The untitled report submitted to the Legislative Study Committee by several women who administer the IllinoisPrisonTalk website is available as a PDF file here. 

Response from IllinoisVictims.org to the IllinoisPrisonTalk.com Report
To be submitted to the Long-Term Prisoner Study Committee

This untitled and undated report on costs associated with incarcerating long term prisoners and compiled by two researchers who are associated with the Illinois Prison Talk website concerns us on several grounds and, in our critique, is found seriously wanting. 

One overall concern that presents itself is the bias inherent in the study.  The primary researcher has claimed on the website to be married to a long term inmate, and while this can be a formidable and admirable motivator for someone concerned with the welfare of a loved one, it can also incline others to dismiss a research work such as this out of hand.  We, however, resist this impulse and take this study seriously.

Potential bias and conflict of interest can be overlooked if the researcher is careful to present data in an objective manner and without misleading the reader.  The report, full of colored graphs and pie charts, curiously omits any analysis or even a conclusion where the researcher's opinion could legitimately be stated.  This leaves the reader to analyze for him or herself the charts and graphs with their attendant comments for validity and applicability.  As secondary and university educators  with over 50 years of teaching experience between us, we feel that this report would merit a low grade if turned into us as an assignment.  Lacking a Summary Abstract, Introduction, Analysis, Conclusion, and appropriate citations for source material, the document is essentially tabulated data from a sole source, ostensibly the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), and is largely unfocused in its approach and essentially is statistically invalid.

One does not need to look far to find methodological error and false premise.  For example, in the very first graph presented, the number of inmates sentenced by decade is detailed according to three types of sentences:  Over 30 years, De facto Life (i.e. a sentence that if fulfilled would extend past the expected duration of the inmate's life), and Life Without Parole (LWOP).  In this chart, we see the rates of issuing these sentences rising dramatically from the 1970's to today, with the highest rate being in the 1990's and a significant downturn in the 2000's. 

This graph is statistically invalid.  Since the numbers for the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's are complete for an entire decade, their values are credible.  But only half of the 2000 decade, if that, is measured leading to potentially incorrect conclusions by the reader.  Now, since the poorly credited source material is stated on the cover as "current in the month June, 2006," it is impossible to know if the data is collected through June 2006 (unlikely), or typically lags behind by several years as most data gathering tends to do.  Even the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics' most recent reports rarely cite data from later than 2004 or 2005.

But to help the IPT researchers along a bit, let us assume the data is accurate to 2005, half the decade.  This would mean that the researchers should have projected a data path that would (without any adjustment for trending throughout the decade) at the very least double the data given.  Thus, there would be 1048 sentences over 30 years, an arithmetically consistent increase over  the 1990's figure, 746 de facto life sentences, a geometrically consistent increase over the 1990's (almost four times the previous measure), and, interestingly, 352 LWOP sentences -- half that of the previous decade.

Now, we actually have something we can work with.  While long term sentences do seem to be increasing into this decade, LWOP seems to be used less as a sentencing option.  Why is this important?  Because even with a long term sentence of 30 years given under Truth in Sentencing guidelines, there is time off for good behavior, up to half off depending on the seriousness of the sentence.  Interestingly, this technicality is conveniently missing from the rest of the report and would dramatically affect the findings of the study with regards to cost savings over time.  And, if this projection holds, with LWOP sentences decreasing rather dramatically into this decade, while those in the system will be costing the state money until they die in prison, fewer and fewer will be going into this situation in the future.

This information should actually make prison reform advocates happy to some degree in that it is not nearly as bleak a picture as the IPT researchers paint.

Another point that must be addressed is the researchers' insistence on using a life expectancy value of 77 years.  This figure is valid if one were talking about those outside of prison, but it is not valid for prison life.  Nutrition, violence, hypervigilence in a stressful environment, medical care, and other factors are generally acknowledged as bringing down the life expectancy of inmates dramatically.  One of the figures that has been expressed anecdotally by various department of corrections personnel is 63 years old, but a thorough and credible study needs to be cited in order to use this measure as a baseline for life expectancy, excluding executions.  By using the higher figure, the researchers skew their entire study, making projected costs much higher and again, painting a more alarming picture than may actually exist.

It would be interesting to see the IDOC's actual figures for prison mortality of LWOP prisoners.  The IDOC's own study presented to the legislative study committee at the first meeting tracks LWOP and other prisoners by age and gives us a small glimpse of what is to come.  It shows that in five year increments from 1990, the largest group of LWOP prisoners is consistently the 21-49 age group.  The over 50 age group starts out at 35 inmates (7% of the LWOP population) in 1990, rises to 64 (8% of the LWOP population) in 1995, rises to 147 in 2000 (13% of the LWOP population), and finishes at 325 (24% of the LWOP population).  Without more time studied, a further age breakdown, or access to the raw data we can't evaluate the actual upper level of life expectancy exhibited by LWOP inmates, but even with the steady increase in numbers and percentage of inmates above the age of 50, we still are not seeing a "bubble" of inmates moving into the upper age range from the younger groups.

Undoubtedly, the LWOP population in Illinois is aging, but it is also dying.  These men and women simply do not live as long as people on the outside.  While this is tragic, in its own way, it also means that the IPT study is deeply flawed and not credible when addressing prison costs over time.

To have any value whatsoever regarding costs, the study needs to be completely redone with a life expectancy closer to the norm and it must take into account the variability of reduced non-LWOP determinate sentences through established means.  Until this is done, the report is meaningless and alarmist.

The methodology of the study is often flawed, as well, especially when no adequate explanation of the data or a date range is given.  This can lead to misleading results and erroneous conclusions by the reader.  One instance of this is the researchers' lumping together of juveniles and adult prisoners in the under 20 age group.  This implies that the number of juveniles, more correctly, those sentenced for crimes committed as juveniles, serving long term sentences is larger than it actually is making this group of young inmates appear potentially far more expensive over time.   For example, the pie chart on page 8 is explained thus,  "Nearly one-third of all offenders receiving long-term prison sentences, in excess of 30 years, are between the ages of 14-20."  This statement is misleading and serves only the researchers' interests.   By neglecting to account for legitimate means for early release already available to these inmates in their cost projections, the researchers make it sound as if all these prisoners will be serving their entire sentence with no relief.   This is a false assumption based on an unrealistic worst case scenario.

Also in this series, the pie chart on page 10 shows LWOP Inmates, Incarcerated By Age in the 14-20 age bracket as 19% of the total prison population.  But the IDOC's aforementioned report shows that there are only three prisoners currently serving LWOP as of 2005 who are under the age of 21.  Reflecting the Incarceration By Age back over the entire history of the current inmate population presents a deceptive statistic that is not current and useful, nor does it reflect actual sentencing trends over time.  Not providing accompanying data tables so the reader can see how many actual cases are being studied also undermines critical understanding of the pie charts in general.  This type of intentionally misleading methodology is unprofessional and easily discredited. 

Furthermore, the researchers lump together all inmates 14-20 when they do not share the same legal status.  Even if they have been tried as adults, those under 18 are still juveniles and must be treated as such.  The 18-20 age group can then be treated separately, making the study more valuable and readable.

One final comment about the study itself.  If one wades through to page 13 one will find the principal argument implicit in its many graphics:  Releasing prisoners with long term prison sentences after only twenty five or thirty years would result in a cost savings to the state.

To be facetious, we could save the entire IDOC budget by releasing all the prisoners in the corrections facilities.  But the point is that we spend money on our prison system to keep our communities safe.  This is part and parcel of the cost of good governance.  Should this money be spent in the most efficient way to provide a humane environment for prisoners?  The answer is an unqualified "Yes."  But money will be spent on a corrections system as long as we have crime and criminals and a growing population. 

Can we get criminals to agree to stop committing crimes?  This would obviate the need for prisons completely.  There is no insidious conspiracy to warehouse criminals.  People are committing crimes and they must be dealt with.  What are family members of the incarcerated doing to reduce recidivism and criminal behavior in the first place?

Is twenty five years a sufficient sentence for the most heinous crimes?  Most victims of crime would say, "No!" But, fortunately, it is not for victims, nor prison reformers, to decide this.  It is up to the legislature and the criminal justice system to establish sentencing guidelines that are objective and appropriate for our society.  It is also incumbent upon those agencies to ensure the quality of Justice and correct injustice when it occurs. 

A strong clemency system that is responsive to those deserving its attention and not open to abuse by inmates trying to manipulate the system is also a must.  It is often stated on IPT that there are over 3000 petitions on the Governor's desk awaiting action.  How many of those are spurious claims and how many are legitimate?  Would this system be more responsive if it were not so inherently political and influenced by public opinion?  To what extent should the legitimate voices of victims exercising their Constitutional and moral right to be heard be involved in these petitions and parole hearings?  These are questions that we must ask.

But to state that inmates should be released by retroactively reducing their sentences by fiat is both disturbing and unconscionable.  After the courts have handed down a sentence, and after the victims have been told, even promised, by the State that certain conditions will apply to the incarceration of the perpetrator in their case, the die is cast.  To retraumatize families by reinstituting a system of parole or considering early release outside of the legitimate clemency process (and even then it is often a difficult thing for victims to process) would be horrifically destructive to so many undeserving of that fate who were innocently brought into this process by the callous and criminal actions of another.  That is why it cannot even be considered by the legislative study committee.  As one victims' family member told us recently, "There are some things that should just not even be studied!"

Rather than take up a lot of time and space analyzing a largely invalid and flawed study in detail, suffice it to say that outside of showing that the most violent and serious crimes are committed by younger offenders and receive stiff sentences in response the report has very little to say.  This is unfortunate, to be sure as the researchers have obviously put a lot of effort into their work, but we hope that the lack of credibility and professional standards in the study will not go unnoticed by the committee members and others who read it.  We can only hope that those who are exposed to it will see it for what it is:  a self-serving attempt by inmates' families to gain the release of long term prisoners under the guise of cost savings.

For our part, materials and reports submitted by us to the committee will be well-documented and credible studies developed by such leading and unimpeachable authorities as the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Office of Victims of Crime, among others.  They have some excellent reports on prison costs, recidivism rates, and victim impact that we are interested in presenting to the committee.

CONCLUSION

Illinois Prison Talk's study includes very little in the way of valid statistical analysis.  In it, one can see very clearly the agenda of this group and, while that agenda is certainly understandable given that these are people who have loved ones incarcerated for long periods of time, it is unacceptable to the victims' families, the general public, and the legislature.

The observation that releasing prisoners after serving twenty five years of an extended sentence of Life Without Parole as a cost savings benefit of $1.3 billion belies the claim on the website that the release of long term prisoners must be for a very select few inmates who meet "stringent guidelines."  Obviously, significant cost savings to the corrections system will only be realized if a large number of LWOP prisoners is released.  Given that these prisoners are generally incarcerated for the rest of their lives because they have perpetrated horrific and repeated crimes, public safety would be seriously compromised by this action.  Additionally, health and age related factors being brought back into the community would incur significant costs in other areas.  Inmates released to no family or support system face a world of uncertainty and danger.  It is not more humane to release a prisoner after twenty five years of incarceration if they are simply going to join the ranks of the homeless.

Much has been made of the recidivism rates of older released inmates.  It has been variously stated, truthfully, that older (aged 50 and up) inmates, when released, have the lowest recidivism rates of all age groups.  This statistic comes from the Bureau of Justice Statistics report on recidivism entitled Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 (the latest data available) and is undisputed.  What is not mentioned, however, is that while the rate of re-arrest is highest among younger inmates (over 80%) and declines as age ranges increase, it still stands at 45.3% for the oldest age range studied.  That is one in every two released inmates committing another crime and returning to prison.  We find that figure to be an unacceptable risk for society and reject any effort to release inmates on the basis of age alone.

This report goes on to state that, "No evidence was found that spending more time in prison raises the recidivism rate.  The evidence was mixed regarding whether serving more time reduces recidivism."  Take careful note of the latter sentence.  It is no wonder that victims of crime are skeptical of claims of redemption by inmates.

Yes, the prison population is aging.  Yes, the needs of the aging prison population must be addressed just as those on the outside.  But reintroducing an entire system of parole under the guise of cost savings is an initiative that must be resisted.  Other options must be addressed, and there are many that victims can get behind.

Punishment must be addressed as well.  Perpetrators of crimes are sentenced according to guidelines that are based (ideally) on severity of crime.  It has been noted that a victim cannot look for comfort in a courtroom because the social guidelines for justice rarely meet their personal sense of justice.  But in setting sentencing guidelines a great deal of consideration is given to severity of the crime.  The worst offenses get the greatest number of years.  To reduce that number simply because one feels that enough time has been spent by the perpetrator in prison flies in the face of that justice that has been meted out in the courtroom, and the implied contract that the state makes with the victim at that time.

The IPT's own study shows a decrease in the use of LWOP sentencing.  This in itself, hopefully, means that the most severe sentence is being used for the most heinous crimes and criminals. 

But there are other options.  We work regularly with programs such as "Fight Crime:  Invest in Kids" and other partnering with youth programs that help reduce crime at the front end, saving money for the state by preventing crime.  We advocate for spending more money on youth programs and helping keep violence out of homes and, as a result, see a proven return on every dollar spent on these programs of seven dollars in savings by preventing future incarceration.  We also work with over fifty other victims in the Cook County victim presentations to juveniles in the probation system, every month sharing our experiences as victims and helping them to understand how their criminal behavior affects others and themselves.  We use information from our own experiences to "put a face on victims" and we use information from our friends and contacts within the prison system to help them understand what lies in store for them if they continue to commit crime.  The program has been very successful, received awards and, more importantly, very positive feedback from the youth participants that it has helped some of them make a change in their lives.

Yet, there are those for whom these programs still do not work or who are already in the system for heinous crimes.  How do we address the needs of our society's public safety and where do we draw the line on sentencing?  Many have questioned whether states should return to parole systems rather than continue to use determinate sentencing.  Studies are now being done to evaluate determinate sentencing now that it has been in place for some time.  Many of those who were instrumental in implementing determinate sentencing in Illinois have told us that people just don't remember the "mess" that was the sentencing system before when there was rampant discretion and vast differences and inequities in sentences handed down by courts.

We suggest that the LWOP be retained but reserved for the "worst of the worst" cases.  We would advocate honors dorms and transfers to lower security prisons as well as other privileges and responsibilities for older, well-behaved inmates rather than considering their release.  We strongly hope that the Governor, working in cooperation with the Prisoner Review Board, will grant relief to those very few isolated cases of genuine miscarriages of justice.

With regards to future sentencing, to use LWOP for those for whom some sense of rehabilitation or glimmer of hope for reform and return to society may be possible is not appropriate, in our opinion.  Humane treatment for inmates incarcerated in Illinois' prisons is essential and important for us as a society.  We must not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority of prison inmates will be returning to freedom at some time.  Release and reintegration programs, training and educational programs while in prison, and developing socialization and interpersonal skills for the incarcerated are absolute musts in order to produce the best outcome, regardless of sentence.

These are things that victims can get behind, because they prevent more victims.  And that alone is a worthy goal.