Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Run away! Run away!
Next Post: Budget addresses have consequences
Posted in:
* Regarding the governor’s proposed Illinois Department of Corrections’ budget increase and sentencing reform…
While increasing staff numbers may be a sensible way to cut back on the cost of overtime, for which employees must be paid 1.5 times their normal salary, it’s not a long-term solution to the systemic problem at hand. IDOC is amidst a budgetary crisis, and will be unable to make payroll by April. To get prison spending under control, the state must incarcerate fewer people. Prison may make sense for violent criminals who pose a threat to public safety. But nearly 70 percent of Illinois’ prison population is serving time for nonviolent offenses. Many would benefit from diversion into drug- and mental-health treatment programs, parole, or other programs that keep families together and allow offenders to continue working instead of costing taxpayers billions each year.
In order to build a fairer and more cost-effective system, the state needs major criminal-justice reforms. The state must strongly consider policies that:
* Reform mandatory minimum sentencing: Repeal laws that set a minimum number of years to serve for an offense, allowing judges to tailor punishments to each crime and individual circumstances.
* Roll back overcriminalization: Reduce laws that criminalize victimless activities and lead to overcrowded prisons, overextended public budgets and police militarization.
* Ease offender re-entry into society: Remove state-imposed barriers, such as occupational-licensing rules, that prevent ex-offenders from finding work and integrating back into society.
If taxpayers want Illinois’ criminal-justice system to prioritize individual rights and fiscal responsibility, lawmakers must reorganize the state’s corrections system to focus on rehabilitation and recovery, not simply punishment and incarceration. Hopefully, Rauner will act with the General Assembly to pass sensible reforms to the state’s justice system.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 9:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Run away! Run away!
Next Post: Budget addresses have consequences
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
This was actually one of my biggest complaints when the TEA Party popped up. Their feigned outrage over minute spending (like foreign aid and Mountain Dew) was laughable when they never batted an eye at the cost of prison operations (at the state level) and the 800 pound gorilla known as the Department of Defense.
People may not like the IPI, but papers and research like this sets them apart from outfits that just shout talking points.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:03 am
Perhaps the state should force the victims of crimes to undergo mandatory rehabilitation to forget they deserve any sort of justice?
Comment by William j Kelly Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:04 am
The Tea Party never cared for criminal justice reform because the Tea Party wasn’t about fiscal responsibility, it was about reactionary politics towards a black guy. One should be skeptical towards IPI because they will line up time and time again behind the same kinds of reactionary rhetoric and policy outcomes that led us to where we our today if pulling a Willie Horton helps elect their guy. Heck, we saw this with Rauner’s misspelled assault ad.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:09 am
I think this proposal would make more than a few States’ Attorney’s heads explode. Lookin’ at you, Anita.
But, gotta say I begrudgingly agree with the IPI folks on this one.
Did anyone ever figure out how much BVR donated to them?
Comment by Juan MacLean Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:09 am
The IPI seems to have hit the nail on the head with the three points above.
Not sure how the Tea Party becomes the villain here, but hey, to each his own. I see this as a common sense approach to a problem that developed long before the tea party.
The harsher penalties happened over time because of public overreaction to ill perceived safety concerns. After all, that ‘criminal’ had pot on them.
Comment by Sunshine Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:12 am
The question is: are these proposals so outlandish that the status quo is preferable?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:12 am
Agreed. Why is the IPI starting to be rational? I’m not going to complain, but it is a little odd.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:13 am
An additional point, a lot of these non-violent offenders are attached to drug crimes. Basically we have outlawed a certain type of vice, and spend huge tesources punishing those who can not go to andoctor feel good for legalized narcotic addiction. Since we allow people to consumer certain highly refined and addictive drugs with a doctors prescritpion, perhaps its time to make the punishments for buyong and selling nonprescriptions drugs fines and tickets. I speculate we could save over a billion dollars on the prison and enforcmnet side, and make revenues on the ticket side.
Are we really so puritan that we turn a blind eye to legal drugs while self rightously going after people for buying and selling the wrong type drugs? I.e non prescription? Not to mention alcohol which we already allow etc.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:14 am
It’s surprising IPI is not advocating for private prisons. Did anyone over there care to call the prison lobby before releasing this?
Comment by Sun Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:16 am
Surprising piece considering the source.
Now tell us how to pay for this. What else can we cut from foster kids, abused children, seniors, etc. to shift to this problem?
Once this reallocation is done, we can then read another treatise from this or another organization that discusses problems with abandoning foster kids at 18 etc.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:18 am
This is great! Any dope can see that punishing criminal behavior only hurts criminals. Why inconvenience criminals with punishment? If we can all just evolve past the outdated notion of justice, maybe we can finally get this country moving again! After all, victims of crimes have already been victimized once, why not twice?
Comment by William j Kelly Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:19 am
==Perhaps the state should force the victims of crimes to undergo mandatory rehabilitation to forget they deserve any sort of justice?==
Oh please. Nobody is talking about violent offenders here. We can’t have a rational discussion about these things when people throw out misinformation like this.
Comment by Demoralized Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:19 am
One of the few times I agree with the IPI. Right now every sentence is a life sentence if you can ‘the get a job, can’t get a student loan, can’t sign a lease for an apartment. In other words you basically can’t get turn your life around. What’s the definition of justice after you’ve paid your debt to society?
Comment by sideline watcher Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:19 am
There appears to be a budding national movement across the political spectrum for alternatives to incarceration. The costs in money and wrecked lives are too stark to ignore.
That’s a good thing. But we’ll need to keep our foot on the gas.
Politicians and their mercenary spinmeisters can contribute to this worthy cause by putting a moratorium on their “Willie Horton” spots.
Comment by Wordslinger Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:23 am
Norseman, if you actually read the piece, you’ll see that they specifically say “Reduce laws that criminalize victimless activities…”
No one is minimizing victims rights here.
Comment by JT11505 Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:23 am
Whoa, were the 3 that left for team Rauner responsible for all the usual IPI nonsense? Did they replace them with hippies?
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:23 am
Seriously Kelley, did you even read the article? Victimless crimes like selling pot, which is now legal in several states.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:24 am
Not bad. The crux of the problem is the laws on the books. Law enforcement and judicial hands are tied in most cases regarding arrests and sentencing.
Comment by Former Merit Comp Slave Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:24 am
The three Rs of penology are: Retribution, Restitution, and Rehabilitation. The first two satisfy society’s need for justice, but the third takes steps to prevent recidivism.
We’ve never been seriously concerned with Rehabilitation in the U.S. because we like to write criminals off after they’ve paid their debt through incarceration. “Once a criminal, always a criminal,” we think.
Whenever you talk prison reform in this country, the loudest opponents are the pro-retribution and pro-restitution folks.
Comment by Streator Curmudgeon Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:26 am
== After all, victims of crimes have already been victimized once, why not twice? ==
What part of fair sentences, and handling victimless non-violent crimes differently causes victims of violent crimes an issue?
How does sending drug addicts to drug court victimize people? maybe we will prevent future crimes by getting addicts off drugs without them having criminal records which reduce their chances of future success. Maybe we prevent future crimes by reducing the intermingling of career criminals with young adults who just made a mistake.
Comment by mythoughtis Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:26 am
Drugs, coming to a corner near you soon!
Comment by shanks Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:29 am
i agree w it, too, which means it will never come to pass!
Comment by bored now Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:31 am
In fact my older brother, age 61, is in Vandalia for selling pot to other old hippies. Granted, since he doesn’t haves pension, it’s probably better than trying to live on social security. Although if pot were legalized, like in Colorado, he could become a tax paying member of the state, instead of living off my tax dollars like he does now.
Comment by A Jack Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:35 am
Denise Cattoni who is about as close at the Illinois Tea Party gets to a spokesperson has been pretty supportive of Rauner and his speech. I haven’t seen or heard anything critical of the Prison initiative.
Comment by Bill Baar Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:36 am
Surprisingly, I agree with IPI as well. I think this is less of a case of the blind squirrel finding an acorn than it is IPI parroting BVR’s talking point, but I’ll take it.
Comment by SAP Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:38 am
A. Jack, I agree! We can’t afford to have a justice system in America AND fight Isis in Afghanistan or wherever. I think we should just ask Rauner and kirks friends on wall-street to decide what’s best.
Comment by William j Kelly Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:38 am
Based on those comments, I’m going to hazard a guess that you two didn’t go to many actual tea party meetings?
To the post: agreed on all fronts. We need a system that actually helps people reform, and we’re a far cry from that goal.
Comment by Liandro Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:40 am
The only problem I have with this is that IPI and the rest of the right wing will not choose and stay in a lane on the issue of ‘getting tough on criminals’ and the Democrats know it. When their guy is the CEO and responsible for managing it and paying for it, they offer sensible proposals. When they’re on the outs, though, Democrats are ’soft on crime’ if they support any of the same things. If I were a Democratic legislator, I would be worried that my votes on these common sense proposals would turn up in attack ads in my next race, funding by some of the same groups that fund IPI.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:42 am
Agree with IPI’s points, but what politician wants to be the one to introduce the “soft on crime” bill to allow judges the ability to determine sentences? Oh, or is that the role of the 22 year old law student?
Comment by jogger Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:45 am
Norseman you can pay for it with the savings. It costs something like 27k a year to house an inmate. If you can put then in rehab for 10k a year you save 17k. If you get rid of selecting no prescription drug as a jailable offense and just make it fines you can probably get far more in fines and penalties then you pay for rehab and work programs. Make it legal and ad taxes and suddenly we have a surplus instead of crowded prisons. We also reduce violence related to drug sales as it is no longer such a sever crime that people kill to be kept from being caught or ofr the resources.
Comment by Ghost Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:46 am
I’m all for moving non-violent offenders out of prison, but it’s a little more complicated than the policy gurus on both the left and right think.
There are virtually no first-time drug offenders locked up in jails and prisons. Most of the inmates being held on a non-violent charge have long criminal histories, which sometimes include past episodes of violence and almost always involve multiple incidents of violating probation or parole, and skipping bail. In other words, most of the offenders imprisoned on nonviolent crimes were given a break in the past and avoided incarceration, but blew there chance at freedom by committing new crimes.
And the cynic in me might suggest that Illinois Policy Institute types are not motivated by a sense of restorative justice. They see the heavy costs of incarceration and know that most of those dollars go to unionized correctional officers. (IPI thought: Fewer correctional officers = fewer union-friendly downstate Republican lawmakers.) And they’re probably not so concerned with any public safety risk that comes from swinging the prison gates wide open. If crime does increase as a result, it won’t be happening in Wilmette and Barrington. Most of the victims will poor brown and black people folks in the city.
Again, I’m all for moving non-violent offenders out of the system — let’s start by legalizing marijuana and giving out tickets for possessing small amounts of other drugs. But let’s not be naive about who is locked-up and let’s be aware of the motivation of some of those advocating changes.
Comment by Tony Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:47 am
JT11505, if you actually read my comment you would know I was not making any judgment as to the proposals made in the piece. My point was that there is a cost to reform. Funding the reforms as they relate to the state’s financial condition needs to be discussed. Right now, we have a Gov who believes giving CMS additional monies is more important than paying for programs for foster kids over 18, etc,
Comment by Norseman Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 10:51 am
Has anyone done a study of now much the constitution is costing us? I bet that old thing is a real budget buster!
Comment by William j Kelly Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 11:03 am
You’re right, Norseman. I meant to direct my comment to WJK. I’ll aim better next time.
Comment by JT11505 Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 11:07 am
Good post Tony and I agree 100%. Marijuana needs legalized and the Criminal Code needs to be revisited so that small possession cases don’t turn into “Intent to Deliver” with longer sentences. Make simple possession a misdemeanor and get addicts into treatment.
The true Drug dealers that you want to hang heavy sentences on can be gotten with Drug Conspiracy charges
Comment by Generation X Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 11:12 am
Ghost, you have to spend the money first to capture the savings in down years.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 11:18 am
It has always been popular to increase jail time for certain crimes. However, that doesn’t go to the root of the problem. For many crimes the offender doesn’t go through the process of judging, “If I commit this crime I get X years, or that crime I get Y years.” If they had that type of mental forethought they wouldn’t be committing the crime in the first place.
Reducing our prison population means looking at the root of the problem: lack of employment options, substance abuse, insufficient education.
Comment by Just Me Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 11:57 am
Now that the consensus is that addiction treatment seems smarter (cheaper) than incarceration….it’s too bad much of the treatment money and ALL prevention dollars are cut from the gov’s proposed budget
Comment by Former State Employee Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 12:16 pm
==it’s not a long-term solution to the systemic problem at hand==
The approach they propose could be used on the entire budget. Overall, Rauner seems focused on short term savings that will lead to serious long-term costs. If we want to turn around the CJ system, we need to invest in education, higher ed, 18-21 year-olds coming out of foster care, etc. In the long-term, this is the fiscally responsible approach.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 12:47 pm
Lets see a person who breaks into cars , homes and a business are non violent . So we let them out or not even put them in . What in the world do you think they are going to keep doing, you guessed it , more break ins , more thefts, etc. Makes sense to me.
Comment by ISP retired Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 1:08 pm
==Many would benefit from diversion into drug- and mental-health treatment programs, parole, or other programs==
- Former State Employee - also touched on this.
With the huge budget cuts, not just this year but for the past several years, are there even any serious programs left to deal with this problem? If so they can’t be anything other than shells.
Comment by Bulldog58 Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 3:55 pm
Tony is correct. Very few if any offenders go to prison for a first time non violent crime. Most of convicted felons have had multiple violations and have been in front of a judge many times before being sentenced to prison. On the drugs and crime issue. What do tou think the number source of revenue is for the street gangs in Chicago? It’s not selling weed. It is hard core narcotics and they kill innocent people to protect their turf. Don’t think you can stopmthe violence by legalizing drugs or alternative sentencing. It won’t happen.
Comment by Southern illinoisan Friday, Feb 20, 15 @ 4:49 pm