When Governor Quinn announced in September that he was going to save money by granting early release to 1,000 inmates, I was amazed that it didn't generate much outrage.
Today comes news that the releases have started, with 62 inmates being released. The Illinois Department of Corrections assures us that only "non-violent" offenders are being released. I'm sure it will come as great consolation to anyone who gets victimized by one of these prisoners (statistics tell us that more than 50% of Illinois inmates re-offend within 3 years) that their house was broken into, or their wallet stolen, by a "non-violent" offender.
At first I thought this was a uniquely wacky Illinois initiative, but frighteningly enough, we're not alone. Colorado and Oregon have recently begun granting early releases to save money, and Ohio is considering a similar proposal.
Good luck to all of us. We'll need it.
17 Comments
juanyen said:
Oh, but that's okay here in Chicago since we're increasing the number of cops on the streets... oh, wait a minute...
Message from Montie said:
One of the main reasons that repeat crimes occur is because the US system is set up so these people cannot find jobs. They aren't just picking pockets for fun. That question on job applications about past crimes make it damn near impossible for them to find jobs. I don't support recidivism, and I think releasing nonviolent criminals is an excellent idea.
Joe the Cop said:
Montie, the phrase "non-violent" criminal is a smokescreen. A burglar might be "non-violent" until he gets confronted by a homeowner, and a shoplifter might be "non-violent" until a store clerk tries to stop him. I'm not including drug possession in this, since that's a whole other debate we need to have. But the fact is, prison does not exist to reform or punish--its only purpose is damage control, because for at least the brief time these offenders are locked up, they're not victimizing anyone.
Moshucat said:
Hi Joe,
You can't help but feel sorry for people like Montie. First of all why would you publish your picture on a public website. I bet she is on facebook too. She should reseearch the stats on crimes as a result of facebook and public exposure.
Wake up lady and look around. These felons ended up in jail because they broke the law. Black men (I'm black by the way)still don't understand getting caught and getting a record elimates you from 90% of the jobs offered. With the Patrioit Act background checks always catch you. There is more reliance on BC then on drug testing now. Yes the field has and never will be even for minorities but is that any reason not to see what is going on around you. Stay in school, at least finish High School, work at McDonalds if you have too but keep your record clean so that when an opportunity comes up you can pass these kinds of test. Will power and common sense have to sooner or later come into play. How is a convicted felon goong to get a job when people that have abided by the law can't.
And by the way Montie.... better get some extra locks on your doors and start looking around before you walk the streets. These so called "non Violent" offenders will become violent when they become desperate and think they do the crime and leave no witnesses.
Joe the Cop said:
Hey now, play nice. Montie is the kind of decent, thinking person who needs to be involved in debates over issues like this, even when I think they're wrong. She's a fellow ChicagoNow blogger, who is not blogging anonymously, which is why you get to see a nice picture of her face, and not just a statue or traffic cone.
Mia said:
This seems like a somewhat ignorant response to Montie's post. I can agree with both of you. The truth is, our system is broken and there isn't going to be one good way to fix it. I'm all for getting the people who got caught selling marijuana out of jail - but I wouldn't go as far as letting all of the drug dealers out.
There has to be a better way.
Joe the Cop said:
Mia, thanks for stopping by!
You're right, there are myriad better ways to attack a lot of these problems, and it shouldn't have to be an either/or problem. It's possible to agree with Montie (as I do) that there are economic root causes to some crime, and still believe that it's in society's best interest to keep felons locked up for the full length of their sentences.
At some point in the future I want to write about drug decriminalization. There's dozens of posts there.
Archangel said:
Why don't we admit the war on drugs is lost, legalize and tax drugs, then clear out the prisons to make room for the real criminals??
Joe the Cop said:
It's politically toxic to even discuss drug decriminalization as a public official, but you're right--if you want to talk about saving money and even generating revenue, that would be one way to do it. Unfortunately, an honest discussion on that issue will probably never take place here in my lifetime.
Skylers Dad said:
It is really amazing to me that this seems like a good idea to people.
irishpirate said:
http://www.copinthehood.com/
Baltimore cop turned Harvard PHD.
His book is the best short work I've found on why drugs should be legalized.
Of course I've believed that for going on 30 years so I guess I'm a prophet in the desert.
As for releasing prisoners early that is a complicated issue.
Nearly everyone who goes into prison gets released at some point. I guess the key would be trying to find a way to somewhat accurately predict who would commit serious crimes again.
I'm not talking some guy who went away for residential burglary and then gets nailed for smoking weed. I mean the burglar who then burglarizes again. The rage freak who then viciously assaults someone. That kind of thing.
If you eliminate petty drug crimes I wonder how many ex prisoners actually commit serious crimes within three years of getting out. Say it's half. That means half don't.
It would be nice if there were a legitimate predictive model that could be legally used to identify which prisoners were likely to reoffend.
Hell, most criminals "age out" of serious crime as they get older.
Burglarizing a house doesn't seem as appealing at age 50 as it did at 20. Not that I'm speaking from experience or anything.
If we really wanted to reduce crime we would just put all males away from age 15-25. That should reduce the crime rate by 80 percent or more.
chicago123 said:
Moshu,
Out of curiosity, what would you suggest in place of early releases for non-violent offenders? I don't think that telling people to "see what is going on around [them]" would constitute much of a public policy. Given that mass incarceration is draining an absurd portion of the IL discretionary spending (which could be put to much better use: public transit, drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, etc.), it seems that keeping the current system is a surefire way to maintain a costly and ineffective status quo. I am all for encouraging common sense and personal responsibility, but I just don't think that by itself is a viable policy recommendation.
Also, does anyone know how they are selecting those who are released? I would imagine that they are giving release-priority to those inmates to those who have committed the least violent crimes (for example, theft as opposed to robbery or even burglary), or those with a record of good behavior or a small statistical rate of recidivism. However, I don't know if this is the case.
-Chi
chicago123 said:
The article says that the prisoners that are being released are already housed in adult transition centers, where they are out working or at school during the day. Additionally, after release they still have to wear ankle bracelets and check in with probation officers.
Am I crazy or does this not seem completely reasonable considering that they are already in transition anyway? At this point what would keeping them locked up necessarily do? I understand the value of providing transition programs, but this seems much more innocuous than it likely will be portrayed. The alternative, I assume, is to allow the inmates to go out to school and work during the day, but have the state pay for their room and board while they are in "transition." Yeah?
chicago123 said:
edit: "does this seem completely reasonable"
Wendy C said:
Okay, they want to let them out early? Then let them pay for their crimes in another way, community service. Put them to work on community projects, rather than leave them idle to commit the next crime.
chicago123 said:
That is a great idea.
Moshucat said:
The reality is that my daughter, myself and my best friend taught college level programs to inmates in Cook Couty Jail, and Illinois State Prison System. Every year fI help sponsor an Essay, Art and Music Competition for youth housed in juvinile facilities. I don't believe we can do much with the population that has repeatedly committed crimes and expect now that they should be able to begin at the beginning because they are too old to climb in a window. There are currently Halfway Houses, Boot Camps, Community Service and other programs that are a transition or intervention. What is the success rate? I just simply don't believe my calling in life is to try and save the ones that have done the deeda, I'm after the wones that are youthful and might turn that corner or the very young that should never have to go down that path.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: