Illinois crime and punishment
The murder of 11-year-old Jayden Perkins has made me wonder about the punishment for murder in the state of Illinois, where the crime occurred.
In Illinois, capital punishment was outlawed in 2011 under these circumstances:
Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation on March 9, 2011, to abolish the death penalty in Illinois to go into effect July 1, 2011, and commuted the death sentences of the fifteen inmates on Illinois’ death row to life imprisonment. Quinn was criticized for signing the bill after saying that he supported the death penalty during the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, after which he defeated the Republican candidate with 46.8% of the vote.
In 2018, then Republican Governor Bruce Rauner called for the reintroduction of the death penalty for those convicted of killing police officers. This was opposed by state lawmakers and Rauner was subsequently defeated by Democrat J. B. Pritzker.
So the political angle is that a Democrat ran for governor as a death-penalty supporter in 2010, won the election, and then went on in very short order to sign legislation banning it. In the 2018 campaign a Republican governor ran for re-election advocating the reinstatement of the death penalty in the case of the killing of police, but he was defeated and Pritzker – one of the most “progressive” governors in the US – took the post and is the present-day governor.
Which brings us to this news from about a year ago:
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a new law on Friday that extends parole eligibility for people convicted of offenses when they were under 21, making Illinois the 26th state to abolish life-without-parole sentences for children.
Illinois provided parole review for most young people in 2019, but that Youthful Parole Law did not apply to people sentenced to natural life imprisonment, people convicted of first degree murder of a law enforcement officer, or people convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault.
The new law, Public Act 102-1128, eliminates the first two exceptions and, because people under 18 cannot be sentenced to natural life for predatory criminal sexual assault, it finally abolishes all life-without-parole sentences for children under 18.
It also means that most people sentenced after June 1, 2019, for offenses when they were under 21 will now become eligible for parole after 10 years for most offenses, 20 years for first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault, and 40 years for natural life sentences.
Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-Waukegan) co-sponsored the bill in the House. “Even when a crime is particularly severe, it should be recognized that a legal minor with their whole life still ahead has the potential to be reformed,” she said.
That’s actually true. It’s also true that people of any age have the potential to be reformed. But in addition, it’s true that it can be difficult to ascertain who is really reformed and who is not, and reform is neither inevitable nor common.
There is also the question of deterrence; if the penalties are weakened (such as, for example, “20 years for first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault”), the deterrent effect is weakened.
If there were some kind of liability attaching to whomever certifies a perp as being reformed…..
I don’t have a problem with the death penalty. A million guys have died defending this country and we’re living pretty fat because of it. One day a year, we’re reminded to remember them, if we can be bothered.
In that context, executing people who commit the most egregious, cruelest of crimes seems like a different moral question.
Except I wouldn’t trust a prosecutor as far as I could throw the county court house. Even back when I was in shape.
If you occasionally follow the Catholic blawger Tom McKenna, all is proceeding as he has forseen. Mr. McKenna is a prosecutor in Richmond and an advocate of liberal use of capital sentences. His own view has long been that once capital sentences were eliminated, the next project of the lawfare artists so engaged would be a campaign against life without parole. That achieved, they would go after mandatory minimums.
==
Get it through your head, people. The motor of the Vera Institute, the Brennan Center, and the ACLU is an objection to punishment itself. (Or, rather, to punishment of anyone who is on their list of preferred mascots).
==
They’re malevolent.
Mandatory minimum, like every word a politician uses, is subject to the fine print.
And there are exceptions, where prison has the effect society is hoping for.
Our adopted son shot at and wounded an acquaintance who had pulled a knife on him. It was thankfully a flesh wound, but he was sentenced to 4 years in prison (which was the mandatory minimum sentence).
There is a long story leading up to this event, but needless to say he was hanging with the wrong crowd.
When I came and told the story of our son’s history of seeing his parents killed during their civil war and the baggage that accumulated with him, the judge was almost apologetic that he had no say in the sentence.
Our son spent two months in county jail because the prison was at maximum capacity. When he was transferred there, he spent a month being processed and then moved to a work camp where he was given a job building trusses for a company in the local city.
He spent six months in the work release facility and then was paroled. This all worked to the good as it had its intended effect. It’s hard to say what would have happened had he spent four years in the penitentiary.
When I came and told the story of our son’s history of seeing his parents killed during their civil war and the baggage that accumulated with him, the judge was almost apologetic that he had no say in the sentence.
==
Your son’s personal experience was irrelevant to the matter at hand. And no, the judge should not have any discretion over sentencing. (IMO, the problem taking at face value the case as you describe it is that the legislature did not properly calibrate the sentencing formula in question).
If you look up Senator Jason Plummer, Illinois 55th District, on Facebook, he gives a detailed account of what fat cat lefty Pritzger has been doing/destroying to the prisoner review board since he became governor. He appointed cronies, without approval, who immediately began wildly more often releasing violent criminals. The Oblahma daughters’ “god” mother being one of many. Senator Plummer lays the multi-year facts out in two thread reader app threads he has linked.
“Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-Waukegan) co-sponsored the bill in the House. “Even when a crime is particularly severe, it should be recognized that a legal minor with their whole life still ahead has the potential to be reformed,”
“The United States has a current recidivism rate of 70% within 5 years (U.S. Prison Population, 2019).”
“Recidivism rates are the highest for those first arrested before turning 18.”
A minor who commits a “particularly severe” crime clearly has serious psychological issues.
The above would indicate that a very small percentage of minors who commit “particularly severe” crimes have the potential to be reformed.
Which means that the great majority of those minors who were imprisoned for “particularly severe” crimes will go on to harm more innocents.
How many innocent Jayden Perkins will liberals sacrifice to give society’s damaged monsters a second, third and even 4th chance?
It’s true: Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
I commented this afternoon on this subject on your post from yesterday but figured it might not be seen so I’m repeating it.
If you look up Senator Jason Plummer, Illinois 55th District, on Facebook, he gives a detailed account of what fat cat lefty Pritzger has been doing/destroying to the prisoner review board since he became governor. He appointed cronies, without approval, who immediately began wildly more often releasing violent criminals. The Oblahma daughters’ “god” mother being one of many. Senator Plummer lays the multi-year facts out in two thread reader app threads he has linked.
It’s always nice to hear a story of redemption, Brian E. This is especially appropriate on (western) Easter weekend.
Thanks Kate,
All of this happened about 12 years ago. He’s now married and started his own trucking business.
I think the fact he had no prior criminal record helped. The fact the prison was at capacity may have also contributed to his early release.
It was an experience bringing him to this country– lots of prayer along the way.
How much do you want to bet this dude is already in the wind?
https://www.mystateline.com/news/local-news/rockford-murder-suspect-released-before-trial-under-new-illinois-bail-law/
It’s true: Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.
==
Mayfield’s ultimate complaint is that people she considers her social inferiors (police officers and prison guards) are imposing the standards of another set of people she considers her social inferiors (ordinary people, especially ordinary white people) on her pets.
@ Art+Deco, 6:17pm:
If the judge should have no discretion over sentencing, then why not dispense with the judges?
“and reform is neither inevitable nor common.” [nor sufficient.]
On the other hand, Richard+Aubrey, ” I wouldn’t trust a prosecutor [or judge, or jury, or public defender] as far as I could throw the county court house.”
Thus my problem with capital punishment.
If the judge should have no discretion over sentencing, then why not dispense with the judges?
==
The function of a judge should be to rule on questions of law and ensure that proper procedures are followed. Sentencing formulae should be specified in the statute. If a formula requires a factual determination, this can be undertaken with a panel of a judge-and-two-assessors at a sentencing hearing, with the assessors drawn at random from a rolodex of people in professions other than law but with relevant expertise (e.g. accountants, pharmacists and pharmacy technicians, occupational therapists, &c). Sentencing formulae (IMO) should include a fudge factor of a value between 0.5 and 1.0 incorporated into the plea agreement; the judge would have the discretion over whether or not to ratify the agreement.
==
Sentencing formulae should have other fudge factors. One is the defendant’s ‘point accumulation’ from previous offenses and the other is the defendants age at the time of the crime. For defendants under 25, straight incarceration should be replaced with a mix of incarceration and probation, with the ratio of incarceration to probation a function of age. (IMO, probation should not be used with defendants over 25). Also, different age segments should be strictly segregated from each other in prisons and jails.
==
Taking Brian E’s account at face value, his kid did not have any priors, was about 60% of the distance between the antique age of moral responsibility and age 25, and did only minor injury to the other party. Incarceration in a compound composed of others between their 17th and 21st birthday and parole after about 15 months if he followed the rules would have been apposite (IMO) had the other party had the ordinary run of injuries from an intentional assault. (It appears from Brian’s account that the other party did not). Of course, expecting state legislators to be precise and attentive is expecting too much.
==
IMO, the key question in a parole decision should be whether or not the convict respected the rules of the institution. That the convict in question had had his parole revoked should have precluded another parole review for a year. Even at the end of a year, the previous revocation of parole should have weighed heavily in any decision on releasing him before the end of his notional sentence.
I saw a documentary a long time ago about a death penalty case in Illionois that became the “cause celeb” for then Gov. Ryan (Quinn’s predecessor) to stop the death penalty. Of course, it was about a man who was supposedly wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death.
According to the docu., the guy investigating and promoting this story was a journalist who was a grad. of Northwestern journalism school and a left-wing activist who engaged in all kinds of deceptions and lies. Also, that the prep. was in fact a violent career criminal who almost certainly committed the murder.
Forget it, people, it’s Chi-Town.
Jerry on March 31, 2024 at 4:05 am “Thus my problem with capital punishment.”
and TommyJay on March 31, 2024 at 11:55 am
Given the fallibility of even the most generally responsible legal due process, let alone those intent on gaming the system in their favor, for those cases where the sentence is execution, I have wondered if a credible balance between 1) allowing a nominally guilty murderer to continue living [if in prison] and 2) providing a means for corrective legal action if/when potentially new exonerating evidence is found: is it medically and biologically possible to put someone in a coma for the rest of their natural lives instead of executing them? Presumably then the “convicted” person doesn’t get to keep “living” in the conventional sense, but can (probably?) be brought out of the coma if a new trial, etc., becomes necessary or valid.
There may or may not be a cost savings vs. the costs of all of the other extended appeals, etc. ???
I recently had an opportunity to ask an anesthesiologist about this, but the fuzzy answer seemed to suggest medical professionals would not support this as a violation of medical ethics. But I suspect some alternative authorization and/or credentialling could be legally enacted?
R2L
That would require an immensely expensive level of care. Most lifers can go to the toilet without help, for example, and their normal activities avoid bed sores.
R2L
That would require an immensely expensive level of care. Most lifers can go to the toilet without help, for example, and their normal activities avoid bed sores.
I would like to see more consistent punishment for bad actors in the legal system.