1. - cassandra - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 9:18 am:

   I assume that DOC uses a research-based protocol for determining who will be released early. I hope this effort continues.

   I must say I have been impressed so far by Mr. Randle, not only because of the early release plan but because he actually seems to have a strategic plan for how he will manage DOC and what the priorities will be under his leadership. I wish him success, but of course it’s early days

   Such strategic planning is not visible in many other state agencies under Quinn, and the difference may be that Randle is a Quinn appointee who came in with a clear change mandate, following a more typical scenario–a DOC chief, appointed by our Blago, who was widely viewed as pleasant but ineffectual.

   Unfortunately, many Blago appointees remain atop state agencies, and it’s significant that we haven’t heard much about strategic planning from those folks. Strategic planning takes energy. Easier to doze away the months and hope Quinn is sufficiently distracted by budget problems that
   he won’t be seized with reform fever regarding, say, DCFS or DHS, much as those agencies need reform.




2. - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 9:29 am:

   If you have confidence in how our court system currently handles sentencing, you could probably have confidence in how this will be handled.

   But politically, it is risky because crime is a risky political issue in, and of, itself. Not just risky because Quinn is allowing thousands of convicts decide his fate along with theirs, but risky because many people are unhappy with our current court system.

   Quinn is also dealing with an issue as high a priority to voters as our budget fiasco. He is addressing one top issue by manipulating another top issue. Any assumptions that Quinn will be able to help himself regarding the budget crisis, can be offset by this supposed solution.

   It is OK for Hynes to snipe at him while he does this because what Quinn is doing deserves sniping. There are safer ways to save money, and using this method is like lighting a cigarette with a blow torch. It can be done - but it shouldn’t.

   Is it a bad idea. Yeah - it is. Altering a sentence based on the state budget is just plain stupid. You don’t allow a governor to meddle into court cases. We are allowing the executive branch to make judicial changes in our judicial branch. That is not a good thing.

   Folks who believe we are just helping drug addicts and helpless folks caught up in our court system are not using their brains, but their hearts. That is not where decisions should be made.




3. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 9:34 am:

   –Randle said Corrections Department officials whittled the release program down to just 1,000 by excluding anyone who could be considered a safety risk — anyone with a sex offense, parole violations, a domestic abuse conviction and more.–

   If they’re no risk, I guess it begs the question why judges felt they needed to do time in a state prison to begin with.

   Prior convictions, perhaps? I hope we see some follow up on who these folks are. Chronic drunks, junkies? People who should have been in rehab rather than prison, anyway?

   A net $3 million savings isn’t a lot of money, given a $10 billion deficit.




4. - Capitol View - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 9:48 am:

   almost everyone in prison is plea bargained down.

   So the conviction may have been non-violent, but the crime may have been.

   There will be political problems ahead, as early releasees commit more crimes and the newspapers check their original crimes that got them sent to prison, not their actual sentence for less.




5. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 9:53 am:

   All it will take is one “Willie Horton” incident and Quinn is toast. Is this the only way to save $? How much will be saved when you are releasing 1000 convicts? Whose ox is being gored here?

   Sorry ’bout the cliche - couldn’t help myself.




6. - Thomas Westgard - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 9:54 am:

   VanillaMan said, “If you have confidence in how our court system currently handles sentencing, you could probably have confidence in how this will be handled.”

   That’s spin. You could equally well say that if you DON’T have confidence in current sentencing, you’ll be happy to see it changed. For my part, it looks to me that we’ve gotten all the benefit we can from heavy sentencing, but there’s opportunity in diversion programs, like forcing people to get addiction treatment, completing GED’s, electronic monitoring while they maintain a job. And that is exactly what Quinn is doing.

   Not to mention, every year of prison is the price of at least one of those secure vans that Dick Divine says is needed to prevent people like Maday from escaping.




7. - IDOC - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 9:59 am:

   So how does spending the savings save money? In addition if they don’t change the laws thought put these people in prison, how does this help? In a couple o
   f months when the county jails are overflowing with inmates and DOC has no place for them because of the so called downsizing, what happens?




8. - another view - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 10:03 am:

   Diversion is appropriate when there are community resources which are plentiful. Have we forgotten that there were cuts to wrap around services such as drug treatment, job preparation, etc? Low level offenders will have free access to drugs/alcohol while on electronic detention whereas having them carry out their sentence in a low level secure setting guarantees access to ged, drug treatment, and other favorable rehab. programs. I think trying to save money will only create more failures for the DOC in terms of recidivism. Studies show 80 percent of incarcerated felons have drug problems, there aren’t enough treatment slots available in the community to treat them. This is a lose/lose.




9. - ispretired - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 10:18 am:

   As a retired police office I am puzzled by statements by Randle and another in your story line that talks about the inmates or clients as IDOC calls them are in for sentences of less than 1 year , the public should be aware that anyone with sentences of less than 1 year can not be sent to a prison because there is no felony that has by statue a term less than 1 year, they are served in a jail. Jail is at the County level and a prison is at the State or Federal level. You cannot go to a prison on anything less than a felony , the smallest felony charge is 1 year.The parole system is also a joke. I can’t tell you how many times my drug unit arrested a parolee on a drug delivery charge and no way IDOC would revoke the persons parole, the top didn’t allow it ,it would ruin their stats.So you have a parolee that is out on a sentence in a cocaine delivery charge and you arrest him again for same charge, but he doesn’t go back unless it is a class X charge , IDOC has a list that they refer to and if it is not on the list IDOC could care less. People should know that most don’t serve much more than 1/3 of their sentence anyway.So if you are OK with drug dealers being let out and burglary offenders then so be it , as long as they don’t break into your home.




10. - Jaded - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 10:20 am:

    I say we tell the New York DOC that we will take Plaxico Burress off their hands and incarcerate him in Illinos. Then he can be part of the early release program, be in an electronic monitoring program with the Bears, and be on the field by Halloween. Sounds like a win win to me.




11. - My Kind of Town - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 10:21 am:

    1. Creates an incentive for the Criminal Defense Bar to negotiate IDOC time instead of County Jail sentence, since counties typically don’t do early release.
    2. Imposes burden on parole system already over taxed and underfunded.




12. - Enough... - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 10:32 am:

    Just like Uncle Ted (as in Ted Nugent) says,
    “I don’t believe in repeat offenders, I believe in dead offenders”.

    This type of program will prompt this type of ideology.




13. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 10:56 am:

    I read all these posts and get only more baffled. Of course we want people to get treatment/ged/etc but those programs have been cut (by Quinn et al?) which will lead the recently released to commit more crimes for which they won’t be punished since IDOC won’t re-incarcerate. All so that 1000 convicted criminals can be released early to save how much? How many guards can you lay off after you release the 1000? How long until those “empty” cells fill back up?

    Truly baffling.




14. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 11:28 am:

    One thing that a lot of these articles didn’t highlight (but Rich did) was that the prisoners who will be released are low-risk, non-violent offenders that will be monitored with electronic home monitoring bracelets. The University of Chicago did some work on this issue and the State of Washington has been doing this for about two years. From a fiscally conservative perspective, what Quinn did actually saves tax-payers money, because the cost to place non-violent, low-risk offenders under house arrest is approximately 1/6 of the cost to put them in jail.




15. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 11:55 am:

    Anonymous,

    Mentioned above please note that many who are convicted of “low level, non-violent crimes” may have been arrested for something more than that but have pled down to a lower charge. Home monitering bracelets don’t prevent convicts from breaking the law, it just makes sure they are home when they do it (do/sell drugs).

    It is just curious that Quinn decides that this is the most important thing to do to save $. No matter how you slice it this is risky.




16. - shore - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 12:19 pm:

    One of the things that gets parties like mine out of power with no clue, back in the game is little screwups like letting thousands of convicts out on the streets.

    In a bad economy with not much work to be found, it’s not the worst bet in the world some of these folks might get into mischief with no jobs to occupy them. When they do, all hell will break loose. Bad move for a democrat.




17. - Amalia - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 12:24 pm:

    it’s a very scary and sad last few days in Illinois. the soldier with mental issues comes back and kills his uncle and his mother is distraught that she is somehow to blame because she did not know about her son’s troubles. thank goodness he is now in custody. what should the military have done re this man with mental issues coming back into Illinois?

    and now the family killed near Springfield, what a horrible tragedy. the child left at the shooting we hope she can
    someday forget anything she heard or saw.

    the criminal justice system is fraught with issues. so is the selling of weapons, as we learned in the Brown’s Chicken massacre that the gun used was bought legally, given to someone, stolen by someone and sold to the shooter.

    legal one day, illegal soon after. there are so many people who are bad out there, so many rules that can be violated, so much left to chance. I worry about the 1000 released.




18. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 12:49 pm:

    this begs a different question to me. is it really cost effective or even worthwhile to process through and lock up people with a sentence under 12 months in the first place.

    Perhaps they just need to add home imprisonment and electronic montoring for short term sentences.




19. - shore - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 1:00 pm:

    It’s a layup narrative for even an idiot Republican to win on:

    Democrats were fiscally irresponsible. Democrats let convicts out free to cut costs. Convicts went out and did bad deeds. Do you still want Democrats in government?

    Next.




20. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 1:10 pm:

    Ghost,

    Certain crimes require some imprisonment, IMO. We hear that sociopaths who skate on minor crimes go on to commit worse acts until real horror is done. Some suggest showing budding criminals that society means business is a deterrent. Crime ridden communities that experience police action to focus on minor “quality of life” crimes see their communities getting better. I am not an expert in this - perhaps there are some crimes that warrant home monitering, etc.

    The issue here, for me, is that Quinn is taking quite a risk (political and public safety) for what I would perceive as minimal gain (saving taxpayers some $). It just doesn’t compute.




21. - Jon Musgrave - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 1:48 pm:

    There was a time when I was a reporter I thought I understood Illinois’ sentencing laws. The older I get the less I understand. I don’t know if the following case would have fallen in the category for early release, but it certainly shows the problem we had before the administration took its current action.

    Four years ago I was attacked by a drunk driver (with a shovel) after I had taken his keys (following his parking and public urination in my mom’s front yard). He was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced to three years in DOC.

    Needless to say I was surprised when I started receiving restitution checks in less than a year. The checks meant that he was released and working, something the criminal justice system never notified me about as a crime victim.

    I thought inmates had to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Even, the old system of one day for every day of good behavior wouldn’t have surprised me, but the state let him out with less than a third of his sentence served.

    He was in his 50s, a widower and a father. He looks older than he actually is, which is why it was a one-sided fight. I was scared I would hurt him if I responded to his belligerence.

    At some point after he got out, he re-married. A few months later he and his new wife got into an argument and he shot her. I won’t say allegedly, because as soon as she ran out of the house bleeding, he followed to the front door.

    The mother-in-law called the cops and they were there as he was standing on the steps. They ordered him to put down the gun and instead, he fired at the cops, hitting one pointing a weapon at him, managing the amazing feat of hitting fingers on both hands as the officer held the weapon.

    The suspect was shot in the head, yet lived. His trial is coming up.

    The current issue may be non-violent prisoners being released early, but the bigger story is the violent ones already getting out way too early for the public safety.

    I don’t have a philosophical problem with what the governor is doing. If it’s a choice between one-time drug offenders and raising the income tax, I’ll go with the early release.

    My problem is that we need to be honest with the public. Our sentencing system is out of whack. There needs to be some type of truth in sentencing, some type of formula that the public can look at and recognize what’s happening. The current system is too opaque and too confusing. It undermines the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system and overall for society, that’s much more dangerous than the scattered acts of violence that will occur by repeat offenders regardless of the system.




22. - Amalia - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 1:59 pm:

    Mr. Musgrave: sorry for your troubles with the offender. the system should be alerting victims like you.




23. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 2:19 pm:

    DD I see this from a diferent angle. Unfrotunetly prisons just tend to hook criminals up with other criminals and make a petty criminal into a hardened criminal.

    We are not letting these folks skate or avoid being punished, but it costs roughly 24k a year to house somone in prison, not including processing them into the system. If we place them at home then it costs a few thousand dollars, and tey have to pay for thier own upkeep. Plus they are still off the street.

    Better chance to avoid recidivism, take care of kids if they have them etc.

    If they are going to be a problem they will end up committing crimes that carry sentences of more then 12 months, but why force them donw that path if we can avoid it.




24. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 2:23 pm:

    I should add, I think we are better off if we provide an incetive to keep crimes petty.




25. - Nellie - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 2:30 pm:

    The offenders being offered the program are not sentenced to 1 year as it is implied in the article. They are non violent class 2, 3, and 4 offenders who are in the LAST year of their sentence. Class X and 1 offenders are eligible if they are in their last 120 days. That changes the scope of things greatly.




26. - dupage dan - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 2:41 pm:

    Ghost,

    Prison ain’t a pretty place, to be sure. I don’t think there is an easy answer regarding the more “petty” crimes. Something as simple as pot possession could be written off as a minor crime but when we look at violence involved in the trafficking of same it looks more menacing. That debate can go on and on.

    Again, for me this stream is more about the potential cost to Quinn if just one of these parolees commits a whopper and it the public hears of it - big risk for little gain.




27. - The Teddster - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 2:54 pm:

    Inmates must serve 85% of there time if they are in the federal system.

    Our sentencing system has a problem because we lock too many people up. I am all for locking up violent offenders, but as a percentage of population and I think in absolute terms we lock up far more people than perhaps any other country on earth (save China perhaps for absolute numbers and North Korea for percentage of population).

    We lock up an excessive number of people, and the people that we lock up are concentrated among the poor and minorities. This means that you have communities where serving time, or knowing people who have served time is normal. The behaviors that are appropriate in prisons or that get people sent to prison becomes normal in those communities also. In short, once you lock up more than a certain percentage of members of the community, not only are you locking up the offenders, you are locking up the community as well. It becomes a self-generating problem.

    Don’t get me wrong, certain violent people need to go to jail. I just think that we resort to sending people to jail and or prison far too often.

    If I were king I’d get rid of the stupid marijuana laws; and I either let ex-offenders clear their records after a certain number of years, or I wouldn’t allow prospective employers to ask about crimes that are over a certain number of years old.

    I think Quinn’s moves are a step in the right direction.




28. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 3:18 pm:

    DD if somon is trafficing pot they would get a large sentence, so would be inelgible for an at home program. ALso, since the sentences are already steep for trafficing and selling, there is no reason to leave the gun behind. Now if the sentence was 11 months unarmed for trafficing, and 10 years if armed…. I bet you would find a lot fewer guns used by drug dealers.

    I would suggest that we create an incetive to drug dealers to carry weapons by starting with such high sentences for the activity, you get a whats a few more years for the violence approach. We focus so much on the deterent, that we actually remove incentives to commit crimes non-violently.




29. - wordslinger - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 3:39 pm:

    Again, I’m confused about this.

    1. If it’s for budgetary reasons, the amount is very small — $3 million net, in a $10 billion deficit. Not worth the risk.

    2. If it’s because these guys shouldn’t have been there in the first place, and are good candidates for making it on the outside, then I’m all for it. But then, probably more should be released.

    Which one is it? If it’s @1 keep them there. If it’s @2, we should re-examine why we’re putting these guys in prison.




30. - D Wareham --- Taylorville - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 4:06 pm:

    For those of you that think Randle is a great choice for IDOC top dog. Did ya hear about the investigation of him in the state of Ohio? If not you should go look at it. It’s listed on one of the states websites. Funny he’s originally from Chicago. Must be a Chicago thing. Also I’m told the state has to go out and purchase new electronic monitoring devices for all these new ones they’re gonna release. Is that saving money??




31. - Ghost - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 4:18 pm:

    Word, 1 is the reason given by the State; 2 is just my thoughts about why we should be doing this.




32. - Are u crazy - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 4:52 pm:

    If anyone thinks drug dealing is a non-violent crime your crazy. Do you think all these shootings and our kids dying in the streets is all just a misunderstanding? Drugs fuel money for gangs….gangs kill! Wake up Quinn you are putting all of us at risk.




33. - Anon3 - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 6:24 pm:

    I realize calculating good time creadit in Il is an art under the Illinois Criminal Code. There are so many factors educational credit, whether the offender is in his first trip to IDOC etc plus the General Assembly has felonized just about every thing so class 4 felons can be in IDOC for all sorts of offenses which one would traditionaly do county time. I believe that IDOC has many if not thousands of inmates who will qualify for this. The key is will they rationalize the current number of facilites and close the most expensive ones to operate? Otherwise this exercise is a waste of time.

    County jails are expensive and overcrowded so if you are a county prosecutor why not recomend DOC time and let all of Il be on the hook for incarceration and parole costs rather then the local county jail and probation department?
    Its a game of pushing the inmates back and forth plus we know come Jan frist the General Assembly will have many new felonies and many new mandatory sentences.




34. - Bad Idea - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 8:20 pm:

    Ask any parole agent who his/her most troublesome parolees are. They are the ones that were sentenced to a 1 or 2 year term (61 day wonders). DOC brass should tell Quinn what the REAL recidivism numbers are. He would not even consider this plan if he knew how many parolees really violate but are not returned.




35. - Lynn S - Tuesday, Sep 22, 09 @ 10:25 pm:

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around some of the things said here.

    Admittedly, I am a Democrat, and I have serious concerns about how our judicial and prison systems operate.

    I think violent felons should do some hard time, but we have to look at all of the crimes reclassified to provide harder time to offender and make sponsering lawmaker “look tough on crime” at election time. Nothing works better than pandering for votes.

    And for all opposed to early release, I ask: what can we do to make prison work better and create inmates less likely to commit crime when they are released? How can we make our prisons cheaper to operate than home release/community based options?

    ‘Cause at $30-40k/per inmate per year, we ain’t getting a good deal now.




36. - Cranky Old Man - Wednesday, Sep 23, 09 @ 6:44 am:

    Mr. Musgrave, the man will be referred to as a “suspect” and plead “not guilty”. If that doesn’t show our system is messed up, I don’t know what does. Anyone caught in the act, is NOT a suspect. Just my opinion.

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.