Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

* The setup…

Lawmakers voted 97-1 during the first week in April to adopt legislation that would require people convicted of first degree murder to register with the Illinois State Police for 10 years after they leave prison.

Proponents of the bill state that if adopted, Illinois would be the first in the nation to enact a murderers registry, which at this time would require up to 500 parolees and another 3,000 yet to be released inmates to sign up. […]

Named after Batavia’s Andrea Will, who was strangled to death by her boyfriend when they were students at Eastern Illinois University in 1998, the bill requires all people convicted of first-degree murder to register with Illinois State Police for 10 years after they leave prison. The legislation was sparked when Will’s ex-boyfriend, Justin Boulay, was released from prison last year after serving 12 years of a 24-year sentence.

“The murder registry would allow not only law enforcement but also the community to know who resides here, who our family members are associating with and who our children are dating. We already track sex offenders, child murderers and arsonists, and the murder registry is a natural extension to the state’s current registries,” said State Rep. Dennis Reboletti, the sponsor of the bill and an Elmhurst Republican.

* The Question: Should Illinois establish a “murderers registry”? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please. Thanks much.

Online Surveys & Market Research

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:22 pm

Comments

Yes, but only because a first-degree murderer in Illinois can serve 12 years and get out, which especially surprises me since I though the minimum was 20 years for 1st degree murder in Illinois..

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:32 pm
Sure, why not? I’m troubled by some of the poor souls who land on the sex offender registry in cases where there was a consensual sexual relationship, but one party was slightly below the age of consent. Yes, it’s relatively few people in this category, but still, lumping them in with predatory sex offenders is overkill.

Maybe we can tattoo murderers so they are easier to spot after their release. I’m thinking of a teardrop under the eye or something like that.

Can we get eharmony and other dating sites to link to these registries?

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:36 pm
Here is a fairly good review of sentencing guidelines in Illinois (out of date because of the death penalty):

http://www.ehow.com/list_6545208_felony-sentencing-guidelines-illinois.html

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:38 pm
I don’t see a downside to this. Better question might be, should we have harsher penalities for murder.

Comment by Ahoy Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:44 pm
Since keeping murderers in prison longer apparently isn’t an option, sure.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:49 pm
A question. Justin Boulay was convicted of 1st degree murder which carries a 20 minimum sentence without parole. Why was he out in 12 years?

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:50 pm
He was sentenced to 24 years in prison but obviously got day-for-day good time credit, cutting his sentence in half.

Comment by Jim Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:54 pm
I see this as another feel good law. The GA passes it everybody feels good and nothing changes.

Just because the ISP is notified who says that information will go beyond that? Aren’t there laws on the books that sexual predators have to notify? And how many times are neighbors and everyone else surprised to find out that they don’t know these people are among them?

This is just more placeholder legislation. something for the GA to do instead of tackling the budget issue and past due bills. Who dare speak out against something that “protects” our families?
How would this law have changed the outcome of Andrea Will’s case? Would it have kept her alive? No. The outrage of the case isn’t about the murder. It has to do with the fact that the sentencing allowed her murderer to walk away and go live in Hawaii. It has to do with the fact that he can go on with his life as though nothing happened. So now we want to be ready to punish hoim if he ever decides to come back to Illinois. We can notify everyone he was a murderer. In ten years, if he comes back, do you really think that the ISP will remember to notify everyone? And do you think that anyone other than her family will be affected by his return? So the legislation does nothing to prevent crime. But we feel good now.

Comment by Irish Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:56 pm
We have a sex offender’s registry. I don’t see why convicted murderers shouldn’t register as well.

Comment by Stones Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 12:56 pm
Cinci, use the google.

http://www.herald-review.com/news/local/article_d0b0c68f-c3ce-551c-89a8-8dc8ce998083.html

The Truth in Sentencing law was tossed by the courts due to a violation of the single subject clause. It has since been corrected and enacted, unfortunately it did not apply in Boulay’s case.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:00 pm
I voted yes, which is a reflex kind of vote, really. but consider…

It is hard to vote without having more detail on specifics of how this works. There is definitely an undercurrent of old testament retribution in creating this list, which basically will hound a released felon for ten years, possibly much longer, since nothing is temporary on the internet. Hard to find a date, hard to find a job or a place to rent an apartment, when you’re an ex con.

if I was that girl’s family, I’d be mad too, once for the crime happening, and again for a system that lets killers off so easy. I can be less passionate about the subject since it didn’t happen to me.

I think too that it is a none too subtle suggestion that we don’t “correct” or “reform” people in our prisons, we only warehouse them away from the public and punish them for a time, then let them go, until they re-offend. The statute seems to be a back-door way to punish Boulet because the state didn’t punish him sufficiently to suit the victims, and maybe the better answer is to ask why the system is reducing first degree murder time by such a huge amount. I’m pretty sure it’s easier to hassle an ex-con than fight the state corrections and government bureaucracy to make the do their job better and pay for that service. But is that really good public policy? Isn’t this kind of monitoring after prison rightly the territory of the parole system? I’m for more money spent on enhanced parole and more officers. If anything helps cons not to re-offend, it is that. Couldn’t the declared protective functions of this list be folded into existing parole monitoring?

Comment by Newsclown Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:05 pm
Yes. I’m a privacy fanatic on most issues but if a person who committed 1st degree murder (law does not include 2nd degree or manslaughter) moves in next door, or is in a relationship with a relative or close friend I sure as heck want to know about it.

Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:07 pm
No.

The (good) rationale behind a sex offenders registry is that predatory sex offender show a very high rate of recidivism and local residents have a right to know about the threat in their neighborhoods. That is what justifies punishing someone after they have already paid their debt to society.

I don’t think that logic applies in this case.

Comment by so... Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:08 pm
Implementation and enforcement of a registry takes resources away from solving crimes.

36 percent of homicides go unsolved in Illinois. Increasing sentences or instituting a registry are pointless if you can’t catch the bad guys.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:12 pm
I don’t believe in making 2nd class citizens in this country. If you want someone to have to register after being convicted of something, it has to be part of the original sentence handed down by a judge/jury… not something tacked on after the fact by retroactive legislation.

Comment by Lucky than Good Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:16 pm
Florida used to have a law that required all convicted out-of-state felons to register with local police when they visited.

Comment by Downstate Illinois Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:20 pm
No…enough already. Murder is one of the least repeated offenses on the books.

Comment by Louis Howe Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:26 pm
And how much money would this cost to maintain and update? I’m sorry, but clearly the state of illinois has many budget problems. Let’s figure out how to pay our current debts before we start spending money we don’t have on something new.

Comment by ChicagoGirl Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:37 pm
=== We have a sex offender’s registry. I don’t see why convicted murderers shouldn’t register as well. ===

@Stones - How well is that sex offender registry working? Sex offenses have come to a screeching halt, right?

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:40 pm
thanks, 47th. Looks like Boulay slipped though the cracks because of a legislative faux pas. Sure wish the GA would follow the Constitution from time to time, huh?

I check around, and the US DoJ reports that paroled murderers have the lowest recidivism rate among felons, at 1.2%, so that would lend credence to those who say NO.

Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 1:44 pm
I voted yes. I really do not like the sex offender registry b/c it could carry consequences far beyond the proper ramifications of a crime. However, I think that crimes such as murder, attempted murder, etc., it makes a little more sense. Especially in areas with a lot of gang crimes. Right now, there are gang members in my neighborhood who have been convicted of murder who are causing havoc in the community. As a means for law enforcement to keep better track of dangerous individuals, I say go for it.

Comment by spartan Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 2:14 pm
It’s not the first degree murderers (intends to kill, kills a cop, kills in the course of a crime) I worry about. It’s the second-degree murderers (sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation) and manslaughterers (reckless) that I worry about.

Comment by lincoln's beard Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 2:21 pm
I voted yes, but I think only for first and second degree convictions.

Comment by downstate hack Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 2:30 pm
@Spartan -

Law enforcement ALREADY knows.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 2:41 pm
I have never been comfortable with the idea of the sex offender registry and have often pointed out that I would rather know about a murderer next door than someone who peed in the alley once when he was 19.

Comment by Collossus Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 2:49 pm
yes. I’d like to know if a person who killed someone is living nearby. same reason as for sex offender registry.

Comment by amalia Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 3:05 pm
The logic is sound–knowing where the losers live in our neighborhoods (and them knowing that we may know) can help keep the losers in check at least a little bit more.

Comment by Lefty Lefty Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 3:10 pm
===someone who peed in the alley once when he was 19.===

I’m pretty sure public urination doesn’t get you on the sex offenders registry, unless instead of alley, you meant preschool playground.

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 3:22 pm
According to Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, half of the people who commit murder spend any time in prison. Jon used that statistic, he actually quoted a percentage, in stating that since 5 out of the last eight Illinois Governor’s did spend time in prison you had a better chance of going to prison as an Illinois Governor than you did by committing murder.

So how safe does this bill make you if only half of those who commit murder go to jail and therefore the other half are living among us and would not be part of the database?

Comment by Irish Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 4:01 pm
No, murderers are not likely to repeat their crimes once they’re out. Serial killers and the like won’t ever see the light of day, anyway. I do think the victim’s relatives should be notified when the murderer is released.

Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 4:11 pm
We now register sex offenders, arsonists, murderers of youth. Add regular murderers, robbers, thieves and cross-eyed people. Why don’t we save the expense and just register the people who have never been arrested or convicted of anything?

Comment by orlkon Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 4:51 pm
I agree w/ Lincoln’s Beard. @ YDD - If they truly ALREADY know, then how do they lose track of them after they move?

Comment by spartan Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 4:52 pm
No - this could further isolate murderers, leading them to murder again rather than integrate properly into society. Plus it is a new program which will have a cost to the state. Very small relative to the budget, but no need.

Comment by Robert Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 5:33 pm
No. If you have a list, someone has to maintain that list. There have to be penalties for not updating the list etc. It’s too expensive for a crime without a lot of recidivism in the first place.

Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 6:16 pm
I am glad we did away with the death penalty. We can’t afford it. What I don’t understand is why people convicted of first degree murder are not sentenced to life without parole. Serving 12 years for murder is a sad joke.

Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 8:14 pm
The maintenance and monitoring of another list requires additional manpower and other resources. And for what result?

Comment by earl Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 8:17 pm
We are trying to cut the costs of government in Illinois. This just adds to that cost and we can better spend our monies. This is another example of cut government expense but not something I want.

Comment by Chuck Wednesday, Apr 27, 11 @ 9:06 pm
If they are so dangerous we need to keep track of them they should stay locked up.

Comment by Kevin Highland Thursday, Apr 28, 11 @ 8:01 am