Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan being Madigan, as Rauner shies away
Next Post: Why the trial lawyers care about the minimum wage
Posted in:
* The Paul Simon Public Policy Institute polled Rep. Mike Zalewski’s controversial anti-crime bill…
Some have proposed that the mandatory minimum sentence for those convicted of a felony involving a firearm should be increased from two years to three years. Would you favor or oppose this proposal?
Strongly favor 36.8%
Favor 30.0%
Oppose 16.0%
Strongly oppose 6.5%
Other/Don’t know 10.7%Some have proposed a law requiring that convicted felons who have been found guilty of illegally carrying firearms would have to serve at least 85 percent of their sentence. Some
people a) support the law because they say it would make our laws more of a deterrent against violent gun crimes, and would take some of the most dangerous people off the streets and some people b) oppose the law because they say it would cost too much to house more people in already overcrowded prisons, and they worry that some law-abiding people might be imprisoned by this stricter law.Which comes closer to your opinion, that
Convicted felons should serve at least 85 percent of their gun crime sentences 64.5%
We should not impose mandatory minimum sentences on felons convicted of gun crimes 25.2%
Other/Don’t know 10.2%
* From the Institute…
“Regardless of political affiliation or region of the state, these poll results show widespread public support for increasing to three years the mandatory minimum sentence for gun-involved felonies and Truth-in-Sentencing,” said Delio Calzolari, a lawyer and associate director of the Institute.
When broken out by region and political party, the poll found:
• Minimum Sentencing / Region. Support for increased minimum sentencing is over 60 percent throughout the state. In Chicago, 66.0 percent favor and 24.0 percent oppose with 10.0 percent undecided. Downstate shows the weakest support with 63.4 percent in favor, 22.1 percent opposed and 14.5 percent undecided. The strongest support comes from the Chicago Suburbs with 69.2 percent in favor, 22.1 percent opposed and 8.7 percent undecided.
• Minimum Sentencing / Political Party. Statewide, Republicans and Democrats show similar support in favor of bumping the minimum sentence from two to three years. 69.9 percent of Republicans favored the proposal as did 68.0 percent of Democrats. Republican opposition was 21.2 percent with 8.9 percent undecided. Democrat opposition was 23.2 percent with 8.8 percent undecided. Of those identifying themselves as Independent, 62.0 percent favored the proposal, 24.1 percent opposed and 13.9 percent were undecided.
• Truth-in-Sentencing/ Region. The greatest support for requiring felons to serve 85 percent of their prison sentence versus no mandatory minimum was Downstate, where 67.0 percent supported the 85 percent sentences and 21.5 percent chose no mandatory sentences. There were 11.6 percent undecided. The weakest support for Truth-in-Sentencing was in Chicago where 61.5 percent of respondents chose requiring felons to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences, 26.0 percent chose no mandatory minimum sentencing, and 12.5 percent were undecided. In the Chicago suburbs, 64.2 percent of respondents chose the 85 percent minimum sentence, 27.2 percent chose the option for no minimum sentencing, and 8.5 percent were undecided.
• Truth-in-Sentencing/ Political Party. Republicans favored this Truth in Sentencing proposal more than Democrats. Almost seven in ten Republicans (69.1 percent) chose the Truth in Sentencing proposal option as opposed to 65.3 percent of Democrats and 61.5 percent of Independents. Alternatively, 23.0 percent of Republicans, 24.7 percent of Democrats and 28.3 percent of Independents chose the option that minimum sentences should not be imposed on felons. Undecided Republicans, Democrats and Independents were 7.8 percent, 10.0 percent and 10.2 percent respectively.
• Combined Results/ Analysis Support softens when the policies are combined. Combined results show 51.5 percent of Illinoisans favor both the increased minimum sentencing and believe that convicted felons should serve at least 85% of prison sentences. Only 11.5 percent oppose both the sentencing increase and hold opinions closer to no minimum sentencing.
Emphasis added.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 10:45 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan being Madigan, as Rauner shies away
Next Post: Why the trial lawyers care about the minimum wage
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I can support increasing felonious gun crime sentences. I’d much rather see these types of criminals incarcerated than so many who are in prison for drugs.
A couple of states legalized marijuana this past election. I hope that Illinois moves in that direction in the next election. We will have around two years of MMJ to hopefully guide us
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:24 am
All the “mandatory minimum” stuff results in things like Kafkaesque (CF, Nov. 14). Truth in sentencing would be ok if the sentence were something like “3 years with an additional 3 years eligible for suspension on good behavior.”
Comment by Put the Fun in unfunded Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:27 am
Here’s what Black legislators should demand.
The increase in sentencing only happens if Whites provide the votes to count people incarcerated as living at their home of record when drawing legislative boundaries.
The practice of using the power of the state to move PoC to rural White communities to inflate the political influence of rural Whites is racist.
Any increased sentencing should be tied to this modest reform.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:35 am
There should also be the obvious reform of taking away the right to own or possess fire arms from people who use bad judgment.
You forget you’re carrying a firearm in a prohibited area, you lose your right to own or possess a firearm. You accidentally discharge your firearm, you lose your right to own a firearm. You have your firearm “stolen” b/c you failed to properly secure it, you lose the right to own or possess a firearm.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 11:38 am
Enough with the mandatory minimums and the zero tolerance stuff. They’re called judges for a reason.
Comment by Wordslinger Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:03 pm
I agree with Word. Making laws with very specific sentencing requirements doesn’t take into account unforeseen factors. I am all for increasing the potential maximums, but as Word says, let the judges decide.
Comment by Been There Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:07 pm
From the perspective of the John Howard Association, the state’s only non-partisan prison watchdog, I think that the work Rep. Zalewski has done since his initial gun proposal was not called for a vote last year has led to some of the most thoughtful criminal justice discussions that the legislature has had in recent memory. One of the things we have learned is that increasing the length of a sentence for illegal gun possession does not deter people from committing this offense. The sentencing policy advisory committee (spac) did a 10-year study of this issue, which should put the deterrence argument to bed. It found that repeated attempts to deter illegal gun possession through sentence enhancements have not worked: http://www.icjia.state.il.us/spac/pdf/SPAC_Trends_Analysis_Report_09_2014.pdf
Before we consider increasing prison penalties, I’d argue that we need to apply the same kind of analytic thinking to whether increasing prison sentences will effectively incapacitate people who pose a violent risk to public safety.
To get a handle on our overcrowded prison system, we need to start grounding it in what we know works and stop using it to for what feels right.
Comment by John Howard Association Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 12:08 pm
Black legislators allowing an increase in sentencing in exchange for ending prison gerrymandering would be a terrible deal for them.
They should fight mandatory minimums based on the evidence that it doesn’t deter crime — evidence that has been noted by Zalewski himself.
Comment by Dan Bureaucrat Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 1:33 pm
I don’t remember a time when a crime was committed and the criminals took into consideration the chance of being caught and how mandatory sentencing would impact jail time.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 2:24 pm
What if we consider options for nonviolent offenders to remain outside of prison, and use prison for the violent offenders?
Mandatory sentencing guidelines do not allow judges to use discretion. We have judges so that discretion and common sense is used within the law. If we want mandatory sentences, we should get rid of the judges.
It seems, at least to me, if you are sentenced to a certain period of time, you serve that time. Early release for good behavior is to me nonsense. You didn’t go to prison because of good behavior, why get out early because you behaved during prison?
Comment by FormerParatrooper Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:34 pm
- John Howard Association: Before we consider increasing prison penalties, I’d argue that we need to apply the same kind of analytic thinking to whether increasing prison sentences will effectively incapacitate people who pose a violent risk to public safety.
If they are sent to prison, then society is safe from gun violence for that person while they are in prison. Yes prison does incapacitate a person from crime. Prison may not rehabilitate a violent person. But if they decide to commit a crime after they are released extent the sentences for repeat offenders. In New York, you to to prison for one year for illegal possession of a fire arm. No questions ask. You take seven times the number of illegal firearms off the street in Chicago! Very few go to prison??? Now you see why we have a gun problem!
Comment by Mandatory Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 4:49 pm
“I don’t remember a time when a crime was committed and the criminals took into consideration the chance of being caught and how mandatory sentencing would impact jail time.”
Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner!
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 5:00 pm
The wording of the question is horrible. “those convicted of a felony involving a firearm” implies those convicted of crimes like robbery with a firearm, rape with a firearm, battery with a firearm, etc. All of those already carry mandatory prison sentences a lot longer than 3 years, and many are already subject to truth-in-sentencing. The proposed laws that they are asking about cover crimes where the felony is the possession of the firearm, not using it to commit crime.
Comment by Rambler Pride Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 5:08 pm
“In New York, you to to prison for one year for illegal possession of a fire arm.”
Mandatory–Illinois already has minimum prison sentences for illegal gun possession. This poll is not about whether people who are convicted of illegal gun possession should go to prison, but rather about whether the law should require a longer minimum sentence for all offenders, keeping in mind that offenders with violent criminal histories are already going to prison for a very long time. The question legislators should be asking is, what will this proposed minimum increase get us? What’s the cost? What’s the benefit? Is this proposal the best use of our limited resources? Are there more effective responses to illegal gun possession that we might foreclose by spending more of our limited resources on prison beds?
One of the reasons the U.S. has the world’s largest prison system is because for the last 40 years we have passed laws that feel like the right response to crime. The problem is our feelings tend to be terrible policy makers.
Comment by John Howard Association Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 5:36 pm
Not having the right paperwork for your gun is a “felony involving a firearm” in the same way that tearing the tag off your mattress is a “felony involving deceptive health records.”
Comment by anonymous Monday, Nov 17, 14 @ 5:57 pm