• February 23, 2019, 09:53:14 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Welcome to ILLINOIS PRISON TALK, www.illinoisprisontalk.org - A Family Support Forum and Information Center for those interacting with the Illinois Department of Corrections. IPT members are comprised of family/friends of inmates, prison reform activists, ex-offenders, prisoner rights advocates and others interested in the well-being of Illinois prisoners. We encourage open discussion but please be tolerant of other's opinions. This website is protected by Copyright © 2006-2019. All rights reserved. There are some private forums that require registration, please register.

Author Topic: IL Lawmaker Proposing Law Impacting Juveniles Who Receive Long Prison Sentences  (Read 2933 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline me

  • Support Staff
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
  • Karma: 47
Il lawmaker proposing law impacting juveniles who receive long prison sentences


 An Illinois legislator is proposing a new law affecting young people who receive long prison sentences. That comes after a federal court banned lifelong sentences for juveniles. IPR'S Tony Arnold reports.

State Representative Barbara Flynn Currie says she’s trying to negotiate a bill that would address the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision while respecting the families of the victims.
 
"The question is: Is it appropriate to have a second look and that’s all that my measure would do, would be to say let’s have a second look at people who fit this category and let the court decide."
 
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in 2012 saying juveniles aren’t fully developed individuals, so they shouldn’t have to serve a life sentence when convicted of a crime. That decision affects about 100 people currently locked up in Illinois prisons.
 
Currie’s proposal would allow the minor who was convicted to ask a judge’s permission to be re-sentenced after serving 15 years behind bars. The Chicago Democrat attempted to pass the bill earlier in 2013, but it was never called for a vote. She’s hoping it will pass when lawmakers return to Springfield in February.


http://peoriapublicradio.org/post/il-lawmaker-proposing-law-impacting-juveniles-who-receive-long-prison-sentences

Offline robin in ohio

  • Full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
  • Karma: 3
Does anyone have an up date on this?

Offline Forevermah

  • Technical Goddess
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18547
  • Karma: 529
    • Illinois Prison Talk




Jeanne Bishop  Public defender and human rights activis

Illinois Supreme Court Gets it Right on Juvenile Life Sentences: Now, the Legislature Ought to Act

Posted: 03/20/2014 1:10 pm EDT Updated: 05/20/2014 5:59 am EDT

The Illinois Supreme Court got it right today when it ruled that all the inmates currently serving a mandatory sentence of life without parole for crimes committed as juveniles are eligible for new sentences, including sentences of less than natural life. That decision is good for the juveniles, good for society and, ultimately, good for families of victims of the crimes which led to those sentences (I am a member of one of those families: A juvenile murdered three of my family members in Winnetka in 1990, and is doing life without parole in Pontiac prison).

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory juvenile life without parole ("jlwop") sentences in a case called Miller v. Alabama, Illinois has faced a two-part dilemma: What to do with the laws we have on our books permitting people less than the age of 18 to be sentenced to mandatory jlwop, and what to do with the people serving that sentence.

Let's be clear what "mandatory" means: It means that once a young person is convicted of a certain crime, such as killing more than one person in a single incident, he automatically receives jlwop. There are no hearings in which a judge can learn about the offender: How he grew up, what his psychological state is, his educational background, the presence of abuse or other trauma and so on. Nor can the court consider any input from the victim's family into what the offender's sentence should be. "Mandatory" means this: Once you are convicted of this crime, this is the sentence which must be given, regardless of the individual circumstances of the case or characteristics of the defendant.

The Miller case changed all that. It said courts must consider a host of factors, including the age and maturity of the defendant, before courts can impose a jlwop sentence. The Court in Miller, though, was silent on whether that requirement was retroactive -- that is, whether it applied to the approximately 100 juveniles already serving jlwop in Illinois.

Back to that two-part dilemma: Illinoisans know what we have to do going forward: We have to change our laws so that juveniles in the future can no longer receive jlwop as a mandatory sentence. Courts can still impose jlwop, but only after a careful consideration of the characteristics set forth in the Miller case, including the youth of the offender.

What about those 100 or so juvenile lifers in Illinois? Did the new rule apply to them, too? That's the question the Illinois Supreme Court answered, with a resounding, "Yes." In doing so, it joined the majority of States which have considered this issue, including States as conservative as Texas and Mississippi.

That decision is good for the juvenile offenders, because it gives them an opportunity to demonstrate that they are -- because of rehabilitation, remorse and a host of other factors -- deserving of a sentence less than life.

The decision is good for society, because it frees us from bearing the burden of warehousing forever people who may have changed profoundly for the better and shown their worthiness to be considered for release. It unleashes the human potential of many people who entered prison young and have the capacity to contribute to society if let out.

The decision can be good, too, for the families of the victims of the crimes for which these juveniles were sentenced. It will allow many victims' family members to learn, for the first time, possibly, about the person who took their loved ones' lives -- who he was at the time of the crime, and who he is now. It will make it possible for those same family members to have something they never had before: Some input into what the offender's sentence should be. It will help end the protracted cycle of further litigation. And it keeps open the possibility that some offenders will not be released; they can still be sentenced to life without parole as a discretionary sentence. The decision is not a "get out of jail free" card.

The Illinois Supreme Court has acted, and wisely. It is now time for the Illinois legislators to act, to pass the reform law pending in the General Assembly to bring our laws into compliance with the Miller decision. That, too, is the right thing to do.

More:
Juveniles Illinois Supreme Court Juvenile Life Without Parole Miller v. Alabama Juvenile Justice Reform Illinois General Assembly Juvenile Life Sentences Juvenile Offenders
Promoted Content by Taboola
Do not value the "things" you have in your life - value "who" you have in your life....



“Instead of thinking about what you're missing, try thinking about what you have that everyone else is missing.”

Offline jaf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 617
  • Karma: 49
I'm happy that things might be changing for some of these people at least.  But what about the fellows like one of my sons former cell neighbors at Menard who got essentially a life sentence of 55 years?  Since he will be ove 60 when he has any chance of parole, and long term prisoners have a much shorter life expectancy, he probably won't survive it anyway. 

It's sad. 

Offline Forevermah

  • Technical Goddess
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 18547
  • Karma: 529
    • Illinois Prison Talk
I'm happy that things might be changing for some of these people at least.  But what about the fellows like one of my sons former cell neighbors at Menard who got essentially a life sentence of 55 years?  Since he will be ove 60 when he has any chance of parole, and long term prisoners have a much shorter life expectancy, he probably won't survive it anyway. 

It's sad. 

Jaf, they are working on the Elderly Bill now to try and give those inmates a chance.

We have information on that her on IPT too and will be putting more information on in the future.
Do not value the "things" you have in your life - value "who" you have in your life....



“Instead of thinking about what you're missing, try thinking about what you have that everyone else is missing.”

Offline webmari

  • Full member
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • Karma: 5
It's really good and the right thing to do. I am happy for all those who may benefit from it. But the same applies to those people, who are no juveniles. They also can change for the better and so hopefully they will come to see that too and the Elderly Bill is also something that ought to be considered. Warehousing all those inmates is not the answer. I am really glad that Illinois is among those states who are open to changes for the better!