Question of the day
Wednesday, Sep 22, 2021 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Neil Steinberg…
There is no parole in Illinois. I did not know that until Katrina Burlet told me.
“We got rid of our parole system in 1978,” said Burlet, campaign strategy director of Parole Illinois, a coalition committed to addressing the needs of prisoners.
Along with Illinois, 15 other states have abolished parole. California, on the other hand, has mandatory parole and in August pushed the issue into the headlines when a parole board voted to free Sirhan Sirhan, who assassinated Robert F. Kennedy in 1968.
This is one of those debates where people of goodwill can have opposing views. You could argue that Sirhan’s crime is so vile, not only snuffing out the life of a father of 11 but a beloved leader who inspired millions, that he should never go free. I can see that.
Or you could counter that 53 years in prison is punishment aplenty, that keeping Sirhan in jail until he dies won’t bring RFK back, that we are too punitive a nation already, with 1.8 million incarcerated at any time. I can see that too.
Burlet is pushing Senate Bill 2333, which would allow convicted criminals in Illinois who have served 20 years in prison to be eligible for a parole hearing.
“It restores parole for people serving the longest sentences,” she said.
* Bill synopsis…
Amends the Unified Code of Corrections. Provides that notwithstanding to the contrary, any provision of the Code, the Post-Conviction Hearing Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963, or the Habeas Corpus Article or the relief from judgment provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person serving a term of imprisonment, including a term of natural life, in a Department of Corrections institution or facility is eligible for earned discretionary reentry if he or she has served a term of imprisonment of at least 20 years. Provides that petitions for earned discretionary reentry shall be administered by the Prisoner Review Board. Establishes procedures for the hearing. Removes provision that no person serving a term of natural life imprisonment may be paroled or released except through executive clemency. Provides that if any incarcerated person is released on earned discretionary reentry, his or her sentence shall be considered complete after the term of mandatory supervised release. Applies retroactively. Contains a severability provision.
* From Parole Illinois…
We believe in the power of redemption and transformation; and that it is inhumane to order people to spend decades in prison until they die there without any periodic assessment of whether such sentences are necessary for public safety. We therefore stand against policies that sentence people to death by incarceration, whether that be life-without-parole or excruciatingly long sentences that people cannot outlive.
We recognize that excessive sentencing laws have piled up in Illinois, to the point that few people understand them and thousands of people are now required to die behind bars. We also recognize that each of these problematic sentencing laws needs to be repealed. And we recognize that each ameliorative law needs to be applied retroactively. However, we don’t believe that we can wait to establish a fair parole system until each of those battles are won individually, because many people will die behind bars in the meantime.
Therefore, our first course of action is to bring to Illinois a fair, inclusive, and retroactive system of Earned Discretionary Release. We are building a grassroots movement and working with legislators to promote parole legislation that is inclusive and that prioritizes rehabilitation and return to full citizenship. In addition, this legislation must distinguish the initial trial (which focuses on responsibility for the crime) from the parole hearing, which should focus on a person’s level of rehabilitation and current risk to public safety.
We believe that such a system of discretionary release would present the most expeditious way for the many over-incarcerated and wrongly incarcerated men and women in Illinois to obtain their freedom. We don’t take this lightly. We are prepared to devote substantial effort to establishing a fair and inclusive parole system and maintaining a fair and effective parole board.
* The Question: Should Illinois reinstate parole? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please…
surveys
- Pundent - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:12 pm:
Yes. Allowing for parole and granting parole are separate and distinct.
- Southern IL Bob Too - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:17 pm:
I have a client that wears an ankle bracelet and has to report to an officer (He refers to them as his parole officer)any time he leaves the house. My client told me he will be on supervised release for another year. Any infraction and he goes back to prison to serve the remainder of his term. Is this not parole?
- DS - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:23 pm:
@ Southern IL Bob Too
Your client is on Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR), which is part of his sentence.
- Han's Solo Cup - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:24 pm:
Bob-Illinois has a type of parole. It’s called mandatory supervised release and is imposed during sentencing. You could basically equate it with probation. There is no post sentence parole, as this law would allow.
- very old soil - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:24 pm:
Yes, particularly for non-violent crimes.
- lake county democrat - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:25 pm:
(sorry, last anon comment was me)
- Actual Red - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:27 pm:
Yes, but I’d like to see some reform of the existing parole system - and it does still exist.
Prisoners incarcerated before 1978 can be paroled under the old system if the Prisoner Review Board votes in their favor. There are still a handful of individuals in IDOC who could theoretically be released but haven’t been.
I represented one of these individuals, and I found that the way the board handles these cases is too arbitrary to be workable, with decisions often hinging on individual board members gut feelings about whether a prisoner has changed. There need to be clearer guidelines in place to make the process more predictable and consistent if it is to be reinstated on a wider basis.
- Catch and release - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:31 pm:
More criminal friendly legislation in Illinois. Shocking.
- JS Mill - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:41 pm:
No. We have other processes that accomplish the same thing.
- Huh? - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:43 pm:
No. Prisoners are already getting out early for good behavior.
- H-W - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:49 pm:
I voted yes. I believe prison systems must allow for the possibility of rehabilitation and release. More important, our prison systems must reform themselves toward serving the purpose of rehabilitation.
The current model, warehousing convicted persons without the possibility of parole, does not incentivize prisoners to reform. Rather, it simply forces prisoners to survive until they are released. That is hardly a beneficial purpose for society and the state.
- Shari - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:54 pm:
The parole in question here is discretionary parole - a system that reviews people for release based on their demonstrated readiness to return to society. Discretionary parole is the only system that reviews people for release based on individual merit. Since 1978, Illinois has had no such system for the vast majority of the tens of thousands of people incarcerated in the state. Over 5,000 of these people have sentences so long that, if nothing changes, they’ll be required to spend the rest of their live behind bars. As a teacher and advocate, I have gotten to know many of them. Many of these individuals made grave mistakes when they were younger, but have since reflected on their lives and are working hard to make their lives meaningful. They want nothing more than an opportunity to support their families and contribute to society. Currently, they are being warehoused at taxpayer’s expense, simply because we have no system to review them. Why not establish as system of Earned Reentry, so that after people have been incarcerated for 2 decades, they can be reviewed, and people who are deserving, can return home?
- bill - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:54 pm:
yes with those over 55 have priority orst two years. parole does not release anyone does provide a chance for reformed men and women to prove they have chnged and no longer a threat to anyone
- Nick Nombre - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 12:56 pm:
Yes, but it needs to have a strong component that is based on the individuals behavior while incarcerated. There have been situations in the past where parole was granted simply to make more room in the prisons.
- Ducky LaMoore - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:03 pm:
“No. We have other processes that accomplish the same thing.”
Totally agree. And, I knew a guy on federal parole. His life was a complete nightmare. He tried to stay in compliance, but was extremely relieved when his parole was revoked. He said that the parole officer owns you. He served eight more months and got out when his time was up. He said he wouldn’t ever recommend anybody take parole, just serve your time and get out without restrictions.
- John - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:05 pm:
Parole should definitely be reintroduced. It is absurd to be imprisoning all these people who committed crimes decades ago when they were young and misguided. A parole system would be able to determine the few who are genuinely dangerous and deny parole to them, while releasing on parole (which could be revoked) those who pose little risk and who have served enormous amounts of time. This system could save Illinois a lot of money, while also showing some humanity and recognizing the reality of personal reform and rehabilitation.
- Cheryl - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:06 pm:
Our state constitution lays out articles for a carcel system that rehabilitates people to useful citizenship. Without a parole system, is our current punitive system even constitutional? We need mechanisms to allow for people who are rehabilitated to be reviewed and returned to useful citizenship. Even fiscally, it doesn’t makes sense not to.
- Phil - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:13 pm:
As of 2011 Illinois still had a parole system. I produced “Parole School” video projects for the Illinois Department of Corrections. I shot video at the Big Muddy Correctional Center while teachers were preparing inmates who were about to be released on parole.
- Robin - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:14 pm:
Yes! Ducky, you are describing Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR), which is indeed a nightmare, but that’s a different issue.
We’re talking about discretionary parole — a system that reviews people for release based on those people demonstrating that they’re ready to return home and lead useful lives. I most definitely believe that, rather than keep people locked up forever, we should review them and let people who are ready to return to society do so!
- Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:16 pm:
Supervised release is a continuing sentence (imposed at sentencing) served on the street following completion of a federal sentence inside a prison.
- Robin - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:18 pm:
Yes!
Ducky — you are talking about Mandatory Supervised Release (MSR), which is indeed a huge problem, but that’s a different matter.
We’re talking here about discretionary parole, which reviews people for release based on those people’s demonstrated readiness to return home.
We need a fair system to review people and let those people who are ready to return home do so!
- Just Another Anon - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:18 pm:
No. MSR is close enough and stepping back to parole would just be stepping back to indeterminate sentencing. IS takes power and discretion away from judges and places that power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. If you want to encourage MSR or lesser sentences, broaden MSR and change sentencing statutes, keep that power vested with the judiciary from the community impacted by the criminal activity, not from unelected state bureaucrats.
- Nagidam - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:25 pm:
One of the discussions for abolishing the death penalty was that the offender would be in jail for life. Some argued that may be worse then death. At the time there were those who were against abolishing the death penalty that asked the question if a defendant that would otherwise be convicted and sentenced to death would ever be eligible for release. The answer back then was no they would be in jail for life. This bill would seem to turn that previous argument on its face.
- Dan Johnson - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:31 pm:
This is a good idea. President Harmon sponsored a law in 2018 (with then-Leader Currie in the House) to reinstate parole for those who committed their crime under the age of 21. It kicks years from now. There were some exceptions in that law — HB1064 would eliminate almost all of those exceptions going forward (which is a good idea!).
Mid-sentence parole review is a good idea because of the crystal ball problem. How can anyone know with certainly that a particular defendant will not grow out of reckless / immoral / criminal behavior in 10 or 20 or 30 years?
Almost everyone grows out of criminal behavior, because most violent behavior is from younger men. As people mature, they are no longer prone to violence.
We’re better off with another part of the criminal justice system reviewing people in their 40s or 50s to see whether they have matured out of their past behavior and listening to the wishes of victims and their families to decide what the interests of justice are at the time.
Extremely long sentences (and Illinois has some of the longest in the world, particularly for mandatory gun enhancements) are — for a lot of people — extremely wasteful.
Some people should be incarcerated for the rest of their lives because they will hurt people if given the chance.
Most people who are guilty of violent crimes mature out of that behavior. Especially when they are in their 40s or 50s or 60s.
- Daniel Landsman - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:31 pm:
I absolutely believe that Illinois should restore parole give people the opportunity - note it is an opportunity, not a guarantee - for release after serving 20 years. Extreme prison sentences have not been shown to make us safer, they are an exorbinant waste of taxpayer dollars, and they cause untold harm to incarcerated individuals, their families, and their communities.
- charles in charge - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:42 pm:
Yes, there need to be more pathways to reconsideration of extreme prison sentences–which don’t reduce crime or make communities safer, but drive mass incarceration–beyond just executive clemency.
- G'Kar - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:43 pm:
So, was Chester Weger “grandfathered” under the old system when he was released last year?
- Emily Nadler - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:45 pm:
This bill is a win for justice, and for taxpayers. Let’s refresh with the preamble of the United States Constitution: “ We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” This bill is a positive step for justice, domestic Tranquility (as recidivism rates are reduced with proper parole and support systems), promoting the general welfare (especially in communities and families directly impacted by incarceration), and securing the blessings of liberty, ie freedom.
- Greg Morelli - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:46 pm:
Mistakes are the only way we grow. Fortunately for me, the circumstances of my upbringing allowed for mistakes. I wasn’t battling poverty, I wasn’t battling racism, I wasn’t battling misogyny. Violence wasn’t part of the landscape of my youth, I got lucky but it had nothing to do with me and I can’t turn a blind eye to those whose circumstances didn’t match the north shore bubble of my upbringing. People change. Circumstance change. I’m not the same person I was at the beginning of the pandemic, let alone 20 years ago. I voted yes: bring parole back to Illinois. Second chances are the best part of life.
- D0 - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:48 pm:
I’m not quite following the argument against parole. The alternative to parole is not that all those convicted will remain behind bars for life. The alternative is that anyone eligible for release enters the community with no surveillance or support after maxing out their sentence. This would include repeat violent offenders or those with long histories of addiction. I can’t see why even a hardliner opposed to second chances would want that.
- Shari - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 1:48 pm:
Yes! I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel. Why should we keep people locked up for decades without reviewing them? This is a huge waste of taxpayer money and doesn’t make us safer.
After people have spent 20 years in prison, we need to review them, so that those who are ready can return home — and so that we can save taxpayer money and heal our families and communities!
- Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:06 pm:
I’m so old I remember when almost everyone said,
“Everybody deserves a second chance”.
- Rosie Thompson - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:09 pm:
Everyone deserves the “opportunity” of another chance. We are not saying that everyone should be released but to take away the right to be considered is slavery.
- charles in charge - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:09 pm:
==So, was Chester Weger “grandfathered” under the old system when he was released last year?==
He was legally entitled to a parole hearing because he was sentenced long before the legislature passed the law abolishing discretionary parole.
- charles in charge - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:15 pm:
==He said that the parole officer owns you. He served eight more months and got out when his time was up. He said he wouldn’t ever recommend anybody take parole, just serve your time and get out without restrictions.==
Do you think “serving your time and getting out without restrictions” is the system we have now in Illinois? The “nightmare” this person described sounds exactly like what life is like for people on MSR in Illinois under current law.
- Jacques Jacob Rivera - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:15 pm:
I did 21 yrs on a wrongful conviction. I have been around a lot of these guys and I have seen, with my own eyes,the changes these guys have made. Isn’t that the point of incarceration? To rehabilitate men and women who made the wrong choices??
- MisterJayEm - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:20 pm:
“We have other processes that accomplish the same thing.”
Care to share the names of these purported “other processes” with the rest of us?
– MrJM
- Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:25 pm:
Life is a series of reformations.
- anon2 - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:27 pm:
== Isn’t that the point of incarceration? To rehabilitate men and women who made the wrong choices? ==
It should be. To the extent that recidivism is reduced, spending is reduced on the criminal justice system and on corrections.
== IS (indeterminate sentencing, i.e. 10-20 years) takes power and discretion away from judges and places that power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. ==
It makes rehabilitation, not just retribution, part of sentencing. It is in everyone’s interest when those who have committed serious crimes learn the error of their ways.
- Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:28 pm:
Is Mr.JM the king of the pointed question…or what.
Waiting for the answer.
- JoanP - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:31 pm:
Do people voting “yes” understand that parole was replaced with a far more equitable and understandable system? It’s called “Mandatory Supervised Release”.
MSR means that *everyone*, inmate, prosecution, victim, KNOW the inmate’s out date. Depending on the offense, the inmate can earn some additional time off by participating in specific rehabilitative programs.
The *certainty* matters. The person’s outdate is not dependent on what the parole board members had for breakfast, whether his hearing is the last or first of the day, whether there’s a drum beat of publicity.
And the inmate is still supervised.
- Red Ketcher - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 2:51 pm:
JoanP above On Target - Keep MSR
- DuPage - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:08 pm:
Depends on the crime.
- Confusion - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:10 pm:
Voted yes. This change shouldn’t affect MSR and only applies to those doing 20+ years. I don’t think anyone who served 20+ is eligible for MSR. Spending two decades of your life in prison should be sufficient for anything but the most egregious offenses, especially if the person makes changes.
- Shari - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:16 pm:
Joan, Mandatory Supervision (MSR), is a period of supervision that is added to people’s sentences after they have served their full sentence. It is not a replacement for a system of review.
I agree with you, though, that a system that reviews people for release should be fair and consistent. This is why Parole Illinois is committed to working for a fair and accountable system of review, which will require improvements in the current. We believe in working on and improving the system of review, so that we can have a fair process for returning people to useful lives.
- bkhartbnjo - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:28 pm:
I voted yes, although I am sort of a poster child for “uninformed voter” on this. It seems as though the arguments against this are of the “what if we let out someone really bad” flavor, as opposed to “what if we kept someone in who was bad but got better.”
- Alex B - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:33 pm:
YES! The state of Illinois constantly complaining that we are broke, and then is spending hundreds of millions on keeping people behind bars that are completely different then when they were incarcerated. No one is the same person they were 20 years ago….. and the state shouldn’t have to pay to keep people in side that could be reconnected with their families and contributing to society.
- AWB - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 3:40 pm:
After serving time, people should absolutely be given the OPPORTUNITY to be reviewed by a parole board. The board will determine if they have served sufficient time and are truly repentant.
- Dotnonymous - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 4:07 pm:
Every time I read about being “re-adjusted” to Society…I look around at my anti-vaxxer Trump lovin’ brethren…and laugh.
- Almost the Weekend - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 4:08 pm:
The people who vote yes then refuse to have a halfway house reside in their neighborhood.
I also think depends on the crime.
- Lake county - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 4:50 pm:
Almost the weekend-I want a halfway house in my suburb right away if it ensures more justice in Illinois
- JoanP - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 4:58 pm:
@Shari -
I am well aware of what MSR is. It is NOT “a period of supervision that is added to people’s sentences after they have served their full sentence”.
While there is a period of supervision, MSR means that after a person has completed PART of their sentence, they MUST be released. The amount of the sentence served depends on the offense for which he has been convicted.
- Guzzardi - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 5:02 pm:
@JoanP, hate to jump back in, but I’m afraid that’s not correct. Here’s a very helpful primer: https://restorejustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Restore-Justice-A-primer-on-parole-in-Illinois.pdf
“Unlike parole, MSR terms are always served after the full completion of a
court-appointed prison sentence. In this way, MSR functions as an additional
penalty for serious crimes and never as a means of early release. For that reason,
it is misguided to consider MSR an appropriate substitute for either discretionary
or mandatory parole.”
- Common white girl - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 5:29 pm:
Yes. Mostly because we’re talking about people’s lives. Each person and situation is totally unique. As are the people who have been hurt by crimes, and the families and loved ones of people who are currently not eligible for parole.
Having a blanket policy that says there are thousands of people we first put in prison when they were 20? 30 years old? and we’re never going to even consider releasing them because… == The answer back then [when we abolished the death penalty] was now they would be in jail for life. == ? Yikes.
This is why the criminal justice system in the US has a bad reputation. We esteem policies we think make sense as more important than people. (And maybe because we’re using our more racist and punitive predecessors as a bench mark for our morality and success in the justice realm when the rest of the world is measuring us up against every other western liberal democracy.)
Not everyone needs to be released, but I bet we could find people serving life sentences that even Ducky and JoanP would agree should be released. So we should have a system set up to find those people.
- Chad - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 5:52 pm:
If it’s properly implemented parole can be a motivational tool, a significant cost saver and a pathway to more effective justice.
- Gary Davis - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 7:24 pm:
Of course we should give every prisoner an opportunity to earn parole. Everyone deserves a second chance. Jesus made that clear in the Lord’s Prayer. Presbyterians support earned entry for anyone who is 55 and who has served 20 years. Hats off to Katrina and Parole Illinois for their work on this issue. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s a precept that is found in every major religion. Illinois state Government should now follow suit. It’s time for us to live our faith.
- Gary Davis - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 7:24 pm:
Of course we should give every prisoner an opportunity to earn parole. Everyone deserves a second chance. Jesus made that clear in the Lord’s Prayer. Presbyterians support earned entry for anyone who is 55 and who has served 20 years. Hats off to Katrina and Parole Illinois for their work on this issue. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s a precept that is found in every major religion. Illinois state Government should now follow suit. It’s time for us to live our faith.
- Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 7:28 pm:
Voted “Yes”
Instituting parole is a mechanism, the granting of parole as a possibility should be an option.
- Decent Human Being - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 7:46 pm:
Illinois should DEFINITELY reinstate parole. As a public educator, I always tell my students that they are more than the mistakes they make in my classroom. Why does that have to change as we grow up and the mistakes get bigger? Permanent incarceration is NOT the answer—if we are really in the business of justice (we should be), then we will focus on rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals through mental health programs, and work as hard as we can to give them another opportunity to live a full and happy life.
- Mason born - Wednesday, Sep 22, 21 @ 7:47 pm:
Yes, but I think we could excuse a few convictions like Mass Murder, premeditated murder of a child, or a hate crime murder (there may be a term for that but I don’t know it). I’m ok with We as a society declaring those crimes place the perpetrator beyond the pale.
- Luke Fischer - Thursday, Sep 23, 21 @ 8:11 am:
While I try my best to help students facing academic, behavioral, and mental health challenges, perhaps some of the most influential individuals may be those who have learned life’s lessons in very hard ways. Individuals who have survived and reformed themselves in prison may have the most credibility and drive to reach the most desperate neighborhoods in our nation. But currently many of those individuals who could be agents of change are locked away indefinitely. Some of these passionate people may be our nation’s greatest resource with the potential to have influence beyond that of “highly educated” and “experienced” individuals with theories and good intentions.
- Alan Mills - Thursday, Sep 23, 21 @ 8:52 am:
First, for those confused about the fact that there are people on “parole,” this is about discretionary parole—a chance for early release for people who have been reformed and are no longer a danger to anyone. Illinois is one of very few states without any form of discretionary parole.
Second, resuming parole is a great way to reward good works by prisoners. Without parole, a prisoner who does everything right and one who does everything wrong both get released at the same time.
- Ken Berry - Thursday, Sep 23, 21 @ 9:26 am:
Parole should be reinstated in Illinois for many reasons. We need accountability and restoration. Both can be accomplished with an effective parole system.
- thornwood - Thursday, Sep 23, 21 @ 11:46 am:
No. Early parole will lead to more victims. Too many felons have mental health issues which IDOC is not capable of mitigating. Leniency is not working in Cook county. Don’t spread it to the rest of the state.
- David Mark - Thursday, Sep 23, 21 @ 11:55 am:
Yes. Parole is not leniency, it serves as an incentive for restoration and transformation for the imprisoned person. Just “waiting out the time” serves no purpose other than punishment.
- David Mark - Thursday, Sep 23, 21 @ 11:55 am:
Yes. Parole is not leniency, it serves as an incentive for restoration and transformation for the imprisoned person. Just “waiting out the time” serves no purpose other than punishment.
- Shari - Thursday, Sep 23, 21 @ 6:55 pm:
Hello Thornwood. I’d like to clarify that the parole bill in question provides parole eligibility to people after they have been incarcerated 20 or more years. Studies show that most people age out of crime and that people who have been incarcerated for long periods are, in fact, the safest to release.
Instead of locking people up forever and paying for geriatric prisons, why not at least review people to see if they are ready to rejoin society?
- Madeline Sanders - Friday, Sep 24, 21 @ 10:26 am:
Restoration of the parole system in Illinois is very much needed. It is one additional method that can and must be utilized to end mass incarceration.
- Julia - Friday, Sep 24, 21 @ 10:56 am:
Sentencing people to decades in prison without checking back in to evaluate whether their continued incarceration serves any purpose doesn’t make any sense. Judges cannot predict how someone will reflect and develop with support and over time. If people who are ready for another chance can be with their loved ones and participating in their communities and in the workforce, why shouldn’t we save taxpayers the cost of incarcerating them? I believe we would be safer if people in the system could work towards their parole hearing and rejoin communities where they can contribute to more than the profit of prison contractors.
- Robin - Friday, Sep 24, 21 @ 1:23 pm:
Well said, Julia! — If people who are ready for another chance can be with their loved ones and participating in their communities and in the workforce, why shouldn’t we save taxpayers the cost of incarcerating them?
I full agree — we would be safer if people in the system could work towards their parole hearing and rejoin communities where they can contribute to more than the profit of prison contractors.
- Janine L. Hoft - Tuesday, Sep 28, 21 @ 4:06 pm:
A showing of mercy and second chances is so important. Parole provides an opportunity for showing rehabilitation and provides an incentive for individuals to better themselves.
- Roshonda Harris - Thursday, Sep 30, 21 @ 6:55 am:
If an Inmate has shown the correct amount of improvement. Please grant parole. If it is earned it should be given. People can change.
- Roshonda Harris - Thursday, Sep 30, 21 @ 6:55 am:
If an Inmate has shown the correct amount of improvement. Please grant parole. If it is earned it should be given. People can change.