{"id":329,"date":"2023-03-16T22:05:26","date_gmt":"2023-03-16T22:05:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/?page_id=329"},"modified":"2023-06-22T18:26:58","modified_gmt":"2023-06-22T18:26:58","slug":"legal-system-basics","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal System Basics"},"content":{"rendered":"<section class=\"wp-block-standard-hero bg-navy-deep\">\n    \n    <div>\n      \n      <div class=\"px-mobile xl:px-desktop pt-14 pb-12 lg:py-18 xl:py-32\">\n        <div class=\"container\">\n          \n          <div\n            class=\"pb-14 lg:pb-16 breadcrumbs uppercase font-extrabold text-sm leading-4 text-white tracking-wider flex flex-wrap lg:w-auto\">\n            <p id=\"breadcrumbs\"><span><span><a href=\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/\">Home<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>          <\/div>\n\n          \n                      <div>\n              <h1\n                class=\"text-blue font-heading font-normal text-5xl leading-[52px] tracking-wider xl:text-6xl xl:leading-[64px] xxxl:text-7xl xxxl:leading-[96px]\">\n                Legal System Basics\n              <\/h1>\n            <\/div>\n          \n          \n                      <div\n              class=\"text-white wysiwyg font-body font-normal text-xl lg:max-w-[45%] leading-7 tracking-wide pt-5 lg:pt-7\">\n              <p>The criminal legal system in Illinois can often feel like a jigsaw puzzle, full of interlocking laws, policies, and eccentricities that can be overwhelming even to experienced advocates. Restore Justice publishes a series of explainer posts. Each explainer provides a straightforward overview of a different aspect of the criminal legal system in Illinois.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Scroll down to see our explainers.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n            <\/div>\n          \n          \n          <div class=\"items-center flex flex-wrap lg:flex-nowrap\">\n            \n                          <a\n  class=\"btn mt-8 bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white mr-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/blog\/\" target=\"\" title=\"Read the Latest News About Advocacy\">\n  Read the Latest News About Advocacy\n  <\/a>\n            \n            \n                          <a\n  href=https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/legislation\/ target=_self title=See Our Legislative Agenda\n  class=\"underline underline-offset-6 text-xl font-normal decoration-2 relative uppercase font-heading tracking-wider group hover:no-underline group-hover:no-underline link-underline hover:bg-link-hover group-hover:bg-link-hover text-red btn-link mt-8\"\n>\n\n  <span\n    class=\"transition-colors duration-100 text-white group-hover:text-current\">See Our Legislative Agenda<\/span>\n  <\/a>\n                      <\/div>\n        <\/div>\n      <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n  <\/section>\n<section class=\"wp-block-grid-of-posts-preview section-margin\">\n    <div class=\"mx-auto px-mobile lg:px-desktop\">\n      <div class=\"container\">\n        \n        \n                  <div class=\"grid grid-cols-1 lg:grid-cols-3 gap-7.5\">\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":122,\"title\":\"Automatic Transfer of Children to Adult Court\",\"content\":\"\\u003C!-- wp:acf\\\/wysiwyg {\\u0022name\\u0022:\\u0022acf\\\/wysiwyg\\u0022,\\u0022data\\u0022:{\\u0022width\\u0022:\\u00220\\u0022,\\u0022_width\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_width\\u0022,\\u0022title\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_title\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_title\\u0022,\\u0022subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_subtitle\\u0022,\\u0022wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhat is automatic transfer?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eToday, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003echildren as young as 16 may be automatically transferred to adult court if they are charged\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e \\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003ewith certain offenses\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e.\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eOnce in adult court, they face more punitive sentencing conventions and no longer benefit from consideration under a juvenile system that aims to provide age-appropriate, reintegration-focused treatment.\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eThis process is also known as\\u00a0statutory exclusion, named for the fact that some offenses are excluded by statute from prosecution in juvenile court.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIn Illinois, transfer is triggered by prosecutors, who decide charging offenses. \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eOnce charged, juveniles have no legal mechanism to prevent or contest their transfer\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Not only that, even if found ultimately exonerated of all charges, juveniles can never return to the juvenile justice system\\u00a0once transferred and sometimes even receive\\u00a0adult sentences\\u00a0for reduced charges that would not have been grounds for transfer.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eToday, three offenses trigger the automatic transfer of 16- and 17-year-olds to adult court. These are:\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eFirst-degree murder\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eAggravated criminal sexual assault\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eAggravated battery with a firearm\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eUntil \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/billstatus.asp?DocNum=3718\\\\u0026amp;GAID=13\\\\u0026amp;GA=99\\\\u0026amp;DocTypeID=HB\\\\u0026amp;LegID=89922\\\\u0026amp;SessionID=88\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003echanges to transfer laws in 2015\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e, children even younger than 16 were also eligible for automatic transfer, and for a broader array of offenses (including home invasion, armed robbery, and aggravated vehicular hijacking).\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eAs of June 2017, roughly eleven hundred people in Illinois prisons were serving sentences for offenses committed as children\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. More than\\u00a04 in 10 of these individuals are serving sentences longer than 20 years.\\u00a0Figure 1 breaks down the distribution of these sentences by age at offense.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ca name=\\\\u0022Figure1\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 style=\\\\u0022text-align: center;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eFigure 1. Sentence lengths to individuals serving prison terms in Illinois for offenses committed as children\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cimg class=\\\\u0022aligncenter wp-image-17658 size-full\\\\u0022 src=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/app\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/KM-figure-1-sentence-lengths-by-age-1.png\\\\u0022 alt=\\\\u0022\\\\u0022 width=\\\\u00221006\\\\u0022 height=\\\\u0022441\\\\u0022 \\\/\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022text-align: center;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eCaption.\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\u00a0Data were sourced from\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www2.illinois.gov\\\/idoc\\\/reportsandstatistics\\\/Pages\\\/Prison-Population-Data-Sets.aspx\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIDOC\\u2019s public report on prison population as of June 30, 2017\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e.\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhy does it matter?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eAutomatic transfer laws run counter to the judicial idea\\u2014enshrined in \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/issues-solutions\\\/in-the-courts\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003emultiple court decisions\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u2014that children are fundamentally distinct from adults and must be treated differently by our legal systems.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eCurrent transfer laws in Illinois also place \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/watch?v=NkYcn8TZEUc\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003edisproportionate power\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e in the hands of prosecutors\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e, who by the nature of their position are more incentivized to take a combative stance against defendants. In\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ncsl.org\\\/research\\\/civil-and-criminal-justice\\\/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003emany other states\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e, transferring children to adult court requires a deliberate decision to do so by either the court or prosecutors (in these states, prosecutors must choose to file their cases in adult court rather than letting the nature of the charging offense trigger automatic transfer).\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhile not a perfect system, that these states require this extra step means courts and prosecutors must at very least recognize that putting a child in an adult courtroom is a choice and not just \\\\u0022the way things are.\\\\u0022\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eFinally, while transfer is \\u201cautomatic,\\u201d it is far from impartial. \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eA \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/jjustice.org\\\/wordpress\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ereport from the Juvenile Justice Initiative\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e found that of 257 children automatically transferred to adult court in Illinois between 2010 and 2012, over 80% were black.\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e Only one was white.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eGiven the prominent record of how race and racism color\\u00a0the conduct of\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.nytimes.com\\\/2017\\\/01\\\/13\\\/us\\\/chicago-police-justice-department-report.html\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eChicago police\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e and \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.chicagotribune.com\\\/lifestyles\\\/books\\\/ct-prj-crook-county-nicole-gonzalez-vancleve-20160427-story.html\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ecourt systems\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e, it shouldn\\u2019t be hard to see why giving prosecutors the full power to control transfer decisions might contribute to racial disparities.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWant to learn more?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eFor the clear and cogent analysis of automatic transfer laws in Illinois today, there is no better source than the \\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #f04b4c;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022 href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/jjustice.org\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJuvenile Justice Initiative\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #000000;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e;\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003ewhile based on data from before the 2015 law change, their\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/jjustice.org\\\/wordpress\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e 2014 report\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e remains required reading. The \\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eNational Conference of State Legislatures\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e (NCSL) also has an\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ncsl.org\\\/research\\\/civil-and-criminal-justice\\\/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eexcellent overview\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cem\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eLinked Sources\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eBosman, J., \\\\u0026amp; Smith, M. (2017, January 13). Chicago police routinely trampled on civil rights, Justice Dept. says. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eThe New York Times\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.nytimes.com\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.nytimes.com\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIllinois General Assembly. \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eBill Status of HB3718, 99th General Assembly\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e. Retrieved from:\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov.\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIshida, K., Clarke, E. \\\\u0026amp; Reed, D. (2014). \\u201cAutomatic Adult Prosecution of Children in Cook County, Illinois. 2010-2012.\\u201d Chicago, IL. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/jjustice.org\\\/wordpress\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/jjustice.org\\\/wordpress\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/Automatic-Adult-Prosecution-of-Children-in-Cook-County-IL.pdf\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eTeigen, A. (2017, April 4).\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJuvenile Age of Jurisdiction and Transfer to Adult Court Laws\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ncsl.org\\\/research\\\/civil-and-criminal-justice\\\/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.ncsl.org\\\/research\\\/civil-and-criminal-justice\\\/juvenile-age-of-jurisdiction-and-transfer-to-adult-court-laws.aspx\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWarden, R. (2016, April 27). \\u2018Crook County\\u2019 investigates racism in Cook County criminal court system. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eThe Chicago Tribune\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.chicagotribune.com\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.chicagotribune.com\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\u0022,\\u0022_wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_wysiwyg\\u0022},\\u0022align\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022mode\\u0022:\\u0022edit\\u0022} \\\/--\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"Today, children as young as 16 may be automatically transferred to adult court if they are charged with certain offenses.\\u00a0\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"Today, children as young as 16 may be automatically transferred to adult court if they are charged with certain offenses.\\u00a0\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-automatic-transfer-of-children-to-adult-court\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2018-03-01 17:16:18\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":128,\"title\":\"De Facto Life Sentences\",\"content\":\"\\u003C!-- wp:acf\\\/wysiwyg {\\u0022name\\u0022:\\u0022acf\\\/wysiwyg\\u0022,\\u0022data\\u0022:{\\u0022width\\u0022:\\u00220\\u0022,\\u0022_width\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_width\\u0022,\\u0022title\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_title\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_title\\u0022,\\u0022subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_subtitle\\u0022,\\u0022wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhat is a de facto life sentence?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eDe facto life sentences (also known as \\u201cvirtual\\u201d life sentences) refer to non-life sentences that are so long that the sentenced person will likely die or live out a significant majority of their natural lives before they are released.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhile no strict legal definition for de facto life exists, the\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.ussc.gov\\\/sites\\\/default\\\/files\\\/pdf\\\/research-and-publications\\\/research-projects-and-surveys\\\/miscellaneous\\\/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eUnited States Sentencing Commission\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e defines the cutoff for de facto life at 470 months, just shy of 40 years.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eFor the purposes of \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/issues-solutions\\\/who-we-serve\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003ewho we serve\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e at Restore Justice, we define de facto life as 40 years.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhy does it matter?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIn 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.oyez.org\\\/cases\\\/2011\\\/10-9646\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003eMiller v. Alabama\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e \\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003ethat sentencing juveniles to mandatory life without the possibility of parole was unconstitutional. While the interpretation was narrow, the ruling has allowed roughly eighty people in Illinois to be re-sentenced and in many cases released.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eToday, hundreds more in Illinois continue to serve non-life sentences of 40, 60, or over 100 years for offenses committed as young people\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Despite the fact that many of these individuals will likely to die in prison\\u2014functionally serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole\\u2014they are ineligible for re-sentencing from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eMiller\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e, which was predicated on the idea that children are \\u201cconstitutionally different from adults,\\u201d with \\u201cdiminished culpability and greater prospects for reform.\\u201d\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eState courts across the country are tangling with the question of how to define de facto life sentences. Just recently, the California Supreme Court \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.latimes.com\\\/local\\\/lanow\\\/la-me-ln-juvenile-sentences-court-20180226-story.html\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003edecided\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e juveniles could not be sentenced to 50 years or longer for certain offense , writing that these sentences would be \\u201cfunctionally equivalent\\u201d to life without parole (like Illinois, California has mostly abolished parole, meaning most sentences in California are \\u201cwithout parole\\u201d).\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eAt core, Restore Justice believes in second chances. For that reason, and wherever possible, we advocate for legislative changes that would bring relief to all individuals serving extreme sentences, up to and including those serving life without parole.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWant to learn more?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eOther reform and advocacy organizations use different definitions for de facto life. The \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eSentencing Project\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e, for instance, defines virtual life at fifty years: for national statistics, check out their\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.sentencingproject.org\\\/publications\\\/still-life-americas-increasing-use-life-long-term-sentences\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ebroad look at extreme sentences\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cem\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eLinked Sources\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nCohen, K., Schmitt, G., \\\\u0026amp; Reedt, L. (2015) \\\\u0022Life Sentences in the Federal System.\\\\u0022 Washington, DC. United States Sentencing Commission. Retrieved from\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.ussc.gov\\\/sites\\\/default\\\/files\\\/pdf\\\/research-and-publications\\\/research-projects-and-surveys\\\/miscellaneous\\\/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.ussc.gov\\\/sites\\\/default\\\/files\\\/pdf\\\/research-and-publications\\\/research-projects-and-surveys\\\/miscellaneous\\\/20150226_Life_Sentences.pdf\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nDolan, M. (2018, February 26). California\\u0027s top court strikes down 50-year sentences for juveniles. \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eLos Angeles Times\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e. Retrieved from\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.latimes.com\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.latimes.com\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMiller v. Alabama, 132 U.S. 2455 (2012).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nNellis, A. (2017). \\\\u0022Still Life: America\\u0027s Increasing Use of Life and Long-Term Sentences.\\\\u0022\\u00a0 Washington, DC. The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.sentencingproject.org\\\/publications\\\/still-life-americas-increasing-use-life-long-term-sentences\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.sentencingproject.org\\\/publications\\\/still-life-americas-increasing-use-life-long-term-sentences\\\/\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u0022,\\u0022_wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_wysiwyg\\u0022},\\u0022align\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022mode\\u0022:\\u0022edit\\u0022} \\\/--\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"De facto life sentences (also known as \\u201cvirtual\\u201d life sentences) refer to non-life sentences that are so long that the sentenced person will likely die or live out a significant majority of their natural lives before they are released.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"De facto life sentences (also known as \\u201cvirtual\\u201d life sentences) refer to non-life sentences that are so long that the sentenced person will likely die or live out a significant majority of their natural lives before they are released.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-de-facto-life\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2018-02-28 21:59:16\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":169,\"title\":\"Executive Clemency\",\"content\":\"\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EWHAT IS EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY?\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EExecutive clemency is a set of powers granted to the Governor by the Illinois Constitution to pardon a person who has committed a crime or to commute his or her sentence. The Illinois Constitution provides that \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u201cThe Governor may grant reprieves, commutations and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses on such terms as he thinks proper. The manner of applying therefore may be regulated by law.\\u201d\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E \\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EWHAT ARE PARDONS, REPRIEVES, AND COMMUTATIONS?\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EA \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003Epardon\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E is an \\u201cact of grace\\u201d by the Governor that nullifies the legal consequence of a criminal conviction. There are generally two types of pardons, conditional and unconditional. \\u0026nbsp;An unconditional pardon immediately restores all the rights and privileges lost because of the conviction, while a conditional pardon imposes one or more terms (conditions) that must occur before the pardon is effective. A \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003Ecommutation\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E occurs when the Governor only reduces the judicially imposed sentence of a person convicted of a crime. \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003EReprieves\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E are a temporary relief from, or a postponement of, a judicially imposed punishment. They usually occur in the context of the death penalty and are typically granted in such cases to give the Governor time to review a case and decide whether to grant a pardon or commutation.\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EHOW DOES THE EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY PROCESS WORK IN ILLINOIS?\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EThe Executive Clemency process usually begins with a written petition being submitted by the offender to the Prisoner Review Board (PRB). The petition is then reviewed by the PRB to ensure that it is properly filled out and contains all required information. \\u0026nbsp;The petitioner can elect to have a public hearing, where the petitioner (if not incarcerated), his\\\/her supporters, and anyone opposing the petition, can appear in person and speak before the PRB. \\u0026nbsp;After receiving and considering the petition, supporting documentation, oral testimony, and other relevant information, the PRB makes a confidential recommendation to the Governor regarding the petition. After receiving the PRB recommendation, the Governor can either grant or deny the petition, but there is no time limit for doing so\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003E The PRB has issued specific guidelines governing the process and procedure for requesting Executive Clemency. These \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www2.illinois.gov\\\/sites\\\/prb\\\/Pages\\\/prbexclemex.aspx\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Eguidelines\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E can be found on their website. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EWHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE GOVERNOR\\u2019S EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY POWERS?\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EThe Governor\\u2019s Executive Clemency powers are virtually unlimited. The phrase \\u201con such terms as he thinks proper\\u201d gives the Governor broad discretion. Illinois Courts have consistently held that the Governor\\u2019s power is absolute and not subject to limitation by Courts or the General Assembly. The only limitation imposed by the Constitution is the requirement that clemency occurs \\u201cafter conviction\\u201d and that the General Assembly may establish (or modify) a procedure for applying.\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EDuring the 1968 constitutional convention, a discussion about the clemency provision makes clear that the legislature intended to give the governor broad clemency powers:\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EMr. J. Parker: The General Assembly has the authority to act on the question of parole, but they would not have any effect on the governor\\u2019s exercise of his power of granting pardons . . . \\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EMr. Friedrich: \\u003Cem\\u003EThe governor could now and can pardon everyone in Stateville, including those on death row, and can continue to do it under this [constitution]. He has complete authority in this area.\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EWHY IS IT IMPORTANT?\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EIn 1978, Illinois joined the minority of U.S. states that chose to abolish their discretionary parole. Since then, the prison population in Illinois skyrocketed by over 500 percent, from roughly 6,000 inmates in the 1970s to over 40,000 today. And while not the only reason, the abandonment of discretionary parole was \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/icjia.illinois.gov\\\/researchhub\\\/articles\\\/parole-and-mandatory-supervised-release-in-illinois\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Ea certain factor contributing to our state\\u2019s current prison crisis\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EAnother contributing cause to this crisis includes the enactment of more punitive sentencing schemes, such as life without parole (LWOP), defacto LWOP, extended-term sentencing, consecutive sentencing Truth-In-Sentencing (TIS), and a host of other sentencing enhancements. \\u0026nbsp;As a result of these unwise and extremely harsh sentencing practices, individuals are spending longer periods of time (usually 20 years or more) in prison without any hope of earning parole or time off for good behavior (Good-Time).\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EAt the core, parole is a period of supervised, early release from prison. It is an alternative to incarceration that\\u2014when done right\\u2014can reduce prison costs and reduce crime. Yet there is no shortage of myths surrounding parole in Illinois, from the assumption that it doesn\\u2019t work to the belief that Illinois already has parole in the form of determinate sentencing and mandatory supervised release (MSR).\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003ESurprisingly (or maybe not), these myths are often held by the legislators who vote on parole bills.\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EWe think it\\u2019s important that people have answers. For that reason, Restore Justice has put together a \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/issues-solutions\\\/why-parole-matters\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Eprimer on parole\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E as it relates to Illinois. Some of the topics it touches on include:\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cul\\u003E\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EParole vs. other types of supervised or early release\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EThe history of parole in Illinois\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EThe relationship between parole and recidivism (i.e. does parole work?)\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EHow other states operate their discretionary parole systems\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\u003C\\\/ul\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EIn 2018, the Illinois General Assembly voted to restore limited parole for those under the age of 21 at the time of their offense. Signed by Governor Pritzker on April 1, 2019, \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/fulltext.asp?DocName=10000HB0531sam001\\u0026amp;GA=100\\u0026amp;SessionId=91\\u0026amp;DocTypeId=HB\\u0026amp;LegID=100727\\u0026amp;DocNum=0531\\u0026amp;GAID=14\\u0026amp;Session=\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003EHouse Bill 531\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E, also known as the Youthful Parole Bill, is the first step to modernize our state\\u2019s criminal justice system by creating new opportunities for parole for young people facing extreme sentences. However, once becoming law, the Youthful Parole Bill will apply only prospectively - i.e., to those who are sentenced after the bill\\u2019s effective date. This means the bill will have no impact on those already serving extreme sentences as youth. Because of this, and political challenges present in retroactivity via legislative action, in the near future, a more robust and proactive use of executive clemency is necessary. \\u0026nbsp;\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003ELearn more about the Youthful Parole Bill \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/restorejusticeillinois.org\\\/hb531-frequently-asked-questions\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehere\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EWHAT CLASSES\\\/GROUPS SHOULD BE THE FOCUS OF CLEMENCY CONSIDERATION?\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003ETo alleviate the disproportionate impact of harsh sentencing laws enacted in the 90s, the \\u0026nbsp;Governor could systematically review groups or categories of individuals for clemency consideration. Generally speaking, most of these individuals were convicted and sentenced for offenses committed in the 1990s and before the effective date of the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/fulltext.asp?DocName=10000HB0531sam001\\u0026amp;GA=100\\u0026amp;SessionId=91\\u0026amp;DocTypeId=HB\\u0026amp;LegID=100727\\u0026amp;DocNum=0531\\u0026amp;GAID=14\\u0026amp;Session=\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003EYouthful Parole Bill\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. \\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cul\\u003E\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EDiscretionary Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP): Individuals given life without parole before the age of 18 but not included in Miller relief due to the nature of the judge\\u2019s determination at the time of sentencing (eg discretionary vs. mandatory). We estimate there are 20 individuals in this category. XX number of states ban life without juveniles in all cases, including discretionary.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-de-facto-life\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003EDe facto JLWOP\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E: De facto life sentences (also known as \\u201cvirtual\\u201d life sentences) refer to non-life sentences that are so long that the sentenced person will likely die or live out a significant majority of their natural lives before they are released.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-truth-in-sentencing\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003ETruth-in-Sentencing\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E (TIS): A law passed in 1998 that eliminated or reduced the amount of good conduct credit an individual convicted of certain crimes can earn off his or her non-life sentence. A person under TIS must serve 60%, 75%, 85% or 100% of their sentence, depending on the offense.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EMandatory Consecutive Sentencing: Mandatory consecutive sentencing laws require multiple sentences imposed on a single person to be served one after the other. As opposed to concurrent sentences which are served at the same time.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-firearm-sentence-enhancements\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003EFirearm Enhancements\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E: Requires judges to add 15, 20, or 25 years to the prison sentences of defendants convicted of certain felonies if the defendant was found to have possessed or discharged a firearm during the commission of the crime.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EExtended term Sentencing: Occurs when the sentencing range for an offense is \\u003Cem\\u003Eextended\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E (or lengthened) when certain aggravating factors are present (i.e., the original sentence range of 20 to 60 years for Murder is extended to 20 years to natural life (LWOP)).\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EElderly Prisoners: Individuals who have reached the age of 50 and have served a minimum of 25 years. \\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\u003C\\\/ul\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EHOW HAVE EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY POWERS BEEN USED IN THE PAST?\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EOn January 11, 2003, then Illinois Governor, George Ryan, granted executive clemency to every person on death row. Citing numerous flaws in our criminal justice system, including the wrongful convictions and sentencing to death of 13 innocent people, \\u0026nbsp;Governor Ryan commuted the sentences of the 164 people who were sentenced to death in Illinois. \\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EThis is the second time an Illinois Governor has granted mass or blanket commutations to a group or class of prisoners.\\u003Cem\\u003E \\u003C\\\/em\\u003EIn 1994, then-Illinois Governor Jim Edgar granted clemency to four women who were convicted of murdering abusive husbands or lovers. Governor Lee Cruce of Oklahoma commuted the sentences of 22 men on death row in 1915. In 1970, Arkansas Governor Winthrop L. Rockefeller commuted the death sentences of 15 men. And, in 1986, the five people sentenced to death in New Mexico were granted executive clemency by Governor Toney Anaya.\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EAccording to the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.illinoisprisonproject.org\\\/clemency\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003EIllinois Prison Project,\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E \\u201cClemency is grossly underused in Illinois, especially for commutations. \\u0026nbsp;Only about\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/chicago.suntimes.com\\\/politics\\\/rauner-says-hes-cleared-blago-clemency-petition-backlog\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003E 1,200 clemency petitions\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E--for commutation and pardon--are filed each year, and only one or two \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/chicago.suntimes.com\\\/news\\\/rauner-clemency-pardons-commutations-2019\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Ecommutations\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E have been awarded annually. \\u0026nbsp;Most of those petitions are rather filed on behalf of people in the community to seek to clear their record of old convictions.\\u0022\\u003Cbr\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EPROCEDURAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOVERNOR\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003EWhat can be done? How would the Governor do it?\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EThe Governor could set up a commission to study and issue a report on the feasibility of granting executive clemency to the classes or groups who were disproportionately impacted by the harsh sentencing laws enacted in the 90s. This commission, which would include members of the PRB, would be tasked with creating a plan that would identify those who would most benefit from executive clemency and that would have a significant impact on reducing the prison population. \\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EThe Governor could then commute their sentences by:\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cul\\u003E\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EAllowing day-for-day good conduct credit for those under TIS.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003ERemoving gun enhancements and extended term sentences.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EEliminating consecutive sentences.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EReducing the sentence for those sentenced to LWOP and Defacto-LWOP to a reasonable term of years or allowing them to become parole eligible.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\u003C\\\/ul\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003EThe role of the PRB?\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EThe role of the PRB would the traditional role that it has always played in the clemency process, which includes but is not limited to:\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cul\\u003E\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EConducting research\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EHolding public hearings\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003EReviewing re-entry plans\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:list-item --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cli\\u003ERecommendations to Governor\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list-item --\\u003E\\u003C\\\/ul\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:list --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:heading {\\u0022level\\u0022:3} --\\u003E\\n\\u003Ch3 class=\\u0022wp-block-heading\\u0022\\u003EWANT TO LEARN MORE?\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:heading --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EArmentrout, Mitchell. (2019, January 11). \\u003Cem\\u003ERauner grants 30 clemency requests before leaving office, \\u003C\\\/em\\u003EThe Chicago Sun-Times.\\u003Cem\\u003E \\u003C\\\/em\\u003ERetrieved from: \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/chicago.suntimes.com\\\/2019\\\/1\\\/11\\\/18413139\\\/rauner-grants-30-clemency-requests-before-leaving-office\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/chicago.suntimes.com\\\/2019\\\/1\\\/11\\\/18413139\\\/rauner-grants-30-clemency-requests-before-leaving-office\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EPratt, Gregory. (2016, December 12). \\u003Cem\\u003ERauner clears clemency backlog, approves just 3 percent of petitions,\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E The Chicago Tribune. \\u0026nbsp;Retrieved from: \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.chicagotribune.com\\\/news\\\/local\\\/breaking\\\/ct-rauner-clemency-backlog-denials-met-20161212-story.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.chicagotribune.com\\\/news\\\/local\\\/breaking\\\/ct-rauner-clemency-backlog-denials-met-20161212-story.html\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003ESfondeles, Tina. (2016, December 12).\\u003Cem\\u003E Rauner says he\\u2019s cleared Blago clemency petition backlog,\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E \\u0026nbsp;The Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved from: \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/chicago.suntimes.com\\\/2016\\\/12\\\/12\\\/18364609\\\/rauner-says-he-s-cleared-blago-clemency-petition-backlog\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/chicago.suntimes.com\\\/2016\\\/12\\\/12\\\/18364609\\\/rauner-says-he-s-cleared-blago-clemency-petition-backlog\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C!-- wp:paragraph --\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp\\u003EThe Associated Press. (1994, May 14). \\u003Cem\\u003EEdgar: Clemency for battered women not a political,\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E The Times of Northwest Indiana. Retrieved from: \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.nwitimes.com\\\/uncategorized\\\/edgar-clemency-for-battered-women-not-a-political\\\/article_54caf022-7a60-5e21-8587-c274e73d7a71.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.nwitimes.com\\\/uncategorized\\\/edgar-clemency-for-battered-women-not-a-political\\\/article_54caf022-7a60-5e21-8587-c274e73d7a71.html\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003C!-- \\\/wp:paragraph --\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"Executive clemency is a set of powers granted to the Governor by the Illinois Constitution to pardon a person who has committed a crime or to commute his or her sentence.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"Executive clemency is a set of powers granted to the Governor by the Illinois Constitution to pardon a person who has committed a crime or to commute his or her sentence.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-executive-clemency\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2019-05-21 15:04:32\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":130,\"title\":\"Felony Class and Mandatory Minimums\",\"content\":\"\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWhat are felony classes and mandatory minimums?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nIn Illinois, felonies are sorted into six classes based on severity. A felony\\u2019s class determines the range of sentences judges are legally permitted to dispense for an offense, outside a few offense-specific carveouts and enhancements.\\n\\nThis range includes the \\u003Cstrong\\u003Emandatory minimum\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E, which is the shortest prison term a judge is legally able to sentence for a given crime.\\n\\nThe six classes used in Illinois, their current allowable sentencing range, and a few representative offenses are provided in \\u003Cstrong\\u003ETable 1\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E.\\n\\u003Ch3 style=\\u0022text-align: center;\\u0022\\u003ETable 1. Sentencing range and example offenses for six felony classes in IL\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n[table id=2 \\\/]\\n\\nMisdemeanors are offenses less serious than a class 4 felony and fall into three classes (A, B, and C). Misdemeanors cannot be punished with prison time (though up to a year of jail time is permitted).\\n\\nA few other factors to keep in mind: first, there isn\\u0027t always a one-to-one relation between criminal actions and charging offense: felonies are not necessarily written to be mutually exclusive, and often prosecutors have discretion to charge a person with offenses that differ in their sentencing range.\\n\\nSecond, other laws may require sentencing above the mandatory minimum (or put another way, raise the minimum). \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-firearm-sentence-enhancements\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003EFirearm sentence enhancements\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E, for instance, require judges to add between 15 and 25 years to the sentences of certain offenses. This means that adults who are convicted of first-degree murder with a firearm will receive a mandatory minimum sentence of 45 years, not 20. Other felonies have their own distinct sentencing rules: for instance, homicide with two or more victims must be punished by life without parole.\\n\\nMany other states also organize felonies into classes in order to establish roughly standardized sentence ranges.\\n\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWhy does it matter?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nIn Illinois, felony class determines the mandatory minimum a person must serve for a given offense. These mandatory minimums reduce judicial discretion and transfer power to prosecutors to influence sentencing outcomes through plea bargains (for more on that topic, check out \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.theatlantic.com\\\/magazine\\\/archive\\\/2017\\\/09\\\/innocence-is-irrelevant\\\/534171\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Eany of these\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u00a0\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bloomberg.com\\\/view\\\/articles\\\/2017-09-26\\\/plea-bargains-are-a-travesty-there-s-another-way\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Erecent\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u00a0\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.washingtonpost.com\\\/news\\\/in-theory\\\/wp\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/20\\\/americans-are-bargaining-away-their-innocence\\\/?utm_term=.1e2b6afa6ebe\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Epieces\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E on how plea bargains degrade justice).\\n\\nIn fact, \\u003Cstrong\\u003Ebetween 2011 and 2017, over 80 percent of the roughly three thousand cases of armed robbery in Cook County resulted in plea bargains.\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\n\\nOne way sentencing policies change in Illinois is through changes to the felony class system. This can happen either by changing an offense\\u2019s classification or by changing the range of possible sentences for an entire class.\\n\\nBoth of these changes were recommended in \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.icjia.org\\\/cjreform2015\\\/pdf\\\/CJSR_Final_Report_Dec_2016.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ethe final 2015 report of the Governor\\u2019s Commission as a way to reduce the state crisis of prison overcrowding\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. The Commission recommended a reduction in the minimum sentence for felonies on the order of 1 to 5 years for all felonies above class 4 (recommendation #13), as well as reductions in classification for a large number of controlled substance (recc. #15) and stolen motor vehicle offenses (recc. #17).\\n\\nNotably, both these and the Commission\\u0027s other recommendations looked solely at reducing the minimum possible sentence, meaning judges retained their ability to dispense stricter sentences as they saw fit.\\n\\nNeither proposal, however, was enacted into law in any substantive form.\\n\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159;\\u0022\\u003EWant to learn more?\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nThis \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/commission\\\/lru\\\/2014pfc.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E2014 factsheet on criminal penalties\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u2014compiled by the Illinois General Assembly\\u2019s \\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Ca style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022 href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/ilga.gov\\\/commission\\\/lru\\\/lru_home.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003ELegislative Research Unit\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u2014is a useful to have on hand.\\n\\nA lot has been written about mandatory minimums. In their \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.prisonpolicy.org\\\/scans\\\/famm\\\/Primer.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Eexcellent brief\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E, \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Ca style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022 href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/famm.org\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003EFamilies Against Mandatory Minimums\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E clearly outlines the case against mandatory minimums and how they weaken our justice systems. Elsewhere, Marc Mauer of the \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Ca style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022 href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.sentencingproject.org\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003ESentencing Project\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E takes \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/sentencingproject.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/01\\\/Judicature-Impact-of-Mandatory-Minimum-Penalties-in-Federal-Sentencing.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022 data-wplink-edit=\\u0022true\\u0022\\u003Ea close look at mandatory minimums and their impacts in the context of federal sentencing\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. To better understand the different types of arguments made for and against mandatory minimums, check out the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.ussc.gov\\\/sites\\\/default\\\/files\\\/pdf\\\/news\\\/congressional-testimony-and-reports\\\/mandatory-minimum-penalties\\\/20111031-rtc-pdf\\\/Appendix_G.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Esummaries of oral and written testimony from a public 2010 hearing\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E before the \\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Ca style=\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\u0022 href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.ussc.gov\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003EUnited States Sentencing Commission\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E.\\n\\n\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ELinked Sources\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\n\\nIllinois General Assembly Legislative Research Unit. (2014). \\u003Cem\\u003EPenalties for Crimes in Illinois\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nFamilies Against Mandatory Minimums. FAMM primer on mandatory sentences\\u003Cem\\u003E. \\u003C\\\/em\\u003ERetrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.prisonpolicy.org\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.prisonpolicy.org\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nHeaton, R. et al. (2016, December). Final report of the Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.icjia.state.il.us\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.icjia.state.il.us\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nMauer, M. (2010). Viewpoint: the impact of mandatory minimum penalties in federal sentencing. \\u003Cem\\u003EJudicature, 94\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E(1). Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/sentencingproject.org\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttp:\\\/\\\/sentencingproject.org\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nLynch, T. (2016, January 20). Americans are bargaining away their innocence.\\u00a0\\u003Cem\\u003EThe Washington Post\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E. Retrieved from\\u00a0\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.washingtonpost.com\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.washingtonpost.com\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nMcArdle, M. (2017, September 26). Plea bargains are a travesty: there\\u0027s another way.\\u00a0\\u003Cem\\u003EBloomberg\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E. Retrieved from\\u00a0\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bloomberg.com\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.bloomberg.com\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nUnited States Sentencing Commission. (2010, May 27). Summaries of the oral and written remarks of the witnesses United States Sentencing Commission public hearing. Washington, DC. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.ussc.gov\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.ussc.gov\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nYoffe, E. (2017, September). Innocence is irrelevant.\\u00a0\\u003Cem\\u003EThe Atlantic\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E. Retrieved from\\u00a0\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.theatlantic.com\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.theatlantic.com\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\",\"excerpt\":\"In Illinois, felonies are sorted into six classes based on severity. A felony\\u2019s class determines the range of sentences judges are legally permitted to dispense for an offense, outside a few offense-specific carveouts and enhancements.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"In Illinois, felonies are sorted into six classes based on severity. A felony\\u2019s class determines the range of sentences judges are legally permitted to dispense for an offense, outside a few offense-specific carveouts and enhancements.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-felony-class-mandatory-minimums\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2018-03-27 14:32:26\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":156,\"title\":\"Felony Murder\",\"content\":\"\\u003C!-- wp:acf\\\/wysiwyg {\\u0022name\\u0022:\\u0022acf\\\/wysiwyg\\u0022,\\u0022data\\u0022:{\\u0022width\\u0022:\\u00221\\u0022,\\u0022_width\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_width\\u0022,\\u0022title\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_title\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_title\\u0022,\\u0022subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_subtitle\\u0022,\\u0022wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhat is Felony-Murder?\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIn Illinois, a person can be charged and convicted of first-degree murder\\u2014a conviction that carries a minimum sentence of twenty years and, under certain circumstances, a maximum sentence of natural life\\u2014even if they did not actually kill the victim or intend to commit the murder. \\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eTo charge someone with first-degree murder, an individual (1) intended to kill or do great bodily harm or knew that their actions would cause death; (2) knew that their actions created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm; or (3)\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e \\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ewere attempting or committing another felony crime.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eUnder this rule, people can be\\u2014and often are\\u2014convicted of first-degree murder in scenarios where a death is unintentional or is caused by another person, all in the commission of a different type of crime. \\u00a0That type of crime is defined as a \\u201c\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eforcible felony.\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\u201d\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhy does it matter?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eA conviction for felony-murder in Illinois carries a penalty of 20 to 60 years imprisonment and, under some circumstances, the maximum penalty can be extended to a term of natural life. This same maximum and minimum sentence is available to juveniles and young adults who are disproportionately impacted by the felony-murder rule, as they are more likely to act in groups (or \\u201cco-offend\\u201d)\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e and are more susceptible to peer pressure. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eEven though the US Supreme Court has established that youthful offenders lack maturity, have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility making them more reckless, impulsive, and risk-prone than adults, and are more susceptible to rehabilitation, when convicted of felony-murder, youthful offenders are branded \\u201cviolent offenders\\u201d for life, and are subject to the same sentencing range as the person who \\u201cpulled the trigger.\\u201d This is true even if they personally did not inflict any harm or commit an act of violence. A conviction for felony-murder usually results in youthful offenders being sentenced to extreme periods of incarceration, including life without parole (LWOP) or de facto LWOP.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\u201cFelony murder statutes assume that a person who participates in a felony understands the risk that someone may be killed,\\u201d says Jody Kent Lavy, executive director of the Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. \\u201cBut well-established brain development science shows that children and teenagers are less able to perceive risk or anticipate consequences than adults. Given this, and children\\u2019s unique capacity for positive change, it is harsh and inappropriate to subject any child to life in prison, especially under a felony murder theory of liability.\\u201d\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eProximate Cause Theory versus Agency Theory\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eProximate Cause Theory\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e holds defendants accountable for any foreseeable deaths that occur during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, including the deaths of innocent bystanders caused by third parties, and the deaths of co-defendants caused by police officers.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eAgency Theory \\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eholds defendants liable only for deaths that are caused by the defendant or co-defendants during the commission or attempted commission of a felony, thereby excluding deaths caused by third parties.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003ePossible Scenarios that Could Lead to a Felony-Murder Charge and Conviction in Illinois\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e Here are some examples:\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJack and Jill agree to rob a grocery store. Jack waits in the getaway car while Jill goes into the store and robs it at gunpoint. During the course of this robbery, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003eJill intentionally shoots and kills the store clerk\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. Jack and Jill both will be charged with first-degree murder, even though the death of the store clerk was not a part of the original plan. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJack and Jill agree to rob a grocery store. Jack waits in the getaway car while Jill goes into the store and robs it at gunpoint. During the course of this robbery, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003eJill unintentionally shoots and kills the store clerk\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. Jack and Jill both will be charged with first-degree murder, even though the death of the store clerk was unintentional. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJack and Jill agree to rob a grocery store. Jack waits in the getaway car while Jill goes into the store and robs it at gunpoint. During the course of this robbery, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003ethe store clerk shoots and kills Jill\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. Jack will be charged with first-degree murder, even though the death of Jill was caused by the store clerk. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJack and Jill agree to rob a grocery store. Jack waits in the passenger seat of the getaway car while Jill, who is the driver, \\u00a0goes into the store and robs it at gunpoint. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eWhile fleeing the scene, the car Jill is driving t-bones another vehicle at an intersection and the other driver is killed\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e.\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e Jack and Jill both will be charged with first-degree murder, even though the death of the other driver was unintentional. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJack and Jill agree to rob a grocery store. Jack waits in the getaway car while Jill goes into the store and robs it at gunpoint. While fleeing the scene of this robbery, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003ea police officer shoots at the fleeing vehicle and kills Jill\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. Jack will be charged with first-degree murder, even though the death of Jill was caused by a police officer. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIn all of these scenarios, Jack could be charged with and convicted of first-degree murder even though he (1) did not possess or fire a weapon, (2) may not have known that Jill possessed a weapon, (3) was not physically present when the death occurred, (4) did not know that a death would occur, or (5) was a juvenile while Jill was an adult.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eHow Many People Does This Impact?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWe have no way to know. Our criminal justice data systems do not differentiate between who was convicted of first-degree murder for actually committing murder and who was a co-defendant convicted under the felony-murder rule.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhat Offenses are Classified as Forcible Felonies in Illinois? \\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIllinois defines the following offenses as forcible felonies:\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003erobbery, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eburglary, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eresidential burglary, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eaggravated arson, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003earson, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eaggravated kidnapping, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ekidnapping,\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eaggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement,\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003etreason, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003efirst-degree murder, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003esecond-degree murder,\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003epredatory criminal sexual assault of a child, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eaggravated criminal sexual assault,\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ecriminal sexual assault,\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eany other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eHistory and Politics\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eThe United States is the only country in the world where the felony-murder rule still exists. The rule originated in England but was abolished there in 1957, and other common law countries soon followed. It has been a part of Illinois\\u2019 criminal laws since 1827. In 1961, the Illinois General Assembly considered whether the felony-murder rule should be eliminated, but instead of repealing the law, the legislature expanded the rule by adopting language from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ePeople v. Payne\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e,\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e a 1934 Illinois Supreme Court case. \\u201cIn Payne, the defendant informed his accomplices that there was a large sum of money at a particular house. Acting upon that information, two armed robbers broke into the home, eventually leading to a gun battle with two brothers who lived there. One of the brothers was killed in the exchange but officials were unable to determine who fired the fatal shot.\\u201d \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIn affirming Payne\\u2019s conviction, the Illinois Supreme Court stated: \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIt reasonably might be anticipated that an attempted robbery would meet with resistance, during which the victim might be shot either by himself or someone else in attempting to prevent the robbery, and those attempting to perpetuate the robbery would be guilty of murder... A killing which happens in the prosecution of an unlawful act which in its consequences naturally tends to destroy the life of a human being is murder.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhen the Illinois General Assembly re-codified the felony-murder rule, however, it decided to incorporate even broader language than \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ePayne\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e in the commentary: \\u00a0\\\\u0022It is immaterial whether the killing in such a case is intentional or accidental, or is committed by a confederate without the connivance of the defendant.., or even by a third person trying to prevent the commission of the felony.\\u201d\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eA State-by-State Comparison\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIllinois has one of the broadest felony-murder statutes in the country. Forty-four states, as well as Washington, D.C. and the federal government, have codified some form of the felony-murder rule. However, of those that have felony-murder statutes, only 19 (including the federal government) use proximate cause theory; while 25 (including Washington, D.C.) use agency theory. In two states\\u2014Mississippi and South Carolina\\u2014it is unclear whether agency theory or proximate cause theory is utilized. California has recently restricted its felony-murder statute. Finally, six states\\u2014Arkansas, Hawaii, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Mexico\\u2014do not have felony-murder statutes at all. This means that Illinois is among the minority of states still using proximate cause theory.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhat Can You Do?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eThere is legislation pending in the Illinois General Assembly, \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/restorejusticeillinois.org\\\/action\\\/hb1615\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eHB 1615\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e, that would amend Illinois felony-murder statute to bring it more in-line with the majority of states. The legislation, sponsored by Representative Justin Slaughter, ensures that only those whom the felony-murder rule was designed to hold accountable are actually charged with and found guilty of murder; individuals who do not personally inflict an injury during the course of an underlying felony would not be charged with or found guilty of first-degree murder. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWant to learn more?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eEldieb, Duaa. (2016, February 20). \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eControversial law charges people with murder for death at others\\u2019 hand\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.chicagotribune.com\\\/news\\\/ct-illinois-felony-murder-rule-juveniles-met-20160219-story.html\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.chicagotribune.com\\\/news\\\/ct-illinois-felony-murder-rule-juveniles-met-20160219-story.html\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eTimberlake, Judge George, Ret. (2016, March 10). \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eFelony Murder Rule Should Not Apply to Juveniles in Illinois. \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eJuvenile Justice Information Exchange. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/jjie.org\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/10\\\/felony-murder-rule-should-not-apply-to-juveniles-in-illinois\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/jjie.org\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/10\\\/felony-murder-rule-should-not-apply-to-juveniles-in-illinois\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eKara M. Houck. (1999). \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ePeople v. Dekens: The Expansion of the Felony-Murder Doctrine in Illinois\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e, 30 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 357. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/jjie.org\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/10\\\/felony-murder-rule-should-not-apply-to-juveniles-in-illinois\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/lawecommons.luc.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1411\\\\u0026amp;context=luclj\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eVansickle, Abbie. (2018, June 27). \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ci\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIf He Didn\\u2019t Kill Anyone, Why Is It Murder?\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/i\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003e The New York Times. Retrieved from \\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/jjie.org\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/10\\\/felony-murder-rule-should-not-apply-to-juveniles-in-illinois\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022font-weight: 400\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.nytimes.com\\\/2018\\\/06\\\/27\\\/us\\\/california-felony-murder.html\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u0022,\\u0022_wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_wysiwyg\\u0022},\\u0022align\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022mode\\u0022:\\u0022edit\\u0022} \\\/--\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"In Illinois, a person can be charged and convicted of first-degree murder\\u2014a conviction that carries a minimum sentence of twenty years and, under certain circumstances, a maximum sentence of natural life\\u2014even if they did not actually kill the victim or intend to commit the murder. \",\"auto_excerpt\":\"In Illinois, a person can be charged and convicted of first-degree murder\\u2014a conviction that carries a minimum sentence of twenty years and, under certain circumstances, a maximum sentence of natural life\\u2014even if they did not actually kill the victim or intend to commit the murder. \",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-felony-murder\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2019-02-05 19:25:56\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":129,\"title\":\"Firearm Sentence Enhancements\",\"content\":\"\\u003C!-- wp:acf\\\/wysiwyg {\\u0022name\\u0022:\\u0022acf\\\/wysiwyg\\u0022,\\u0022data\\u0022:{\\u0022width\\u0022:\\u00220\\u0022,\\u0022_width\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_width\\u0022,\\u0022title\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_title\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_title\\u0022,\\u0022subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_subtitle\\u0022,\\u0022wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhat are firearm sentence enhancements?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nIn Illinois, judges are required to add 15, 20, or 25 years to the prison sentences of defendants convicted of certain felonies if the defendant was found to have possessed or discharged a firearm during the crime\\u2019s commission. This firearm enhancement applies to the following offenses:\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eAggravated battery of a child\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eAggravated criminal sexual assault\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eAggravated kidnapping\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eAggravated vehicular hijacking\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eArmed robbery\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eAttempted first-degree murder\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eFirst-degree murder\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eHome invasion\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIntentional homicide to an unborn child\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003ePredatory criminal sexual assault of a child\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nThe severity of the enhancement is based on how the firearm is used. Fifteen years are added if a firearm is possessed but not discharged, 20 if discharged with no injuries, and 25 if discharged to cause death or grievous injury.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nYears added through a sentence enhancement may be reduced by sentence credit. However, since all enhancement-eligible offenses are affected by Illinois\\u2019 truth-in-sentencing laws (which limit the amount of time a person can earn off their sentence), individuals will serve 85% to 100% of this enhancement in essentially all applicable cases.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWhy does it matter?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nFirst and foremost: are these enhancements a meaningful, cost-effective way to improve public safety and reduce gun crime?\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nResearch is mixed. While a 2011 study from the University of Pennsylvania concluded that \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/scholarship.law.upenn.edu\\\/faculty_scholarship\\\/361\\\/\\\\u0022\\\\u003eenhancements led to a small decline in gun robberies\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e, \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\\\/doi\\\/abs\\\/10.1111\\\/j.1745-9125.1995.tb01178.x\\\\u0022\\\\u003eother studies\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e reached opposite conclusions. Most notably, a 2015 report from the \\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022 href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/sites.nationalacademies.org\\\/dbasse\\\/claj\\\/index.htm\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eNational Research Council\\u0027s Committee on Law and Justice\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e found \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.nap.edu\\\/catalog\\\/18613\\\/the-growth-of-incarceration-in-the-united-states-exploring-causes\\\\u0022\\\\u003eno evidence that firearm enhancements reduced gun crime in any significant way\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e (the full report is behind a paywall, but you can find key points cited in \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\\\/faces\\\/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB620\\\\u0022\\\\u003ethe bill analyses from California\\u2019s recently passed SB 620 on reforming firearm enhancements\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMore broadly, the philosophy of extreme firearm enhancements runs counter to nationally-cited research showing that \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.ncjrs.gov\\\/pdffiles1\\\/nij\\\/247350.pdf\\\\u0022\\\\u003epolicies that increase the severity of punishments do little to meaningfully reduce crime\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nSo where does that leave us?\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nUnquestionably, no other state\\u2019s mandatory enhancements are as extreme as those in Illinois. This distinction boils down to the combination of two factors: extreme length and rigid mandatory nature.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch5\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #f04b4c;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eIn terms of length, Illinois enhancements are the most extreme\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e.\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h5\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nAmong U.S. states, Illinois is \\\\u003cem\\\\u003ethe\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e extreme outlier in terms of the severity of its mandatory firearm enhancements. This is not hyperbole. \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eAt\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e15 years automatically added for firearm possession during a felony, Illinois has the highest mandatory enhancement for possession in the nation\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIn other states, the enhancement for firearm possession tends to range from 1 to 5 years, before even accounting for the fact that many states do not criminalize firearm possession or allow judges discretion to withhold the enhancement.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cblockquote\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003chr \\\/\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch2\\\\u003eIllinois is the extreme outlier in terms of the severity of its mandatory firearm enhancements.\\\\u003c\\\/h2\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003chr \\\/\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/blockquote\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nOutside Illinois, only four other states have mandatory possession minimums that come close. Firearm possession during a felony carries a 10-year minimum in both Florida and California, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/sd35.senate.ca.gov\\\/news\\\/2017-05-18-senate-approves-judicial-discretion-sentence-enhancements\\\\u0022\\\\u003ethough California recently made all of its various firearm enhancements fully discretionary\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Rhode Island also requires an additional 10 years for a first firearm offense, but this only applies in cases of \\u201cuse,\\u201d not necessarily for possession alone.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nWhat about discharge, brandishing, and other forms of use? For the purposes of sentencing, few states outside Illinois distinguish between possession, discharge, and \\u201cuse\\u201d (which may or may not encompass all, both, or some of the above).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nStill, if we compare Illinois to the many states that distinguish between the various states that penalize felony use, we find again a general range of 1 to 5 years, compared to the 20 or 25-year enhancement for firearm discharge in Illinois.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nAs before, only Florida and California come close (both at 25 years), and only Florida is the enhancement also mandatory in nature.\\u00a0 Alaska also stands out for requiring a mandatory enhancement of 25 to 35 years for firearm use during the commission of a limited set of crimes involving the sexual exploitation, abuse, or assault of minors. Outside of these offenses, however, Alaska\\u2019s minimum enhancement for a first firearm-assisted crime is 5 years.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch5\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #f04b4c;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eBeyond length, Illinois enhancements are also rigidly mandatory.\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h5\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nUntil a policy change 2015, Illinois judges had no choice but to indiscriminately apply our state\\u2019s extreme firearm enhancements (judges can now depart from the enhancement in cases involving juvenile defendants).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nBut not every state applies enhancements in such a rigid way. Many grant some degree of discretion to judges and sentencing courts in terms of how they implement enhancements. These states permit, as follows:\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eFull to near-full discretion to apply or not apply an enhancement\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Arkansas gives judges the discretion to add anywhere from 0 to 15 years to a first offense sentence if firearms are employed during a felony. California, Idaho, Oregon, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming also grant judges a similar level of discretion for a first firearm offense. Among these states, Arkansas and Oregon require a mandatory enhancement for second and subsequent offenses (10 years for Arkansas, 5 for Oregon).\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eDiscretion to depart with on-the-record rationale\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. New York gives sentencing courts the choice to depart from applying a 5-year enhancement for criminal firearm use, provided that the court state on record that the enhancement would be \\u201cunduly harsh and that not imposing [the enhancement] would be consistent with the public safety.\\u201d Louisiana also gives judges to depart from the firearm enhancement provided they \\u201cstate for the records the reasons\\u201d a sentence is \\u201cexcess,\\u201d as does Kansas for its own version of a firearm enhancement.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eDiscretion to apply the enhancement as a concurrent sentence. \\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003eIn Oklahoma and South Carolina, individuals who commit felonies with firearms are required to serve a minimum 10 or 5 years, respectively. However, judges can choose whether those sentences will run concurrently or consecutively. This means that for serious offenses with longer base sentences, judges are not required to further increase sentence length in a, which rarely leads to substantial rehabilitative or public health benefit. Similarly, Alabama requires that should a firearm be used, the minimum for the base sentence be changed to 10 or 20 years (based on offense severity). It is not an additional term. Louisiana use the same \\u201cchanged minimum\\u201d approach, though it also applies to lesser offenses: at the lowest level, firearm possession changes a base sentence\\u2019s mandatory minimum to 2 years (5 years for non-discharge use, 10 for discharge, 15 for discharge leading to bodily injury).\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eNo enhancement at all\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Texas has no specific enhancement for firearm possession or use during the commission of another felony. Instead, the brandishing or use of a firearm is considered a misdemeanor (though let\\u2019s be real, Texas has other issues).\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nWhile firearm enhancements of some kind are mandatory in most states, keep in mind again that in most states, the required sentencing penalty is much, much lower.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nBut progress is possible. In 2015, \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/given-the-option-judges-choose-restraint\\\/\\\\u0022 data-saferedirecturl=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.google.com\\\/url?hl=en\\\\u0026amp;q=https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/given-the-option-judges-choose-restraint\\\/\\\\u0026amp;source=gmail\\\\u0026amp;ust=1521729308284000\\\\u0026amp;usg=AFQjCNEWPKnNMPmRr9hRayhbjQSMyyKHbA\\\\u0022\\\\u003eRestore Justice supported a bill\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e that gave judges the choice to \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eNOT\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003eapply the firearm sentence enhancement to juveniles. Since the bill became law,\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e judges chose to depart from applying the sentencing enhancement in 14 out of 16 homicide cases involving firearms and a juvenile defendant\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Judges likely also chose not to apply these enhancements to other eligible offenses committed by juveniles. These data were not immediately available.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch5\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #f04b4c;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eHow else do firearm enhancement laws differ across states?\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h5\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #000000;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eOther states also administer their firearm enhancements in different ways. Here are some of the key distinctions beyond severity and discretion:\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eHigher penalties for more dangerous weapons. \\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003eMany states apply a more serious enhancement when the firearm in question is of a certain class of more dangerous weapon, including everything from automatic firearms, assault weapons and machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eHigher penalties for subsequent firearm offenses. \\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003eMany states scale the mandatory enhancement for second, third, or subsequent firearm-assisted felony offenses.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eHigher penalties for more serious base offenses. \\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003eSome states impose higher penalties for more serious offenses, or only permit the application of the enhancement to certain serious offenses (Illinois included). Alaska stands out in this regard, with a mandatory 25-35 additional years if a firearm is used for the commission of one of a set list of sexually exploitative or predatory offenses involving minors. Illinois also falls into this category, since firearm enhancements may only be applied to certain serious offenses.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eNo distinctions between firearm possession, use, or discharge\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. While some states distinguish between different classes of firearm use, most do not, and either penalize possession or \\u201cuse\\u201d in a flat, uniform way.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eFirearm use impacts sentencing matrix decisions\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. In some states that use a sentencing matrix (Maryland, Pennsylvania) to determine appropriate sentence length, firearm use or possession leads to a shift on the matrix towards more severe sentences, in addition to any other enhancements.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eIncreasing in felony grade\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. In some states that use felony classes to determine range of allowable sentences, firearm possession or use during a felony triggers a bump in felony class, effectively increasing the maximum (though not necessarily the minimum) allowable sentence.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eCapping the enhancement to the maximum of base offense range\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. A few states explicitly state that should a firearm enhancement increase a sentence beyond the max of a base crime, the person will simply receive the max of a crime\\u2019s range, rather than an enhancement beyond the max.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eEnhancement versus separate offense\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. States vary in whether firearm use during a felony constitutes an enhancement or a distinct and separate offense, with its own minimum and maximum term.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eBarred from parole, probation, or earned time\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Many states include clauses in their firearm enhancement laws to ensure that time served for firearm enhancements cannot be reduced by sentence credit or parole.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cp style=\\\\u0022padding-left: 30px;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eApplying firearm enhancements to crimes that include firearms as an essential element\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Many other states also make explicit in statutes whether their enhancements may be applied to offenses where firearm use is an \\u201cessential element.\\u201d For instance, in Tennessee, law requires that prosecutors must choose whether to charge a defendant with a higher offense that contains an essential firearm element (e.g. \\u201carmed robbery\\u201d) or instead a lower offense (e.g. \\u201crobbery\\u201d) with the application of a mandatory firearm enhancement. That said, some states\\u2014including North Dakota and Idaho\\u2014make explicit that firearm enhancements can and should be added regardless of whether the base crime includes an essential firearm element.\\\\u003c\\\/p\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nWhile other differences between firearm enhancement policy do exist, these are some of the key differentiating factors.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #213159;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cb\\\\u003eWant to learn more?\\\\u003c\\\/b\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nAs far as we were able to find, there isn\\u2019t a good resource to compare firearm enhancements across all fifty states. While we aren\\u2019t lawyers, Restore Justice compiled a companion piece to this blog post that functions as a state-by-state comparison of firearm enhancements in all fifty states.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #000000;\\\\u0022\\\\u003eYou can find and download the companion piece below. We hope it\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e will provides a useful overview and starting point for your own advocacy and research!\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/app\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/05\\\/Know-More-companion-piece.-A-state-by-state-comparison-of-firearm-sentence-enhancements.pdf\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eKnow More companion piece: A state-by-state comparison of firearm sentence enhancements\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nSome general tips about doing your own online research on enhancements: not many states use the exact phrase \\u201cfirearm enhancement\\u201d in their laws and statutes. Try searching for \\u201cenhancers\\u201d or \\u201cfirearm possession\\\/use during the commission of a felony\\u201d or similar phrases instead. Also, a state\\u2019s enhancement laws relating to drug crimes are sometimes separated from the rest of the relevant laws, so keep that in mind.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nOutside of that, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022 href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.themarshallproject.org\\\/\\\\u0022\\\\u003ethe Marshall Project\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e talks about\\u00a0the \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.themarshallproject.org\\\/2015\\\/10\\\/14\\\/politicians-still-say-longer-prison-sentences-prevent-gun-violence-but-do-they\\\\u0022\\\\u003epolitical circumstances that give rise to firearm enhancements\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e, while the \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003cspan style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca style=\\\\u0022color: #3d6098;\\\\u0022 href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.texaspolicy.com\\\/\\\\u0022\\\\u003eTexas Public Policy Foundation\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/span\\\\u003e examined firearm enhancements and \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.texaspolicy.com\\\/library\\\/doclib\\\/Texas-Mandatory-Sentencing-Enhancements.pdf\\\\u0022\\\\u003erecommended against enhancements in their own state\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cem\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eLinked Sources\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eTo find the firearm enhancement statutes for different states, check out our companion piece.\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n(2017, May 18). \\u201cSenate approves Judicial Discretion for Sentence Enhancements.\\u201d Press release from Office of Sen. Steven Bradford. Retrieved from: \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/sd35.senate.ca.gov\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/sd35.senate.ca.gov\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nAbrams, D. (2011). Estimating the deterrent effect of incarceration using sentencing enhancements. \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eAmerican Economic Journal: Applied Economics,\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e 32(56).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nGoldstein, D. (2015, October 14). \\u201cPoliticians still say longer prison sentences prevent gun violence\\u2014but do they?\\u201d The Marshall Project. Retrived from: \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.themarshallproject.org\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.themarshallproject.org\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMarvell, T., \\\\u0026amp; Moody, C. (1995). The impact of enhanced prison terms for felonies committed with guns. \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eCriminology\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e, 33(2).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nNational Institute of Justice. (2016, May). \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eFive things about deterrence\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nNational Research Council. (2014) \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eThe growth of incarceration in the United States: exploring causes and consequences\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e. Committee on Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration, J. Travis, B. Western, and S. Redburn, Editors. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.\\u0022,\\u0022_wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_wysiwyg\\u0022},\\u0022align\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022mode\\u0022:\\u0022edit\\u0022} \\\/--\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"In Illinois, judges are required to add 15, 20, or 25 years to the prison sentences of defendants convicted of certain felonies if the defendant was found to have possessed or discharged a firearm during the crime\\u2019s commission.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"In Illinois, judges are required to add 15, 20, or 25 years to the prison sentences of defendants convicted of certain felonies if the defendant was found to have possessed or discharged a firearm during the crime\\u2019s commission.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-firearm-sentence-enhancements\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2018-03-21 14:51:24\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":142,\"title\":\"Freedom of Information Act\",\"content\":\"\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWhat is the Freedom of Information Act?\\n\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nThe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a set of laws that seeks to make government more transparent by giving individuals and organizations the power to request and receive public documents from public institutions. It does so by creating a relatively straightforward process for individuals to request documents and places requirements on government to respond in a timely manner or face potential lawsuits.\\n\\nNot all information is subject to FOIA. Personal addresses and phone numbers of civil servant and staff, for instance, falls outside the law\\u2019s scope (you can find a full list of exemptions \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/ilcs\\\/ilcs3.asp?ActID=85\\u0026amp;ChapterID=2\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehere\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E).\\n\\nDespite these limits, FOIA laws remain a potent tool for individuals seeking more information about government and their elected officials.\\n\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWhy does it matter?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nFOIA gives citizens a way to hold their government accountable. It has been used\\u2014often by reporters, but also civic organizations \\u2014to expose everything from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/papers.ssrn.com\\\/sol3\\\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1922859\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ecorruption\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E and \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.nytimes.com\\\/2014\\\/07\\\/16\\\/business\\\/documents-show-general-motors-kept-silent-on-fatal-crashes.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ecover-ups\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E to \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.aclusandiego.org\\\/cbp-child-abuse-foia\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehuman rights abuses\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E by federal agencies. Closer to home, FOIA laws in Illinois have recently been used to force the Chicago Police to \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.loevy.com\\\/blog\\\/journalist-sues-to-get-police-states-attorney-records-of-laquan-mcdonald-shooting-investigations\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Erelease the Laquan McDonald police shooting video\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. Without robust FOIA laws, it\\u2019s likely that many of these abuses would have gone unexposed and unchallenged.\\n\\nBut in Illinois, there are serious shortfalls in our FOIA legislation. Because of how our FOIA laws are written, many documents and records related to conduct by the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) remains off limits as a \\u201csecurity\\u201d measure. Similar clauses protect police departments and other elements of the Illinois justice system from scrutiny.\\n\\nThere are good reasons to keep some records off limits. But too often, the cover of \\u201csecurity\\u201d applies too broadly.\\n\\nFor instance, earlier this year we submitted a FOIA request to IDOC on their lockdown policy. Prison lockdowns can last weeks and lead to solitary-like confinement conditions and severe reduction in services for inmates. While lockdowns are used in response to fights, riots and similar incidents, sources indicated that prisons were using them more liberally, and for reasons not related to incidents. To find the truth, we requested IDOC disclose their policies for determining when to impose and lift lockdown status, as well as the number and length of lockdowns from the past two years.\\n\\nOur request was denied in full, with \\u201csecurity\\u201d reasons cited. This ability to so quickly dismiss inquiries means alarming and unethical practices can often go undisclosed for too long. Today, IDOC is currently being suing in a class action suit by prisoners who faced \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/uplcchicagoorg.presencehost.net\\\/what-we-do\\\/prison\\\/ross-v-gossett.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Eextreme physical and sexual abuse at the hand of IDOC security officers\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. In a second suit, the Department has been charged with providing \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/uplcchicagoorg.presencehost.net\\\/what-we-do\\\/prison\\\/lippert-v-baldwin.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Egrossly inadequate medical care\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E in prison, leading to the premature death of inmates.\\n\\nBased on how our state laws are written, many of the relevant records about these practices\\u2014about IDOC officer conduct, medical incidents, and the like\\u2013would have been exempt from FOIA.\\n\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWant to learn more?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nThere\\u2019s a lot out there on FOIA. For a dive into the law\\u2019s technical nuances, law firm \\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Ca style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022 href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/loevy.com\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003ELoevy \\u0026amp; Loevy\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E has published an \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/loevy-content-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/05\\\/FOIA-Presentation-Website-May-2018.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Eexceptionally detailed overview of Illinois FOIA laws\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. You can also find how the firm uses FOIA in its various cases on \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.loevy.com\\\/blog\\\/tag\\\/foia\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Etheir blog\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nAnd to see how another local nonprofit uses FOIA for an adjacent line of work, check out the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/lucyparsonslabs.com\\\/about\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ELucy Parsons Labs\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. They\\u2019ve used FOIA to \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/lucyparsonslabs.com\\\/projects\\\/fatalshootings\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Einvestigate policy shootings\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E and how Chicago police use \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/redshiftzero.github.io\\\/policesurveillance\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ea range of surveillance tools\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E to track its residents, among other projects.\\n\\n\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ELinked Sources\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\n\\nACLU of San Diego. \\u003Cem\\u003EGovernment documents show Customs \\u0026amp; Border Protection officials have abused migrant children\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.aclusandiego.org\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.aclusandiego.org\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nCordis, Adriana S. \\u0026amp; Warren, Patrick L. (2012, April) Sunshine as disinfectant: the effect of state Freedom of Information Act laws on public corruption. \\u003Cem\\u003EJournal of Public Economics\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E. (115)\\n\\nRuiz, Rebecca \\u0026amp; Ivory, Danielle. (2014, July 15). Documents show General Motors kept silent on fatal crashes. \\u003Cem\\u003EThe New York Times\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.nytimes.com\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.nytimes.com\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nThayer, Andy. (2016, March 8). Journalist sues to get police \\u0026amp; state\\u2019s attorney records of Laquan McDonald shooting investigations [Web log post]. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.loevy.com\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.loevy.com\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\",\"excerpt\":\"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a set of laws that seeks to make government more transparent by giving individuals and organizations the power to request and receive public documents from public institutions.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a set of laws that seeks to make government more transparent by giving individuals and organizations the power to request and receive public documents from public institutions.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-foia\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2018-05-30 17:04:01\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":131,\"title\":\"Recidivism\",\"content\":\"\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWhat is recidivism?\\n\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nSuppose a legislator or fellow advocate says the following:\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #000000\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u0022Our data show violent offenders recidivate 60 percent of the time, \\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003Eso we should increase sentence lengths\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E.\\u0022\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #000000\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u0022\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EParole clearly doesn\\u0027t work\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E because the recidivism rate of parolees is indistinguishable from non-parolees.\\u0022\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #000000\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u0022Well, \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003EI think it\\u0027s crazy we ever let violent criminals back on the street\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E if they\\u2019re just going to be back behind bars in six months.\\u0022\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\nEach of these claims refers to the concept of recidivism, the term that describes the tendency for individuals to encounter the criminal justice system after concluding prior terms of prison or probation. A recidivism \\u201cevent\\u201d is one such encounter, and the recidivism rate is a quantified measured of this tendency.\\n\\nPolicymakers and advocates often use recidivism data to assess the effectiveness of correctional practices. Advocates for broadening the availability of college courses in prison, for instance, cite \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.rand.org\\\/pubs\\\/research_reports\\\/RR564.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Estrong evidence that education reduces recidivism rates\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. Elsewhere, \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.realclearpolicy.com\\\/blog\\\/2016\\\/08\\\/23\\\/smart_on_crime_doesnt_lower_crime_rates_or_recidivism__1698.html\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Erecidivism rates have been used to argue against progressive reforms and the rollback of \\u201ctough-on-crime\\u201d policies\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nIndeed, recidivism rates are cited to support policy causes as wide-ranging as \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/mn.gov\\\/doc\\\/assets\\\/11-11MNPrisonVisitationStudy_tcm1089-272781.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ebroadened inmate visiting rights\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E, \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.inthepublicinterest.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/ITPI-Recidivism-ResearchBrief-June2016.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ereduced use of private prisons\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E, and \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.prisonpolicy.org\\\/scans\\\/e199912.htm\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Esentencing reform\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nBut there\\u2019s nuance to how people (ought to) measure and talk about this important idea. This is because while recidivism can describe a relapse into new criminal behavior, not all recidivism events should be considered synonymous with backslide into criminality.\\n\\u003Cblockquote\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Chr \\\/\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Ch2\\u003EWhile recidivism can describe a relapse into new criminal behavior, not all recidivism events should be considered synonymous with backslide into criminality.\\u003C\\\/h2\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Chr \\\/\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C\\\/blockquote\\u003E\\nWithout proper context, recidivism data can lead to faulty conclusions about the nature of crime and the people who commit them.\\n\\nHow do we get closer to the nuanced truth? By asking some questions.\\n\\n\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EHow should we interpret recidivism data (and why does it matter)?\\n\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\n\\nAccording to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), there is no universal definition for recidivism. Instead, recidivism includes three parameters shared across all definitions. These are:\\n\\u003Cul\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003EA starting event, such as a release from prison or placement on probation;\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003EA measure of failure, which could be all or any one of new arrests, reconvictions, and new prison terms, among others; and\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003EA window of measurement, or range of time (generally up to 3 or 5 years) during which failure events are tracked and measured.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C\\\/ul\\u003E\\nChanging any of these parameters can lead to dramatic shifts in the \\u201crecidivism rate.\\u201d Still, we often use the term to refer to any broad or narrow slice of what it could potentially describe.\\n\\nThis is the core issue with recidivism: because it bundles behaviors and phenomena that are fundamentally dissimilar, legislators and communities may end up making decisions based on a misunderstanding of what the data actually say.\\n\\nFor example, when counting recidivism events, not all sources for recidivism data distinguish between missed parole appointments and convictions for new crimes (more on this later). Yet when phrases like \\u201chigh recidivism\\u201d show up in online articles or evening news, the fact that recidivism \\u003Ci\\u003Ecan \\u003C\\\/i\\u003Erefer to new crimes make it easy to assume the worst, most headline-grabbing case.\\n\\nSome states have acknowledged these limitations. For instance, in its recent \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.cdcr.ca.gov\\\/research\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/174\\\/2022\\\/04\\\/Recidivism-Report-for-Offenders-Released-in-FY-2012-13.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Eprison outcomes reports\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E, California has begun to use the rate at which individuals return to prison, rather than the rate of re-arrest, as the primary measure of recidivism. One impact of this change is that recidivism now better tracks new felony convictions, whereas the previous recidivism definition included all of felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests, and technical parole violations.\\n\\nThis is why it\\u2019s important to be skeptical of recidivism when it arises during policy conversations, especially when the argument being made depends on the assumption that recidivism invariably means new crimes and new victims.\\n\\nTo get to the truth, we ought to ask (at very least) the following three questions about any recidivism data we come across before making any conclusions:\\n\\u003Cul\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003EWho are the people described by these recidivism numbers?\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003EWhat was the measure of failure, and are radically different types of recidivism event lumped together?\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003EWhat was the window of measurement?\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C\\\/ul\\u003E\\nLet\\u2019s talk about each individually.\\n\\u003Ch5\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #f04b4c\\u0022\\u003EWho are the people being (allegedly) described by recidivism data?\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h5\\u003E\\nNot every person who enters (and exits) prison is the same, and few statements can fairly describe all people who encounter the criminal justice system. Even labels as broad as \\u201cfelon\\u201d or \\u201ccriminal\\u201d ought to raise skepticism when one considers the disgraceful number of wrongful convictions in America.\\n\\nCohorts of incarcerated person differ by age at incarceration or release, sex, nature of offense, and number of prior arrests, among other factors. Each of these factors can have a substantial impact on recidivism rates. For instance, while a BJS data source reported that overall rearrest rate at three years was 67.5%, stratifying by number of prior arrests shows (at least) two distinct populations (see \\u003Cstrong\\u003EFigure 1\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E).\\n\\u003Ch3 style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EFigure 1. Three-year rearrest rates for released individuals based on number of prior arrests\\n\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003Cimg class=\\u0022aligncenter wp-image-17834 size-full\\u0022 src=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/app\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/KM-recidivism-figure-1-rearrest-rate-by-prior-arrests-e1523456979740-1.png\\u0022 alt=\\u0022\\u0022 width=\\u0022396\\u0022 height=\\u0022373\\u0022 \\\/\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ECaption.\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u00a0Data were sourced from the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\\/index.cfm?ty=datool\\u0026amp;surl=\\\/recidivism\\\/index.cfm#\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003EBJS Prisoner Recidivism Analysis Tool of 1994\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. The tool calculates recidivism data for a cohort of individuals across fifteen states, all of whom were released in 1994 and followed for a period of three years.\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\nThese differences matter because many criminal justice and corrections policies have disproportionate impact on different groups, even when statutes are written in broad strokes with no explicit discriminatory element (there is perhaps no better example of this phenomenon than the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.aclu.org\\\/issues\\\/criminal-law-reform\\\/drug-law-reform\\\/fair-sentencing-act\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E100-to-1 crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing disparity\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E).\\n\\nWhile some differences in recidivism rate might seem fairly intuitive (women recidivate less often than men, individuals with more prior felonies are more likely to recidivate than those with fewer previous encounters), not all trends are as easy to predict.\\n\\nFelonies fall into one of a few broad categories: public order, drug, property, and violent. Depending on the category, recidivism can vary in noteworthy ways. Consider the following 5-year re-arrest rates from BJS, stratified by the committing offense and the type of new felony:\\n\\u003Ch3 style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ETable 1. Difference in five-year re-arrest rates for specific cohorts of released individuals to all released individuals, stratified by new (committing) offense type\\n\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n[table id=7 \\\/]\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ECaption.\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u00a0Data were sourced from the 2014 BJS report titled \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\\/content\\\/pub\\\/pdf\\\/rprts05p0510.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003ERecidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\nRegardless of the type of prior felony, released prisoners are most commonly rearrested for public order offenses. And while individuals with prior violent felonies are more likely to be rearrested for new violent felonies, the difference is smaller than many might assume.\\n\\nSo what\\u0027s the lesson? When someone talks about the recidivism rate for \\u201cviolent offenders,\\u201d \\u003Cb\\u003Eone should never blindly assume that this is synonymous with the rate at which these individuals commit new violent crimes\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E.\\n\\u003Cblockquote\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Chr \\\/\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Ch2\\u003EDon\\u0027t assume the recidivism rate of \\u0022violent offenders\\u0022 is synonymous with the rate at which these individuals commit new violent crimes.\\u003C\\\/h2\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Chr \\\/\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C\\\/blockquote\\u003E\\nFinally, one should be wary of how recidivism data deals with individuals on probation, parole, or other types of mandated supervision. When under a supervisory term like parole, individuals must follow certain rules that--if violated--can lead to arrest, jail terms, or a return to prison. These rules might include prohibitions on drinking alcohol, nightly curfews, or the need to meet regularly with a parole officer.\\n\\nRecidivism data tends to lump technical violations like breaking curfew or drinking alcohol with new felony convictions. For instance, the National Institute for Justice writes that for their own purposes, recidivism\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022padding-left: 60px\\u0022\\u003Erefers to a person\\u2019s \\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003Erelapse into criminal behavior\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E [as] measured by criminal acts that resulted in rearrest, reconviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner\\u2019s release. \\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E(emphasis added)\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\nNo explicit distinctions are made between rearrests for parole violations and new convictions. But should technical violations be categorized as a \\u201crelapse into criminal behavior\\u201d to the same degree other sorts of recidivism event ought to be? (For more on the topic, \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/fivethirtyeight.com\\\/features\\\/why-it-might-be-time-to-rethink-the-rules-of-parole\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Echeck out this article from FiveThirtyEight\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E).\\n\\nTo their credit, some sources and studies do make a concerted effort to separate different types of recidivism event. Doing so is vital to ensuring that policies are not written or propped up based on an inflated conception of the tendency for criminal relapse.\\n\\nIn many important conversations, however, the term \\u201crecidivism\\u201d continues to be used indiscriminately, leaving it up to the advocate to do their own digging.\\n\\u003Ch5\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #f04b4c\\u0022\\u003EWhat counts as a recidivism event?\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h5\\u003E\\nThe issues raised by technical violations in recidivism calculations touch on the broader issue of how different data sources address (or fail to address) the different types of recidivism event.\\n\\nRecidivism is often measured by counting the number of released persons (or persons on parole) to have been either rearrested, reconvicted, or reincarcerated at some point within a given post-release window. But not all arrests are rightful nor conclude with new convictions, nor do all convictions result in new jail or prison terms. But depending on the source used, one might not know how a recidivism rate of 30 or 40 percent breaks into these categories. Consider in \\u003Cstrong\\u003EFigure 2\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E how different the recidivism rate is for different types of recidivism event.\\n\\u003Ch3 style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EFigure 2. Difference in three-year recidivism rates by type of recidivism event\\n\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003Cimg class=\\u0022aligncenter size-full wp-image-17835\\u0022 src=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/app\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/KM-recidivism-figure-2-recidivism-by-event-type.png\\u0022 alt=\\u0022\\u0022 width=\\u0022648\\u0022 height=\\u0022389\\u0022 \\\/\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022text-align: center\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ECaption.\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u00a0Data were sourced from the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\\/index.cfm?ty=datool\\u0026amp;surl=\\\/recidivism\\\/index.cfm#\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003EBJS Prisoner Recidivism Analysis Tool of 1994\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. The tool calculates recidivism data for a cohort of individuals across fifteen states, all of whom were released in 1994 and followed for a period of three years. Readjudication describes returns to court. Reincarceration refers to returns to prison or jail, while reimprisonment only describes returns to prison.\\n\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\nThe interrogation of recidivism data shouldn\\u2019t end with distinguishing arrests from convictions, or convictions from new prison terms. If a study isolates the rate of new convictions, does it go further to distinguish between misdemeanor and felony convictions, or more serious crimes from less serious ones? These are important considerations even if more granular data aren\\u2019t available.\\n\\nEven reincarceration contains gradations of nuance. Reincarceration--as opposed to reimprisonment--may include both jail and prison terms of any length. Therefore, because parole violations and misdemeanors both might be punished with short jail terms instead of prison, even reincarceration cannot be assumed to be synonymous with new felonies.\\n\\nThese distinctions matter because most criminal justice policies will have different impacts on different cohorts. Many reform efforts, for instance, exclude individuals convicted of violent crimes, or permit (and sometimes encourage) harsher treatment of these individuals.\\n\\u003Ch5\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #f04b4c\\u0022\\u003EWhat is the timeline for release?\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h5\\u003E\\nFinally, the timeline for release is important, especially when comparing recidivism across studies or sources. There isn\\u2019t anything special about specific year or time cut-offs, but more about being diligent about your comparisons.\\n\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWant to learn more?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nOne of the best places to study recidivism across the U.S. is \\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Ca style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022 href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EBJS\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E, which collects and reports both state and federal recidivism data. Their \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\\/index.cfm?ty=datool\\u0026amp;surl=\\\/recidivism\\\/index.cfm#\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E1994 Prisoner Recidivism Analysis Tool\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E does a great job of clearly showcasing how differences in measurement matter and is worth exploring. Their \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\\/recidivism_2005_arrest\\\/#\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E2005 version\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E is also useful, but only reports the rate of re-arrest, and doesn\\u2019t include numbers on new convictions or reincarceration. It also differs from the 1994 tool in terms of methodology, meaning data for the two aren\\u2019t directly comparable. For topics not covered in the analysis tools, their \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\\/content\\\/pub\\\/pdf\\\/rprts05p0510.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E2014 report on recidivism trends\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E does a fantastic job of uncovering much of the nuance that can get obscured in more general reporting.\\n\\n\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #000000\\u0022\\u003EThe \\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.urban.org\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022\\u003EUrban Institute\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E has its own \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.urban.org\\\/sites\\\/default\\\/files\\\/2015\\\/02\\\/11\\\/recidivism-measures_final-for-website.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Every useful guide on understanding recidivism at the local level\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. It includes a neat breakdown of the pros and cons of three common individual measures of recidivism: re-arrest, rebooking, and reconviction. The guide also touches on ways to better measure and understand recidivism.\\n\\nAnd just last month, authors Jeremy Butts and Vincent Schiraldi of the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.hks.harvard.edu\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022\\u003EHarvard Kennedy School of Government\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E published \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.hks.harvard.edu\\\/sites\\\/default\\\/files\\\/centers\\\/wiener\\\/programs\\\/pcj\\\/files\\\/recidivism_reconsidered.pdf\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ea new study outlining why recidivism is a flawed metric for assessing justice and criminal policies\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. Writing on the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.themarshallproject.org\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #3d6098\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EMarshall Project\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E, Butts and Schiraldi conclude that while \\u201cpertinent, \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.themarshallproject.org\\\/2018\\\/03\\\/14\\\/the-recidivism-trap\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003E[recidivism] is inadequate and often misleading.\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u201d\\n\\n\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ELinked Sources\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\n\\n(2011, November). The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/mn.gov\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/mn.gov\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\n(2016, June). How private prison companies increase recidivism. Washington, DC: In the Public Interest. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.inthepublicinterest.org\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.inthepublicinterest.org\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nButts, Jeffery \\u0026amp; Schiraldi, Vincent. (2018, March). \\u003Ci\\u003ERecidivism reconsidered: preserving the community justice mission of community corrections\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E. Boston, MA: Harvard Kennedy School. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.hks.harvard.edu\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.hks.harvard.edu\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nDavis, Lois M. et al. (2014). \\u003Ci\\u003EHow Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.rand.org\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.rand.org\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nDurose, Matthew R. et al. (2014, April). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.bjs.gov\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nGlazer, Jessica. (2014, November 13). Why it might be time to rethink the rules of parole. \\u003Ci\\u003EFiveThirtyEight\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/fivethirtyeight.com\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/fivethirtyeight.com\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nKennedy, Sean. (2016, August 22). \\u201cSmart on crime\\u201d doesn\\u2019t lower crime rates or recidivism. RealClear Policy. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.realclearpolicy.com\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.realclearpolicy.com\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nKernan, Scott et al. (2017, October 10). 2017 Outcome Evaluations Report: an examination of offenders released in fiscal year 2012-2013. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.cdcr.ca.gov\\\/\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.cdcr.ca.gov\\\/\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nVagins, Deborah et al. (2006, October). \\u003Ci\\u003ECracks in the System: Twenty Years of the Unjust Federal Crack Cocaine Law\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E. Washington, DC: American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.aclu.org\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.aclu.org\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nMeasuring recidivism at the local level: a quick guide. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.urban.org\\u0022 target=\\u0022_blank\\u0022 rel=\\u0022noopener\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.urban.org\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\",\"excerpt\":\"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), there is no universal definition for recidivism. Instead, recidivism includes three parameters shared across all definitions.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), there is no universal definition for recidivism. Instead, recidivism includes three parameters shared across all definitions.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-recidivism\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2018-04-09 16:27:49\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":218,\"title\":\"Retroactivity\",\"content\":\"\\u003C!-- wp:acf\\\/wysiwyg {\\u0022name\\u0022:\\u0022acf\\\/wysiwyg\\u0022,\\u0022data\\u0022:{\\u0022width\\u0022:\\u00221\\u0022,\\u0022_width\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_width\\u0022,\\u0022title\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_title\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_title\\u0022,\\u0022subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_subtitle\\u0022,\\u0022wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhat is retroactivity?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nWhen it comes to criminal legal policy, the word \\u201cretroactivity\\u201d means applying new legislation to previous cases\\u2014to people who have already been sentenced. A \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eretroactive law\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e is \\u201ca legislative act that looks backward or contemplates the past, affecting acts or facts that existed before the act came into effect\\u201d (Black\\u0027s Law Dictionary, 7th Edition, pg. 1318).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIn essence, this means retroactive laws change the legal consequences or status of past actions; theoretically, they can increase, decrease, or eliminate legal sanctions (length of sentences, sentence enhancements, etc.). However, both federal and Illinois law prohibits retroactive laws that \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eincrease \\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003epenalties or impose new consequences on past actions.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eIs retroactivity legal?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nIn the American legal system, the legality of a retroactively applied law depends largely on whether the law would improve or worsen the plight of the individuals it would affect. If it\\u2019s the latter, the law is known as an \\\\u003cem\\\\u003e\\u201cex post facto\\u201d\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e law and is prohibited by the United States and Illinois constitutions.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nHowever, neither constitution prohibits laws that retroactively \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eremove or reduce\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e the burden placed on people who have already been sentenced.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eThis distinction isn\\u2019t an oversight, but a vital feature of our justice system.\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e The executive powers of pardon, commutation, and clemency are perhaps the clearest examples of our founding fathers\\u2019 acknowledgement that courts sometimes make mistakes and that finality in sentencing is ultimately less important than ensuring fair and proportionate justice.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nThis distinction goes back as far as 1798, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in the precedent-setting \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/supreme.justia.com\\\/cases\\\/federal\\\/us\\\/3\\\/386\\\/case.html\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eCalder v. Bull\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e that every \\u201cex post facto law must necessarily be retrospective, but every retrospective law is not an\\u00a0\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eex post facto\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\u00a0law [and] the former only is prohibited.\\u201d The Court continued, writing, \\u201cThere\\u00a0are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community and also of individuals, relate to a time antecedent to their commencement, as statutes of oblivion or of pardon\\u2026[moreover] there is a great and apparent difference between making an unlawful act lawful and the making an innocent action criminal and punishing it as a crime\\u201d (Calder v. Bull, 1798).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhat types of retroactive laws do reformers advocate for today?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nRetroactive reforms today are designed to provide relief to individuals who have been disadvantaged by anachronistic, overly broad, vague, harsh, and\\\/or disproven policies of the past.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nWhile the damage inflicted by these policies can not always be undone through retroactive legislative reform, there are some policies where retroactivity makes a substantial difference. In some cases, new laws can effectively reduce sentence lengths or lessen rigid sentencing mandates that have led to over-incarceration.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nRetroactivity is critical to sentencing reform because only retroactive reforms can help people whose ongoing sentences were imposed under extreme sentencing regimes, and it is the only way to reduce disparities in sentence lengths for similar offenses.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cfigure class=\\\\u0022wp-block-image size-large\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cimg class=\\\\u0022wp-image-19465\\\\u0022 src=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/app\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/Sentencing-presentation-v3.pptx-page-001-1-1024x576.jpg\\\\u0022 alt=\\\\u0022\\\\u0022 \\\/\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cfigcaption class=\\\\u0022wp-element-caption\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eThis graphic explains extreme sentencing in Illinois and examines what sentence a person, Adam, would have received\\\/receive for the same crime in different years.\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/figcaption\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/figure\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nIn Illinois, extreme, disproven, or overly broad sentencing policies include:\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-truth-in-sentencing\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eTruth in sentencing\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e (TIS)\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eLaws that restrict \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/issues-solutions\\\/why-parole-matters\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eparole\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e and good conduct credit eligibility\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-felony-class-mandatory-minimums\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eClassification of offenses and mandatory minimums\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-automatic-transfer-of-children-to-adult-court\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eAutomatic transfer of juveniles to adult court\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-firearm-sentence-enhancements\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eFirearm enhancements\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/issues-solutions\\\/felony-murder\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eFelony-murder reform\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eThe law of accountability\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u0026nbsp;\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhy is retroactive criminal justice reform important?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nTo understand why meaningful reforms should be retroactive, consider the nearly 2,000 people who are serving sentences of 40 years or longer in the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) for things they were convicted of doing \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/clbb.mgh.harvard.edu\\\/juvenilejustice\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ebefore their brains fully matured\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e. By enacting legislation that would retroactively correct these extreme sentencing policies, we can make the legal system fairer and significantly reduce our prison population.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nThe \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/restorejusticeillinois.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2019\\\/04\\\/Gov-Signs-HB531-Youth-Parole-4.1.19.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eYouthful Parole Bill\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e (now \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/publicacts\\\/100\\\/PDF\\\/100-1182.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ePublic Act 100-1182\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e), which took effect on June 1, 2019, is an example of a law that would have had more impact if applied retroactively. The bill was signed into law by Governor JB Pritzker on April 1, 2019 and is an important first step in providing meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation and release. Illinois had abolished parole in 1978, and was one of just 16 states without such a system. The Youthful Parole law creates mid-sentence parole consideration for some incarcerated people who were under the age of 21 when the crimes they were convicted of occurred.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nThe law aligns with multiple U.S. Supreme Court decisions that charge states with viewing youthful offenders as \\u201ccategorically less culpable\\u201d for their crimes. The Court has established those convicted in their youth should have meaningful opportunities for release. \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eBut, because this bill is not retroactive, it leaves out hundreds of people. \\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003eA teenager sentenced to 40 years in 2018 will have to serve every single one of those years, whereas, a teenager convicted of the same crime in 2020 will have the opportunity to earn release.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nAlso consider the \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/billstatus.asp?DocNum=2471\\\\u0026amp;GAID=13\\\\u0026amp;GA=99\\\\u0026amp;DocTypeID=HB\\\\u0026amp;LegID=87718\\\\u0026amp;SessionID=88\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e2015 law\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e, now Public Act 99-0069, that made \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-firearm-sentence-enhancements\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003efirearm enhancements\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e discretionary for individuals under the age of 18. Previously, judges were required to add 15 years to a child\\u2019s sentence if they simply possessed, but never used, a gun during the commission of a felony. Judges were mandated to add 20 years if the gun was used to inflict injury but not death and 25 years if the youth killed someone with the gun.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIn the first year HB2471 was law, judges departed from applying the sentencing enhancement in 14 out of 16 homicide cases involving firearms and youth defendants. However, the new law was not applied retroactively, leaving hundreds of people without any relief. Again, because the law is not retroactive, it creates a huge discrepancy between youth convicted of the same exact crime but sentenced in different years.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhat retroactive reforms could Illinois adopt to significantly reduce harm done by past policies?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eRoll back, lessen, or eliminate truth in sentencing for certain or all offenses.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIntroduce laws that increase or expand good time eligibility.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eRoll back, lessen, or eliminate firearm enhancements.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eDowngrade the classification of certain offenses (e.g., from Class 2 to Class 3).\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eLessen or eliminate mandatory minimums for certain or all offenses.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIntroduce laws that increase or expand parole eligibility.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eFor individuals serving long, mandatory sentences, this need is especially dire.\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhere else in the U.S. have retroactive reforms been passed?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nIn recent years, other states have passed retroactive reforms to their criminal legal policies. Here are a few examples:\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIn 2017, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eLouisiana\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e passed a 10-bill package of criminal justice reforms, some of which applied retroactively. These include:\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eRestoration of parole eligibility for individuals convicted of second-degree murder who have served 40 or more years\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eGranting of parole eligibility under certain conditions to youth offenders sentenced to life for first- or second-degree murder who have served at least 25 years\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eGrants medical treatment furlough to incarcerated persons with limited mobility\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIn 2016, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eColorado\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e retroactively granted early release time to youth sentenced as adults for Class 1 felonies.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIn 2016, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eDelaware\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e retroactively reformed its \\u201cthree strikes law,\\u201d allowing people convicted under the law to petition for sentence modification after serving their mandatory minimum sentence.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIn 2016, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eMaryland\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e reduced the permissible sentences for various drug-related and other offenses classified as \\u201cnonviolent,\\u201d allowing individuals incarcerated for those offenses to seek retroactive sentence reductions.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eIn 2015, \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eNevada\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e passed a retroactive law that abolished life without the possibility of parole sentences for most juvenile offenders and offered those individuals eligibility for parole review after 15 or 20 years served.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhy is it difficult to pass retroactive legislation?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nThere are individuals and organizations, particularly in law enforcement communities, who express concern that retroactive application of the law violates our state constitution. They argue it is a violation of the Illinois Constitution\\u2019s separation of powers provision. Accordingly, they believe the only lawful way to change or modify a criminal sentence 30 days or more after it was imposed is through \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/know-more-executive-clemency\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eexecutive clemency\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e or a legal procedure called revestment (see below for more information), and they have convinced some legislators this is the law. However, this position is not supported by the law, as proven by a \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/drive.google.com\\\/file\\\/d\\\/10uRivVbHc50RXa1vMUzg97ooCwpKpFf_\\\/view\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003elegal analysis\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nAnother reason retroactive legislation is difficult to build support for politically is because opponents believe it is unfair to victims and their families who are said to have been promised a particular sentence. While this argument may be compelling, it is less so when balanced against both the fundamental unfairness of requiring people to serve vastly different sentences for the same offense, and society\\u2019s duty to correct laws and policies that have been determined to no longer reflect \\u201cevolving standards of decency.\\u201d\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWhat is Revestment?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nEven though solid \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/drive.google.com\\\/file\\\/d\\\/10uRivVbHc50RXa1vMUzg97ooCwpKpFf_\\\/view\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003elegal analysis\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e of Illinois law finds the Illinois General Assembly can constitutionally enact retroactive legislation, opponents of retroactive reform point to something called \\u201c\\\\u003cem\\\\u003ethe revestment doctrine\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\u201d as the core of their argument against retroactivity.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nGenerally, in both criminal and civil matters, a decision is considered final and the circuit (\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eread:\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e \\\\u003cem\\\\u003elower\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e) court loses jurisdiction (\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eread\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e: \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eauthority\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e) to hear or modify a final judgment 30 days after the judgement was entered. Revestment is an \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eexception \\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003eto this 30-day rule. In certain circumstances, the revestment doctrine allows a court to modify a final judgment \\\\u003cem\\\\u003eafter it has lost jurisdiction.\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIn an Illinois criminal proceeding, in order to \\\\u003cem\\\\u003erevest (read: give back) \\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003ethe court with power to hear or modify a judgement after that 30-day period, the prosecution and the defense must: (1) actively participate in the subsequent proceedings; (2) fail to object to the untimeliness of the motion or petition filed in the subsequent proceeding; and (3) assert positions that are inconsistent with the merits of the prior judgment and support setting aside some portion of that judgment.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIn simpler terms, revestment applies in individual cases when, generally, both the prosecution and the defense agree to change something about the final order and act as if the court has not lost jurisdiction. Revestment is inapplicable when the legislature seeks to change a sentencing law because it is a mechanism designed to be used in judicial proceedings, not by the legislature.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nBut, while there are no constitutional or statutory provisions that specifically grant the legislature the authority to enact laws that modify criminal judgments after 30 days, the Illinois Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional power of the Illinois Legislature to adopt statutes that permit people in certain circumstances to return to court more than 30 days after sentencing to seek to have their sentences reduced or otherwise altered.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIn \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/scholar.google.com\\\/scholar_case?case=13794000473614190706\\\\u0026amp;hl=en\\\\u0026amp;as_sdt=6\\\\u0026amp;as_vis=1\\\\u0026amp;oi=scholarr\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noreferrer noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003ePeople v. Bainter\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld, as constitutional, statutory provisions that allow defendants sentenced in Illinois and other state or federal courts to return to court (in Illinois) to seek to have their sentences served concurrently. \\u201cThe 30-day rule is not a constitutional mandate, and, as a rule of the common law, is susceptible to amendment by the legislature,\\u201d the Court explains (Id. 533 N.E.2d 1070). \\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003ePast legislative enactments and judicial decisions should give the Illinois Legislature confidence to utilize its constitutional powers to enact retroactive legislation.\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nHere are other Illinois statutes that allow courts to modify judgments after 30 days:\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli style=\\\\u0022list-style-type: none;\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eThe Post-Conviction Hearing Act allows courts to grant defendants new trials in certain circumstances (725 ILCS 5\\\/116-1).\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eCircuit courts can terminate the wardship of juveniles at any time (705 ILCS 405\\\/2-31(2)).\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eCircuit courts can terminate a defendant\\u0027s probation or conditional discharge at any time (730 ILCS 5\\\/5-6-2(c)).\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eCircuit courts can revoke a sentence of periodic imprisonment at any time; circuit courts retain jurisdiction over defendants and may reduce sentences\\u00a0 (730 ILCS 5\\\/5-7-2, 730 ILCS 5\\\/5-7-7).\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eCircuit courts can modify maintenance and support orders post-judgment in dissolution of marriage cases (750 ILCS 5\\\/510).\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ul\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nThe case law is clear; the Illinois Legislature can legally enact retroactive sentencing reform.\\u0022,\\u0022_wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_wysiwyg\\u0022},\\u0022align\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022mode\\u0022:\\u0022edit\\u0022} \\\/--\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"Retroactive reforms today are designed to provide relief to individuals who have been disadvantaged by anachronistic, overly broad, vague, harsh, and\\\/or disproven policies of the past.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"Retroactive reforms today are designed to provide relief to individuals who have been disadvantaged by anachronistic, overly broad, vague, harsh, and\\\/or disproven policies of the past.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-retroactivity\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2020-05-29 15:49:03\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":136,\"title\":\"\\u0022Truth-in-Sentencing\\u0022\",\"content\":\"\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWhat is \\u0022truth-in-sentencing\\u0022?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nBefore 1998, people incarcerated in Illinois prisons could proactively earn time off their court-appointed sentence through good behavior and participation in prison programming. Overall, these credits could reduce a person\\u2019s sentence by up to half, or a day off for every day in prison.\\n\\nThis system changed in 1998 with the passage of the so-called \\u201ctruth-in-sentencing\\u201d (TIS) laws. Today, these laws limit the amount of time people convicted of certain offenses can earn off their non-life sentences.\\n\\nPeople who are incarcerated may be broken into five \\u201ctiers\\u201d based on how these sentencing laws affect them, as follows:\\n\\u003Cul\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EDay-for-day:\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E people who are incarcerated may earn up to one day off their sentence for each day served (i.e., 50%)\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003E60%:\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E people who are incarcerated must serve a minimum of 60% of their court-appointed sentence.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003E75%:\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E people who are incarcerated must serve a minimum of 75% of their court-appointed sentence.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003E85%:\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E people who are incarcerated must serve a minimum of 85% of their court-appointed sentence.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n \\t\\u003Cli\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003E100%:\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E people who are incarcerated must serve their full sentence (100%) and are ineligible for any amount of time off due to good behavior or programming.\\u003C\\\/li\\u003E\\n\\u003C\\\/ul\\u003E\\nOriginally, there were only 85% and 100% tiers for TIS. The 75% tier was created in 2007 for Class X felony offenses for delivery of more than 100 grams of a controlled substance. The 60% tier was created through a bill passed in 2017 that permits people convicted of all offenses in the 75% tier (except gunrunning) to now earn through earned discretionary sentence credit and earned program\\\/education credits up to 40% time off sentence, creating a new 60% tier.\\n\\nAs of December 2024, almost half (49%) of the people incarcerated in Illinois were serving sentences affected by TIS laws. Figure 1 shows the distribution of these people into different tiers.\\n\\u003Ch3 style=\\u0022text-align: center;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003EFigure 1. People serving TIS-impacted sentences by tier\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\n\\u003Cimg class=\\u0022size-full wp-image-7146 aligncenter\\u0022 src=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/app\\\/uploads\\\/2018\\\/04\\\/TIS-2025-2.png\\u0022 alt=\\u0022\\u0022 width=\\u0022888\\u0022 height=\\u0022508\\u0022 \\\/\\u003E\\n\\u003Cp style=\\u0022text-align: center;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ECaption.\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E \\u003Ci\\u003EData were sourced from\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E\\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/idoc.illinois.gov\\\/reportsandstatistics\\\/prison-population-data-sets.html\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Ci\\u003E IDOC\\u2019s public report on prison population as of December 31, 2024\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u003Ci\\u003E.\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E\\n\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\u003C\\\/p\\u003E\\nMost people in the 75% tier are serving sentences for drug-related offenses, while the 100% tier is composed almost exclusively of people convicted of first-degree murder. The 85% tier is the largest by population and includes a broad range of convicting offenses. The median sentence for people in the 85% tier is 12 years. Nearly 1 in 3 people in the 85% tier are serving 20 years to life.\\n\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWhy does it matter?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nThe idea that people who are incarcerated are able to earn time off their sentences might be surprising to some. After all, why shouldn\\u2019t judges have the final say in how long a person serves? It was largely this idea\\u2014combined with the sense that the criminal legal system ought to impose stricter penalties on more serious crimes\\u2014that led legislators to pass TIS.\\n\\nThe Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, commonly known as the 1994 Crime Bill, incentivized states to adopt \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/loyolaccj.org\\\/blog\\\/truth-and-sentencing-in-illinois-prisons\\u0022\\u003Emore punitive sentencing policies\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E through federal grant funding. This program provided federal funding for the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/bja.ojp.gov\\\/program\\\/voi-tis\\\/overview\\u0022\\u003Econstruction and expansion of state prisons\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E to states that implemented TIS laws. Illinois responded to this financial incentive, receiving a total of \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/bja.ojp.gov\\\/sites\\\/g\\\/files\\\/xyckuh186\\\/files\\\/media\\\/document\\\/voitis-final-report.pdf\\u0022\\u003E$124 million in grants\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E between 1996 and 2001 to build more prisons.\\n\\nWhen policymakers first introduced TIS in Illinois, \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/loyolaccj.org\\\/blog\\\/truth-and-sentencing-in-illinois-prisons\\u0022\\u003Emany claimed it wouldn\\u2019t meaningfully lengthen prison stays\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. State legislators expected judges would issue shorter sentences to account for the fact that people would serve a greater proportion of their time behind bars. But that didn\\u2019t happen. \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/cjreform2015.icjia.cloud\\\/pdf\\\/Olson%20-%20Impact%20of%20TIS%20Report.pdf\\u0022\\u003EJudges generally did not adjust sentence lengths to account for reduced sentence credits\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E. As a result, people convicted of offenses subject to TIS laws serve significantly longer in prison\\u2014sometimes twice as long as they would have under the previous system.\\n\\nBut limiting the ability to earn time off sentence runs against the rehabilitative mission of correctional systems. TIS is also unnecessary to preserve the power of judicial discretion\\n\\nMost people who enter prison will one day return to society. Therefore, restricting the ability to earn time off their sentences through positive behavior and programs only teaches these people\\u2014especially those who enter as children or young adults\\u2014that the system believes them to be beyond reform.\\n\\u003Cblockquote\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Chr \\\/\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Ch2\\u003E\\u0022Truth-in-sentencing\\u0022 only teaches people\\u2014especially those who enter as children or young adults\\u2014that the system believes them to be beyond reform.\\u003C\\\/h2\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003Chr \\\/\\u003E\\n\\n\\u003C\\\/blockquote\\u003E\\nThe argument that TIS protects final sentences of judges from \\u201ccircumvention\\u201d by sentence credits is also misguided. While it is true that numerous laws have reduced judicial discretion over the years, these changes\\u2014from automatic transfer laws to mandatory firearm enhancements\\u2014primarily work to prevent judges from imposing more forgiving sentences, not from dispensing harsher ones.\\n\\nFor instance, a first-degree murder conviction carries a sentence of a minimum of twenty years to a maximum of sixty years or life (before firearm enhancements). With such a broad range, judges who believed a longer sentence was justified could choose a sentence length toward the higher end of the range. TIS hardly seems necessary to ensure individuals serve longer behind bars.\\n\\u003Ch3\\u003E\\u003Cspan style=\\u0022color: #213159;\\u0022\\u003E\\u003Cb\\u003EWant to learn more?\\u003C\\\/b\\u003E\\u003C\\\/span\\u003E\\u003C\\\/h3\\u003E\\nOne of the most troubling aspects of TIS is how it interacts with other \\u201ctough-on-crime\\u201d policies. Consider, for instance, how TIS combines with \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-firearm-sentence-enhancements\\\/\\u0022\\u003Emandatory firearm enhancements\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E and laws that allow \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-automatic-transfer-of-children-to-adult-court\\\/\\u0022\\u003Eautomatic transfer of juveniles to adult court\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nIndividually, each law punishes people who are convicted of committing crimes with firearms. TIS restricts good time, while a firearm enhancement increases time served. On top of this, automatic transfer makes even children eligible for these harsher punishments (and don\\u2019t forget, Illinois \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/why-parole-matters\\\/\\u0022\\u003Edoesn\\u2019t have parole\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E for most people).\\n\\nThat means that until a few years ago, a judge would have \\u003Ci\\u003Eno choice \\u003C\\\/i\\u003Ebut to sentence a 17-year-old who was convicted of stealing $250 in an armed robbery during which they fired a bullet into the ground to \\u003Cstrong\\u003Ea minimum of 26 years, of which at least 22 must be served\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E. Specifically, after being automatically transferred to adult court due to the nature of the crime, the 17-year-old defendant would face a minimum of 6 years for armed robbery, plus a mandatory 20 years added for the firearm enhancement. The entirety of this 26-year sentence would be subject to TIS.\\n\\nIn 2016, the \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/cjreform2015.icjia.cloud\\\/about\\\/\\u0022\\u003EIllinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\u2014a bipartisan commission established by Governor Bruce Rauner to develop strategies to reduce the prison population in Illinois\\u2014called out TIS as one area in need of reform. You can read more about why the Commission called for a rollback of TIS in their \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/cjreform2015.icjia.cloud\\\/pdf\\\/CJSR_Final_Report_Dec_2016.pdf\\u0022\\u003Efinal report\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E (see recommendations #18 and #19).\\n\\nUnfortunately, neither of these recommendations were realized to any substantial degree.\\n\\n\\u003Cem\\u003E\\u003Cstrong\\u003ELinked Sources\\u003C\\\/strong\\u003E\\u003C\\\/em\\u003E\\n\\nHeaton, R. et al. (2016, December). Final report of the Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from \\u003Ca href=\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.icjia.state.il.us\\\/\\u0022\\u003Ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.icjia.state.il.us\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E.\\n\\nOlson, D., Griffin, P., Einstein, L., Halladay-Glynn, M., \\u0026amp; Lira, B. (2025). Truth in sentencing in Illinois prisons. \\u003Ci\\u003ELoyola University Chicago Center for Criminal Justice\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E. \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/loyolaccj.org\\\/blog\\\/truth-and-sentencing-in-illinois-prisons\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/loyolaccj.org\\\/blog\\\/truth-and-sentencing-in-illinois-prisons\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\n\\nUnited States General Accounting Office. (1998). \\u003Ci\\u003ETruth in sentencing: Availability of federal grants influenced laws in some states\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E. \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.govinfo.gov\\\/content\\\/pkg\\\/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-42\\\/pdf\\\/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-42.pdf\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/www.govinfo.gov\\\/content\\\/pkg\\\/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-42\\\/pdf\\\/GAOREPORTS-GGD-98-42.pdf\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\\n\\nU.S. Department of Justice. Violent offender incarceration and truth-in-sentencing incentive formula grant program. \\u003Ci\\u003EBureau of Justice Assistance\\u003C\\\/i\\u003E. \\u003Ca href=\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/bja.ojp.gov\\\/sites\\\/g\\\/files\\\/xyckuh186\\\/files\\\/media\\\/document\\\/voitis-final-report.pdf\\u0022\\u003Ehttps:\\\/\\\/bja.ojp.gov\\\/sites\\\/g\\\/files\\\/xyckuh186\\\/files\\\/media\\\/document\\\/voitis-final-report.pdf\\u003C\\\/a\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"Before 1998, people incarcerated in Illinois prison could proactively earn time off their court-appointed sentence through good behavior and participation in prison programming. \",\"auto_excerpt\":\"Before 1998, people incarcerated in Illinois prison could proactively earn time off their court-appointed sentence through good behavior and participation in prison programming. \",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-truth-in-sentencing\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2018-04-30 16:20:30\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                          <article class=\"bg-gray-light vue-card-post\">\n                <card-post :post='{\"ID\":1144,\"title\":\"Accountability Theory\",\"content\":\"\\u003C!-- wp:acf\\\/wysiwyg {\\u0022name\\u0022:\\u0022acf\\\/wysiwyg\\u0022,\\u0022data\\u0022:{\\u0022width\\u0022:\\u00221\\u0022,\\u0022_width\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_width\\u0022,\\u0022title\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_title\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_title\\u0022,\\u0022subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022_subtitle\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_subtitle\\u0022,\\u0022wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eWHAT IS ILLINOIS\\u2019 \\u201cLAW OF ACCOUNTABILITY\\u201d?\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nIn Illinois, it is legal for a person to be arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime they not only did not commit but also did not plan, agree, or intend to commit, and at which they were not even present. Like many states, Illinois has enacted a statute generally known as an \\u201caccomplice liability law,\\u201d which allows a person to be held criminally responsible for someone else\\u2019s actions. In Illinois, this statute is called the \\u201claw of accountability,\\u201d or \\u201caccountability theory.\\u201d\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nThe law of accountability is a legal mechanism the state uses to convict people of crimes with which they were associated but did not commit. Accountability is not the definition of a criminal offense, but rather is applied to people who were \\u201caccessories\\u201d or \\u201cpassive participants\\u201d in a crime.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nSpecifically, the law of accountability states that a person is legally responsible for another person\\u2019s illegal conduct if \\u201c\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eeither before or during the commission of an offense, and with the intent to promote or facilitate that commission, he or she solicits, aids, abets, agrees, or attempts to aid that other person in the planning or commission of the offense\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\u201d\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e(\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/ilcs\\\/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K5-2\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e720 ILCS 5\\\/5-2\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e). In cases where the law of accountability has been challenged, Illinois Courts have held that to prove a defendant possessed the intent to promote or facilitate the crime, evidence may be presented that (1) the defendant shared the criminal intent of the person who actually committed the crime, or (2) there was a common \\u201ccriminal design\\u201d or plan. The second holding has become known as the \\u201ccommon-design rule.\\u201d\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nUnder the common-design rule, if two or more people engage in or agree to engage in a criminal act together, any additional criminal acts committed by one person are considered to be the acts of all persons. Everyone is held equally responsible for the consequences of further acts. Under this rule, evidence that a person attached themselves to a group of people intent on committing one crime can be used to sustain his or her conviction for any other offense committed by a member of the group. This means that if someone assists in any way in the planning or commission of a crime, or exhibits more than \\u201cmere presence\\u201d at the scene of the crime, that person can be charged, convicted, and sentenced as if they actually committed the crime.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nThe court uses six factors to determine if a person is accountable for the unlawful acts of another person. These factors are: (1) being present during the commission of the crime (unless the person attempted to leave or prevent the crime), (2) acting as a lookout, (3) fleeing the scene after the crime, (4) continuing to associate with the principle actor after the criminal act, (5) failing to report the incident, and (6) accepting illegal proceeds of the crime.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cblockquote\\\\u003e\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eThe law of accountability allows a person to be convicted for crimes committed by another person, even if the other person has not been charged or has been acquitted or found guilty only of a lesser offense\\u00a0(\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/ilcs\\\/fulltext.asp?DocName=073000050K5-5-3\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e720 ILCS 5\\\/5-3\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e).\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/blockquote\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWHY DOES IT MATTER?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nThe law of accountability is a tool that is especially useful to law enforcement in cases that involve what they perceive to be criminal organizations or\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/drive.google.com\\\/open?id=1NggFA3wiRpXt6nDJtoLMA9a68OmM0bY0\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003egangs\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e. Because accountability can be used to threaten lesser participants with long criminal sentences, law enforcement can, in many cases, leverage information and plea deals that they could not otherwise secure.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nTypically, to be found guilty of any crime there must be evidence of a criminal act (\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eactus reus\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e) and a criminal mindset (\\\\u003cem\\\\u003emens rea\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e). The\\u00a0law of accountability bypasses this two-part legal requirement\\u00a0by relying on something called \\u201cthe natural and probable cause doctrine\\u201d (\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/repository.jmls.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047\\\\u0026amp;context=facpubs\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eHeyman, 2010\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e). Under this doctrine, a person can be held legally responsible for\\u00a0\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eall\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\u00a0of the illegal conduct of another person if the \\u201csubsequent crime was a foreseeable consequence of the first, no matter how indistinct.\\u201d\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nThe law of accountability is pernicious because it can be applied to any other criminal offense. This means that a person can be held accountable for\\u00a0\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eany\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\u00a0crime\\u2014felony or misdemeanor\\u2014committed by another person if a relatively low standard of evidence, under the natural and probable cause doctrine, is met. Moreover, the common-design rule makes a person legally responsible not only for the crime they helped to plan or commit but also for\\u00a0\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eall\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\u00a0other offenses committed by a co-offender during the commission of the planned offense, even if the crime was not a part of the original plan.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nUnder the common-design rule, \\u201cthe only necessary element to support a conviction\\u201d is the decision to engage in the initial crime.\\u00a0\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eConsequently, the common-design rule ignores the degree of participation and the intent of the person charged with the crime,\\u00a0\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003eand, instead, holds them liable for every criminal act committed. Because of this, the law of accountability blurs the lines between so-called \\u201cviolent\\u201d and \\u201cnon-violent\\u201d offenders. Because the law of accountability is designed to catch passive participants and those with peripheral roles in a crime, the people convicted under this rule usually did not personally cause harm or violence. As a result, there are likely hundreds of people who have been convicted of and are currently serving life, \\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.injusticewatch.org\\\/news\\\/2019\\\/illinois-supreme-court-rules-that-41-year-term-for-juvenile-offender-amounts-to-life\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ede facto life\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e, and other long-term sentences for so-called \\u201cviolent crimes,\\u201d including murder, but who have not personally committed any acts of violence.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nBecause, our criminal legal data systems do not differentiate between who was convicted for actually committing an offense and who was convicted under the theory of accountability, the exact number of those affected is unknown. We have no way to know how many of the\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www2.illinois.gov\\\/idoc\\\/reportsandstatistics\\\/Pages\\\/QuarterlyReports.aspx\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003emore than 6,500 people\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u00a0currently in Illinois Department of Corrections custody or under state supervision who were convicted of murder were actually charged under the theory of accountability.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eYOUTH AND THE LAW OF ACCOUNTABILITY\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nYouthful offenders are\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/ir.lib.uwo.ca\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=6097\\\\u0026amp;context=etd\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003emore likely to act in groups\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u00a0(or \\u201cco-offend\\u201d) and are more susceptible to peer pressure. They are, thus, disproportionately affected by the law of accountability. The US\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.law.cornell.edu\\\/supremecourt\\\/text\\\/10-9646\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eSupreme Court established\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u00a0that children lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility that makes them more reckless, impulsive, and risk-prone than adults, and that they are also more susceptible to rehabilitation. But, when convicted under a theory of accountability, children are often branded \\u201cviolent offenders\\u201d for life and are subject to the same sentencing range as the person who actually committed the violent act. This is true even if they did not inflict any harm or commit any acts of violence. Young people convicted of murder under the law of accountability usually receive life,\\u00a0de-facto life, or other extreme sentences.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003ePossible Scenarios that Could Lead to a Conviction Under a Theory of Accountability:\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cdiv class=\\\\u0022wp-block-spacer\\\\u0022 aria-hidden=\\\\u0022true\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/div\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cfigure class=\\\\u0022wp-block-image size-large\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cimg class=\\\\u0022aligncenter wp-image-3610 size-large\\\\u0022 src=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/app\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Accountability-Blog-Post-1024x493.jpg\\\\u0022 alt=\\\\u0022\\\\u0022 width=\\\\u00221024\\\\u0022 height=\\\\u0022493\\\\u0022 \\\/\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/figure\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cdiv class=\\\\u0022wp-block-spacer\\\\u0022 aria-hidden=\\\\u0022true\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eArtwork by Betta Creates\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/div\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003col\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eJack, a minor, and Jill, legally an adult, agree to rob a grocery store. Jack waits in the getaway car while Jill goes into the store and robs it at gunpoint. During the course of this robbery,\\u00a0\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eJill intentionally shoots and kills the store clerk\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Jack could be charged with armed robbery and first-degree murder, under a theory of accountability, even though the death of the store clerk was not a part of the original plan and Jack was waiting in the car.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eJack and Jill agree to rob a grocery store. Jack waits in the getaway car while Jill goes into the store and robs it at gunpoint. During the course of this robbery,\\u00a0\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eJill unintentionally shoots and kills the store clerk\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. Jack could be charged with armed robbery and first-degree murder, under a theory of accountability, even though the death of the store clerk was unintentional, not a part of the original plan, and Jack was waiting in the car.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n \\\\t\\\\u003cli\\\\u003eJack agrees to give Jill a ride to the grocery store.\\u00a0\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003e\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eUnbeknownst to Jack, Jill robs the store at gunpoint\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e. While waiting in the car, Jack hears a gunshot, and, shortly thereafter, Jill returns to the car. Jack asks, \\u201cWhat happened?\\u201d and Jill replies, \\u201cI robbed the place. Drive!\\u201d Jack sees someone run toward his car shouting, \\u201cStop, thief,\\u201d and Jack drives away not knowing that Jill shot and killed a store clerk. Jack could be charged with armed robbery and first-degree murder, under a theory of accountability, because he fled the scene, continued to associate with Jill, and failed to report the crime to the police. This would be true even though Jack did not know Jill intended to rob the store, that Jill was armed, or that Jill shot and killed the store clerk.\\\\u003c\\\/li\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003c\\\/ol\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cdiv class=\\\\u0022wp-block-spacer\\\\u0022 aria-hidden=\\\\u0022true\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/div\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nIn these three scenarios, Jack could be charged with one or more crimes under the law of accountability, even though he (1) did not possess or fire a weapon, (2) may not have known that Jill possessed a weapon, (3) was not present, (4) did not know a crime would occur, and\\\/or (5) was a juvenile while Jill was an adult. Jack could be charged and sentenced as if he himself committed these crimes.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eHISTORY AND POLITICS\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nThe theory of accountability has a long history in criminal law. It originated from the\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.law.cornell.edu\\\/wex\\\/common_law\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ecommon law\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e, or \\u201cthe body of law derived from judicial decisions.\\u201d The\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.ali.org\\\/publications\\\/show\\\/model-penal-code\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eModel Penal Code\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e (\\u201cPenal Code\\u201d) sought to limit the law of accountability, especially as it related to the common-design rule. The Penal Code established very basic requirements for imposing criminal liability for another person\\u2019s crime. Specifically, the Penal Code \\u201crequired the purposeful promotion or facilitation\\u201d of the planned offense (\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.minnesotalawreview.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/12\\\/Heyman_2fmt.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eHeyman, 2014\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIn 1954, the Illinois Bar Association and Chicago Bar Association established a joint committee to update the Illinois Criminal Code. The committee completed its work in 1960, and the governor and General Assembly then approved the changes. The new draft, known as the\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/repository.law.umich.edu\\\/mjlr\\\/vol4\\\/iss3\\\/5\\\/?utm_source=repository.law.umich.edu%2Fmjlr%2Fvol4%2Fiss3%2F5\\\\u0026amp;utm_medium=PDF\\\\u0026amp;utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eCriminal Code of 1961\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e, took effect on January 1, 1962.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nThe\\u00a0Criminal Code of 1961 (\\u201cCriminal Code\\u201d), like the Penal Code, removed references to the common law, including the common-design rule (\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/store.lexisnexis.com\\\/products\\\/illinois-criminal-law-a-survey-of-crimes-and-defenses-skuusSku7602\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eDecker and Kopacz\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e). In fact, the accountability section of the Criminal Code is taken virtually verbatim from the Penal Code, which requires an individual to intentionally assist another person in the commission of a crime in order for that individual to be held criminally liable. As such, it sought to eliminate the common-design rule.\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nNevertheless, since the enactment of the Criminal Code of 1961, judicial opinions\\u00a0resurrected and incorporated the common-design rule into Illinois accountability law (\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/www.minnesotalawreview.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/12\\\/Heyman_2fmt.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eHeyman, 2014\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e). \\\\u003ca id=\\\\u0022fs-edit-button\\\\u0022 class=\\\\u0022fs-link fs-edit-link\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca id=\\\\u0022fs-sign-button\\\\u0022 class=\\\\u0022fs-link fs-sign-link\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u201cEntirely ignoring both the statutory language and legislative history, the [Illinois Supreme Court] proclaimed the accountability statute as embodying the \\u2018intent\\u2019 of incorporating \\u2018the principle of the common-design rule\\u201d (\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/repository.jmls.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454\\\\u0026amp;context=facpubs\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eHeyman, 2013\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e).\\u00a0 By doing so, \\u201cthe Illinois Courts have resurrected a common law rule of accountability for which there is no statutory authority\\u201d (\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/repository.jmls.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454\\\\u0026amp;context=facpubs\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eHeyman, 2013\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nHowever, in 2008, the Illinois General Assembly made the common-design rule a part of the accountability statute by adding the following paragraph:\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cblockquote\\\\u003e\\u201cWhen 2 or more persons engage in a common criminal design or agreement, any acts in the furtherance of that common design committed by one party are considered to be the acts of all parties to the common design or agreement and all are equally responsible for the consequences of those further acts. Mere presence at the scene of a crime does not render a person accountable for an offense; a person\\u2019s presence at the scene of a crime, however, may be considered with other circumstances by the trier of fact when determining accountability\\u201d (\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.ilga.gov\\\/legislation\\\/ilcs\\\/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K5-2\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003e720 ILCS 5\\\/5-2\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e).\\\\u003c\\\/blockquote\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\nBy codifying the common-design rule, the Illinois General Assembly solidified \\u201can incredibly expansive mechanism for convicting offenders of criminal acts in which they did not partake and never intended to partake,\\u201d\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu\\\/jclc\\\/vol108\\\/iss1\\\/5\\\/\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003eBrooke Troutman writes\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e. This is contrary to the intent of the drafters of the Model Penal Code, the Illinois Criminal Code of 1961, and the recommendations of the Illinois Criminal Code Reform and Rewrite Commission, which also recommended \\u201c\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/scholarship.law.upenn.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1290\\\\u0026amp;context=faculty_scholarship\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ethe elimination of the common-design rule for complicity liability.\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\u201d\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u0026nbsp;\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eWANT TO LEARN MORE?\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cstrong\\\\u003eThe following resources will provide you with more information about the theory of accountability:\\\\u003c\\\/strong\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nBrooke Troutman,\\u00a0\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eA More Just System of Juvenile Justice: Creating a New Standard of Accountability for Juveniles in Illinois,\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e\\u00a0108 J. Crim. L. \\\\u0026amp; Criminology 197 (2018). Retrieved from:\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=7621\\\\u0026amp;context=jclc\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=7621\\\\u0026amp;context=jclc\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMichael G. Heyman, The Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine: A Case Study in Failed Law Reform, 15 Berkeley J. Crim. L.388(2010). Retrieved from:\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/repository.jmls.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047\\\\u0026amp;context=facpubs\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/repository.jmls.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047\\\\u0026amp;context=facpubs\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMichael Heyman, Losing All Sense of Just Proportion: The Peculiar Law of Accomplice Liability, 87 St. John\\u2019s Law Rev. 129 (2013). Retrieved from:\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/repository.jmls.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454\\\\u0026amp;context=facpubs\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/repository.jmls.edu\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=1454\\\\u0026amp;context=facpubs\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMichael G, Heyman, Clinging to the Common Law in an Age of Statutes: Criminal Law in the States, 99 Minnesota L. Rev. 29, 31 (2014). Retrieved from:\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022http:\\\/\\\/www.minnesotalawreview.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/12\\\/Heyman_2fmt.pdf\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttp:\\\/\\\/www.minnesotalawreview.org\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2014\\\/12\\\/Heyman_2fmt.pdf\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\u003ca id=\\\\u0022fs-edit-button\\\\u0022 class=\\\\u0022fs-link fs-edit-link\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nSabo, Victoria, \\u201cSocial Relationships in Young Offenders: Relevance to Peers, Poverty, and Psychological Adjustment\\u201d (2017). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 4364. Retrieved from:\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/ir.lib.uwo.ca\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=6097\\\\u0026amp;context=etd\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/ir.lib.uwo.ca\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=6097\\\\u0026amp;context=etd\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003cdiv class=\\\\u0022wp-block-spacer\\\\u0022 aria-hidden=\\\\u0022true\\\\u0022\\\\u003e\\\\u003c\\\/div\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\u003ch3 class=\\\\u0022wp-block-heading\\\\u0022\\\\u003eALL WORKS CITED\\\\u003c\\\/h3\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n720 ILCS 5\\\/5-2 (When accountability exists).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n720 ILCS 5\\\/5-3 (Separate conviction of person accountable).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nBlack\\u2019s Law Dictionary, 279 (7th ed. 1999)\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nBrooke Troutman, A More Just System of Juvenile Justice: Creating a New Standard of Accountability for Juvenile in Illinois, The Journal of Criminal Law \\\\u0026amp; Criminology,\\u00a0 108 J. Crim. L. \\\\u0026amp; Criminology 197, 215 (2018).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\n\\u201cCo-Offending with Peers. Co-offending has recently become a burgeoning topic in the youth offending literature. High prevalence of peer interaction in adolescence may present more opportunities for co-offending. Indeed, youth are more likely to co-offend in comparison to their adult counterparts, and with a higher number of offenders involved (Weerman, 2003).\\u201d\\u00a0\\\\u003ca href=\\\\u0022https:\\\/\\\/ir.lib.uwo.ca\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=6097\\\\u0026amp;context=etd\\\\u0022 target=\\\\u0022_blank\\\\u0022 rel=\\\\u0022noopener\\\\u0022\\\\u003ehttps:\\\/\\\/ir.lib.uwo.ca\\\/cgi\\\/viewcontent.cgi?article=6097\\\\u0026amp;context=etd\\\\u003c\\\/a\\\\u003e\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nFinal Report of the Illinois Criminal Code Reform and Rewrite Commission, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series Research Paper No. 09-40 (2003).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nIllinois Criminal Law: A Survey of Crimes and Defenses, 3:03\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMichael G. Heyman,\\u00a0\\\\u003cem\\\\u003eThe Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine: A Case Study in Failed Law Reform\\\\u003c\\\/em\\\\u003e, 15 Berkeley J. Crim. L. 388, 395 (2010).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMichael G. Heyman, Losing All Sense of Just Proportion: The Peculiar Law of Accomplice Liability, 87 St. John\\u2019s Law Rev. 129, 155, note 122 (2013).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nMichael G, Heyman, Clinging to the Common Law in an Age of Statutes: Criminal Law in the States, 99 Minnesota L. Rev. 29, 31 (2014).\\\\r\\\\n\\\\r\\\\nModel Penal Code Pt. I: General Provisions (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1985), Pt II: Definition of Specific Crimes (Official Draft and Revised Comments 1980).\\u0022,\\u0022_wysiwyg\\u0022:\\u0022field_wysiwyg_wysiwyg\\u0022},\\u0022align\\u0022:\\u0022\\u0022,\\u0022mode\\u0022:\\u0022edit\\u0022} \\\/--\\u003E\",\"excerpt\":\"In Illinois, it is legal for a person to be arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime they not only did not commit but also did not plan, agree, or intend to commit, and at which they were not even present.\",\"auto_excerpt\":\"In Illinois, it is legal for a person to be arrested, charged, and convicted of a crime they not only did not commit but also did not plan, agree, or intend to commit, and at which they were not even present.\",\"link\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.restorejustice.org\\\/legal-explainer\\\/explainer-accountability-theory\\\/\",\"featured_image\":0,\"featured_image_html\":\"\",\"featured_caption\":\"\",\"date\":\"2023-06-06 20:46:43\",\"display_date\":null,\"post_type\":\"legal-explainer\",\"taxonomies\":[],\"primary_term\":{\"label\":\"Explainer\"},\"author\":null,\"cta_title\":\"Read Article\",\"colours\":{\"bg\":{\"primary\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"secondary\":\"bg-blue\",\"single\":\"bg-navy\"},\"text\":{\"primary\":\"text-white\"},\"social\":{\"bg\":\"bg-navy-deep\",\"text\":\"text-white hover:bg-blue group-hover:bg-blue\"},\"secondary_link\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"underline\":\"text-red\"},\"label_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":{\"box\":\"text-blue\",\"heading\":\"text-red\"},\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum text-white\",\"carousel_button\":\"bg-blue\",\"headings\":{\"large\":\"text-blue\",\"dark\":\"text-blue\",\"small\":\"text-white\"},\"download_card\":{\"text\":\"text-white\",\"bg\":\"bg-navy\",\"icon\":\"text-red\"},\"card\":{\"link\":\"text-white\",\"text\":\"text-white\",\"heading\":\"text-white\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"stat\":\"text-blue\",\"logo\":\"text-blue\",\"icon\":\"text-blue\",\"eyebrow\":\"text-red\"},\"hero\":{\"heading\":\"text-blue\",\"secondary_heading\":\"text-blue\",\"button\":\"bg-red hover:bg-plum\"},\"tabs\":{\"text\":\"text-black-brand\",\"border\":\"border-blue\",\"bg\":\"bg-blue\",\"active-text\":\"text-white\"}}}' \/>\n              <\/article>\n                      <\/div>\n              <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n  <\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":37,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-329","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v25.9 (Yoast SEO v25.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Legal System Basics - Restore Justice Foundation<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Legal System Basics\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Restore Justice Foundation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-06-22T18:26:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/\",\"name\":\"Legal System Basics - Restore Justice Foundation\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-16T22:05:26+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-06-22T18:26:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Learn\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Legal System Basics\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/\",\"name\":\"Restore Justice Foundation\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Legal System Basics - Restore Justice Foundation","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Legal System Basics","og_url":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/","og_site_name":"Restore Justice Foundation","article_modified_time":"2023-06-22T18:26:58+00:00","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/","url":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/","name":"Legal System Basics - Restore Justice Foundation","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-03-16T22:05:26+00:00","dateModified":"2023-06-22T18:26:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/legal-system-basics\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Learn","item":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Legal System Basics"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/","name":"Restore Justice Foundation","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/329","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=329"}],"version-history":[{"count":25,"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/329\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2943,"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/329\/revisions\/2943"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/37"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}