OPINION
Op-Ed: The In-between
of the sentences themselves. Therefore, instead of a convicted person doing ten to thirty years for a murder, for example—which would average twentytwo-and-a-half years, from a range of twenty to sixty years, because sentences were indeterminate, meaning that with sentence reductions for good behavior in prison, aka “good time,” one might get out sooner—now, convicted people must serve one hundred percent of their sentences. There are no good-time allowances, and no adjustment for range. Other states adjusted the range because they understood the ramifications of TIS laws, but Illinois apparently just didn’t care. According to at least one study, people who are incarcerated and are released early for good time are no more likely to be convicted for crimes than their peers who serve their full sentence. Good time also gives people hope. It makes the Department of Corrections a truer definition of its role, correcting behavior! Without it, prison is just a warehouse for people. ILLUSTRATION BY CAM COLLINS
New parole laws for people convicted as young adults won’t offer relief retroactively, leaving many caught in a legal purgatory. BY PHIL HARTSFIELD
G
eorge Gomez, a thirty-five-yearold Mexican American, adores his beautiful daughter Nayelli. His mother Eloisa and sister Maria both love and support him, and he has brothers, nieces, and nephews. However, Gomez doesn’t get to spend the time with them that they would like. When Eloisa looks at him, she still sees the adolescent boy that she last remembers from before he went to prison. Maria still sees the little brother who never had a fair chance at growing up—and maybe never will. Gomez, like many others and myself—I was incarcerated at age 19 in 2004—is caught in the in-between. No, this isn’t the upside-down of the fictional universe in the Netflix series <i>Stranger Things</i>, but a very real, strange thing, illogical to the point that it leaves you scratching your head. The in-between is a sort of purgatory that has left these youths
languishing for decades. And without a few simple changes, it will continue to do so for many more. It’s a legal limbo in which some will not benefit from recent laws designed to offer parole to people who were convicted as young adults. There are two legal barriers that make up the in-between. One was set several decades ago, and the other put in place more recently, and both are both simple and complex. Gomez, I myself, and thousands of other Chicago youth are caught in the legal limbo that lies between them. he first barrier was set in place when then-President Bill Clinton signed the 1994 Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the 1994 Crime Bill—which was most detrimental to poor and minority communities in its policies and enforcement, and which Clinton
T
has since said he regretted. President Joe Biden has also expressed regrets over the 1994 bill and has vowed to do his best to put pressure on states to change it as well. The 1994 Crime Bill placed financial incentives and political pressure on states to enact truth-in-sentencing laws (TIS) at the state level. The bill included $9.7 billion in funding for prisons. Within these incentives there were also grants for states to enact tougher truth-insentencing laws. Illinois built nine new prisons in the 1990s. The 1994 bill only kept the ball rolling! Illinois passed a TIS law in 1998 that meant that all convictions for violent crimes would result in very long—and sometimes, effectively life—sentences. Under the new law, Illinois changed the amount of time required to be served to between eighty-five and one hundred percent of a sentence, but not the range
T
he second barrier is simple, and yet a little more complicated. Think about your eighteenth birthday, or that of your son, daughter, niece, or nephew. Was there some magical button on that day that was pushed to make you or them a logical, responsible, mature adult? Absolutely not! This is why the drinking age is twenty-one: because being a mature responsible adult doesn’t come overnight. That simple fact is where much of the science and the validation comes from in the 2019 youthful offender parole bill (730 ILCS 5/5 – 4.5 110 Public Act 1001182). This bill grants those who were convicted of a crime when they were under the age of twenty-one the opportunity to apply for parole after serving ten or twenty years of their sentence, depending on what they were convicted of. The law is far from perfect, but at least it opens the door for possibility in the future. The law stems from research that was validated by the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case Miller v. Alabama, which found that the young mind is not done developing until around the age of twenty-five—specifically the JULY 8, 2021 ¬ SOUTH SIDE WEEKLY 9
