Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression

Download PDF Version

Statement of Ted Pearson, Co-Chairperson
National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression-Chicago
April 30, 2008
Illinois House Committee on Prison Reform

I would first like to thank this Committee for the opportunity for our organization to present its views in
capsule form for consideration during these initial hearings about Sentence Adjustment for Elderly
prisoners. I would also like to identify with the sprit and the letter of the statement by Bill Ryan,
Chairperson of Citizens for Earned Release, before this committee today. I do not want to repeat the
many fine points made by Bill.
We support passage of HB 4154. It is a first step in correcting what is wrong with the Illinois criminal
justice system. There are many things that need to be changed. Highest on the list of priorities must be
the abolition of the death penalty. Capital punishment and prison sentences in excess of 25 years are
not the norm among democratic countries. Abolishing capital punishment and reforming sentencing
laws are not in contradiction; they are two parts of a whole, in our opinion. When all the tires on a
vehicle are flat, fixing one is not a step forward. The car won't go forward without fixing them all. Of
course, we may be able to fix only one wheel at a time, but fixing one wheel and promising not to fix the
others means that we remain stuck with a vehicle that's fundamentally broken.
How many people in Illinois prisons would be affected by HB 4154? A survey of those in Illinois
Department of Corrections prisons1 on April 5, 2008 shows that 4,709 will be over 50 years of age by
January 1, 2009. Of those, 658 have custody dates prior to January 1, 1984. Of these 177 are sentenced
to natural life without possibility of parole. This also includes 216 "C numbers" who have been eligible
for parole in some cases for many years.
Thus the total number of people who would be eligible for consideration and sentence adjustment
under HB 4154 in 2009, if it were enacted into law, would be 658, of whom 177 are sentenced to natural
life. More will become eligible as time goes on.
All people have a right to have their views heard in this legislative process. It is incumbent upon the
Legislature to provide ample and timely notice of hearings such as this one through mass
communication media. In addition, people who have studied criminal justice issues and restorative
justice programs need to be involved in the process. Most important, the families of those imprisoned
and the families of those they have offended against need to be included in the deliberations of the
Legislature on this measure. To that end we suggest that the Legislature should request that the IDOC
take the following steps:
1. Notify all prisoners of future hearings on this bill. Encouraged them to communicate the
schedule to their families. This is especially important for the 658 prisoners mentioned above.
2. The State's Attorneys of the counties in which these 658 people were convicted should be
provided the funds required to notify witnesses and families in these cases of these hearings,
inviting them to make their views heard. A special fund for that purpose should be made part of
the Department budget.
There is an aspect of HB 4154 about which we in the NAARPR are not sure. The bill, as it is presently
drafted, refers the cases of prisoners back to the original sentencing court for sentence review after 25
years. While the sentencing court is arguably the most familiar with the original case, we see many
potential problems with this approach.
1. The original sentencing judge on cases that were tried more than 25 years ago are most likely to
have retired or moved on to other positions.
2. While most familiar with the original case, such courts may not be most familiar with the
progress a prisoner has made toward rehabilitation, restoration, remorse, and other factors, nor
will they have the experience or training to evaluate such issues.
3. With all due respect it can be said that judges are the least qualified to review decisions that
they, themselves, have made. It is difficult for a judge to admit errors of judgment in the
original sentencing. This is why an appeal of a sentence is heard by a superior court, not the
original sentencing court. Furthermore, if there were errors they are likely to be repeated.
4. In those cases where a prisoner continues to insist on his or her innocence, the sentencing court
which heard the original case is the least objective in conducting a review. Since protestations
of innocence are de facto refusal to express remorse, in such cases the original sentencing court
is the least qualified to review the sentence.
For all these reasons we question the approach. The current system of parole hearings is cumbersome
and can be painful for the families of victims of crime, and we do not believe that such families should
be subjected to a repeated traumatic reliving of their suffering and the suffering of their loved ones. At
the same time, however, we believe that it is possible that, when combined with a policy and practice
of implementing a genuine program of restorative justice, including restitution, reconciliation and
restoration of victims and offenders, the current system of recommendations of parole by the duly
constituted Prisoner Review Board may be fairer to all concerned.
It should not be necessary to say this, but it is: the present system is not working. It is not protecting our
families and our communities from crime. Recent reports from the FBI2 show that in spite of the steady
increase in the number of people in prison and the rate of incarceration, violent crimes continue to
increase in number.
Arguably, the causes of increasing incarceration and increasing g violent crime are related. Both tend to
grow together. An increase in the number of people incarcerated does not correlate with a reduction in
crime. Prison is not a deterrent to crime.
Furthermore, prison does nothing to restore the victims of crime or heal their families.
Prison also does nothing to generate socially acceptable behavior among offenders, as indicated by the
very high recidivism rate among those who are released.
Lastly, crime wreaks havoc among the families of its victims. The pain of losing a loved one to senseless
murder is impossible to ever completely heal. But neither is the pain and suffering caused by the
offender to his or her own family. Family life is destroyed and resources exhausted for the families of
offenders. While the emotional trauma of crime never ends for families victimized by violent crime, the
emotional and financial trauma never ends for the families of offenders, whose resources are
devastated by legal fees, outrageous charges for prison telephone calls, many hours and many dollars
spent travelling often many hundreds of miles to visit loved ones, and the loss of the offender's income
to his or her family while they are in prison. In addition, after their release, prisoners are almost
unemployable.
The current system is based on a punitive model. It is beyond the scope of this presentation to give a list
of citations, but many studies indicate that punishment alone does not deter crime. Yet punishment is
what the current system emphasizes. Sports and educational opportunities are severely restricted or
denied altogether. Segregation (solitary confinement), restricted visits and phone calls are handed out
to prisoners for infractions of the rules of all types. At their extreme, brutal and inhuman conditions -
constituting torture under international law - are imposed upon some without any due process, often
for many years, such as those documented at Tamms Correctional Center.
From centuries of human history and experience we can say there are some fairly well established
sociological concepts3 and foundation principles of human rights. They include:
• The purpose of penalties for criminal acts, to be effective must include "the objective of
returning the offenders to useful citizenship," as stated by the Illinois Constitution.
• There are very few people who are incapable of learning and altering their behavior if they
understand that there is benefit to them in doing so.
• There are very few people who are incapable of understanding and empathizing with the
suffering of their fellow human beings and other creatures with which we share our planet.
• At the same time, there are very few people who are not capable of rationalizing and excusing
the most depraved and anti-social behavior towards other people if those others are
dehumanized, objectified as inferior or undeserving of respect, or viewed as a threat to the their
existence and security.
HB 4154 is consistent with these principles. It allows for
• the possibility that people can change
• The possibility for offenders to understand the damage they have done through a process of
restorative justice, reconciliation, and restitution.
As already mentioned by Bill Ryan, the United States leads the world in both the absolute number of
people in prisons and jails as well as the proportion of our population imprisoned. This raises questions
about our democracy.
Some argue that any proposal suggesting a modification of a sentence of natural life, i.e., life in prison
without possibility of parole, undermines the struggle to end capital punishment. We believe this is a
false argument. Sentence review stands on its own merit as a matter of fairness, human rights,
restorative justice, and allowing Illinois to join the civilized nations of the world that do not allow for
lifetime prison sentences. The same thing is true of capital punishment, which every other industrially
advanced democracy, and some not so democratic, have abolished. Sentence reform and abolition of
the death penalty are part of the same struggle, for a system based on restorative justice, on
rehabilitation, restitution, reconciliation and respect for the value of every human life. We support
both, separately or together.
Some representatives of police organizations and families of victims of violent crime oppose these
proposals. They have a right to be heard, and to be listened to. The legislature should not, however, fall
victim to corporate interests who have a huge stake in the multi-million dollar prison industrial complex,
and who cynically encourage such groups to vent their anger and pain against reform. The contractors,
suppliers, and construction companies that profit from the perpetuation of the current system are doing
fine in the current system, at least in the short run. Our communities are not.

1
This compilation was made by downloading all the data sheets from the IDOC web site for prisoners in that
database on April 9, 2008. On that date there were 41,998 people in IDOC adult prisons. Of them 4,709 have
dates of birth prior to January 1, 1954. Of this 4709, 658 have custody dates prior to January 1, 1984. 177 of these
658 are serving sentences of natural life without possibility of parole.
2
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, "2006 Crime in the United States - Preliminary Semi-
annual Uniform Crime Report" cited by Talvi, Silva J. A. in The Nation, January 22, 2007.
3
Documenting experimental and theoretical work on these points is beyond the scope of this statement. It is
available, however, for those interested in the details of these issues.