Back in May 2017, Chicago Police Supt. Eddie Johnson traveled to Springfield and promised a House committee that passing a criminal penalty enhancement bill he favored would drastically reduce gun crimes in his city.
The bill, SB 1722, was sponsored by then-Sen. Kwame Raoul, who would run successfully for attorney general the following year. It sought to establish higher minimum prison terms for people convicted of aggravated unlawful use of a weapon if they’d previously been convicted of various crimes. The bill would also increase penalties for unlawful use of a weapon by a felon.
Johnson was asked by committee member then-Rep. Christian Mitchell, D-Chicago, to estimate how many shootings, whether fatal or not, the legislature might prevent by passing the bill.
“I think over time, we will probably, we will cut it, cut it down in half, to half,” Johnson replied.
Asked if that might take three years, five years, 10 years, etc., Johnson said, “I don’t think it would take that long. So I would say we would probably start seeing a reduction in less than a year.”
Mitchell pressed further: “Okay. So in less than a year. But certainly, it’s safe to say in three years, if we pass this bill, we should see about a half reduction in the shootings and crime in Chicago?”
Johnson: “The gun violence. Correct.”
The logic behind this claim, Johnson explained, was that his data showed about 1,400 people were “driving most of the violence in Chicago.” And those 1,400 people were very likely to qualify for the enhanced penalties. Get them off the street for longer periods and crime would plummet.
The bill passed both chambers by wide margins and was supported by members who a few years later would lead the charge to reform the criminal justice system. It was one of the last times the General Assembly would pass a major penalty enhancement bill like that.
If you’re a sentient being, you know that Johnson’s confident prediction was wildly incorrect. Gun crimes did not plummet by 50 percent.
The law did lead to people being locked up longer, however. Research by the Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council, an entity created by the General Assembly, showed that sentences rose after the law took effect in 2018.
“The mean sentence length for Aggravated UUW sentences with qualifying predicate convictions increased by about 5 months and the likelihood of a sentence of at least six years was about 3.2 times higher” than before the law took effect, the 2021 study found. And the average sentence length for UUW/felon sentences with predicate convictions, “increased by about 4 months and the likelihood of a sentence of at least seven years was about 2.5 times higher than before the effective date.”
Also of note, the prison sentences for UUW offenses that weren’t specifically covered by the 2017 law Johnson backed “did not change,” SPAC reported.
In other words, while more people have clearly been sentenced to more time in prison because of this law (particularly Black men from Cook County), gun crimes have just as clearly not been reduced by half, or even close to half. While certain violent crimes fell for a couple of years after the law took effect in January 2018, they rose again during the pandemic. They’ve since started to wane but to nowhere near the levels that Johnson boldly promised.
I’m telling you this because the Senate is set to take up a bill (SB 853) that would extend several statutory sunset provisions, including those UUW changes made in 2017. The law had been set to expire in January 2024, but the proposal would extend that deadline for another year.
This could be an interesting debate and a political temperature check on the General Assembly. Illinois politicians have taken a lot of public heat over crime and the criminal justice reform bills they’ve passed. Allowing penalty enhancements to expire on repeat felony offenders, essentially letting them out of prison earlier than before, regardless of its impact on actual crime statistics would certainly be a bold move.
The bill is sponsored by Sen. Patrick Joyce, a conservative Democrat from Kankakee County who is up for reelection next year. The amendment containing the language unanimously passed Joyce’s State Government Committee.
This is an omnibus bill containing several sunset extensions. If the bill doesn’t pass, a whole lot of laws could expire at the end of December because the General Assembly won’t return until January at the earliest.
But opponents are vowing a fight. We’ll see.
- Tony T. - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 9:27 am:
Because inmates are given day-for-day service credit on a UUW, a sentence that is four or five months longer means the defendant is only going to spend about 60 to 75 additional days behind bars.
If memory serves me correctly, that bill was watered down quite a bit as it wound through the legislative process. At the end of the day, it was nothing more than a bunch of show business — and Supt Johnson played the lead.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 9:30 am:
This vote could lead to a real discussion. A discussion involving facts. About how increasing sentences affects both the people sentenced and the communities they are from. About how it leads or doesn’t lead to community safety. About recidivism and what works for reducing it. A lot of these have studies already that can be referenced. Multiple sides of the issue should be able to marshall their experts. Could be interesting.
- Homebody - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 9:32 am:
Generally speaking, sentencing enhancements never actually reduce crime rates. This has been commonly accepted wisdom with the criminology and social sciences spheres studying crime for decades. Instead of credulously reporting unsubstantiated claims about potential reductions in crime, literally every reporter should have been asking “Why do you think this will be different than every single other time this issue has been studied?”
We can’t arrest and imprison our way to lower crime rates. Period. It doesn’t work. It never has.
- charles in charge - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 9:42 am:
==the defendant is only going to spend about 60 to 75 additional days behind bars.==
The idea that this law has been ineffective because it didn’t ramp up incarceration *enough* is exactly the wrong lesson. The truth is that increasing penalties for existing crimes has never worked to reduce future incidents. Sentencing enhancements are simply the easiest tool for elected officials to reach for in order to claim to have “done something” about any given problem and then move on to something else. It’s easier and quicker than doing the real work of addressing the actual causes of violence. Usually they are at least smart enough not to make these outlandish predictions about the anticipated impact.
- Change Agent - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 9:42 am:
I don’t understand why we’re even having this conversation. Eddie Johnson’s claim was laughable at the time, and of course, didn’t happen. What did happen was that an awful lot of people - largely Black men - were removed from their loved ones, communities, and livelihoods for longer periods of time. Any guess what that’s the perfect recipe for? That’s right: more poverty, more trauma, more crime. The law has worked exactly as predicted and some would say intended.
- Me. - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 9:46 am:
The problem with the SPAC analysis is that it did not measure the number of times a judge decided not to go with the “presumptive” sentencing range. You see, the other main purpose of the original bill was to allow for judges to diverge from what was previously a mandatory sentence. You in the know may remember this phrased a million times as the new “safety valve” option in criminal law. This act made the former mandatory sentence presumptive. It wasn’t just a side issue, it’s why the bill passed. SPAC decided there wasn’t sufficient data. Yet the original bill mandated that collection of data. I love me some SPAC, but they make errors. (Remember the billion dollar estimate for an old gun penalty enhancement bill? The reason? SPAC didn’t account for the fact that some gun offenses are probationable.) My point is, that we’re all shortchanged when we frame it as a sentencing enhancement extension. It was much more. First time gun offender court? In there too.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 10:01 am:
=== It was much more. First time gun offender court? In there too. ===
And that was made permanent during the spring session.
- Lucky Pierre - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 10:03 am:
How is it a bad thing for repeat violent offenders, that have been terrorizing our city, to see the consequences of their actions by being removed from their loved ones, communities, and livelihoods for significant period of time?
Removing the bad actors from our communities produces more crime?
Are you advocating for different standards of punishment based on race?
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 10:11 am:
=This act made the former mandatory sentence presumptive=
No, it didn’t.
It was a “two-strike” provision that layered a new presumptive-MAXimum sentence *on top of* IL’s already unusually-harsh mandatory minimum prison sentence for unlicensed possession.
- Norseman - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 10:14 am:
Enhanced penalties has been the go-to simple anti-crime measure for politicians for ages. It’s the siren song for those in the public who don’t want to take the time to analyze anything.
The problem is that when people decide to cross the line don’t really give the penalties much thought. To them it’s just bad luck when they get caught.
“Soft on Crime” is another trope from politicians who criticize social programs that try to address the problem in more creative ways.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 10:21 am:
In addition to allowing this faulty penalty increase to sunset, here are some ideas the State of Illinois could consider regarding gun sentencing policy:
https://ilblueprintforpeace.org/improve-sentencing-and-policy-integrity/
- vern - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 10:23 am:
=== This has been commonly accepted wisdom with the criminology and social sciences spheres studying crime for decades ===
That academic consensus also aligns with common sense. People who consider committing crimes aren’t calculating the risk based on how long the sentence is; they’re deciding if they’ll get caught at all. An extra few months or years of prison doesn’t change that math. What matters is that justice is swift and certain. The length of the prison sentence isn’t particularly relevant.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 10:37 am:
Also, re: the program for “select” first-time possessors, a provision that prosecutors wrote up and put in the penalty bill to get it to move - it’s good that this provision was made permanent but it does not change the fact that:
IL law still imposes a felony conviction PLUS a mandatory minimum prison sentence for an offense that is not a crime in many other states and is a misdemeanor in most others.
The fact that prosecutors have the power to divert a few people (power they have always held, the law just gives them political cover to do it) does not undo the overwhelming systemic harms that mandatory minimum penalties have to force guilty pleas, cover up police misconduct, etc.
- Amalia - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 11:24 am:
whether it met the Johnson standard is not important to me. Previous convictions + AggUUW = a person who presents danger. depriving them of liberty puts them away from the general public. Also, why do criminals get young people to hold the gun or a friend or romantic partner to buy the gun when they can’t? because they understand that possessing a gun illegally is illegal. If we have the standard that things are not illegal in other states so we must change we’re gonna have to pull back on that assault weapons ban and our reproductive choices laws. Illinois is better.
- Who else - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 11:34 am:
===Are you advocating for different standards of punishment based on race?===
Yes, great issue spotting as usual.
- Hannibal Lecter - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 11:51 am:
I would be interested to see how gun-ban advocates in the GA would vote on this law. If they are being consistent, they would certainly support the heightened sentencing guidelines.
- Oswego Willy - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 11:56 am:
===I would be interested to see how gun-ban advocates in the GA would vote on this law.===
About that…
===This is an omnibus bill containing several sunset extensions. If the bill doesn’t pass, a whole lot of laws could expire at the end of December because the General Assembly won’t return until January at the earliest.===
Cover one way or another, good or bad, is in the real vote of an omnibus bill
- Me. - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 12:35 pm:
And that was made permanent during the spring session.
I’d say expanded and made permanent but I’m just being a jerk.
(It rid itself of the previous age cut off.)
- Thomas Paine - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 1:25 pm:
=== Get them off the street for longer periods and crime would plummet. ===
I think it is important to recognize that this faulty prediction came from the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab, if I am not mistaken.
We should chalk this sentencing law up as a failed experiment based on a faulty hypothesis and rethink our assumptions.
Obviously, longer sentences do not deter criminal behavior, as long as the incentives for criminal behavior remain and the means remain widely available.
Cook County was flooded with guns over the last five years, thanks in part to the US Supreme Court, the pandemic, and fears about white supremacy and the trump administration.
At the same time, we have learned that trigger men are kind of like shark’s teeth. For every one out front, there are three waiting to take their place.
Gun violence is a public health crisis, it spreads like a virus, and it can only be understood and defeated with a public health model, not a criminal Justice model.
- levivotedforjudy - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 1:33 pm:
The gun reduction seemed like a stretch and to pin Johnson down on exacts seemed sort of ridiculous to me too. Oh how I wish there were guarantees in life. But I have heard multiple claims that crime was concentrated in a relatively small universe of people and if you have ever lived in a bad neighborhood, you know that the people who live in “house X” are committing a lot of crime and terrorizing the whole neighborhood and if they are gone, it seems logical the neighborhood will be safer. But in this case it seems like it just opened up room for more people to join the core group. Last thought, what are the realistic chances of changing the behavior of a person with a history of committing multiple, violent, crimes? Many will say well that “doesn’t work” but my question is what “does” work within a generation?
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 1:55 pm:
==If we have the standard that things are not illegal in other states so we must change we’re gonna have to pull back on that assault weapons ban and our reproductive choices laws. Illinois is better.==
When our criminal penalty for an activity is FIVE (or more) levels harsher than in neighboring states, it is good to examine whether that law is effective - and even if it is, whether a lower-level, more tailored penalty would achieve a better impact at less cost to individuals, families, and the state.
In this instance, it is clear that the penalty enhancement, just like the mandatory minimum sentence it is stacked on top of, is not achieving its stated purpose.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 2:07 pm:
Also, since that cursed, intentionally false phrase of Rahm Emanuel’s from 2013 has made it in to these comments in 2023, it is important to say yet again: this penalty enhancement does NOT target and has nothing to do with “repeat violent offenders” (who are already subject to significant and elevated penalties elsewhere in the criminal code).
This is entirely about whether you have a gun license.
You can believe that guns should be licensed and still understand that being unlicensed is not an act of violence.
You can believe that guns should be licensed and still understand that giving people prison time and felonies is not the only enforcement option.
- cermak_rd - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 2:31 pm:
levivotedforjudy asked if anyone had a way to turn around a chronic criminal within a generation. I wonder.
Maybe if the state actually looked after the family of the incarcerated. Made sure they got trauma counseling. That the children have good school possibilities. If that scholarship program was concerned soley with providing scholarships to kids who have incarcerated parents, I’d be a big supporter of it and I wouldn’t care about income limits. Maybe we focus too much on the criminal and not enough on his/her children.
- Amalia - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 2:33 pm:
“When our criminal penalty for an activity is FIVE (or more) levels harsher than in neighboring states, it is good to examine whether that law is effective - and even if it is, whether a lower-level, more tailored penalty would achieve a better impact at less cost to individuals, families, and the state.” No. we are talking about crimes for weapons that kill and wound. Please take a look at the photos of the west side mass shooting. If Illinois has harsher gun laws than other states so be it.
- DuPage - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 2:40 pm:
Having a law is important. Law enforcement or law non-enforcement (Cook County D.A. and Judges) is just as important. Repeat gun possession by a convicted violent felon should be prosecuted and given time in jail.
- charles in charge - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 2:59 pm:
==Please take a look at the photos of the west side mass shooting.==
I’m not sure it’s possible to have a reasoned discussion with you about this topic if you insist on ignoring the distinction between possessing a gun without a license and shooting a bunch of people.
- Amalia - Monday, Oct 30, 23 @ 3:36 pm:
wow, of course I get the distinction, but you do know that the flow of guns used in crimes comes often from possessing without a license. and people passing them on to more violent people.