Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: IDFPR head says months of work on improving antiquated state licensing system just went down the drain
Posted in:
FINDING (Noncompliance with extended supervision of sex offender requirements of the Unified Code of Corrections)
The Department of Corrections (Department) failed to report individuals’ progress under the extended supervision of sex offender requirements of the Unified Code of Corrections (Code).
During Fiscal Year 2021 and Fiscal Year 2022, there were a total of 446 and 498, respectively, individuals released under extended mandatory supervision of sex offender requirements. These individuals are defined by the Code (730 ILCS 5/5-8-1(d)(4)) as including those who committed the offense of predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual assault, certain offenses of aggravated child pornography, or manufacture or dissemination of child pornography after specified dates, whose terms of mandatory supervised release range from 3 years to life.
During the examination period, the Department did not submit the required progress reports to the chief of police or sheriff in the municipality or county in which the offender resides and is registered.
The Code (730 ILCS 5/3-14-2.5(b)) requires the Department to supervise sex offenders placed on mandatory supervised release in accord with the conditions set by the Prisoner Review Board pursuant to the Code. The Code also states “Commencing 180 days after the offender’s release date and continuing every 180 days thereafter for the duration of the supervision term, the supervising officer shall prepare a progress report detailing the offender’s adjustment and compliance with the conditions of mandatory supervised release including the offender’s participation and progress in sex offender treatment. The progress report shall be submitted to the Prisoner Review Board and copies provided to the chief of police and sheriff in the municipality and county in which the offender resides and is registered.”
Department management stated they did not send the semi-annual progress reports for sex offenders under extended supervision because some Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs indicated they did not want copies of the reports. Management also indicated they believed legislative changes are needed.
Failure to timely prepare and report required information to a sex offender on mandatory supervised release’s local Chief of Police and Sheriff may reduce the effectiveness of governmental monitoring and oversight to identify and manage risks posed to public safety.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend the Department comply with the sex offender progress report requirements of the Code. We further recommend the Department pursue legislative change if they do not believe the current statutory provisions are reasonable and appropriate.
DEPARTMENT RESPONSE
Recommendation implemented. The Department is in the process of seeking legislative remedy.
I’ve asked IDOC for the list of sheriffs and police chiefs who did not want its semi-annual progress reports for sex offenders under extended supervision, as well as the details of its “legislative remedy.”
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 12:17 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: IDFPR head says months of work on improving antiquated state licensing system just went down the drain
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Oh, the Venn diagram of the LEOs who purposefully rejected reports on the supervision of these offenders and the ones who have spoken out or aligned with surrogates against certain library books and events is going to be a real treat.
Comment by Roadrager Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 12:25 pm
Which one of their 1,297 Deputy Directors was responsible for this?
===because some Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs===
“Some” is a really fun qualifier here.
Comment by Candy Dogood Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 12:37 pm
“We didn’t know”
The built in excuse for these folks to focus on other areas of their interests, not the safety that could be in jeopardy
Plausible deniability
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 12:45 pm
“the list of sheriffs and police chiefs who did not want[…]”
I’d put money on some specific ones showing up on that list.
I’ll wait to see the list though.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 12:55 pm
if true, this is totally unacceptable.
Comment by Manchester Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 1:20 pm
Looking forward to the follow-up on this.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 1:58 pm
Obviously IDOC should follow the law but local law enforcement doesn’t actually need any report cards from the agency supervising people on MSR. It’s a ridiculous requirement.
Comment by Stephanie Kollmann Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 4:16 pm
===Which one of their 1,297 Deputy Directors was responsible for this?===
This demonstrates Illinois’ addiction to patronage. In the Bush 43 era, every federal prison warden was a civil servant. Historically, the IRS has 2 political appointments - Commissioner & Chief Legal Counsel. Every other employee (headcount of 90-110 K) is a civil servant.
Compare that to Illinois, where after the Rutan ruling Jim Edgar said 1 out of 20 state employees had to be non-civil servant. And it got worse. Steve Schnorf, as CMD director, issued a list of positions that were always be civil service (janitors, etc.). His successor discontinued it, by implication saying even janitors could be political appointments. Ugh.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 6:02 pm
CMS - hate posting from a phone.
Comment by Anyone Remember Wednesday, Sep 27, 23 @ 6:03 pm
I’ve never seen one of these reports or heard of them, and our agency hasn’t ever rejected and sellers from IDOC. Typical IDOC blaming the locals
Comment by Wyatt Earp Thursday, Sep 28, 23 @ 9:36 am