Governor Bruce Rauner today signed five bills aimed at reforming Illinois’ criminal justice system to focus on rehabilitation to reduce recidivism and help low level offenders find a brighter future. This package of bills specifically helps young people who have fallen on hard times find the help they need to get on a better track.
“We need to approach our criminal justice system with more compassion,” said Governor Rauner. “I want those who did something wrong to face punishment, but we must make sure that the punishment fits the crime. We need to explore new avenues so that we’re balancing punishment with rehabilitation and not needlessly tearing families and lives apart.”
This is the latest step in the Rauner administration’s attempt to reform the criminal justice system in Illinois. Within the first month of the administration, Governor Rauner created the Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform. Its job was to create recommendations that would transform Illinois’ justice system to make it more responsive to the people it served, while also cutting down on the unnecessary incarcerations and costs. These bills, coupled with administrative changes, make reforms in the criminal justice system that will help safely reduce the number of prison admissions, the length of prison stays and reduce recidivism by increasing the chances of successful re-entry.
“Governor Rauner set out to make Illinois a more compassionate state and he is making good on that initiative,” said Illinois Department of Corrections Director John Baldwin. “Today’s bills will help ensure that we are giving young men and women a second chance at life. Instead of focusing on the past, we are attempting to rehabilitate people who have been incarcerated and create opportunities for low level offenders to build a future.”
SB 3164 requires review of a pre-sentencing report, as well as an explanation of why incarceration is appropriate for offenders with no prior probation sentences or prison convictions prior to sentencing. Last year, nearly 60 percent of new prison admissions for Class 3 or 4 felonies had no prior convictions for violent crimes. Sending low-level offenders with no prior probation or other convictions inefficiently uses prison resources and potentially makes low-level offenders more susceptible to reoffending. This legislation was sponsored by Sen. Michael Connelly and Rep. Brian Stewart and was a recommendation made by the Governor’s Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform.
HB 6291 amends the Juvenile Court Act to change the minimum probation period for a youth adjudicated delinquent. The purpose of the bill is to help bring Illinois in line with other states and the latest research by reducing mandatory minimum lengths of probation and treating low level offenses with treatment. This ensures that youth struggling with addictions will have the opportunity to go through the treatment process before being sent to prison.
HB 5017 allows a juvenile to immediately petition the court for expungement when he or she is charged with an offense that is dismissed without a finding of delinquency. Under current law, the statute only allows for a petition of expungement when the youth has reached the age of 18. This bill will help youth who were arrested but not charged get a fresh start and clear their names.
HB 6200 addresses per minute rates of phone calls for inmates. The bill reduces the rate that the Illinois Department of Corrections and the Illinois Department of Juvenile Justice can contract for telephone providers.
SB 3005 amends the Park District Code to provide that a park district shall not knowingly employ a person who has been convicted of specified drug offenses until seven years following the end of a sentence imposed including periods of supervision or probation. The previous law stated that park districts could not employ any person convicted of the specified drug offenses. It furthermore scales pack prohibitions on employment for convictions of public indecency to Class 4 felonies.
After Sen. Kirk addressed the Naperville Chamber of Commerce, media members were asked to leave the room during the question and answer session. Later, Kirk explained the stroke he survived in 2012 makes question and answer sessions difficult.
“That’s just a Kirk thing. I’ll take the hit for that. Ok,” Kirk said.
Yikes.
…Adding… Kirk’s campaign explains that he has a tough time hearing in environments like that with a lot of background noise, glass clinking, people talking, etc.
Even before the Obama administration late last week said that a $400 million cash payment to Iran was linked to the release of a group of American prisoners, U.S. Sen. MARK KIRK R-Ill., like many Republicans, was calling the payment ransom.
The administration used the term “leverage” to say why it held back delivery of the money it said was owed to Iran because of an arms deal in the 1970s until hostages were released.
Kirk, talking to the editorial board of The State Journal-Register on Tuesday, was critical of the cash payment.
“We can’t have the president of the United States acting like the drug dealer in chief,” Kirk said, “giving clean packs of money to a … state sponsor of terror. Those 500-euro notes will pop up across the Middle East. …. We’re going to see problems in multiple (countries) because of that money given to them.”
In a conference call with reporters, two senior administration officials intimately involved with the financial and prisoner negotiations sought to refute what they described as false reports about what happened. They weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter and demanded anonymity.
There was no way that Washington could have avoided repaying the money to Iran in the short-term, one of the officials insisted.
The 1981 Algiers Accord between the U.S. and Iran that set up the tribunal made repayment mandatory, and allowed for either claimant to seize assets in international courts if the other reneged on a ruling, the official said. Iran had lived up to its commitment by repaying $2.5 billion awarded for claims by U.S. citizens and companies.
A ruling on the military fund was expected soon, the official said, as Iran asked last year for the tribunal to hear its case and Tehran and Washington had been negotiating proposals for a hearing. Given that interest rates in the early years of the fund were as high as 20 percent, the official said Iran stood to receive a much more substantial award than $1.3 billion in interest. As a result, the U.S. opted to settle with Iran.
Republican Senator Mark Kirk has been endorsed by Americans For Responsible Solutions, an organization started by former U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords (D-Az.) and her husband, Mark Kelly, that encourages elected officials to stand up for solutions to prevent gun violence and protect responsible gun ownership.
“Senator Mark Kirk has been a steady voice for bipartisan, responsible change that helps keep guns out the wrong hands, saves lives, and makes Illinois a safer place to live. He has stood up to the gun lobby and worked across the aisle for plans that reduce gun violence and protect the rights of law-abiding Americans,” said Peter Ambler, Executive Director of Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC. “We need more Republican leaders in Congress like Mark Kirk, and that’s why we are endorsing him for re-election in 2016.”
Senator Kirk was one of two Republican Senators to receive an endorsement from Americans For Responsible Solutions.
“In the wake of tragedy at Sandy Hook, Republicans Sens. Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk broke from the gun lobby and supported a bill to help prevent felons, domestic abusers and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms at gun shows and online,” Giffords and Kelly wrote in a CNN op-ed. “This week, they are earning our organization’s endorsement.”
Senator Kirk has been a leading voice on common-sense, bipartisan gun reforms and legislation. Last year, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence honored Senator Kirk with the Lincoln Award for his efforts in combatting gun violence in Chicago- he was the first Republican Senator to receive this honor.
“I’m honored to have former Rep. Giffords’ group’s support, not only for our campaign but for our effort to make streets, neighborhoods and schools safer,” said Senator Mark Kirk. ” The only way to break through the partisan gridlock in D.C. is by working across the aisle to reach bipartisan solutions, and I remain committed to working with Republicans and Democrats alike to get the job done and end the cycle of gun violence.”
Gov. Bruce Rauner on Friday used his amendatory veto power to rewrite a bill that would have ended the state’s growing practice of suing prison inmates to recover the costs of their incarceration — effectively killing the legislation, according to the bill’s two sponsors.
The bill from state Sen. Daniel Biss, D-Evanston, and Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, now goes back to the General Assembly with Rauner’s addition of a financial threshold that would be determined by officials at the Illinois Department of Corrections. Inmates who have less than the threshold in their bank or prison accounts would be shielded from the controversial lawsuits.
The General Assembly can accept Rauner’s rewrite, override it or let it die. Biss and Cassidy said Friday they likely do not have the votes to override the veto.
“The bill is dead now because of the governor’s actions, and that is a travesty,” Biss said Friday, noting that the bill had passed the Senate and House with a narrow margin. “He killed a bill that would have eliminated a wasteful and immoral program.”
Umm, they could just accept the amendatory veto. But that won’t happen because Speaker Madigan is almost always dead-set opposed to doing such a thing. So, they’ll either have to draft a bill that conforms to the governor’s AV or drop the whole thing. The attorney general only rarely files these lawsuits, so it’s not a gigantic problem, unless you’re one of the targets.
…Adding… From Sen. Biss…
Hi Rich –
Just saw your post on the Governor’s AV of SB2465. Just wanted to make the point that beyond the practical challenges in accepting an AV, the language here really does gut our bill.
The AV says that right now:
“the State’s power to recover costs is rarely used”
and also that under the bill:
“The Department would establish a standard for determining [a whole bunch of stuff that then determines whether the State’s power to recover costs would be used]”
In other words, right now, the Department rarely uses this power, presumably because they decide not to. Under the AV, the Department would have the authority to decide when to use this power.
We should be proud of the steps we have taken together to reform our criminal justice system. These efforts will reduce incarceration and recidivism rates, help incarcerated individuals to reenter the community and obtain gainful employment, and reduce costs to taxpayers. I thank the members of the General Assembly for being partners in this work.
Current law permits the Attorney General to bring legal action against formerly incarcerated individuals to recover incarceration-related expenses on behalf of the Department of Corrections. Senate Bill 2465 would stop this practice altogether. Today I return the bill with specific recommendations for change.
Proponents believe that collection efforts hinder an individual’s successful reentry into the community. Many ex-offenders have few if any assets and struggle to find jobs to care for themselves or their families.
In practice, though, the State’s power to recover costs is rarely used: the State collected approximately $355,000 total in Fiscal Year 2015. While I agree that this power should be used sparingly and judiciously, there are circumstances when it is warranted. Violent offenders with significant assets should compensate their victims and the State. For example, the State used this power to stop serial killer John Wayne Gacy from profiting while in prison.
The changes recommended below would protect low-income persons, while still enabling the State to pursue wealthier or violent offenders. The Department would establish a standard for determining whether a person has sufficient means, whether recovery by the State would inhibit the person’s reintegration into the community, and whether the nature of the crime (such as a violent crime) warrants recovery efforts. The Department’s proposed rules would be subject to public comment and review by the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. The State would then be prohibited from pursuing recovery from persons except as allowed by that rule. This strikes the proper balance between protecting taxpayers and facilitating successful post-incarceration reentry.
The Gacey point is a bit weird since the state prohibits inmates from profiting from their crimes, according to the Trib.
* From the twitters…
His comments show he didn't understand the bill. His staff made clear he was afraid to be seen as soft on crime. https://t.co/YipC7kRf8c
