Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Budget stuff
Next Post: Tuesday puppy blogging
Posted in:
* Tribune…
State prison officials hold close to 1,250 inmates beyond their release dates every year — not because they pose a threat to the public but because they cannot find a place to live that parole officers find suitable, according to court papers and interviews.
For Illinois taxpayers, the extended stays add as much as $25 million a year in prison costs, compared with the far lower tab for parole.
It’s a practice commonly known as “violating at the door” because guards at one time walked inmates who had completed their sentences to the prison gates, only to return them to their cells for failing to find a suitable home — considered a parole violation.
Now, according to prison officials, such dramatic “turnarounds” rarely if ever take place, yet hundreds of inmates continue to be held every year for months or even years beyond their release dates. They must be set free by the time their terms of parole end, sometimes as long as three years later.
This story was first reported by the Illinois Times on January 22nd. What makes this issue so difficult is that most of those inmates are sex offenders.
* From Patrick Yeagle’s IT piece…
Johnny Cordrey did his time.
He spent 18 years at Menard Correctional Center in southern Illinois, but when his release date came in April 2012, Cordrey was instead sent back to prison. He hadn’t committed any new offense, however. His attorney says the only crime Cordrey committed this time around was being poor. […]
Cordrey, now 66, was sentenced in October 1993 to 36 years in prison for aggravated criminal sexual assault, plus a separate 30-year sentence for aggravated kidnapping. With credits for good conduct reducing his sentence, Cordrey was due for release in April 2012. The terms of his parole – called “mandatory supervised release” in Illinois – required him to register as a sex offender, attend three different types of counseling, have no contact with his victim, check in with his parole officer twice a week and wear an electronic tracking device at a suitable home.
As his release date approached, it became clear that Cordrey – who Poor says has no family or friends outside prison – wouldn’t be able to find a place to live during his parole. The Illinois Department of Corrections attempted to place Cordrey in transitional housing paid for by the state, but no facility could accept him, mainly because of his sex offender status. On April 12, 2012, instead of being released, Cordrey was informed he would stay in Menard Correctional Facility to serve his three-year parole term.
Cordrey sent a handwritten appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, asking the justices to free him on the legal theory that confining people past their prison terms violates the state and federal constitutions. If Cordrey had been a rich man, he reasoned, he could have easily obtained housing and would have been released sooner. Cordrey claimed keeping poor inmates confined longer creates a second-class status for them, in violation of the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection. […]
Cordrey is currently being held in the Peoria County jail. After he served his additional three years of parole in prison, he was released and picked up by police in late October 2014 while walking on a highway near Peoria. Because Cordrey is homeless, he was deemed to have violated the terms of his sex offender registration, which means he will likely be sent back to prison.
The Supreme Court ruled against him.
On the one hand, this just doesn’t seem right, and it’s certainly costing the taxpayers plenty of money. On the other hand, convicted sex offenders are deemed by statute to be more of a danger than other criminals, and many of them probably are.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:36 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Budget stuff
Next Post: Tuesday puppy blogging
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Back in the old days, a bag lunch, twenty bucks and a one-way bus ticket a couple states over probably would have done the trick.
I have no idea what to do here. It’s not like anyone’s clamoring to put up or employ this population.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:42 am
Australia.
Comment by Gabe Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:46 am
Create a town for sex offenders exclusively - “Escape from New York” lite. Sort of.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:47 am
Yes, sex offenders are more likely to reoffend than other populations. But we don’t imprison people for being likely to commit a crime. That’s how it works on the front end; we don’t proactively imprison male, fatherless, recent high school drop-outs living in crime-ridden neighborhoods, for instance, even though they are statistically more likely to commit crimes. So it shouldn’t work that way on the back end either. Yes, that’s tough, because we’re all worried about sex offenders. But a little extra peace of mind isn’t worth dispensing with the Constitution, especially when that means treating the poor as second-class citizens, not just economically but legally, in an age of widening income inequality.
Comment by Commander Norton Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:48 am
Sex offenders are actually LESS likely than any other criminals to reoffend–at least from the research that I’ve seen. That doesn’t automatically render any of them less dangerous, though. Lots of factors. Maybe they’re just less likely to get caught a second time.
This problem is usually solved by transition housing, but in Cordrey’s case that wasn’t possible because of his sex offender status. Perhaps the solution is transition housing exclusively for sex offenders. But none of us need to be told how awful of a place that sounds.
Comment by White Denim Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:51 am
Not that I want them in my neighborhood, and that’s the problem, sex offender recidivism may actually be lower than other crimes.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-heroux/sex-offenders-recidivism_b_976765.html
Comment by Robert the Bruce Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:53 am
For less then the cost of incarceration, it seems the state could set up some special housing for these folks. Buy and rebuild places like the bell air and use them for housing. It has to be cheaper then prison space
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:54 am
I have no solution for this issue specifically.
But do have a general idea. And you’d think with “Bruce’s Business Acumen” he would figure this out.
It cost’s a minimum of $20,000.00, per person, per year to keep pot smokers and buyers in prison.
Hey!
How about we turn that around and make that a source of revenue?
Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:55 am
The law of unintended consequences always causes more problems. There is very little that can be done unless statues limiting where certain parolees can live and work are relaxed, and that just isn’t going to happen. So, we now have what is dangerously close to the long-forgotten Poor House and/or Debtor’s Prisons about to be reincarnated. Punishing people by imprisonment is one thing…continuing to exact additional punishment through post-release restrictions of where people can live and work could (and probably should) be considered double jeopardy. Parolees who can’t find work or a place to live are 100 percent likely to return to prison on new charges.
I agree with Slinger…there is no obvious answer here.
Comment by Commonsense in Illinois Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:56 am
If we allow them out on parole we can supervise them for at least two years and make them register. If they are violated at the door when their sentence is up they walk out that door and we have no idea where they go. Which makes more sense? Shockingly the sensible one costs a lot less.
Comment by Spliff Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:59 am
There are plenty of housing opportunities away from schools and places where children may be vulnerable where these sex offenders can live. “Halfway houses” are relatively inexpensive compared to prisons, and are probably the best solution. Many are operated by non-profits or churches. This SHOULD NOT be happening in a competently administered program.
Comment by Arizona Bob Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 9:59 am
== This SHOULD NOT be happening in a competently administered program. ==
Let’s diary this for January 2018 and check in on how well Governor Rauner has done correcting this correctional problem.
Comment by Bill White Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:04 am
I don’t have a solution to the problem, but you might be able to whittle it down by looking at the nature of the offense. The registry includes a lot of nonviolent offenders who are not much worse than creepy along with the rapists and child molesters.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:05 am
Illinois Sex Offender Registry became law during the “Competently Administered” Jim Edgar years. With no foresight or thought of how this would paid for.
And its not just little children who get preyed upon. Ask any women how they feel about being “leered” at on the CTA or at the Supermarket.
Comment by Del Clinkton Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:07 am
Thanks for posting this. More light needs to be shed on this uncomfortable issue, and more discussion needs to take place.
== Punishing people by imprisonment is one thing…continuing to exact additional punishment through post-release restrictions of where people can live and work could (and probably should) be considered double jeopardy. ==
Agreed.
Comment by In the Middle Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:07 am
But we don’t imprison people for being likely to commit a crime.
We most definitely do, and we have a real issue with what we see as a growing need to do so.
We jail people we suspect of harboring terrorist intentions. We jail people we suspect of harboring intentions of hate crimes, sexual crimes and crimes where we have determined that the cost of the crime is far to great to wait until it is committed.
This isn’t new either.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:07 am
These stats that sexual predators don’t commit crimes at the same rate as other ex-felons completely fails to take into consideration the crime. Don’t compare a rapist to a car thief or drug dealer.
Really think about why we act like we do around ex-felons of sexual crimes.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:10 am
When we take into consideration the number of men raped in prison, and that these rapes occur within a state-operated institution, we can better appreciate why these ex-felons are not welcomed into society.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:13 am
Convicted sex offenders can all be sent to the North Korea.
For the rest, seems like money well spent to provide housing assistance to help people reintegrate to society and hopefully get out of the “system” and become productive taxpaying members of society.
Comment by Very Fed Up Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:18 am
Sex offenders are definitely not all same.An 18 year old who had sexual contact or sex with a sixteen year old much different that a true pedophile who are a small percentage of total offenders.
i suggest private agency could assess each person. Placements for many could be located. We are using one size fits all. This is not reality
Comment by bill ryan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:19 am
A felon convicted of sexual assault will not find a prison to be the place to learn about sexual norms. Not only is prison rape a real problem, we have many who consider being raped in prison part of the punishment of being jailed. Sodomy in jail is common. It isn’t a place to turn someone around who has been convicted of rape.
And we all know this too. We don’t deal with it, except to put the ex-felon on the Internet and put them into our parole system. A young man who has spent a significant part of his life in a state institution where rape is considered a part of the daily threats, wasn’t conditioned to be reformed.
That is why we don’t want them around. Not only have we failed to figure out how to “fix” these men, they were locked up in the worse place for them to get fixed.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:21 am
How much of this problem would go away if we limited the definition of “sex offender” to those who committed offenses involving minors?
The sex offender restrictions seem to presume that every “sex offender” is a danger to children. If the past offenses didn’t involve minors, why make this presumption?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:25 am
No, I don’t like being leered at by men in public. Most men who leer at women are not going to commit a sex crime. And of those who are, a very substantial percentage are not registered sex offenders (either because they haven’t yet committed a qualifying offense or because they weren’t caught). Thinking that the Sex Offender Registry keeps us safe or that the presence of released sex offenders in society is the main threat to women and children are both species of wishful thinking.
Comment by Commander Norton Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:26 am
There has to be hundreds, if not thousands, of vacant properties available to house these parolees. Somebody could make some money on this program!
Comment by Apocalypse Now Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:27 am
VMan, that “Minority Report” flick wasn’t a documentary.
Comment by Wordslinger Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:28 am
While there’s no great solution, maybe the answer for elderly parolees IS a variation on the old “poor farm” theme. Find a closed up former hospital / retirement home / hotel / motel / college dorm / something equivalent and convert it to a “halfway house / retirement home”. Would be better than what we are doing now. As big as the state is, you should be able to find some buildings that would meet all the rules location-wise. If it were only for “retired/non-working” parolees, the geographic location wouldn’t be a big issue; could even be quite rural. There would be some up front cost and probably some PR issues, but the operating cost ought to be quite a bit cheaper than using the prisons. Wouldn’t be the big job creator prisons were, but you could probably get some communities interested.
I don’t know what a solution for the non-elderly who would need / want a job would be; that’s a tougher problem. In their case, the traditional “halfway house” may be the best we can do.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:35 am
No sympathy. He committed a crime which the presiding judge decided was punishable by 36 years in prison. He did 21 (18+3). Let’s see how much a danger to the public he would be at 81 vs. 66.
Comment by Papa2008 Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:37 am
Arizona Bob - Illinois is short on what you refer to as “half-way houses”, also the sex offender rules don’t allow more than one to live at an address (that would mean appt bldg).
Comment by Spliff Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:37 am
Social services especially this type, are not super popular. I don’t see a lot of funds will be directed to such a program that helps further prepare folks to re-enter life. There are empty state owned residential facilities that could be adapted — LDC in Lincoln is a good example. Two prisons right there and en empty residential facility. Perhaps the state needs a few more counselors to assist with re-entering life and a couple less correctional officers who just manage the inmates while incarcerated beyond the period of their sentence.
Comment by Mad Brown Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:51 am
“convicted sex offenders are deemed by statute to be more of a danger than other criminals”
That’s why there is the Sexually Violent Persons act, which provides a procedure to lock people up after their prison sentence is complete.
If the prosecutor does not proceed under that act, the inmate should be paroled like anyone else.
@ Papa2008 -
That judge gave him 36 years KNOWING that meant release after 18. Judges take mandatory supervised release dates into account when determining sentences.
Comment by Joan P. Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:53 am
VMan, that “Minority Report” flick wasn’t a documentary.
One of the basic reasons we jail felons is to prevent them from committing future crimes. One of the determinants in sentencing, paroling, and rehab, is a consideration of their future possible criminal activities.
The reason we have a Sex Offenders list is to warn communities of these people. If we were as you claim to be, (foolish, naïve?), there would be only a focus on the crime committed. After arrest we consider many possible outcomes based on experiences, studies, records and stats which are not concretely tied to the crime committed. Consideration of future criminal acts is a powerful part of our how we determine a felon’s future.
It is the fear of future crimes that is making this a very tough problem.
Perhaps if we saw a better control over prison rape and sexual behaviors within our state institutions, then perhaps our communities would be more comfortable with those who had been jailed within them due to a crime of a sexual nature.
Not only would ending jail rape help with these situations, it is only right to end jail rape for those incarcerated. No one is sentenced in court to time behind bars and to become a rape victim.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:56 am
@Gabe9:46 =Australia=
Australia does not want him either.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:56 am
the law needs fixed. If you have sex and its consensual with the parent knowing, then said parent gets mad for whatever reason and calls cops then 17yr old kid is marked for life! i aint saying having underage sex is right, but why does the male have to suffer when all parties knew what was going on!!
Comment by highspeed Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:58 am
The problem is that we conflate all sex offenders. Most are less likely to reoffend. However, there is a small subset of rapists who are likely to reoffend. They, however, can (and regularly are) civilly committed, are sitting in Rushville, and don’t get parole at all. The group we are dealing with is those people who are NOT likely to reoffend.
Comment by Alan Mills Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:02 am
“sex offender rules don’t allow more than one to live at an address”
Maybe the rules need to be changed.
Comment by Kevin Highland Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:02 am
I don’t believe that sex offenders are actually more likely to reoffend than other criminals like former Illinois Governors for example.
Comment by Carhart Representative Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:16 am
How has SCOTUS ruled on residency restrictions in the past and registry issues? Everyone keeps saying there’s no answer to this, but in reality there is. The Supreme Court needs to make this act unconstitutional. Lawmakers will never touch this, so it needs to happen in the courts.
Comment by QCLib Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:16 am
This has been going on for years and years and years. At least seven years ago, the media was reporting on sex offenders being kept well past their parole dates due to no suitable housing. Why is the media jumping onto this all over again when there is nothing new to report?
Comment by Old News Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:18 am
People with sex offenses actually have far lower recidivism rates for new sex crimes than most people think. It ranges from a Bureau of Justice Statistics study of 5.2%, to 13% to much larger estimates looking at specific crimes.
But that’s not the issue here. If someone has served their time, our justice system says they can leave prison. We don’t look at people with aggravated battery and say, “Well, what is their chance to reoffend?” and then keep them in prison on that basis. In fact, most people who leave prison will return at some point.
And if we want to stop that, we need programming in prison and more alternatives to incarceration. Spending time in prison, in many cases, increases a person’s risk factors to commit new crimes.
The people discussed in this article happen to be stuck in prison because of byzantine laws and regulations. That’s giving us the opportunity to think about their risk to reoffend. But if we really care about that, we would think about the 48,000 other people in prison as well.
Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:25 am
One case I was involved in was an 80 year old sex offender with dementia who was held until the full sentence completed. He was in the nursing home wing of the prison system (and yes they have one). He now had to be released, but no nursing home would accept since he was a sex offender. He could not go to the streets due to his dementia. We finally figured out he was a veteran and placed him in veteran medical facility. Worked for him, but what do we do with these folks who are aging, mentally ill, or most likely repeat offenders. We don’t have a Quantanomo for sex offenders.
Comment by illilnifan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:26 am
Old News and Kevin Highland:
I completely agree. Everyone knows about this problem and they have for many years. Several legislators tried very hard to address it and kudos to them, including Jim Sacia.
If bringing it up again helps solve it, then that’s great.
Some of the laws make it very tough for the IDOC to find placements and they need to be changed.
Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:30 am
Just to clarify, the 18 year old having “consensual” sex with his 17 year old girlfriend is treated differently than pedophiles, etc. They have different sentence lengths, different parole terms and different parole conditions. When these guys get close to parole, they have a meeting where they are given their parole conditions. I have seen the sheet where there is a whole list of terms that they may or may not have to abide by.
Comment by former DOC worker Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:30 am
In my opinion, money well spent. I have no problem whatsoever with my tax dollars keeping a sex offender off the street. If someone can come up with an idea that works, I am sure everyone would be happy. I am sure some type of group homes have been kicked around. Problem is, who wants a home full of sex offenders in their neighborhood?
Comment by Dave Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:32 am
Most of these solutions would require statutory changes. What legislator is going to want to sponsor that bill? That’s the bigger issue here.
Comment by ChiGal Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:33 am
Rich, where is this in the statute? I don’t believe it is.
==On the other hand, convicted sex offenders are deemed by statute to be more of a danger than other criminals, and many of them probably are.==
Comment by state worker Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:36 am
I know this is simplistic but the Legislature writes these laws. If they do not work get rid of the law or allocate resources necessary to enforce them. Time to get to work.
Comment by Makandadawg Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:39 am
Possibly we need to have someone step up and create a community like Florida’s “Miracle Park”.
Comment by Ken_in_Aurora Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:51 am
@ ChiGal: “Most of these solutions would require statutory changes. What legislator is going to want to sponsor that bill? That’s the bigger issue here.”
Exactly. The evidence tells us that the majority of victims are related to or know the offender. Yet the public is fixated on the idea of “Mr. Stranger Danger”, and wants more and more restrictions. Any legislator who votes to reduce those restrictions knows that he will be facing a “soft on sex offenders” attack in his re-election bid. And so they don’t.
Comment by Joan P. Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 11:51 am
I have read well over ninety percent off citizens arrested for sex crimes are convicted in Illinois.
How can this conviction rate be so high?
And then the convicted cannot visit or go near public parks, schools, etc.
I feel all levels of society feel so much guilt and shame about sexual thoughts, no public figure can speak with rational.
We all wear the Letter A. The Scarlet Letter.
Comment by gg Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 12:02 pm
I think we are missing the bigger issue here.
The guy got a 36 year term for a violent crime, and was scheduled to be out in less than 20?
I know that is the law, but that’s seems pretty insane to me. People who do bad stuff should be locked up for a long time.
Comment by Gooner Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 12:11 pm
while I do not agree that sex offenders are less likely to commit a crime again, I do think there are differences between those who have committed violence of a sexual nature….ie touched…another person and, say, on line issues. that’s a very small slice of the pie, but it’s one start. the other is transitional housing, and government can play a role in that. IDHA funding for such housing and location obviously plays a role in that.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 12:13 pm
@QCLib - I don’t think people are saying that there are literally no* fixes to this. They’re saying there is no easy* fix, because we’re dealing with sex offenders. And since people have little sympathy for sex offenders, they’re not going to get in any hurry to help them out.
That said, we’re also ignoring the other half of the issue which is, not only are these people sex offenders, but also poor. So the question is not only what to do with them, but also “who pays for it?” I can’t imagine tax payers on either side of the aisle jumping to pay for special housing for them. Nor can I imagine any community that would volunteer to have that housing come to their town.
Sure, SCOTUS could rule it unconstitutional (that’s a whole other beast), but they can’t write the policy that rights the wrong. That’s the real problem.
Comment by White Denim Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 12:25 pm
Work Release Centers! or have they all also been closed?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 12:36 pm
The $25 million a year is another cost of ever harsher laws enacted by the legislature to limit where ex-sex offenders can live. None of these restrictions has been demonstrated to prevent sex crimes. Few if any sex crimes happen when offenders lure kids at parks or schools, yet the law says ex-offenders can’t live near parks, schools, bus stops, churches, etc. The law is so strict that there are few places formerly incarcerated persons can legally live.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 1:32 pm
If Rauner wants to save money, he will ask his minions in the G.A. to sponsor bills to repeal some of the housing restrictions on formerly incarcerated persons. That would be fun to watch!
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 1:34 pm
Ok, so the guy was convicted and sentenced to 36 years. In a separate criminal action he was sentenced to 30 years. For violent rape and kidnapping. Not mentioned if the terms were to be served concurrently. However, he served about half and now wants us to feel sorry for him because he has to spend another 3 years until his parole is over because he has nowhere to live.
So, now he is trying to get us to see him as a victim.
That’s interesting.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 1:37 pm
== I have no problem whatsoever with my tax dollars keeping a sex offender off the street.==
This is the kind of kneejerk thinking that got us into this problem. IL can’t afford to waste $millions on sound-bite bills with no proven benefit.
Alan Mills knows what he is talking about. The highest risk offenders never get out due to civil commitment. So we are talking about a lower risk subset here.
Comment by anon Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 1:40 pm
Aggravated criminal sexual assault plus aggravated kidnapping equals one bad crime.
So let’s not get weepy about 18 year olds and their 16 year old girlfriends.
On the otherhand, Gooner, 18 years is a very, very long time, particularly in prison.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 1:40 pm
Dan …
Can he live in Dupage when he gets out?
If not, where?
What is your answer?
What do you think is a proper punishment for a crime where the details are rarely detailed?
The public feels too much shame to say anything but Lockem up Forever.
Comment by gg Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 1:59 pm
gg,
Currently, a person convicted and sentenced would have to serve 85% of the term, as opposed to the good old days of getting 1 day off for good behavior for one day served. Do you know why that happened?
A person being sentenced to 36 (or 66) years imprisonment for a violent crime isn’t a someone who just made a mistake. Those types of convictions and sentences are typically reserved for very violent people.
This man was convicted of aggravated kidnapping. Let that sink in a little.
He was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual assault. The most serious of the sex assault crimes. Let that sink in a little.
Those words are actually quite descriptive.
He served 18 years in prison for those crimes. Today, he would likely be sentenced to a term much longer than that. He is a violent man. Period. I really don’t have any sympathy for him. He will get out in 3 years no matter what. And not under any type of parole. Then he can live where he wants. Now, THAT worries me.
What is my answer? We have a criminal justice system. Folks who commit crimes and are caught, tried, convicted and sentenced serve their terms and are released. Rapists have a high recidivism rate. Some can be held past their term under civil commitment laws. All those things come into play. The world isn’t perfect and there are no guarantees. That is our reality, no?
What do you mean by public shame? I don’t get that.
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 2:45 pm
The public feels too much shame…
Respect the public, people are not stupid. The idea that they are clueless on issues like this is ridiculous. Asking people to live with rapists who served time in far more clueless.
Forget what you were taught and embrace the reality lived by real people who understand this problem better than you do.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 3:16 pm
“i suggest private agency could assess each person.”
Find a private social services agency with a liability insurance carrier who thinks that is a wonderful idea. I can see the lawsuit and headlines now. “Repeat, violent sex offender attacks youth after XYZ Social Services deemed him no longer a risk.”
Comment by logic not emotion Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 4:26 pm
It might be most cost effective to provide a state housing / facility somewhere. Good luck siting it though.
Comment by logic not emotion Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 4:28 pm
Gooner - your math and logic are off. When he was sentenced, the judge knew that under then-Illinois law, you would serve half your sentence. So his sentence of 36 was in full knowledge that that meant 18. You can’t then look back 18 years later and say his release would have gone against the judge’s sentence. Judges understand arithmetic. If the law said you have to serve 100% of your sentence and the judge wanted an 18 year sentence, he would sentence the guy to 18 years.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 5:30 pm
In our society, dealing with sexual predators has only two outcomes: Rehabilitation or removal. If rehabilitation cannot or does not work, that only leaves removal. Decide how much you want to spend and plan accordingly. A long time behind bars or a short trip to the gallows. Neither particularly appealing, but I don’t see another answer.
Comment by Papa2008 Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 6:06 pm
I’m sure once Gov Rauner solves the state budget crisis on the backs of state workers he will look into this and other inefficiencies /snark. Where are the half-way houses? Maybe some “empowered” workers can staff the houses.
Comment by TravelingGal Tuesday, Jan 27, 15 @ 10:09 pm