In this article, it first starts off that the state of Illinois is trying to reduce the incarceration number. They are putting forth this effort in two ways. One way is to reduce inmate time, and the other is to straight up incarcerate fewer people. Rauner’s goal for this is to decrease the number of prisoners 25% by 2025. With his efforts, he has already cut the number of inmates by approximately 7,000. In my opinion, this is pretty impressive and I think it is for the better. With that being said, I don’t know if it will actually reach the full 25% by 2025. An interesting thing that I noticed is that when the sheriff submits jail population to the judge, he then takes that into consideration with the offender’s sentence. One thing that I think is a good change with this is that an offender with ordinance violations or similar non-violent offenses just requires them to show up to their court dates and not be in jail. In my opinion, this will keep a good chunk of inmates out of the corrections. When I think ordinance violations or non-violent offenses, I think of simple drug violations that most likely the offenders of shouldn’t be in jail or prison for. The overall goal of the Illinois Adult Redeploy is interesting and something that might be the next big thing. This state funded program gives money back to communities in exchange for the decreasing number of incarceration. The sentencing reform law also plays a big part in this incarceration drop. It had several provisions to it, but the one I think that had the biggest effect was that they changed to where there is no mandatory sentence on certain offenses. This plays a big role in the drug offenses, giving those offenders a more efficient and less harsh punishment than incarceration. They may be put on probation, parole, or just simply might not have to serve as long as the previous minimum. -lilbaby001
You have mentioned a lot of interesting things that the article has said concerning reducing the state's prison population. Rauner has made a goal to reduce it by 25% by 2025, and it is uncertain whether or not that goal will be reached now that we have a new governor. I agree with you that people with drug violations should not be sent to prison. Instead those people should either pay a fine or be in some type of program. -Ram001
I agree that just a simple requirement to show up to the court date is a great idea. Especially for low level offenders. I also agree that the state giving money to counties for community based reforms is excellent. It deters counties from just sending convicts to the state prison where they likely will spend more time than a county jail. Jackrabbit001
I agree with everything that you said in your blog. I think that it is great that Illinois is trying to slow down the flow of incarcerations. I think that releasing unnecessary inmates is a step in the right direction. Many people incarcerated should not be serving such harsh sentences. I am curious to see how all of this will be pursued since a new governor has been elected to serve in Illinois. -Anchorman001
According to the article it says that Illinois is attempting to incarcerate fewer people while also reducing the amount of time that inmates are in prison, with some success. I believe it is good that Illinois is trying to do these things, because there have been instances where people are sent to jail or even prison for minor crimes. Along with finding ways to shorten an inmate's sentence it will allow for managing a prison's population. Bruce Rauner had a goal to cut the amount of prisoners by 25% by the year 2025. Managing prisoners costs taxpayers a lot of money for the cells, food, and medical services. Rauner's policies have cut the number of prisoners by 7000. This is an impressive change that he has managed to make. I am not sure if the prison population in Illinois will continue to go down now that we have a new governor in office, but I suppose we will have to see. Rauner also wanted the local criminal justice officials to focus on policies to better control prison population. Mike Emery, a former sheriff and now a law enforcement coordinator in Springfield, started a practice in which judges know when their jails are nearing their capacity. I think this is a good idea because it can give judges the choice to release those who are in jail on probation or have them join some type of program to get out of going to jail. Now the jails were being occupied more by those who have felony charges against them and the amount of those going to jail for misdemeanors and low level felonies are going down. In my opinion this is a better way to use jails rather than just throw in every single person charged with any offense. All in all Illinois has been doing a lot to manage prison populations. With the policies that Rauner and Emery created as well as the Illinois Adult Redeploy, the populations have gone down significantly in the past few years. -Ram001
I am also skeptical about the prison population actually going down with a new governor. Due to the recent politicians that Illinois has had, it’s hard to trust that anyone going in will make an immediate change. I really hope he does though because that is really something that needs to be changed in Illinois.
This article talks about how Illinois cut it’s prison population down. Bruce Rauner, who is the governor of Illinois, has plans of cutting the total prison rolls by 25% by 2025. I think that this is a good goal to have because the Illinois prison population has been steadily increasing throughout the years. Three decades ago there were fewer than 10,000 inmates in prisons. That number has went up to 48,000 in 2015. This is not good because not only are more people getting locked up for minor offenses and drug charges, but it’s costing our state way too much money. Prison costs are at about 1.3 billion dollars annually which is one of the reasons why our country and state is so broke. This article goes on to talk more about saving money, and how the use of technology can improve our decisions. If we get data on trends and spending in our country, then we can use this data to make accurate decisions on how to save money in the future. Cassy Taylor, the director of the McLean County Court Services is a firm believer in this and says that data driven decision making is the way to go. They also talk about using prisons less as a sanction, which has led to a drop in admissions. I am a firm believer in using prisons less and using rehabilitation centers more. We have way too many drug addicts that go into prison because they’re addicted to this drug, and then they come out still addicted to the drug and go right back in. It’s a destructive cycle for not only those prisoners, but for our country because we have to keep paying for their prison needs when they could be in and out of a rehabilitation center in far less time. Hopefully Bruce Rauner can get this disgrace of a state some dignity. -Celtics001
I'm curious to see what will happen to the prison population now that we have a new governor. i completely agree with what you said regarding rehabilitation. we like to put people in prison and forget about them, but the fact of the matter is that many of those people need serious help. sexy_in_bikini 001
I’m glad to see how well this experiment worked out. America is notorious for warehousing people. Yeah there are evil people being sent to jails and prisons, but there are also a lot of people who just made small mistakes. The article mentioned that there were 10 inmates that were all serving time for their ordinance infractions. People are put in jail for making tiny mistakes. Not only is this not fair to the people, its also very expensive. Most people don’t think of jails and prisons when they think of taxes, but a large portion of taxes go to these overcrowded jails and prisons. With more inmates, the more food, medical supplies and cells that have to be provided. All of this comes to around 1.3 billion dollars annually, but judges want to send more and more people to prison. I was shocked to see the annual cost of a prison. Something else that I found interesting in this article was how people who didn’t have to go to jail but still had to return to court, were able to get better lawyers to help them. Jamming minor offenders into overcrowded jails really isn’t helping anyone. It’s preventing people from getting good lawyers and its costing Americans a substantial amount of money. Not even mentioning how long the process is. People stay locked up for months because they can’t afford to pay their bail. A large amount of people that are being sent to jail are often there for possession of drugs. I personally think that if someone was caught with a little weed, they shouldn’t go to jail. However, there are some drugs such as meth and heroin, that will cause people to commit more serious crimes in order to get their dose. I feel that those people should be given help rather than being locked in a cage. Overcrowding in jails is a serious problem and I’m glad to see that the criminal justice system is finally doing something to fix the problem. sexy_in_bikini 001
You're right with the American attitude of simple warehousing offenders, people shouldn't be in jail for minor infractions or small nonviolent drug offences. The taxes are another major point, if we can reduce the prison population then we can reduce that amount that we have to spend on those prisons. -Stark001
You pointed out that housing more inmates causes a greater amount of tax dollars to the Americans who pay and I could not agree more because it is very expensive. Keeping the evil people locked up is the goal of the system but locking up drug or ordinance offenders is causing our money to be wasted on people who do not really need it. -Blues001
This article talks about how Illinois is slowly decreasing it's prison population. This article made me think about a paper I wrote in CRJ 110. I had done much research about how Missouri is dealing with their prison and jail problems and it focused completely on rehabilitation programs instead of punishment. It had much success that many states are trying to implement a variation of their "Missouri Plan." Illinois called it "community based corrections," which in reality sounds pretty similar to Missouri's plan. I had no idea that Illinois was even working on cutting prison population. Lowering prison and jail populations is always a good idea but there is always the worry that crime rates will go up. It bewilders me that in Mclean County that even with lower sentencing crime rates continued to drop. It gives me hope that people do not need to sit in a cell for years just to become a repeat offender. In this article, I did not like how that when jails start getting close to maximum occupancy people are more likely to get other forms of punishment. I do not believe that makes it fair for everyone. If you and someone else are arrested for the same crime, one of you gets jail time, and the other gets probation just because of a population problem. While I completely understand that once the limit is reached there is not much you can do but it seems unfair to me. I believe that Illinois should continue to lower the prison and jail population to not only help with keeping peoples lives on track, but also teach people with rehab and community based programs. Jackrabbit001
I definitely agree with you on that probation seems to be the more logistical route, I feel like offenders who have sat through such a long time just to not learn anything and repeat feel as if they have been cheated due their treatment. As if it's not such much about your punishing you for your mistakes but learning from them as well. Rock001
I agree with you that it is unfair to the offender if him and another do the same crime but have different punishments but keep in mind the system has to do what is best for them and not the offender. There are so many factors that go into sentencing including prison population, which is why it is unfortunate that two offenders with the same charges get different punishments. -lilbaby001
I agree with you on how it is unfair for people to get out of jail early because of the high prison population when those who commit the same crime still sit in jails, but I think it is still important to try to weed out the nonviolent offenders in any way we can, which sometimes won't be "fair", sadly. -Reid001
This article discusses Illinois' slowly declining prison population. The state did this by forming committees between several departments of the criminal justice system that allows them to all work together and come up with solutions to our incarceration issue. These committees have already started doing things like informing judges when facilities are almost full, allowing people who committed small, nonviolent infractions to simply appear on their court date instead of having to stay in jail, and detaining mostly only defendants with the most severe charges pre-trial. There has also been a shift in policy for most nonviolent offenders to be sentenced probation instead of prison time. All of these things have been coming together to lower Illinois prison population and hopefully hit the goal that governor Rauner set to reduce prison populations by 25% before 2025. -Stark001
With bruce Rauner's attempt to lower the incarceration rate, it will be interesting to see how JB Pritzker plans to help as well. However it seems that Rauner's initial goal of lowering prison populations in Illinois is a great start. 2025 may seem far away and much could change but I think the time to change things should be done immediately. For instance in this article it mentioned that people in Illinois were being locked up for ordinance violations, one of the lowest forms of criminal acts. In my opinion that seems utterly ridiculous unless many previous things have occurred on someone's record, especially violent acts. I also found it interesting that it mentioned some people have even sat in jail for an extended peoria of time due to not being able to pay bail as low as $100. I understand that the CRJ and corrections system has to run strictly but it seems almost over the top to punish someone is a certain way such as incarceration for such a small amount of money in today's world. I hope that Illinois's gradual shift towards probation continues as I think having offenders still being able to have some freedom and enjoy themselves a little more with allow them to understand that a life in jail or prison not one they want to live at any cost. Rock001
I would agree that it will be interesting to see how JB Pritzker handles these reforms and if he will help and go along or make changes or what he will do. I also agree that 2025 might be a little too far down the line, but it is an ambitious goal. Locking someone up for ordinance violations is ridiculous. I think the $100 is a good bail because a lot of people will be able to pay it, but there should be leeway for people that actually cannot pay it. -Legion001
In the sense of reducing jail populations by 2025, it's real interesting considering so far they have already managed to release 7,000 people. The $100 bail to me should have a time set to be paid by, I know it's like we are waiting for a loan as a state, but it should be treated as any other traffic ticket. -Lobster001
This article is about how the state of Illinois is starting to decrease the number of inmates behind bars and start prison reform. Illinois was chosen along with a select few other states to take part in a national reform program called, National Criminal Justice Reform. Illinois got selected to do this because of how well the reform has been going. Governor Bruce Rauner set a goal of decreasing Illinois prison population by 25%. Illinois has the eighth largest prison population after a considerable jump from lower than 10,000 prisoners three decades ago to over 48,000 in 2015. This is a jump that is pretty crazy to me. It costs the taxpayer $1.3 billion per year. So far Bruce Rauner's changes have decreased the prisoner population by almost seven thousand inmates. Governor Rauner appointed a Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform to help start the process and motivate officials to work together to make policies that would work for Illinois. The article focuses on McLean county and how they went around decreasing the overcrowding of prisons. In 2011 McLean county had the highest out of twenty counties in the state of sending drug offenders to state prisons at a rate of 92.1 per 100,000 residents. The policies they put in place let the judges know when the jails were almost full, so they could act accordingly on how they sentenced defendants. These helped judges have more options when sentencing. One of the first changes was defendants with very low-level offenses instead of having a $100 bail it changed to them agreeing they would come back to court on a proper day. By 2015 the measurement of overnight stays or low-level felonious and misdemeanors was down around 30% compared to 2007 which is a significant drop. They used a lot of different policies to decrease the number of prisoners, and it seems to be working. -Legion001
This article talks about Governor Bruce Rauner's attempt to reduce the prison population by way of decreasing prison sentences and decreasing the number those who are incarcerated in the first place. We are also made aware that thirty years ago, there were 10,000 prisoners in Illinois, but in 2015 the number increased to 48,000, which is unbelievable seeing as that is nearly five times the amount of incarcerated persons in such a small amount of time. These numbers also cost tax-payers nearly $1.3 billion dollars per year. There have been a lot of changes these past couple of years in order to decrease the number of those incarcerated. Rauner's changes have already decreased the numbers by 7,000 which unquestionably shows the state is taking a step in the right direction. Those incarcerated for minor felonies and misdemeanors has decreased 30% since 2007. Another statistic that I found to be interesting was the fact that in 2011, 42% of convicted felons were sent to prison while 57% were sentenced probation, but in 2016, only 29% were sent to prison and a solid 70% of those convicted were put on probation. I appreciate how probation is being used more as a way to give people many chances before sending them to prison because not only does it give them a chance to get their life back on track, but it also decreases the number of those being incarcerated in the first place, which is what we need in this era of mass incarceration. Former McLean county sheriff Mike Emery pointed out the fact that 10 prisoners were incarcerated for ordinance violations, so they were let out on the agreement that they would attend all future court dates. I think all counties should double check for people who are being locked up for such minor crimes and set them free. I think this would help a lot and decrease the prison and jail populations significantly. -Reid001
I like the idea of cutting the prison population by 25% in Illinois considering Illinois is the 8th largest state for inmate totals. To house inmates this cost taxpayers 1.3 billion dollars a year, this includes housing, food, medical, and all other services and expenses. The new sentencing laws that are now into place are a good start. This means if you violate probation or have a minor offense you will spend time in jail instead of being sent away to prison. I'm all for rehabilitation programs, seeing how under this new law if you do the program you could possibly get sentencing credits that will decreases your stay at prison. Besides being in jail or prison for low level crimes such as minor drug offense or a ordinance violation, I believe not having money for bail is another reason why the incaceration level is high. Some people don't have 100.00 or 200.00 dollars to get out of so unfortunately they would just have sit there. I found it interesting when the article stated if your not being detained during pre trial the chances of going to prison are less. Everybody should have the chance to be free before pre trial with the exception of people who commit serious or violent crimes. I agree not being detained before the trial will allow the individual to seek help if they need it for an addiction, meeting with their lawyers to get things in order for their case, and most importantly to continue taking care of their family and being able to continue working. With drug crimes I believe looking into rehab and programs for that offender might help more than just sending them away and making them sit in jail or prison. The person who might be using the drugs or distributing them could possibly learn something from a drug related program. -21Aries001
Do you think that, as a state, we should worry about the money we will be losing if we continue to cut down and reform our prisons? As a state so far in debt, I think we cling onto any and every small bit of money we can to try and bring ourselves back up to the surface. From a financial stand point, do you see this reform as a negative thing for Illinois? psych 001
This article starts out by saying that Illinois has been motivated to reduce the amount of people who are incarcerated by simply incarcerating fewer people. Governor Rauner set the goal of reducing the amount of inmates by 25% by 2025, which will ultimately save Illinois taxpayers north of a billion dollars annually. To this point, the article states that the number has already been cut by around 7,000, which is a great start. One county of Illinois that struggled with this overcrowding was McLean, whose population was reduced with the help of former county Sheriff Mike Emery. Since 2014, he did not go after re-election and is now acting as Law Enforcement coordinator in Illinois, where he still attempts to better the criminal justice system. One step he took was to let judges know when prisons and jails were reaching max capacity. Next, he attempted to get low level offenders out at bond hearings and such. The ultimate decision did rest with judges, but his word had an impact on matters. Pretrial release programs were enacted, in which they could build a better case of conduct for their case. A drug offender for example, could undergo home confinement and take a drug class until their trial, which keeps them from being incarcerated for the time being. A “criminal” showing effort such as this will look better for the judge and potentially convince him to give a different punishment such as probation, fines, and/or community service, rather than incarceration. These pretrial release reports give judges options other than incarceration. This saves money, saves families from being stressed and torn, and saves the minds of potential inmates. It is a good alternative. This also saves inmates from sitting in jail for months until their trial is over, simply because they cannot pay an outrageous bond. There have been reforms in this aspect, as someone with an ordinance violation can now be released with just agreeing to attend court dates, rather than sitting in jail for such a minor offense. By 2015, jails become more filled with serious felony offenders and even low class felony offenders are let off the hook in a sense. There may also be a correlation between this and crime rate, as there are less registered felons after making these changes. It is shown that people not detained pretrial carry a less likelihood of going to prison. Probation has become a more popular choice for non-violent offenders, which is reasonable. Why lock up an 18 year old kid maybe selling some weed with rapists and killers? Another reform made is that probation violations will be sentenced to county jail, rather than state prison. Also, mandatory prison terms have been repealed for many drug related crimes. It is projected that the Illinois prison population could be reduced by 27% by 2025. -freckles001
It is going to be interesting to see if our new Governor is going to continue what Governor Rauner started and hopefully lower the population by 27%. I also agree with you that the pre-trial release will be the better option in the long run. Not only good for the state because they are saving money but also, this will be good for the person getting out especially as you stated if it is a minor offense. Why should you have to sit there with offenders who committed a more serious crime than you. -21Aries001
This article surprised me because I did expect Illinois of all states to be one for trying to lower the prison and jail populations. It goes on to say that Illinois is not only trying to reduce sentences but also reduce the amount of people getting imprisoned in the first place. Bruce Rauner has been in the lead with having the expectations to lower the population 25% by 2025 which is a high expectation but a good one to have due to the very large overpopulation the state has been dealing with for many years. One such way they have of reducing these large numbers is a program called Illinois Redploy which is a funded program that allows for an individual to stay in a community and provides financial incentives to keep them out of the prison system. Another way is that they have repealed mandatory sentences for certain offenses, mainly revolving around drugs. That is a very good thing to focus on considering one of the largest reasons for over population in prisons just happens to be for some minor drug charges and the inmate gets hit with a very long sentence. This allows for more probationary periods, or just not having to serve time if the infraction just happens to be small enough. Also when a judge is sentencing someone they have a population report from the sheriff on population which could cause the judge to just put someone on probation or a very short sentence in order to combat an over population in the jails and prisons. With Bruce no longer governor there is no way to tell if the new governor will try as hard to rid the state of its correctional issues but it is on a very good rolls so far and has time to get under control still. -Blues001
I think that Rauner trying to reduce both population in the jail and prisons in Illinois was a great idea. Also, with lessening the people that are in trial to at least given the chance for parole and probation. Judges should also think over the jail population while sentencing so that this problem doesn't keep reoccurring and making it harder to rehabilitate people. taco001
While a lot of jails and prisons are overcrowded for many reasons but especially petty drug crimes and non violent offenses. There are people in the justice system trying to figure out a way to lower the population in jail and prisons. Illinois is a state that has been decreasing the number of their inmates in jails, which also decreases the number of inmates that send to state prisons. For the reason being that they are becoming more careful and wise in who are sending to jail in general and rehabilitating them instead. They are reducing time people stay behind bars which means they are putting them on probation after jail or even just giving them probation for their offense. They tried out a new method in reducing overpopulation in McLean County. Where the Sheriff is letting the judges know when his jail is up to max capacity. That lets the judges have more options available instead of just sentencing everyone to jail for anything they come across. They also have been focusing on the government’s justice system for the requirements on how high they set thing for sentencing. Which I think is a good thing because most of the time there is a loto of corruption and it leads to private prisons where they can also make money. taco001
As a starter for prison reform, many believe it is crucial to start with sentencing, and how we do it. On the other hand, there are still those who believe we should go at it from a different angle, incarcerate less people to begin with. There is one state though that is killing 2 birds with one stone and trying to implicate both ideas at the same time, that would be the state of Illinois. A very ambitious Governor of ours, Bruce Rauner, set a goal for our state. His goal was for Illinois to decrease its prison rolls by 25% by the year of 2025. In 2015 our state housed about 48,000 inmates, and under the policies of Bruce Rauner that number has already gone down by over 6,000 people. I believe that someone being accused of a misdemeanor, or otherwise petty crime, should absolutely be granted a pre-trial. Pre-trials give judges more options than just incarceration, which in itself has the potential to greatly bring down incarceration rates. When this whole ordeal began, McLean County was Illinois' main focus. It ranked the highest out of the 20 biggest counties in Illinois that sent drug defendants to prison. A group of citizens, counsel men, and more from McLean County got together at the same time for the first time during that time and discussed the high and low points of their local system. Overall, Rauner started a seemingly good and effective plan for prison reform in Illinois. psych001
I believe that it is very important for Illinois to begin cutting down on its prison population because the state has the nation’s 8th largest inmate total, and this statistic was shocking to me. This is draining on the people of Illinois because they are paying to house, feed, and provide life services to prisoners who do not necessarily need to be in prison for as long as they are. This article discusses the reforms and policies that officials are pursuing and putting into place to help lower the number of incarcerations in Illinois. One policy that stood out to me was the policy of “supplemental sentencing credits” because it is a program that promotes positive change, in my opinion. This policy allows inmates to serve shorter sentences if they partake in rehabilitation programs. I think that this is a promising approach to lowering Illinois’ inmate population. Something else that stood out to me was that fact that individuals who are not detained before trial are more likely to not be sentenced to serve a long duration. By not being detained before trial, the defendant is able to continue working, see his or her family, and find an adequate lawyer to represent him or her. By providing defendants with the chance to continue working and find a lawyer to represent them, the justice system is giving the defendant a better chance to be found not guilty. As an Illinois resident, this article was appealing to me. The idea of lowering the inmate population is something that every state should strive for because not everyone who is incarcerated deserves the sentence that they are given. In a few years when I am paying into the system, I personally do not want to have to be helping fund unnecessary incarcerations. I think this article was very interesting and I think all citizens should have to learn more about where their money is going into. -Anchorman001
Reading this article it makes me more interested to be in the criminal justice area. Our state is trying to set up an example for others with how we are dealing with our Mass Incarceration. Instead of leaving decisions up to the court, the governor has set up appointees and officials that will regulate and help our criminal justice department sentence accordingly? That sounds like a great improvement. The article had an interesting point, where simple public disturbers were still in the jail because they could not pay the $100 fee, when violent offenders are able to walk about freely so long as they "agree" to show up on their court date. What does that even do for our community, you would think that if someone did a violent offence we would want them off the streets and away from the public. An interesting point is brought up, the jails want to try and keep people out of their jail until they are sentenced because of the fact that people have jobs, family's to care for, they have their own lives. People shouldn't be expected to throw everything away just because they drank a little too much and forgot where they were in public. The only people we should hold accountable and keep locked up until post-trial are the people who we are having just agree to stay around till it's time for sentencing. Why do we put trust in these people and not trust that someone will pay the $100 when they can. They can't make the $100 from behind a jail cell. - Lobster001
In this article, it first starts off that the state of Illinois is trying to reduce the incarceration number. They are putting forth this effort in two ways. One way is to reduce inmate time, and the other is to straight up incarcerate fewer people. Rauner’s goal for this is to decrease the number of prisoners 25% by 2025. With his efforts, he has already cut the number of inmates by approximately 7,000. In my opinion, this is pretty impressive and I think it is for the better. With that being said, I don’t know if it will actually reach the full 25% by 2025. An interesting thing that I noticed is that when the sheriff submits jail population to the judge, he then takes that into consideration with the offender’s sentence. One thing that I think is a good change with this is that an offender with ordinance violations or similar non-violent offenses just requires them to show up to their court dates and not be in jail. In my opinion, this will keep a good chunk of inmates out of the corrections. When I think ordinance violations or non-violent offenses, I think of simple drug violations that most likely the offenders of shouldn’t be in jail or prison for. The overall goal of the Illinois Adult Redeploy is interesting and something that might be the next big thing. This state funded program gives money back to communities in exchange for the decreasing number of incarceration. The sentencing reform law also plays a big part in this incarceration drop. It had several provisions to it, but the one I think that had the biggest effect was that they changed to where there is no mandatory sentence on certain offenses. This plays a big role in the drug offenses, giving those offenders a more efficient and less harsh punishment than incarceration. They may be put on probation, parole, or just simply might not have to serve as long as the previous minimum. -lilbaby001
ReplyDeleteYou have mentioned a lot of interesting things that the article has said concerning reducing the state's prison population. Rauner has made a goal to reduce it by 25% by 2025, and it is uncertain whether or not that goal will be reached now that we have a new governor. I agree with you that people with drug violations should not be sent to prison. Instead those people should either pay a fine or be in some type of program.
Delete-Ram001
I agree that just a simple requirement to show up to the court date is a great idea. Especially for low level offenders. I also agree that the state giving money to counties for community based reforms is excellent. It deters counties from just sending convicts to the state prison where they likely will spend more time than a county jail. Jackrabbit001
DeleteI agree with everything that you said in your blog. I think that it is great that Illinois is trying to slow down the flow of incarcerations. I think that releasing unnecessary inmates is a step in the right direction. Many people incarcerated should not be serving such harsh sentences. I am curious to see how all of this will be pursued since a new governor has been elected to serve in Illinois. -Anchorman001
DeleteAccording to the article it says that Illinois is attempting to incarcerate fewer people while also reducing the amount of time that inmates are in prison, with some success. I believe it is good that Illinois is trying to do these things, because there have been instances where people are sent to jail or even prison for minor crimes. Along with finding ways to shorten an inmate's sentence it will allow for managing a prison's population. Bruce Rauner had a goal to cut the amount of prisoners by 25% by the year 2025. Managing prisoners costs taxpayers a lot of money for the cells, food, and medical services. Rauner's policies have cut the number of prisoners by 7000. This is an impressive change that he has managed to make. I am not sure if the prison population in Illinois will continue to go down now that we have a new governor in office, but I suppose we will have to see. Rauner also wanted the local criminal justice officials to focus on policies to better control prison population. Mike Emery, a former sheriff and now a law enforcement coordinator in Springfield, started a practice in which judges know when their jails are nearing their capacity. I think this is a good idea because it can give judges the choice to release those who are in jail on probation or have them join some type of program to get out of going to jail. Now the jails were being occupied more by those who have felony charges against them and the amount of those going to jail for misdemeanors and low level felonies are going down. In my opinion this is a better way to use jails rather than just throw in every single person charged with any offense. All in all Illinois has been doing a lot to manage prison populations. With the policies that Rauner and Emery created as well as the Illinois Adult Redeploy, the populations have gone down significantly in the past few years.
ReplyDelete-Ram001
I am also skeptical about the prison population actually going down with a new governor. Due to the recent politicians that Illinois has had, it’s hard to trust that anyone going in will make an immediate change. I really hope he does though because that is really something that needs to be changed in Illinois.
DeleteThis article talks about how Illinois cut it’s prison population down. Bruce Rauner, who is the governor of Illinois, has plans of cutting the total prison rolls by 25% by 2025. I think that this is a good goal to have because the Illinois prison population has been steadily increasing throughout the years. Three decades ago there were fewer than 10,000 inmates in prisons. That number has went up to 48,000 in 2015. This is not good because not only are more people getting locked up for minor offenses and drug charges, but it’s costing our state way too much money. Prison costs are at about 1.3 billion dollars annually which is one of the reasons why our country and state is so broke. This article goes on to talk more about saving money, and how the use of technology can improve our decisions. If we get data on trends and spending in our country, then we can use this data to make accurate decisions on how to save money in the future. Cassy Taylor, the director of the McLean County Court Services is a firm believer in this and says that data driven decision making is the way to go. They also talk about using prisons less as a sanction, which has led to a drop in admissions. I am a firm believer in using prisons less and using rehabilitation centers more. We have way too many drug addicts that go into prison because they’re addicted to this drug, and then they come out still addicted to the drug and go right back in. It’s a destructive cycle for not only those prisoners, but for our country because we have to keep paying for their prison needs when they could be in and out of a rehabilitation center in far less time. Hopefully Bruce Rauner can get this disgrace of a state some dignity. -Celtics001
ReplyDeleteI'm curious to see what will happen to the prison population now that we have a new governor. i completely agree with what you said regarding rehabilitation. we like to put people in prison and forget about them, but the fact of the matter is that many of those people need serious help. sexy_in_bikini 001
DeleteI’m glad to see how well this experiment worked out. America is notorious for warehousing people. Yeah there are evil people being sent to jails and prisons, but there are also a lot of people who just made small mistakes. The article mentioned that there were 10 inmates that were all serving time for their ordinance infractions. People are put in jail for making tiny mistakes. Not only is this not fair to the people, its also very expensive. Most people don’t think of jails and prisons when they think of taxes, but a large portion of taxes go to these overcrowded jails and prisons. With more inmates, the more food, medical supplies and cells that have to be provided. All of this comes to around 1.3 billion dollars annually, but judges want to send more and more people to prison. I was shocked to see the annual cost of a prison. Something else that I found interesting in this article was how people who didn’t have to go to jail but still had to return to court, were able to get better lawyers to help them. Jamming minor offenders into overcrowded jails really isn’t helping anyone. It’s preventing people from getting good lawyers and its costing Americans a substantial amount of money. Not even mentioning how long the process is. People stay locked up for months because they can’t afford to pay their bail. A large amount of people that are being sent to jail are often there for possession of drugs. I personally think that if someone was caught with a little weed, they shouldn’t go to jail. However, there are some drugs such as meth and heroin, that will cause people to commit more serious crimes in order to get their dose. I feel that those people should be given help rather than being locked in a cage. Overcrowding in jails is a serious problem and I’m glad to see that the criminal justice system is finally doing something to fix the problem. sexy_in_bikini 001
ReplyDeleteYou're right with the American attitude of simple warehousing offenders, people shouldn't be in jail for minor infractions or small nonviolent drug offences. The taxes are another major point, if we can reduce the prison population then we can reduce that amount that we have to spend on those prisons. -Stark001
DeleteYou pointed out that housing more inmates causes a greater amount of tax dollars to the Americans who pay and I could not agree more because it is very expensive. Keeping the evil people locked up is the goal of the system but locking up drug or ordinance offenders is causing our money to be wasted on people who do not really need it.
Delete-Blues001
This article talks about how Illinois is slowly decreasing it's prison population. This article made me think about a paper I wrote in CRJ 110. I had done much research about how Missouri is dealing with their prison and jail problems and it focused completely on rehabilitation programs instead of punishment. It had much success that many states are trying to implement a variation of their "Missouri Plan." Illinois called it "community based corrections," which in reality sounds pretty similar to Missouri's plan. I had no idea that Illinois was even working on cutting prison population. Lowering prison and jail populations is always a good idea but there is always the worry that crime rates will go up. It bewilders me that in Mclean County that even with lower sentencing crime rates continued to drop. It gives me hope that people do not need to sit in a cell for years just to become a repeat offender. In this article, I did not like how that when jails start getting close to maximum occupancy people are more likely to get other forms of punishment. I do not believe that makes it fair for everyone. If you and someone else are arrested for the same crime, one of you gets jail time, and the other gets probation just because of a population problem. While I completely understand that once the limit is reached there is not much you can do but it seems unfair to me. I believe that Illinois should continue to lower the prison and jail population to not only help with keeping peoples lives on track, but also teach people with rehab and community based programs. Jackrabbit001
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you on that probation seems to be the more logistical route, I feel like offenders who have sat through such a long time just to not learn anything and repeat feel as if they have been cheated due their treatment. As if it's not such much about your punishing you for your mistakes but learning from them as well. Rock001
DeleteI agree with you that it is unfair to the offender if him and another do the same crime but have different punishments but keep in mind the system has to do what is best for them and not the offender. There are so many factors that go into sentencing including prison population, which is why it is unfortunate that two offenders with the same charges get different punishments. -lilbaby001
DeleteI agree with you on how it is unfair for people to get out of jail early because of the high prison population when those who commit the same crime still sit in jails, but I think it is still important to try to weed out the nonviolent offenders in any way we can, which sometimes won't be "fair", sadly.
Delete-Reid001
This article discusses Illinois' slowly declining prison population. The state did this by forming committees between several departments of the criminal justice system that allows them to all work together and come up with solutions to our incarceration issue. These committees have already started doing things like informing judges when facilities are almost full, allowing people who committed small, nonviolent infractions to simply appear on their court date instead of having to stay in jail, and detaining mostly only defendants with the most severe charges pre-trial. There has also been a shift in policy for most nonviolent offenders to be sentenced probation instead of prison time. All of these things have been coming together to lower Illinois prison population and hopefully hit the goal that governor Rauner set to reduce prison populations by 25% before 2025. -Stark001
ReplyDeleteWith bruce Rauner's attempt to lower the incarceration rate, it will be interesting to see how JB Pritzker plans to help as well. However it seems that Rauner's initial goal of lowering prison populations in Illinois is a great start. 2025 may seem far away and much could change but I think the time to change things should be done immediately. For instance in this article it mentioned that people in Illinois were being locked up for ordinance violations, one of the lowest forms of criminal acts. In my opinion that seems utterly ridiculous unless many previous things have occurred on someone's record, especially violent acts. I also found it interesting that it mentioned some people have even sat in jail for an extended peoria of time due to not being able to pay bail as low as $100. I understand that the CRJ and corrections system has to run strictly but it seems almost over the top to punish someone is a certain way such as incarceration for such a small amount of money in today's world. I hope that Illinois's gradual shift towards probation continues as I think having offenders still being able to have some freedom and enjoy themselves a little more with allow them to understand that a life in jail or prison not one they want to live at any cost. Rock001
ReplyDeleteI would agree that it will be interesting to see how JB Pritzker handles these reforms and if he will help and go along or make changes or what he will do. I also agree that 2025 might be a little too far down the line, but it is an ambitious goal. Locking someone up for ordinance violations is ridiculous. I think the $100 is a good bail because a lot of people will be able to pay it, but there should be leeway for people that actually cannot pay it. -Legion001
DeleteIn the sense of reducing jail populations by 2025, it's real interesting considering so far they have already managed to release 7,000 people. The $100 bail to me should have a time set to be paid by, I know it's like we are waiting for a loan as a state, but it should be treated as any other traffic ticket. -Lobster001
DeleteThis article is about how the state of Illinois is starting to decrease the number of inmates behind bars and start prison reform. Illinois was chosen along with a select few other states to take part in a national reform program called, National Criminal Justice Reform. Illinois got selected to do this because of how well the reform has been going. Governor Bruce Rauner set a goal of decreasing Illinois prison population by 25%. Illinois has the eighth largest prison population after a considerable jump from lower than 10,000 prisoners three decades ago to over 48,000 in 2015. This is a jump that is pretty crazy to me. It costs the taxpayer $1.3 billion per year. So far Bruce Rauner's changes have decreased the prisoner population by almost seven thousand inmates. Governor Rauner appointed a Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform to help start the process and motivate officials to work together to make policies that would work for Illinois. The article focuses on McLean county and how they went around decreasing the overcrowding of prisons. In 2011 McLean county had the highest out of twenty counties in the state of sending drug offenders to state prisons at a rate of 92.1 per 100,000 residents. The policies they put in place let the judges know when the jails were almost full, so they could act accordingly on how they sentenced defendants. These helped judges have more options when sentencing. One of the first changes was defendants with very low-level offenses instead of having a $100 bail it changed to them agreeing they would come back to court on a proper day. By 2015 the measurement of overnight stays or low-level felonious and misdemeanors was down around 30% compared to 2007 which is a significant drop. They used a lot of different policies to decrease the number of prisoners, and it seems to be working. -Legion001
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about Governor Bruce Rauner's attempt to reduce the prison population by way of decreasing prison sentences and decreasing the number those who are incarcerated in the first place. We are also made aware that thirty years ago, there were 10,000 prisoners in Illinois, but in 2015 the number increased to 48,000, which is unbelievable seeing as that is nearly five times the amount of incarcerated persons in such a small amount of time. These numbers also cost tax-payers nearly $1.3 billion dollars per year. There have been a lot of changes these past couple of years in order to decrease the number of those incarcerated. Rauner's changes have already decreased the numbers by 7,000 which unquestionably shows the state is taking a step in the right direction. Those incarcerated for minor felonies and misdemeanors has decreased 30% since 2007. Another statistic that I found to be interesting was the fact that in 2011, 42% of convicted felons were sent to prison while 57% were sentenced probation, but in 2016, only 29% were sent to prison and a solid 70% of those convicted were put on probation. I appreciate how probation is being used more as a way to give people many chances before sending them to prison because not only does it give them a chance to get their life back on track, but it also decreases the number of those being incarcerated in the first place, which is what we need in this era of mass incarceration. Former McLean county sheriff Mike Emery pointed out the fact that 10 prisoners were incarcerated for ordinance violations, so they were let out on the agreement that they would attend all future court dates. I think all counties should double check for people who are being locked up for such minor crimes and set them free. I think this would help a lot and decrease the prison and jail populations significantly.
ReplyDelete-Reid001
I like the idea of cutting the prison population by 25% in Illinois considering Illinois is the 8th largest state for inmate totals. To house inmates this cost taxpayers 1.3 billion dollars a year, this includes housing, food, medical, and all other services and expenses. The new sentencing laws that are now into place are a good start. This means if you violate probation or have a minor offense you will spend time in jail instead of being sent away to prison. I'm all for rehabilitation programs, seeing how under this new law if you do the program you could possibly get sentencing credits that will decreases your stay at prison. Besides being in jail or prison for low level crimes such as minor drug offense or a ordinance violation, I believe not having money for bail is another reason why the incaceration level is high. Some people don't have 100.00 or 200.00 dollars to get out of so unfortunately they would just have sit there. I found it interesting when the article stated if your not being detained during pre trial the chances of going to prison are less. Everybody should have the chance to be free before pre trial with the exception of people who commit serious or violent crimes. I agree not being detained before the trial will allow the individual to seek help if they need it for an addiction, meeting with their lawyers to get things in order for their case, and most importantly to continue taking care of their family and being able to continue working. With drug crimes I believe looking into rehab and programs for that offender might help more than just sending them away and making them sit in jail or prison. The person who might be using the drugs or distributing them could possibly learn something from a drug related program.
ReplyDelete-21Aries001
Do you think that, as a state, we should worry about the money we will be losing if we continue to cut down and reform our prisons? As a state so far in debt, I think we cling onto any and every small bit of money we can to try and bring ourselves back up to the surface. From a financial stand point, do you see this reform as a negative thing for Illinois?
Deletepsych 001
This article starts out by saying that Illinois has been motivated to reduce the amount of people who are incarcerated by simply incarcerating fewer people. Governor Rauner set the goal of reducing the amount of inmates by 25% by 2025, which will ultimately save Illinois taxpayers north of a billion dollars annually. To this point, the article states that the number has already been cut by around 7,000, which is a great start. One county of Illinois that struggled with this overcrowding was McLean, whose population was reduced with the help of former county Sheriff Mike Emery. Since 2014, he did not go after re-election and is now acting as Law Enforcement coordinator in Illinois, where he still attempts to better the criminal justice system. One step he took was to let judges know when prisons and jails were reaching max capacity. Next, he attempted to get low level offenders out at bond hearings and such. The ultimate decision did rest with judges, but his word had an impact on matters. Pretrial release programs were enacted, in which they could build a better case of conduct for their case. A drug offender for example, could undergo home confinement and take a drug class until their trial, which keeps them from being incarcerated for the time being. A “criminal” showing effort such as this will look better for the judge and potentially convince him to give a different punishment such as probation, fines, and/or community service, rather than incarceration. These pretrial release reports give judges options other than incarceration. This saves money, saves families from being stressed and torn, and saves the minds of potential inmates. It is a good alternative. This also saves inmates from sitting in jail for months until their trial is over, simply because they cannot pay an outrageous bond. There have been reforms in this aspect, as someone with an ordinance violation can now be released with just agreeing to attend court dates, rather than sitting in jail for such a minor offense. By 2015, jails become more filled with serious felony offenders and even low class felony offenders are let off the hook in a sense. There may also be a correlation between this and crime rate, as there are less registered felons after making these changes. It is shown that people not detained pretrial carry a less likelihood of going to prison. Probation has become a more popular choice for non-violent offenders, which is reasonable. Why lock up an 18 year old kid maybe selling some weed with rapists and killers? Another reform made is that probation violations will be sentenced to county jail, rather than state prison. Also, mandatory prison terms have been repealed for many drug related crimes. It is projected that the Illinois prison population could be reduced by 27% by 2025. -freckles001
ReplyDeleteIt is going to be interesting to see if our new Governor is going to continue what Governor Rauner started and hopefully lower the population by 27%. I also agree with you that the pre-trial release will be the better option in the long run. Not only good for the state because they are saving money but also, this will be good for the person getting out especially as you stated if it is a minor offense. Why should you have to sit there with offenders who committed a more serious crime than you.
Delete-21Aries001
This article surprised me because I did expect Illinois of all states to be one for trying to lower the prison and jail populations. It goes on to say that Illinois is not only trying to reduce sentences but also reduce the amount of people getting imprisoned in the first place. Bruce Rauner has been in the lead with having the expectations to lower the population 25% by 2025 which is a high expectation but a good one to have due to the very large overpopulation the state has been dealing with for many years. One such way they have of reducing these large numbers is a program called Illinois Redploy which is a funded program that allows for an individual to stay in a community and provides financial incentives to keep them out of the prison system. Another way is that they have repealed mandatory sentences for certain offenses, mainly revolving around drugs. That is a very good thing to focus on considering one of the largest reasons for over population in prisons just happens to be for some minor drug charges and the inmate gets hit with a very long sentence. This allows for more probationary periods, or just not having to serve time if the infraction just happens to be small enough. Also when a judge is sentencing someone they have a population report from the sheriff on population which could cause the judge to just put someone on probation or a very short sentence in order to combat an over population in the jails and prisons. With Bruce no longer governor there is no way to tell if the new governor will try as hard to rid the state of its correctional issues but it is on a very good rolls so far and has time to get under control still.
ReplyDelete-Blues001
I think that Rauner trying to reduce both population in the jail and prisons in Illinois was a great idea. Also, with lessening the people that are in trial to at least given the chance for parole and probation. Judges should also think over the jail population while sentencing so that this problem doesn't keep reoccurring and making it harder to rehabilitate people. taco001
DeleteWhile a lot of jails and prisons are overcrowded for many reasons but especially petty drug crimes and non violent offenses. There are people in the justice system trying to figure out a way to lower the population in jail and prisons. Illinois is a state that has been decreasing the number of their inmates in jails, which also decreases the number of inmates that send to state prisons. For the reason being that they are becoming more careful and wise in who are sending to jail in general and rehabilitating them instead. They are reducing time people stay behind bars which means they are putting them on probation after jail or even just giving them probation for their offense. They tried out a new method in reducing overpopulation in McLean County. Where the Sheriff is letting the judges know when his jail is up to max capacity. That lets the judges have more options available instead of just sentencing everyone to jail for anything they come across. They also have been focusing on the government’s justice system for the requirements on how high they set thing for sentencing. Which I think is a good thing because most of the time there is a loto of corruption and it leads to private prisons where they can also make money. taco001
ReplyDeleteAs a starter for prison reform, many believe it is crucial to start with sentencing, and how we do it. On the other hand, there are still those who believe we should go at it from a different angle, incarcerate less people to begin with. There is one state though that is killing 2 birds with one stone and trying to implicate both ideas at the same time, that would be the state of Illinois. A very ambitious Governor of ours, Bruce Rauner, set a goal for our state. His goal was for Illinois to decrease its prison rolls by 25% by the year of 2025. In 2015 our state housed about 48,000 inmates, and under the policies of Bruce Rauner that number has already gone down by over 6,000 people. I believe that someone being accused of a misdemeanor, or otherwise petty crime, should absolutely be granted a pre-trial. Pre-trials give judges more options than just incarceration, which in itself has the potential to greatly bring down incarceration rates. When this whole ordeal began, McLean County was Illinois' main focus. It ranked the highest out of the 20 biggest counties in Illinois that sent drug defendants to prison. A group of citizens, counsel men, and more from McLean County got together at the same time for the first time during that time and discussed the high and low points of their local system. Overall, Rauner started a seemingly good and effective plan for prison reform in Illinois.
ReplyDeletepsych001
I believe that it is very important for Illinois to begin cutting down on its prison population because the state has the nation’s 8th largest inmate total, and this statistic was shocking to me. This is draining on the people of Illinois because they are paying to house, feed, and provide life services to prisoners who do not necessarily need to be in prison for as long as they are. This article discusses the reforms and policies that officials are pursuing and putting into place to help lower the number of incarcerations in Illinois. One policy that stood out to me was the policy of “supplemental sentencing credits” because it is a program that promotes positive change, in my opinion. This policy allows inmates to serve shorter sentences if they partake in rehabilitation programs. I think that this is a promising approach to lowering Illinois’ inmate population. Something else that stood out to me was that fact that individuals who are not detained before trial are more likely to not be sentenced to serve a long duration. By not being detained before trial, the defendant is able to continue working, see his or her family, and find an adequate lawyer to represent him or her. By providing defendants with the chance to continue working and find a lawyer to represent them, the justice system is giving the defendant a better chance to be found not guilty. As an Illinois resident, this article was appealing to me. The idea of lowering the inmate population is something that every state should strive for because not everyone who is incarcerated deserves the sentence that they are given. In a few years when I am paying into the system, I personally do not want to have to be helping fund unnecessary incarcerations. I think this article was very interesting and I think all citizens should have to learn more about where their money is going into.
ReplyDelete-Anchorman001
Reading this article it makes me more interested to be in the criminal justice area. Our state is trying to set up an example for others with how we are dealing with our Mass Incarceration. Instead of leaving decisions up to the court, the governor has set up appointees and officials that will regulate and help our criminal justice department sentence accordingly? That sounds like a great improvement. The article had an interesting point, where simple public disturbers were still in the jail because they could not pay the $100 fee, when violent offenders are able to walk about freely so long as they "agree" to show up on their court date. What does that even do for our community, you would think that if someone did a violent offence we would want them off the streets and away from the public. An interesting point is brought up, the jails want to try and keep people out of their jail until they are sentenced because of the fact that people have jobs, family's to care for, they have their own lives. People shouldn't be expected to throw everything away just because they drank a little too much and forgot where they were in public. The only people we should hold accountable and keep locked up until post-trial are the people who we are having just agree to stay around till it's time for sentencing. Why do we put trust in these people and not trust that someone will pay the $100 when they can. They can't make the $100 from behind a jail cell. - Lobster001
ReplyDelete