Dazzler
Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: 345
 Offline
Gender: 
Location: Illinois
Posts: 23050
Retired News Reporter ~ ON VACATION
|
 |
« on: August 19, 2007, 06:12:46 PM » |
|
[Ed. note: The Chicago Tribune published a letter from victim's rights advocate Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins in opposition to the parole of Bill Hierins. Our IPT member Bill Ryan, publisher of Stateville Speaks, wrote a rebuttal letter to the editor which was NOT published by the Tribune. Here is his letter, unfortunatley only one side of this issue was reflected in the Letters to the Editor.]
Letter to the Editor
Chicago Tribune
435 N. Michigan
Chicago, Il 60611
Dear Editor
Subject: Response to Jennifer Jenkins letter
Re: Bill Hierens, Parole
Dear Editor,
I read Jennifer Bishop Jenkins's letter (August 11, 2007) regarding Bill
Hierens. Hierens will be eighty years old in November, is bedridden with
diabetes, and has been a model prison since he was convicted 61 years ago for a
horrible crime that resulted in the deaths of three people. Although Hierens has
maintained his innocence, courts have reaffirmed the conviction.
Illinois effectively ended parole in 1978 except for a small number of
offenders, including Heirens and about 300 others, so-called C#s who were
sentenced to indeterminate sentences. The goal of indeterminate sentencing was
to establish a minimum and maximum sentence and provide an opportunity for
offenders to reform and prove to a prison review board that they were no longer
a threat to public safety. Heirens has met the criteria established by the older
system but has been denied parole.
Indeterminate sentencing was, as Jenkins writes, deeply flawed and frequently
racist in its application. But the present system hardly addresses those
inequities. Indeed, we are much worse off now. The reasonable goal of correcting
the arbitrariness and racism of indeterminate sentences has given way to
inflexible sentencing graphs and fixed-term punishments, which have curtailed
judicial discretion and produced longer sentences (which continue to impact
black communities more than white ones). This was not the intent of the
progressive efforts that first agitated against indeterminate sentencing. In the
1970s, mainstream parties used studies outlining the challenges of the
penal-welfarism system, like that of the American Friends Committee, to simply
cut educational, therapeutic, and parole programs. We continue to struggle with
these uncivil developments.
Right now, the Illinios Prison Review Board annually approves parole for about
5% of the C#s who apply, and 6% of th ose who have been paroled reoffend. This
compares to an approximately 60% recidivism rate for others who leave prison.
There is no system for parole or sentence adjustment for other prisoners.
Illinois has 46,000 individuals in a prison system that is costly, overcrowded,
with overworked staff and no relief in sight. About 10% of the prisoners are age
50 or older, and this number will skyrocket in the next years because of rigid,
inflexible sentencing laws. Researchers in the field of Corrections consider
prisoners to be "elderly" at the age of 50 due to the increased stress in
prison, inadequate medical care, and health problems before prison. The costs of
maintaining the elderly in prison is three times what is costs for others. In
Illinois that is about $70,000 a year. It would be prudent to examine an
alternative to keeping elderly men and women who are not a public threat in
prison. For example, if 100 of the 4,500 e lderly earned release, taxpayers would
save $7 million annually. Study after study has demonstrated that the elderly
are much less likely to reoffend than any other group. In a Pennsylvania study
less than 2% of elderly who had served 25 years reoffended, none for a crime
against a person.
I am the chair of Citizens for Earned Release (CER) that will be advocating for
Elderly Sentence Adjustment legislation. This legislation would provide an
opportunity for prisoners who have reached age 50 and have served 25 consecutive
years to demonstrate in a variety of ways that she/he is reformed and no longer
a threat to public safety. The petitioner will also document relevant medical
conditions and have an opportunity to participate in Restorative Justice
programs. Victims families will receive timely notification and be kept informed
about the process. Elderly Sentence Adjustment is not for everyone nor should it
be. This is a very small step toward addressing inflexible sentencing laws. Men
and women who have reformed themselves, are accountable, and have paid a price
for their actions should be provided an opportunity to earn sentence adjustment.
Democratic systems should work on the principal of minimum restraint, exerting
the least force necessary to maintain safety. Forcing elderly people, often with
chronic and debilitating conditions, to die in prison is not using the least
necessary force.
It is excessively cruel.
Bill Ryan
Chair, Citizens for Earned Release
|
Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM