{"id":331,"date":"2023-03-16T22:05:34","date_gmt":"2023-03-16T22:05:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/?page_id=331"},"modified":"2025-02-24T15:39:18","modified_gmt":"2025-02-24T20:39:18","slug":"why-parole-matters","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.restorejustice.org\/learn\/why-parole-matters\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Parole Matters"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n \n
\n \n
\n
\n \n \n

Home<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p> <\/div>\n\n \n

\n \n Why Parole Matters\n <\/h1>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n

In 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 people in the 1970s to more than 40,000 at the peak. Today, about 25,000 people are incarcerated in Illinois state prisons. While not the only reason, the abandonment of discretionary parole was a certain factor contributing to our state\u2019s prison crisis.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n

\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n \"\"\n <\/div>\n\n \n <\/div>\n\n
\n

\n Learn\n <\/p>\n \n

\n

\n At 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.\n<\/h2>\n \n

Yet there are 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).<\/p>\n

Surprisingly (or maybe not), these myths are often held by the legislators who vote on parole bills.<\/p>\n

We think it\u2019s important that people have answers. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n

\n \n\n Advocate for parole with Restore Justice<\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n <\/section>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

Why Parole Matters<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n <\/div>\n \n \n

\n
\n \n
\n

In 1978, Illinois abolished discretionary parole system. Today, it remains one of just 17 states (plus the District of Columbia) without a parole system.<\/p>\n

Through bipartisan laws enacted in 2019 and 2023, the Illinois General Assembly created new parole opportunities for people 20 and younger sentenced after enactment. These laws ended life without parole for all children, and most youth, in our state.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The 2019 Youthful Parole Law (<\/span>Public Act 100-1182<\/span><\/a>) created a mid-sentence parole consideration system for people 20 or younger at the time of the conviction.<\/span><\/p>\n

The 2023 Youthful Parole Law (<\/span>Public Act 102-1128<\/span><\/a>) created a parole consideration opportunity for people 20 or younger sentenced to a term of natural life imprisonment after serving 40 or more years of their sentence.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Restore Justice\u2019s current focus is to create retroactive parole opportunities for children and young adults. People under 21 sentenced before 1978 and after 2019 already have some parole opportunities in Illinois. We are working to advance legislation that would give those sentenced between those years the same opportunities. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/div>\n \n \n

\n \n \n Read more about the 2019 and 2023 legislation\n <\/a>\n \n \n
\n \n\n Learn more about Juvenile life without parole sentences<\/span>\n <\/a>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n
\n \n
\n \n
\n

What is parole?<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n <\/div>\n \n \n

\n
\n \n
\n

Parole describes the practice of releasing people before the completion of their maximum, court-appointed sentence. These\u00a0 people then serve the remainder of their sentence under a period of supervised and conditional release, during which failure to follow certain rules may lead to the revocation of parole.<\/p>\n

There are two types of parole\u2014discretionary and mandatory\u2014that differ in how release is granted.<\/p>\n

In discretionary systems, release is granted following a decision by a parole board, which grants or withholds parole based on its assessment of individual cases.<\/p>\n

In contrast, mandatory systems automatically release people to parole (i.e. without a hearing) when certain legally binding conditions are met. This type of parole is reserved for people serving time for less serious offenses. Mandatory parole can also describe the practice of automatically releasing individuals to serve a pre-set final portion of a court-appointed sentences (e.g. the last 6 months) outside prison walls and under supervision.<\/p>\n

Parole is related to the concepts of\u00a0indeterminate and determinate sentencing<\/strong>. When a person is eligible for discretionary parole, they receive an indeterminate sentence range (e.g. 3 to 7 years, 45 to 170 years). Individuals become eligible for parole at the minimum of the sentence range and may remain behind bars without being granted parole for up to the maximum for the range, after which they are automatically released.<\/p>\n

In contrast, determinate sentences are set terms (e.g. 8 years, 30 months). Because they are predetermined, people given determinate sentences cannot earn parole, though they still be released earlier than their court-appointed term through other mechanisms.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/div>\n \n \n

\n \n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n
\n
\n \n \n
\n

\n Other types of supervised or early release (which are often called “parole”)\n<\/h2>\n <\/div>\n \n \n \n
\n \n \n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n<\/svg> <\/div>\n

Post-sentencing judicial review<\/h3>\n <\/button>\n \n \n \n
\n \n

Post-sentencing judicial review<\/h3>\n \n \n
\n

Generally, a judge\u2019s sentence is final and immutable. Sometimes, however, states may allow some people to receive a modified sentence. These reviews are often limited to people who meet certain narrow criteria. For instance, the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama<\/em> (and the following Montgomery v. Louisiana<\/em> case) outlawed the sentencing of children to mandatory life without parole and required all people serving that sentence to receive new modified sentences. In Illinois, this amounted to roughly 100 people.<\/p>\n

This process is distinct from parole, which does not change the base sentence but rather where and how a sentence is served. Perhaps more saliently, these types of reviews are often narrow, making them a less common pathway for early release versus parole.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/fieldset>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n

\n \n \n
\n \n\n<\/svg> <\/div>\n

Executive pardons and commutation<\/h3>\n <\/button>\n \n \n \n
\n \n

Executive pardons and commutation<\/h3>\n \n \n
\n

Governors have the power to pardon or commute the sentences of people held in state prisons. Governors may elect to reduce a person’s sentence down to \u201ctime served,\u201d effectively releasing the person. Other times, governors can shorten but not fully commute a sentence to a point where the person serves a shortened period behind bars. In Louisiana, for instance, governors can alter life sentences to termed, non-life sentences (e.g. 50 years), which allows those people to be eventually released, potentially through discretionary parole. As a release mechanism pardons and commutations are powerful. However, they are granted relatively rarely and alter base sentences, unlike parole.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/fieldset>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n

\n \n \n
\n \n\n<\/svg> <\/div>\n

Mandatory supervised release (MSR)<\/h3>\n <\/button>\n \n \n \n
\n \n

Mandatory supervised release (MSR)<\/h3>\n \n \n
\n

In Illinois, people convicted of certain offenses must serve a mandatory period of post-prison supervision known as MSR. Individuals under MSR must follow the same rules and conditions as parole and may be returned to prison for violating those terms.<\/p>\n

Unlike parole, MSR terms are always served after the full completion of a court-appointed prison sentence. In this way, MSR functions as an additional penalty for serious crimes and never as a means of early release. For that reason, it is misguided to consider MSR an appropriate substitute for either discretionary or mandatory parole.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/fieldset>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n \n

\n \n
\n \n
\n \n
\n \n\n<\/svg> <\/div>\n

Post-sentencing judicial review<\/h3>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n \n
\n \n
\n \n\n<\/svg> <\/div>\n

Executive pardons and commutation<\/h3>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n \n
\n \n
\n \n\n<\/svg> <\/div>\n

Mandatory supervised release (MSR)<\/h3>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n\n
\n \n \n \n

Post-sentencing judicial review<\/h3>\n \n \n
\n

Generally, a judge\u2019s sentence is final and immutable. Sometimes, however, states may allow some people to receive a modified sentence. These reviews are often limited to people who meet certain narrow criteria. For instance, the Supreme Court case Miller v. Alabama<\/em> (and the following Montgomery v. Louisiana<\/em> case) outlawed the sentencing of children to mandatory life without parole and required all people serving that sentence to receive new modified sentences. In Illinois, this amounted to roughly 100 people.<\/p>\n

This process is distinct from parole, which does not change the base sentence but rather where and how a sentence is served. Perhaps more saliently, these types of reviews are often narrow, making them a less common pathway for early release versus parole.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n \n \n \n

Executive pardons and commutation<\/h3>\n \n \n
\n

Governors have the power to pardon or commute the sentences of people held in state prisons. Governors may elect to reduce a person’s sentence down to \u201ctime served,\u201d effectively releasing the person. Other times, governors can shorten but not fully commute a sentence to a point where the person serves a shortened period behind bars. In Louisiana, for instance, governors can alter life sentences to termed, non-life sentences (e.g. 50 years), which allows those people to be eventually released, potentially through discretionary parole. As a release mechanism pardons and commutations are powerful. However, they are granted relatively rarely and alter base sentences, unlike parole.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n \n \n \n

Mandatory supervised release (MSR)<\/h3>\n \n \n
\n

In Illinois, people convicted of certain offenses must serve a mandatory period of post-prison supervision known as MSR. Individuals under MSR must follow the same rules and conditions as parole and may be returned to prison for violating those terms.<\/p>\n

Unlike parole, MSR terms are always served after the full completion of a court-appointed prison sentence. In this way, MSR functions as an additional penalty for serious crimes and never as a means of early release. For that reason, it is misguided to consider MSR an appropriate substitute for either discretionary or mandatory parole.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n \n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n

\n
\n
\n

Reducing repeat crimes or reducing recidivism: Not the same thing <\/h3>\n \n \n
\n

When state legislatures across the nation began abolishing parole in the late 1970s, their rationale was often that parole failed to increase public safety or reduce repeat offenses. They pointed to old data plus a few isolated cases of people on parole committing new serious crimes.<\/p>\n

However, more up-to-date research shows discretionary parole can effectively reduce the likelihood of new crimes. The Pew Charitable Trusts<\/a> found that people on parole in New Jersey were 36 percent less likely to commit new crimes and return to prison compared to \u201cmaxouts,\u201d or people released at the end of their terms and without parole supervision. Separately, a 2005 study by the Urban Institute<\/a> compared the benefits of discretionary parole to both unconditional releases and mandatory parole. The authors of the Urban study found that, in some cases, parole could reduce the predicted likelihood of a person’s rearrest by a significant amount, compared to unconditional release.<\/p>\n

Technical violations, not new crimes, drive most of parole rearrests<\/strong><\/p>\n

Some studies suggest parole does not effectively reduce recidivism. These studies point to the comparable rates of recidivism between people on parole and people released without supervision at the end of their prison terms. But recidivism definitions are inconsistent. Some sources of data fail to differentiate technical violations from new crimes, rearrests from returns to prison, or new felony convictions from new misdemeanor convictions.<\/p>\n

Only people on parole and other individuals under parole-like supervision may be arrested and returned to prison for technical violations. This can include missing an appointment with a parole officer, alcohol consumption, or failing to find a suitable home.<\/p>\n

When data sources distinguish between technical violations and other offenses, the benefits of parole become clearer. For instance, in their\u00a02015 report,<\/a> the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reported that while 34 percent of the more than 24,300 people in Illinois exiting mandatory supervised release (MSR) or parole returned to prison, only 1 in 5 of these people were re-imprisoned for new crimes. That means that for all individuals in Illinois exiting parole-like supervision in 2015, only about 7 percent were reincarcerated for new offenses.<\/p>\n

These data are especially noteworthy when one considers that the majority of people on “parole” in Illinois are on MSR and not parole. This means that most of these released individuals were not granted release based on a careful assessment of their likelihood to reoffend.<\/p>\n

People convicted of violent offenses are less likely to reoffend<\/strong><\/p>\n

Many express concern that granting parole to people convicted of violent offenses means that — should they offend — these individuals will inevitably commit new violent crimes. But the data tells another story.<\/p>\n

Table 1. Rates of rearrest, reconviction and returns to prison with new sentence within three<\/strong>\u00a0years, stratified by number of prior arrests and offense type<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

These data suggest that:<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n