Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Deal reached for “substantial” protections of parolee rights

Posted in:

Illinois

* Press release…

A federal class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Illinois’ parole revocation process has been resolved with a guarantee that attorneys will be provided to eligible parolees and an agreement the state will take additional steps to bring fairness to the process of determining whether a parolee must return to prison due to a parole violation.

U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve approved the settlement agreement reached with the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and the Illinois Prisoner Review Board (IPRB). Plaintiffs were represented by the Roderick and Solange MacArthur Justice Center and the Uptown People’s Law Center.

“The terms of the settlement, if implemented correctly, will guarantee that many parolees throughout the Illinois will receive state-funded attorneys to represent them throughout the revocation process,” said Alexa Van Brunt, an attorney with the MacArthur Justice Center and Clinical Assistant Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

“In addition, all parolees will receive key due process protections, including being informed of the evidence being used against them, the right to present a defense on their behalf and written findings at each stage of the process,” Van Brunt said. “Timelines will be set to speed the process and ensure that parolees do not languish in prison cells before IPRB determines whether they actually have violated terms of their parole.”

“The parole revocation process in Illinois has robbed parolees of their right to due process,” said Alan Mills, Executive Director of Uptown People’s Law Center. “They have been unable to speak on their own behalf at phony hearings, unable to present evidence in their defense, and unable to cross-examine adverse witnesses. In short, they have not received substantive hearings before a fair and unbiased decision-maker.”

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said the settlement, while not perfect, would allow changes to happen rapidly and not require a protracted trial on the allegations.

“The protections for parolees are substantial and if implemented effectively this agreement should end the revolving door between prison and our communities and reduce the number of people held behind bars throughout the state,” said Sheila A. Bedi, Associate Clinical Professor of Law at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law and an attorney with the MacArthur Justice Center. “An independent monitor will be appointed to assist with the implementation of the changes and compliance with the settlement. If, for instance, a lack of state budget should cause the state to fail to uphold its end of the settlement, we can and most definitely will terminate the agreement and return to court.”

Terms of the settlement reached with IDOC and IPRB include:

• At preliminary and final hearings, many parolees will be represented by legal counsel provided by the state, if they meet certain criteria.

• Parolees will receive written notice of any alleged parole violation leading to revocation and written findings at each stage of the process.

• Parolees will be able to explain their side at a preliminary hearing before a hearing officer or an IPRB member. If determination is made that a parole violation did not occur, the parolee will be released. Previously, preliminary hearings were rarely held, and people sat for months before anyone heard their defense.

• If the preliminary hearing results in a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation occurred, the parolee will be able to present his/her case for release at a final revocation hearing, conducted by members of the IPRB.

• IDOC and IPRB will adhere to deadlines for prompt hearings and final decisions.

• An independent monitor will be appointed to help IDOC and IPRB comply with the settlement agreement and report on the status of compliance.

Pretty interesting in light of the furor over the POTUS tweet on Chicago violence.

More background is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:10 am

Comments

Sounds like the idea here is to provide fairness in parole-revocation proceedings.
Whether it’s to limit prison crowding, or just to treat parolees like human beings, it’s a good thing.

Comment by IRLJ Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:22 am
This will have a huge price tag. Also, aren’t parolees still technically serving the remainder of their court imposed sentences, even while on parole. Not sure why they need to be afforded taxpayer funded legal representation if they are still under IDOC jurisdiction.

Comment by Magic Dragon Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:28 am
For those (^^^) in need of a refresher on the 5th Amendment:

“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:34 am
What 47th Ward said.
Parolees have a right to not have that status taken from them without Due Process.
Sure, parolees are under the jurisdiction of IDOC.
IDOC, in turn, is subject to the Constitution.

Comment by IRLJ Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:45 am
I had no idea that Illinois had in practice revoked due process for parolees. Shame on me.

Erosion of rights always starts at the edges — in this case, those who have already been in trouble and have no way to lawyer up.

Thanks to those who slug it out in the courts to protect our rights.

Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:55 am
Anything that can potentially keep someone from making the same mistake twice works for me.

Comment by Cheryl44 Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:56 am
Interesting point by Magic Dragon. I’d be interested in hearing from a lawyer about whether loss of parole triggers due process, since the parolee is still in IDOC custody. Regardless, it is probably a lot of window dressing. IPRB traditionally moves slowly. The time between preliminary and final hearings will likely result in lengthy re-incarcerations for VOPs.

Comment by Southside Markie Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 11:57 am
Whether on parole or incarcerated, they are still serving their sentence for the crime(s) committed that they were provided due process on. You are missing my point.

Comment by Magic Dragon Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 12:14 pm
All respect, Magic Dragon, but the point you’re missing is that even parolees have constitutional rights that protect them in the face of efforts to deprive them of their liberty.
The news in the post reflects that.

Comment by IRLJ Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 12:27 pm
How many lawyers are you going to find willing to represent the parolee when they know they won’t get paid for months or years?

Comment by ANONIME Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 12:36 pm
the lawyers who go in on Bar days may find themselves doing this kind of work.

due process is the law. but due process does not mean not guilty.

Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 12:46 pm
I just want to clear up a few things that are stated in the press release, as most people may not be aware as to how this process works.

First, the parolees are given copies of their violation reports that are submitted to the people hearing their violation cases. So the parolees do have a copy of the evidence and information provided against them. Second, each parolee speaks on his or her behalf at their Preliminary Hearing and their Violation Hearing, they can provide evidence, witnesses and testimony if they wish. They also have the ability to retain a lawyer to represent them at these hearings, if the so desire. Third, in regards to: “Parolees will be able to explain their side at a preliminary hearing before a hearing officer or an IPRB member. If determination is made that a parole violation did not occur, the parolee will be released. Previously, preliminary hearings were rarely held, and people sat for months before anyone heard their defense.” Every parolee has the right to a preliminary hearing, when they sign their violation report they can choose to have a preliminary hearing or go straight to the violation hearing. If no probable cause is heard they are immediately release.

I just wanted to ensure that everyone reading this story actually knows what goes on at these hearings, not just what information is being put out in this press release.

Comment by Funny the Way it Is Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 1:09 pm
The issue of whether the loss of liberty resulting from a VOP triggers due process rights was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972). According to the synopsis of the case, the Morrissey Court held that: “Though parole revocation does not call for the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding, a parolee’s liberty involves significant values within the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and termination of that liberty requires an informal hearing to give assurance that the finding of a parole violation is based on verified facts to support the revocation.” The outline of the hearing process proscribed by the Court in Morrissey is the same as that described in the IDOC/IPRB settlement.

Comment by Southside Markie Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 2:22 pm
I can’t help but notice you didn’t actually say a thing about “what goes on at these hearings.”

Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 2:33 pm
I am one of the attorneys who represents the plaintiffs in this case. To clarify a few points from the above comments:

(1) While people on parole are still subject to the jurisdiction of the IDOC, the change in freedom from being on parole to being in prison is substantial. The U.S. Supreme Court decided over forty years ago that this change in status was sufficiently important that due process protections would be triggered, and a lawyer should be appointed in appropriate cases. Illinois has not been complying with this Supreme Court ruling; now it will.

(2) The lengthy delays which force people to spend many months in prison before they can present a defense to an alleged parole violation are addressed in the settlement. There are now strict deadlines which must be met.

(3) These hearings do not happen in court; they happen at prisons and (sometimes) jails. Therefore, “Bar Attorneys” will not be appointed to these cases.

(4) Yes, it will cost the state money. However, if we chose to incarcerate people, there are costs which we must pay. Providing them with due process is one of those costs. Don’t want to spend as much money? Don’t lock up so many people. Over 20% of the people entering our prisons each year are not there because of a court sentence; they are there on a parole violation.

Comment by Alan Mills Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 2:48 pm
Looks like more money going to lawyers pockets…even if it takes the state a year to pay them.

Comment by Profit Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 3:28 pm
There are a couple of reply’s here that are obviously entered by parole officers or people close to parole.
One thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that a parolee has to have a VERY MAJOR infraction before a parole revocation warrant is ever issued. If an offender is returned on a parole violation (that is not a technical violation) it IS a major violation. Whether or not a parolee has a warrant issued for a parole violation is not the decision of one front line employee, that decision is made way up the chain of command based on FACTS surrounding the infraction. If a parole revocation warrant is issued that person has DEFINITELY violated the MSR agreement. IDOC goes way out their way to try to keep these people on the street, they’re much cheaper to supervise there.
And, the Prisoner Review Board is to blame for a lot of these people sitting for extended periods. Those people answer to nobody, they do what they want, when they want, where they want. It’s that simple.

Comment by In the know Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 3:45 pm
As @In the know mentioned, looks like a few parole system insiders have posted here. I have a question for you:
How much of the recent decline in the prison population (which the Guv was bragging about in tweets last week) is the result of fewer parolees being “violated” and sent back to prison?

Comment by Ted Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 4:42 pm
-(4) Over 20% of the people entering our prisons each year are not there because of a court sentence; they are there on a parole violation.-

They are most certainly there for a court sentence. Until the inmate discharges they are subject to that Felony conviction. How many of that 20% is there for a new offense?

Nice Red Herring though

Comment by Generation X Wednesday, Jan 25, 17 @ 5:18 pm