims have a right to be fully integrated, if they wish, into every deliberation, hearing, and process that involves their case as is their right in law. This is an imperative because the physical, emotional, and mental health of victims and survivors of crime depends on the opportunity for them to be involved in the legal process. It had been revealed through victims' personal experience and state audits that the notification process could be greatly improved and we have been meeting with the PRB to fully integrate victims' families in every phase of the process and to effectively seek out the input of those family members prior to making decisions on the release of inmates. In March 2008 three members of IllinoisVictims.org put on a victim sensitivity training for the PRB board and staff and it was a very helpful session. If any victims of crime in Illinois that intersect with the Prisoner Review Board would like our assistance in facilitating any problems that you might be having in dealing with the PRB, please contact us - we believe that the PRB is now willing to hear any victim concerns and work to correct them.
After reviewing the enabling statutes for the PRB, IllinoisVictims.org had some questions that we felt need to be answered by the PRB with regards to its treatment of victims in the cases it has been reviewing. Some victims who are involved with cases being reviewed by the PRB said that they have not been properly contacted prior to hearings, even though they had been contacted in years past. State audits in years past have been critical of two specific concerns that resonate with victims: the lack of proper victim notification, and the use of funding that was earmarked for a victim specialist that was diverted to other administrative uses. We have shared all these concerns with the PRB who have made some statements that they would be working to improve victim relations, but that they were admittedly not perfect. They listened to the complaints we shared and we are encouraged that the dialogue is going to continue. We urge any victim with concerns about the PRB to contact us or to contact the PRB's victim advocate Linda Badger. Examples of suggestions we made to the PRB to improve victim relations, based on comments we have received from crime victims: In one hearing for a C Number prisoner, the PRB member who was the hearing officer and the supposed expert on the case did not even know the name of the victim. He certainly knew the prisoner quite well. This kind of offender focus is at the heart of much of what is wrong with the criminal justice system (and why we support Restorative Justice reforms, which is focused on healing victims.) We feel it is important to note, since the PRB is under the Governor's office control - The audits concerns over the PRB predate Governor Blagojevich's administration. The Governor has been a champion of victim rights and issues for many years and recently one of his nominees for renewal to the PRB was denied by the Senate for being "too strict" on parole. Most of the appointees on the PRB are from previous Governors. We do not feel that any problems that might arise in the PRB are related to this Governor. We do know that any bureaucracy run by human beings that has to manage 48,000 inmates with a relatively small staff is going to have problems from time to time. We believe the best way to deal with these problems is to discuss them openly and in a spirit of improving services to the public. Recent complaints from victims' families indicate that some of these concerns identified in the audits and violations of their statutory victims' rights may be continuing. As it stands now, all the burden for becoming informed and involved in a parole hearing or any other deliberation by the PRB must be borne by the victim. Read the PRB's website carefully if you are a victim who would like to be involved in submitting input to the PRB on a specific case. We are looking into legislative solutions that would resolve some of the insensitivity to victims that has crept into the PRB's process. A bill being considered by the state legislature in the spring of 2008 should help with these concerns. We hope this bill passes and thank Rep Chapin Rose and Sen Haines for sponsoring these pro-victim pieces of legislation that will insure that victims voices are heard before any release of a C number prisoner. We support options in the law to specify that a certain percentage of the PRB must be composed of victims and victim advocates. Until then ,we are going to try to work with the leadership of the PRB to get a commitment to bring the PRB fully into compliance with the law. We have suggested to the Governor that he appoint victims, police officers and psychiatrists - three populations sorely missing from the PRB. While the PRB has a victim advocate on staff, and in speaking with her we find her to be caring and a hard worker, she can only do what she has resources to do. Furthermore, she has no authority on the board and does not serve in an advisory capacity. This is what the PRB is currently lacking -- a voice on the board. This voice in the board meetings would ensure that victim impact statements are considered by the board, that victims are given a voice in the meetings, and that the board members would be constantly reminded that the statutes governing the board must be followed. We do recommend that the PRB victim contact staff stay in regular touch with the victims they serve in ways that invite feedback, comment, correction and a constant effort at improving services and responding to concerns. Currently, as it is structured, the responsibility for communication still falls largely on the victims. Victims whose cases are not recent may not be aware that they are responsible for contacting the PRB to notify them that they want to receive information about the offender's sentence. We believe that in the case of C# victim's families, the numbers are so small that resources should be committed by the PRB to track them all down proactively and explain the current system to them. Executive Clemency The PRB has been criticized publicly for releasing inmates inappropriately. But another avenue of appeal for prisoners does not seem to be functioning as well as it should. 713 appeals for Executive Clemency were reviewed by the PRB in 2005 and passed along to the Governor with confidential recommendations. The Governor acted to deny 31 of them. The Governor has wisely determined to review each petition very carefully before approving any clemency petitions. Of course, any Governor is under great political pressure when it comes to Executive Clemency. At this time, the Governor has not approved any clemency appeals that we know of. We are highly skeptical of the validity of the high number of claims to receive clemency. We feel that it is important for the inmates themselves to exercise self-control when it comes to submitting petitions for Executive Clemency so that only the most legitimate, deserving, and meritorious claims are reviewed by the PRB. We also understand that inmates often contemplate ways to shorten their sentences, but we encourage them to take responsibility for their offenses, serve their sentences with dignity, and make the best of themselves as human beings. They can still do a great deal of good, even from inside a prison cell, if they so choose. There surely must be a high number of unqualified applications that the PRB and the Governor have to process each year. When inmates make applications for clemency that are without merit, the system becomes clogged. Unfortunately, this clogged system is leading prison reform advocates to call instead for retroactive sentence reduction in the legislature instead of exercising some discipline in clemency applications. This, then becomes onerous on victims and families, requiring a response to ill-conceived legislation. The State of Illinois 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 Audit of the Prisoner Review Board - Summary
What Every Victim of a C# Prisoner Must Know For any victim of a criminal sentenced before 1978, the offender received an "indeterminate sentence" and still is evaluated for possible parole every single year (this is a nightmare that never ends for these families). They have rights in their dealings with the Prisoner Review Boards annual evaluations, most of which they have never been told. We have discovered through phone calls to the PRB, speaking with various governmental officials, talking with victims who have been involved with the PRB, and other research that there are some practices that seem to have become questionable with the PRB that may not be consistent with the law. A careful reading of the enabling statutes for the PRB is a must for anyone who will be involved with parole hearings or other issues related to the PRB. These statutes include the Unified Code of Corrections - The Parole and Pardon Board, The Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act, and The Open Parole Hearings Act. As always, victims must be aware of the laws governing their rights in order to protect their rights. That is why we have posted these public documents on this website and have taken the time to provide constructive comments. We also have some questions that we are continuing to research through various governmental offices. As more information becomes available, or if corrections need to be made, we will post that information as soon as possible. Victims do NOT have to go the prison where the offender is staying in order to testify against him, yet most of the families are doing just that because they do not know that they can request alternatives. Victims can request three year hearings instead of every year, and in many cases this can be granted. Victims can have support, can send in testimony electronically, and have many other options that we have learned most of them do not know about. Worst of all, some victims have been forced to come face to face in this process with the killers, and have been severely re-traumatized. We urge you to review the concerns below and our comments on the various pages of statutes to see if the PRB is following the rules. If not, please send us any concerns you have. A summary of our concerns and some key points that we feel the PRB should publicly recommit itself to are: The 2005 Annual Report of the PRB reports that "Illinois
is currently challenged with a recidivism rate of 54.6 ... But, ultimately we feel there is a larger question requiring serious social and political discourse about whether or not monies expended for punishment of guilty offenders is more burdensome than the costs of crime. We also would hope that the PRB would be very, very certain of the risks when they do recommend an inmate for parole or clemency. We would also suggest a new strategy, perhaps even reforming the PRB through legislation, involving a mandatory and thorough restorative justice process for inmates when victims' families are willing to participate or with other social representatives prior to consideration for release. A more complete discussion of this concept is treated in our essay, Victim Rights as Human Rights. Article 3 - The Parole and Pardon Board 3-3-1(c) Any member of the PRB may be removed by the Governor for cause. This is the only accountability to the public that we have been able to find. 3-3-2(a)(7) The PRB must comply with the Open Parole Hearings Act ( See comments below) 3-3-2.1 The PRB should have, early in its existence, offered fixed dates of release to C# prisoners. We are very interested in seeing the rates of acceptance for that option and consider denial of that option as a voluntary submission to a legal process that does not seem to be the "legal limbo" that some inmates and their advocates claim. 3-3-4(d)(2-7) The law defines six specific measures by which the PRB must evaluate an adult inmate. While we feel that there could be some additional objective measurements that would be telling as to suitability for release, the bottom line for us is that, at the end of the process, the PRB should be able to present evidence and justification that would convince a reasonable victim family member that they are doing the right thing for the right reason in releasing an inmate. This, as opposed to the current practice of simply stating in the letter to the victim, "Reviewing all factors available at this time, it is the Board's conclusion that the subject is a good risk for parole." We, like the victim's family that received this notice, feel that this is insensitive and inadequate for such an important event. 3-3-4(e,f) The prosecuting State's Attorneys office will be notified 15 days prior to a scheduled parole hearing and will be allowed to submit a statement. Likewise, the victim of the crime will also be given 15 days minimal notice of the hearing and will be informed that video, audio, or written testimony may be given. 3-3-4(g) The statements of victims of the crime, once given, will remain a permanent record and shall be considered perpetually at each hearing subsequent to their submission. Many victims send in letters and statements every time there is a hearing because they are not aware of this regulation. 3-3-5(c)(2) As stated here, it is not only about risk assessment. It is also about the message that parole will send. The PRB is not allowed to release someone so as to "deprecate the seriousness of the offense or promote disrespect for the law." An example of this could be that certain categories of crimes such as "cop killers" should be ineligible for parole by the very nature of the crime. Rights of Crime Victims and Witnesses Act 4(a)(1-10) Crime victims have the right to be heard, notified of hearings, and protected from intimidation. That's the law. (b) The rights of crime victims must be posted conspicuously in all courthouses in Illinois. This is a violation that has been noticed by us on many occasions. 4.5(d)(4) Crime victims shall be notified of upcoming parole hearings with a minimum of 15 days notice. They are allowed to submit statements and these statements may be in the form of video, audio, or written. Open Parole Hearings Act 10(a-b) The victim of a crime is guaranteed the right to submit a statement at a parole hearing. 15 Parole hearings are open hearings. There are some reasonable logistical restrictions that are not designed to infringe a victim's right to attend. 25(a)(1-3) Specifications for the letter of notification to the victim's family is described here. One of these is that the victim may attend the hearing, if desired. We are currently looking for letters received by family members to see if they comply with this framework but as yet have found none. 25(b) Victims should only stop receiving written notification from the PRB about scheduled hearings by sending a "written certified statement." Under no other circumstances should they stop receiving communication from the PRB. 25(d) Not only are victims to be informed if parole is granted within 7 days, they are to be likewise notified if parole is denied and given the date of the next scheduled parole hearing. 35 The victims' rights to privacy and protection from intimidation shall be respected by redacting the personal information from victim statements that are seen by the inmate. If this guarantee were not in force, victims would be reluctant to submit statements to the PRB. We have heard from victims that were told that inmates would be able to review all the materials that were submitted by the families and that anything they didn't want seen by the inmate shouldn't be included. If you have evidence that in your case your victims' rights have been violated or abused, please contact us for information on legal action and protecting your rights in the future.
Bringing Balance to the PRB: Observations on a Year's Worth of Minutes of C# Releases In late March, 2007, we requested some public documents from the PRB staff -- the minutes to all the C# releases for the last year. The PRB staff promptly responded to our request and provided a list of seventeen C# prisoners that were considered and recommended for release along with the minutes of the en banc meetings. We want to thank the victim advocates and staff of the PRB who have helped us with our research into the workings of the PRB. We have come to understand that they have a monumental and often impossible task managing all the paperwork and resources of their office. We have been looking at these minutes with great interest. Very little information is actually recorded. Typically, there is a summary of the inmate's behavior and accomplishments while incarcerated, a brief description of the crime, justifications for release, whether there are any protests to the release, and how each member voted on the motion to release the inmate. Each C# prisoner (those sentenced before 1978 to a long term sentence) case is evaluated regularly. Of the three hundred or so C# inmates still incarcerated in Illinois, the PRB has sole discretion with regards to their release. Any inmates sentenced since 1978 and the onset of determinate sentencing the PRB has no discretion in the release timetable which is calculated based on time served and behavior standards while incarcerated. In evaluating the minutes of the hearings, we find some trends and issues that deserve comment. The voting records of the members present for the votes on the seventeen C# inmates released since January 2006 are shown below. Remember, these are only votes for C# inmates approved for parole. We do not have the voting records for hearings where a motion for denial of parole was entered. These voting records should not be interpreted to represent the whole voting record of the PRB member - this is only the votes on those that are released, and the other several hundred votes that were overall denied are NOT tabulated here. We invite the PRB to send us complete voting records - which are public records - and we will post them.
REMEMBER this data is only for votes of those released - NOT for total voting records of each PRB member. We note the following from this data:
It is also important to note that we do not have access to the full facts of these crimes, obviously horrific in nature for them to have received the sentences they have, that the prosecutors offices would have. We cannot infer patterns based on the nature of the crimes and other more salient details. We can only look at voting records and the very brief information in the PRB minutes. It appears to us, for example that the number of releases are declining, and we hear from many quarters that those few that are remaining are probably now pretty much down to the handful that should not ever be released. We offer the following comments for debate and discussion: 1. Board member Stenson was removed by the Senate (see news articles below) because he was criticized for voting too often to deny parole. Yet, he voted four times, according to the records we received from the PRB, to approve parole in the 17 cases that were released. We pose the following question to the members of the John Howard Association who claim credit for his removal and the members of the Illinois Senate that voted to remove him : Since Stenson still voted 29% of the time for releases in these 17 cases, can his voting record be considered imbalanced compared to members Tyler, Montes, Madison, and Findlay who never voted to deny release on the 17 cases that ended up being released since January 2006? We do not understand how Stenson can be removed from the PRB for some sort of bias, when it appears that there is more "bias" on the part of the four members of the PRB who did not vote even once in these 17 cases to deny parole. We would need to look at the votes on all 300 plus C number cases to see the whole picture. But because we believe that the Prisoner Review Board has extraordinary power under Illinois law with regards to the release of C number Sprisoners, convicted murderers, and there is no "higher court" to appeal to, and because they are charged therefore with preserving the public safety, we have come to see a strong value in this: that the Illinois Prisoner Review Board should be balanced. The Prisoner Review Board should always remember that it is not working as advocates for the prisoners. It is working for Illinois taxpayers and must make decisions in the best interests of the general public. They have called themselves publicly a "conservative board" and while in years past, there has not been very much controversy about this claim, recently there has been a great deal of controversy about whether or not this is true. We offer this as an example of our concern: In the Chicago Tribune video documentary called "The C Number" featured at the Tribune's website series on Parole, PRB Chairman Jorge Montes describes himself as "an advocate" for Theodore Bacino (convicted of bank robbery, kidnapping, and murdering Sheriff's Detective Michael Mayborne) and someone who was "in Mr. Bacino's corner". When we questioned him about this public statement regarding his personal advocacy for this prisoner, he responded, "What else should I call myself when I have voted for his release seven times?" We responded to him that we felt it was inappropriate that he, the Chairman of the taxpayer funded PRB, would describe himself as an advocate for any prisoner. We told him that we felt that an independent and objective evaluation of each case coming up for possible parole is required for the PRB to work the way we understand that it is supposed to work. We offer this exchange just as an example of how public perception can be very important, especially given the life and death nature of the decisions they are making. 2. Next, in the narratives of the Minutes of these 17 releases since the first of 2006, we find another possible pattern for concern. Any time protests or objections to the release of the prisoner were submitted by victims families, prosecutors offices, or the general public, the minutes state simply that they are "noted". When I spoke with Chairman Montes and asked him if the entire membership of the voting PRB received copies of the many objections to a parole that had been submitted, he said that they were available for the board members to review if they wished, but that the contents of the objections were not detailed in their discussions, in that they are not read aloud, and that they were not all given copies, unless they specifically asked for it. We see no record of this being asked for. Again, we reference the video documentary on the Bacino case done by the Chicago Tribune. We can only rely on this source because it is the only evidence we in the public have as to the workings of the PRB in its deliberations. In the section of the documentary where the PRB discusses Bacino's potential parole, one member shares that there are "80 letters objecting to the parole." If this is what the minutes refer to as "noted," we see this as a far cry from the mandate in the PRB statutes that state that the PRB shall "consider" materials submitted by victims and others. From what we can see, literally only about three seconds were given to the consideration of these many letters detailing reasons for Bacino not to be released. We cannot know of course what happens in the closed door sessions of each of these cases - they are not available for public review, and therefore public accountability. We have read some of these letters. They are gut-wrenching. We believe they deserve a more full discussion. They reveal important things in addition to the brutality of the crime and the scope of its impact -- they also show that the version of the crime being told even today by Mr Bacino, who was judged by members of the PRB to be completely reformed and remorseful, does not match the facts of the crime. In fact, Mr Bacino still seems to be telling a version of the shooting that seems to make him less culpable -that there was a struggle between them at close range. Eyewitness and physical evidence offers that this is not true. Only a single PRB member investigates that prisoner for the year and makes a recommendation for parole to be granted or denied. They are, as far as we can see, the only ones that hear the full extent of protests being offered. We believe that the victims voices and those of the public need to be heard by the full PRB that votes to possibly release any inmate. The recently proposed legislation by Senator Haines and Rep Chapin Rose, if passed, would address this (March 2008) 3. Another question we raise upon review of these 17 sets of minutes: how can the PRB label as "remorseful" the prisoners with innocence claims? As we review these 17 cases, several of them still claim innocence. Now, we repeat, no one should be in prison for a crime they did not commit. Innocence claims are a serious matter that deserves thorough judicial review. We understand that the PRB cannot investigate innocence claims, nor can they make judgments related to those claims. This is one of the problems we have had with recent John Howard initiatives where families of inmates with innocence claims were being encouraged to the support initiatives like the Juvenile Juvenile LWOP bill, HB 1695. We understand that only the Courts can determine guilt or innocence through a presentation of evidence, and that the PRB has to assume that all cases they deliberate upon are guilty. The part we find somewhat confusing is the use in the minutes of the word "remorse" when the prisoner is not admitting guilt. The inmate can express regret, sorrow, sympathy, but they cannot express "remorse" unless they were the perpetrator. To some, this may seem like a question of semantics, but victims of crime understand that word to have a very powerful meaning and we feel that this word, like the word "victim," should be used properly. 4. We also question the judgment that supposedly "comparable" prisoners, since the advent of determinate sentencing, are serving shorter sentences, as stated in "The C Number" documentary. For example, Board member Tyler states that 20 years is an appropriate sentence for the murder of a police officer. But we note that this is in most places a death eligible offense, as are many of the cases that have been reviewed. Another case in point: Gregory Jones was released on parole in 2006, after serving 28 years for rape and murder during a robbery. We note that by today's standards that would be a death-eligible offense. And even if he would not have received the death penalty, he most likely would be serving life without parole. SUGGESTIONS: 1. The PRB post names of all C number prisoners that have
been
paroled on their website. This would increase the sense of openness with regards
to a matter so vital to public safety. It also might be very helpful tothe
Illinois public for the PRB to also post the minutes of the meetings where
release is determined for a C number prisoner. They are public documents
anyway and anyone can get them on request. Posting them on a website would
increase the ability of the public to access these public records, and would
help shore up a sense of accountability in the public perception with regards to
the functioning of the Prisoner Review Board. 2. All C number releases, we believe, should have to go through a thorough Restorative Justice process with the victims' family where possible, or a surrogate victim and members of the community in other cases. This would put more on the table in their release then just their behavior in prison. Many victims' families question how a prisoner can be judged by their behavior in a prison, which is an extremely controlled environment. This would also greatly aid in coping with the anxiety of the victims' families and the public upon the release of these cases. We offer the expert experience of our network in developing this suggestion. We would be willing to consult in creating such a program for all C number prisoners who are facing possible release. We highly recommend this process as a way to eliminate or seriously reduce all the controversy surrounding these 300 or so cases that are left. Note that one of the basic tenets of Restorative Justice is that the perpetrator admit responsibility for his or her crime. This would be a critical issue for those who are maintaining their innocence and would not allow them to successfully complete this process. Claims of innocence can be three things: Actual innocence or being improperly charged, in which case we support every effort to find the truth; A lie, in which case we do not see this person as ready for release; and A Lie of the Mind, in which case, the restorative justice program can benefit the inmate as well, bringing him to a level of honesty and maturity that he has not yet reached. In many of the released C# cases we have reviewed, the inmates have maintained their innocence. If this is the case, then logically, they should even now be suing the State for Wrongful Imprisonment and there should be judicial avenues open to them to pursue this claim. Since the PRB cannot evaluate evidence in a case, they must always proceed under the assumption that the inmate is guilty, therefore, the inmate's continual profession of innocence dramatically complicates the process in the PRB hearings. We believe, following a restorative justice model, that no inmate is ready for freedom if they do not admit their guilt and tell the whole story the way it happened, yet in the minutes, some members of the PRB seem to see claims of innocence as a consideration for relief. States Attorneys who have analyzed these cases say that the C numbers are down to "the worst of the worst" for the most part and would all likely merit LWOP or death if sentenced by today's standards. Prisoner advocates say that they are sympathetic and compelling cases that have served longer than they otherwise would have. We wonder how this can be true since many of them were sentenced to terms of 75, 100, up to over 300 years in prison. New sentencing hearings could be given to each of the cases, and that would minimize the yearly uncertainty and trauma that victims families undergo in the annual parole review process. But likely the new sentences would be LWOP or worse. If they have an innocence claim, all appropriate legal mechanisms should be brought to bear to make sure that those claims are thoroughly evaluated. No one should spend time in prison for a crime they did not commit. 3. Work with the States Attorneys, victim advocates, and
elected leaders in the State to develop reforms around these areas:
Below are some other articles from recent years about the functioning of the Prisoner Review Board: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060508/ai_n16351905 Sentences different for C-number
prisoners Group voices concerns about paroled killers
Friday, February 09, 2007 | 6:53 PM
Call for careful screeningsFebruary 8, 2007 -- Two killers -- John Outlaw and Frederick Thomas -- were paroled recently. Their release outrages the victims' families and Chicago-area prosecutors. The group voiced their concerns about the paroles at a news conference Thursday morning. The killings took place more than 30 years ago. But for the victims' families the memories are still vivid today. Relatives of the victims say their lives stopped when their loved ones were murdered. In addition to the trials and sentencing, each year they are informed about the inmates appeal to the parole board. But, this year, they were informed the men would be released. Some say these are examples of a troubling new trend in our penal system. These families of murder victims have had enough. They came to support several states' attorneys to call for a more careful screening before inmates are paroled. "It seems to have a theme that we should get more and more people out and put them on the streets without regard to the underlying crimes that were committed," said Dick Devine, Cook County states attorney. "Just because somebody is old when they are released from prison doesn't mean they won't commit vicious crimes. We've seen that over and over again," said Michael Waller, Lake County states attorney. In 1974, Frederick Thomas was convicted of gagging, raping and stabbing Irma Jean Williams. Williams was a then a mother of a toddler. Her child is now grown. This week, the Illinois Parole Board unanimously agreed to grant Thomas' parole. "Who's to say he won't do it again? Tomorrow he might come kill you once he's on the streets," said Brenda Payne, victim's sister. "I'm looking out for everybody, people in the world with their families. They might come in contact with the same guy," said Olivia Payne, victim's sister. In 1976, John Outlaw stayed late at the Spiegel warehouse to rob the facility. But before Outlaw left he killed a security guard and Michael Rysiewicz. Rysiewicz was a mechanic at the warehous. His sons say their father was hit 13 times in the head with a meat hook. "This is a man who spent his life with other hardcore criminals. Would you want him sitting next to you? Being your neighbor? Would you want to know if you were in my situation that he's walking the streets?" said Richard Rysiewicz, victim's son. A victims advocate says the current system adds more burden to victims families and endangers society. "They have to spend the rest of their lives worrying about this, watching the legal process happen, having almost no say in it. It's extremely re-traumatizing," said Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins, Illinoisvictims.org. The chairman of the Prisoner Review Board, Jorge Montes, issued a statement saying in part: "The Prisoner Review Board's decision to grant a parole is based on a thorough and careful review of each inmate's case." Regarding the inmates mentioned at Thursday's news conference: "Both were graded as minimal security risks by the Illinois Department of Corrections and had strong support in their communities." (ED NOTE: WHY DID THE PRB INCLUDE ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES FOR OUTLAW IN HIS RELEASE IF HE WAS A "MINIMAL SECURITY RISK"?) In order to be paroled, the inmate has to show change and proof of a transitional plan. John Outlaw was released last Friday and the Cook County state's attorney is trying to stop Frederick Thomas' release.
(Copyright ©2007 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
MARCH 2008 - Senate Bill 2254 Thank you to Senator Haine for sponsoring this important piece of legislation that will help to address many of the concerns raised on this page, especially it would have prevented the disaster of the release of Outlaw and Thomas. This bill would require that before the PRB can release any inmate ("C numbers") that the entire PRB, instead of just one member as is currently the practice, would have to hear the testimony of victims families wishing to state their feelings on the release. Contact Senator Haine to express your support and to ask his office what are the next steps that we all can take to support his bill. This bill got voted overwhelmingly out of committee with testimony from members of IllinoisVictims.org! March 11, 2008. HOUSE BILL 5908 sponsored by Rep Chapin Rose is the companion bill and passed out of committee on March 13, 2008 with the testimony from IllinoisVictims.org members! CONTACT US with questions about this bill or how to work in support of them. Now that both bills are out of committee, everyone in the state is urged to call their Senators and Representatives to support these two bills, which will eventually be merged into one.
SB 2254 and HB 5908 Pass the Legislature UNANIMOUSLY! Update May 2008 We are MOST grateful to all members of the Illinois General Assembly, both House and Senate, who on an IMPRESSIVE Bi-partisan UNANIMOUS support of victims of crime voted completely together, without a single dissenting vote, to clarify and extend the rights of victims who have to still deal with the Prisoner Review Board on usually an annual basis because the prisoners in their cases are left over from before 1978 and are "C number" prisoners who still come up for parole review regularly. Members of IllinoisVictims.org testified at both House and Senate Committee hearings in support of these bills. WE NEED YOUR CALLS and LETTERS into House Speaker Michael Madigan's office and to Senate President Emil Jones office. We need concurrence on one version or another so that it can go to the Governor to be signed. Call House Speaker Madigan at (217) 782-5350 or write him at
OR Call Senate President Emil Jones at (217)
782-2728 or write him at Now the John Howard Society and some defense attorneys working for release of C number prisoners before the PRB are trying to get legislators to back-peddle on their support of this bill, despite its already unanimous passage in both houses of the Illinois General Assembly. It is amazing to us that they will not support this simple bill that will only allow victims to be heard before the PRB in the possible release of the killers in their cases. It troubles us - We at IllinoisVictims.org have been supportive of Prison Reform. We have spoken for Restorative Justice and other programs that could be helpful to the life journeys of the offenders in our cases. Why can't they support our right to be fully heard? We ask that those who work for prisoners realize that it does no good for their agenda to help the prisoners when they stand against the rights of the victims of those killed by their clients. It does not take a brain surgeon to figure out how it looks to the rest of the world that they are not willing to allow victims to be heard by the full PRB. If we can get the bill through the General Assembly, we feel sure, knowing the Governor's long and consistent support for victims of crime, himself a former prosecutor, that he will sign the bill once it gets through the legislature. These few remaining deeply traumatized families that still have to go through year after year, for over three decades, now into the second and third generations of their families, untold agonies each year as they prepare to fight possible release of the killer of their loved ones deserve the relief this bill provides. SB 2254 and HB 5908, drafted and written by the States Attorneys office in Cook County and supported statewide by the entire States Attorneys' Association, was an initiative we have asked for and strongly supported from its inception. We were part of the early conversations last year about a need to change procedures for those 270 or so cases left before the Prisoner Review Board. We knew that the victims and the thousands of protests of the proposed early releases were not being heard by the full board. We knew that the board was not given the full consideration of all the materials and arguments in opposition to their release. And we knew that the prosecutors were having to carry a ridiculous burden in the whole process. These bills correct this situation. It gives families 5 years between hearings instead of 1 or 3. It gives prosecutors a right to know what the advocates for the prisoner are going to say first. And it protects the rights of victims to be heard by ALL PRB members. We believe that right already existed in PRB enabling statutes, but certainly was not being observed. Finally, we want to comment on the obvious to those who have advocated for easing the release standards for the C number prisoners. Some of their proposals to change and ease the review process for C numbers to be released would have made the victims go through even more than they already have been going through. The outpouring of opposition from even the FEW C number victims families that knew about this should have been indicator enough. Given the completely unanimous votes in both Houses on this bill, we hope that the prisoner advocates will make note of the importance politically of protecting the rights and interests of innocent victims of crime above all other things when advocating prison reform. Several efforts in recent years to make release of C number prisoners much easier have not even seen the light of day in a committee. And now with these bills of ours flying through the legislature, we hope that the will of the Illinois people on this matter has been made CLEAR and can be laid to rest. And most of all, that we at IllinoisVictims.org will not have to waste any more of our precious time fighting efforts by advocates for C number prisoners that will cause further grief and harm to the victims of these crimes. All efforts by the Campaign for C Number Prisoners, and their friends at the John Howard Society who have refused consistently our requests that they hold off their push for changes in these release standards until all the victims families have been found and notified and empowered to be a part of the discussion if they so choose, have been made without observing victims rights in any way. They have refused to reach out to the victims families, nor have they stopped to reflect on what the impact of their efforts might be on those families or how they might try to use Restorative Justice principles to build bridges of understanding between them. Its been thirty years or more for these victims families - they have suffered enough. If the legal system has worked as it should in an individual cases, let the prisoners serve out the remainder of their sentences with dignity, offering them programs in the prisons that include reforms we have long supported for rehabilitation - restorative justice opportunities where possible, education and mentoring opportunities, etc. These men were all given sentences as harsh as the time period then allowed - when there were no natural life or death sentences available. Many of them were given hundreds and hundreds of years in prison, but are still eligible for parole consideration under that old indeterminate system. These 270 or so that are left after 30 years of releasing over ten thousand others are the ones that have failed to meet release standards time and time and time again. We agree with the states attorneys, that with one or two possible exceptions (the Bigsby case being an example of a controversial case not yet properly evaluated), the C number remaining are the worst of the worst and should serve out their lives in prison. The victims should not have to still spend months out of every year campaigning over and over and over again to prevent their release. One last important note - each of the C number prisoners had the legal opportunity in 1978 to accept a determinate sentence. These prisoners refused, preferring to take their chances with parole. Those few remaining are there for a reason, some of them too horrific for words. Thanks again to the heroic action by the legislators and the states attorneys to get these bills passed. We can't wait to see this bill become law!!
MAY 29, 2008 UPDATE from the Capitol Springfield, Illinois We can hardly believe this happened ourselves! But here goes . . . There was an attempt today to remove PRB board member Diaz when his term came up for renewal. The Governor re-nominated him and the approval of this went before the Illinois Senate as always. There the Executive Appointments Committee, chaired by Senator Rickey Hendon, votes on appointments. Senator Hendon however made it clear to his committee that they were not to approve Diaz for another term. A majority on the committee, some of them obviously reluctantly, obeyed and voted with Senator Hendon, a powerful leader in the Senate. The reason? PRB member Diaz, himself a former police officer, had voted not to release a cop-killer, Theodore Bacino. Senator Hendon, and Senate President Emil Jones have sided with a handful of advocates for the release of Mr Bacino over the wishes of the Illinois public, the States Attorneys, victim organizations such as IllinoisVictims.org, Illinois COPS, Illinois Gold Star Families, statewide law enforcement groups such as the Illinois FOP, and many other community leaders. And, we have no doubt, the wishes of the Illinois public. Unbelievably, last year Senator Hendon and President Jones did the same thing - they removed John Stenson, the Republican former police chief of Peoria, from the PRB, because he was too "tough on Parole". We caught it too late, and the John Howard Association took all the credit for persuading Senator Hendon to pull the stunt. This year they tried again but failed. Bacino has been within one vote of being released the last several years by the Prisoner Review Board. Our unified efforts in support of prosecutors, law enforcement, and most of all, the families of our fallen heroes, stopped the effort in time this year. The Senate voted today 31-25 to keep Mr Diaz for another term when the nomination went to the full floor. Mr. Diaz is one of the most "liberal" voices on the PRB, ironically for Senator Hendon and the prisoner advocates. See the above for examples of his voting record. He is singularly qualified, we understand, to be on the PRB, academically, in his professional experience, and in his temperament. He has distinguished himself with work on preventing recidivism. But as a former police office, allowing a cop-killer to be released is a place where he wisely has drawn a line. Mr Diaz is being caught up by a problem we have long been discussing and documenting on this website regarding the leadership of the PRB. This is connected, no doubt, to the trouble that began when the board chair of the PRB, Jorge Montes, said in a documentary film made by the Chicago Tribune that he is an "advocate for Mr Bacino", in complete violation of his public trust to be an objective judge representing only the Illinois public at large. For this he was roundly criticized. The fact is that the Bacino case has become all about who has the power - the people of Illinois, or some of its leading public officials who do not wish to have their agendas thwarted. We just can't figure out why Senator Hendon and President Jones picked this "hill to die on". Why stand up for the release of a cop-killer and go to ALL this trouble politically, against the wishes of so many of their own Senators, prosecutors, victims, law enforcement, and the general public? And yet, once the vote was done, anger that was directed by the Senate leadership at those that dared to stand up for what was right instead of what Senators Hendon and Jones wanted . . .that was the most amazing of all. Surely they know political suicide when they see it?! How could Senate leadership ask their members to hurt themselves so, not to mention the victims families and others interested in public well being? We advise the prisoner advocates to take better care of their friends in the General Assembly. We commend ALL the Senate Republicans and the 12 brave Senate Democrats who stood up to the power of the President of the Senate and did the right thing - kept Diaz on the PRB - instead of following orders. Please contact these democratic Senators to express your thanks, and send your opposition to those who did not vote the right way. The 12 courageous Democrats are Crotty, Delgado, Frerichs, Garrett, Halvorson, Holmes, Koehler, Kotowski, Malone, Martinez, Schoenberg, and Silverstein. And we heard later today that Steans apologized for not fully understanding the issue and said she would have voted differently. And we heard the Senator Iris Martinez, in leadership under President Jones, caved in to a late in the day request to flip her position and support a re-vote. This effort will not likely suceed. Go to www.ilga.gov and click on Senate and Members to find each Senator's contact information. We have always thought that President Emil Jones has done a great deal of good for this state. We cannot understand why he chose the side of a cop-killer over their victims. The news media is already having a feast over this. One of Senate President Jones' job is to watch out for the good politically of his members. He does them no favors when he asks them to engineer the removal of a very good man on the Prisoner Review Board, in order for one cop-killer to find the one more vote he needs to get out of prison early. He is setting his members up for targeting and criticism from opponents in the upcoming fall elections. Who would ever stand against law enforcement in favor of those who murder our law enforcement? Law enforcement voices at recent House Committee hearings on victims issues stated categorically that we can NOT ask our brave men and women who risk their lives for us daily unless we are willing to stand for the strongest possible punishments to those killers who would take down a police officer. We thank the good Senators of our state for doing the right thing. FROM THE SPRINGFIELD JOURNAL - REGISTER Prisoner review board under
fire
Prisoner-review-board-under-fire
From the Rockford Register
Star 
|
