Conscious Choice
May 2007

What is "Restorative Justice"?
(and why don’t Illinois offenders get it)?

by Ra Chaka and Bryan W. Brickner

"Tell it so someone may take heed!" she proclaimed at the end of an "Overcomers’ Support Group" meeting at the Westside Health Authority (WHA) in Chicago’s Austin neighborhood. Offering youth, employment, health and economic programs to Chicago’s Far West Side, the WHA serves an area that suffers widespread crime, economic blight and social disintegration.

Austin is one of the sustained fronts in a domestic war being waged in our cities and communities, namely the United States "War on Drugs." A recent high-profile crime and justice report ranked Austin as one of the communities with the highest rates of prisoner reentry in the state. It is also where crime cuts deepest — and in fatal ways — as the city’s first homicide victim in 2007, Mario Allen, was from the Austin neighborhood.

The hidden devastation of Austin lies in the hearts and minds of the residents, such as those at the weekly "Overcomers" meeting, who gather to talk about the problems they face, especially incarceration, which has decimated the community, forever altering so many lives. About 70 people attended this meeting of the Overcomers group, and beyond sharing stories they were also "consciousness-raising," determined to do so for themselves and anyone else willing to listen.

The gut-wrenching stories are numerous: felonies, addictions, abusers and abused. Reverend James Coleman leads the discussion. After serving seven years in prison, Coleman now focuses on the healing power of the spirit. He believes healing can begin when people share their stories.


"In sharing their stories they share their thinking, and that allows the healing to begin — I see individuals begin to celebrate life again," says Coleman.

One woman is facing two years in prison. She confesses she is "no longer dirty" and "ready for whatever happens." The next: "I want to make it right with my family and myself." The next: "I was left for dead, frozen with a smashed face in an alley for hours, but here I am." The next: "The only man with no problems is a dead man." On it went, until all who wanted had shared.

Citizens in communities such as Austin are paying dearly for a criminal justice system that many believe is broken. As more residents come forward to share their stories, and as the weight of the costs continue to bog down Illinois taxpayers, the cause of penal reform is being heard and increasingly adopted by those in the position to help. Several influential groups (The Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy; Developing Justice Coalition; Chicago Metropolis 2020; The Chicago Council of Lawyers; Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice; and the CLEAR Initiative, to name a few) are starting to acknowledge and address the crushing problems in the Illinois criminal justice system.

Broke

According to the 2006 Crime and Justice Index released by Metropolis 2020, a civic research and policy group, the State of Illinois, to include counties and municipalities, spends approximately $7 billion annually on the criminal justice system. Of that, about $1.3 billion is funneled to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) to run 27 full penitentiaries, seven work camps and two boot camps. IDOC incarcerates more than 44,000 offenders, monitors another 33,000 on parole and employs about 23,000 people.

Illinois’ prison population has increased by more than 500 percent over the last 37 years. The increase is attributed to longer sentences, parole violations and "harsher penalties for those convicted of non-violent drug offenses." Non-violent drug offenders now represent 40 percent of all prison admissions, for which Illinois taxpayers shell out an estimated $240 million per year to "warehouse" them, as it is known.

What may be even more shocking is that every year 40,000 go in, and 40,000 come out. Of the 40,000 that come out, half will return (51.8 percent). Experts and offenders agree on one thing: high rates of recidivism are not good for any community or citizen — offender and taxpayer alike.

There are social costs as well. African-Americans are 10 times more likely than whites to be incarcerated. The report also states that in 2004 the number of black males in Illinois prisons was higher than the number of black males enrolled in public universities and community colleges.

So what went wrong? The evidence begins to pile up at the foundation of the system: the mission statement of the Illinois Department of Corrections, which is "to accept persons committed to it by the courts of this State for care, custody, treatment and rehabilitation." This is known as "restorative justice," and it is the constitutional right of every citizen of Illinois. But with acknowledged recidivism rates running higher than 50 percent, the problem is certainly not in the ‘custody’ part of the mission, but rather in the other three duties and responsibilities of Corrections: care, treatment and rehabilitation — particularly rehabilitation. When the objective of restoring offenders to useful citizenship is not met, all citizens pay, in greater taxes and social costs.

Right to Restorative Justice

"I absolutely agree there is a right to restorative justice," said Paula Wolff, senior executive of Chicago Metropolis 2020. "And it is time to make it a discussion again."


Wolff says "again" because in 1970 the citizens of Illinois ratified this right into the state’s Constitution. Like other rights, such as freedom of speech, due process, equal protection and trial by jury, this new right was a reflection of the will of the people. The Illinois Constitution, in Section 11 of the Bill of Rights, titled Limitation of Penalties After Conviction, now reads:

"All penalties shall be determined both according to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship."

Wolff feels strongly about these constitutional issues. She was at that 1970 Constitutional Convention, serving as then Governor Richard B. Ogilvie’s liaison, when the right to restorative justice was added. She also wrote her dissertation on the political principles in the new constitution, before going on to serve the people of Illinois from 1977 to 1991 as the director of policy and planning for Governor James R. Thompson, where she directed the administration’s notorious 1978 criminal justice "reforms."

The introduction to the 2006 Crime and Justice Index describes these reforms she helped implement while working in the Thompson administration. There were three major changes added to the Criminal Code. First, a new felony class for serious crimes was created called Class X, introduced for such violent and heinous crimes as murder, kidnapping or aggravated criminal assault. Second, new "determinate sentencing" laws were created, which handed out mandatory fixed minimum prison sentences, and eliminated the right of a judge to determine the sentence based upon the individual and circumstances of the crime. And third, the 1978 reforms ended discretionary parole and abolished the Parole and Pardon Board.

These reforms remain the cornerstone of Illinois’ 37-year-old "get tough on crime" policy. The Class X offender has now become the largest segment of the inmate population with roughly 11,000, or 25 percent of the total prison population.

But IDOC is not the only beleaguered bureaucracy. Problems are crushing the criminal court system even prior to conviction. A forthcoming report from The Chicago Council of Lawyers and the Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice paints a picture of courts, jails, prosecutors and public defenders overwhelmed by the number of citizens they process.

"Bond court is broke," declared Nicole Van Cleve, an Appleseed researcher. "And one broke part of the system tends to break other parts within it." Van Cleve explains that some defendants no longer appear "before a judge, represented by counsel" at bond hearings, but rather spend 27 seconds — on average — on a television monitor with no judge or lawyer in the room, just the accused and a closed circuit television camera, while the judge and lawyers are in a courtroom, many floors above. "It is the Orwellian processing moment — just to get your bond denied," Van Cleve said, adding "But you cannot just look at reforming bond court. You have to look at the [whole] criminal code."

Another major systemic failure involves the sentencing and treatment for Class four non-violent drug possession, simple possession of a small amount of a drug. This crime is the number one incarcerator of Illinois citizens, accounting for 21 percent of all admissions, which means almost 10,000 people every year go to prison for a victimless crime — what amounts to moral violation.

Paula Wolff says some progress in drug treatment has been made. In 2004 IDOC opened the Sheridan Model Drug Prison and Reentry Program, which is touted as the nation’s first comprehensive drug treatment prison. But it serves less than one thousand of the reported 21,000 prisoners who may need substance abuse treatment.

"There are not enough slots," said Wolff, which translates to not enough money. She added, "Money spent on the treatment side is going to increase public safety."

Sentencing Reform

The waves of change are beginning to swell across the Land of Lincoln. Illinois is currently the only state in the nation attempting rewrite its criminal code with the CLEAR initiative (Criminal Law Edit, Align and Reform). That work, however, is still in its early stages, and while policy initiatives are a great way for the political system to claim progress, Springfield is a long way from the communities in need — neighborhoods such as Austin.

The most germane issue, however, is the moral and legal obligation to restore the offender to useful citizenship, according to the law of restorative justice. This means first, and foremost, providing treatment and rehabilitation.

Ironically, the 1971 Controlled Substances Act defines any possession of a controlled substance as both a felony and an "addiction." Therefore, the state is sentencing offenders to prison for being legally addicted, where they are unable to access treatment for the addiction that got them sent there in the first place. One has to wonder how that is "restorative."

And while people who need treatment are being incarcerated, those committing non-violent crimes are being subjected to the harshest sentences available. The Class X felony was introduced for heinous violent crimes, but today it has been expanded to include minor offenses such as dealing marijuana.


In 2003, at the age of 22, Jason Spyres was sentenced under a Class X charge for cannabis trafficking to 30 years in the penitentiary. He never engaged in violence or owned, carried or used firearms. He simply sold weed. Now Spyres lives in the Logan Correctional Center in Lincoln, Illinois. Because of the determinate sentencing laws, non-violent Class X offenders like him must serve half of their sentence — a minimum of 15 years. According to IDOC, it costs at least $20,000 a year to keep a prisoner in custody. Spyres projected release date is 2018. His 15 years will cost the taxpayers of Illinois more than $300,000.

Professor James R. "Chip" Coldren, recently the president of the John Howard Association and now associate professor of criminal justice at Governor’s State University, suggested the state is breaking two rules concerning restorative justice and sentencing.

"First, if you lock someone up, you have a moral obligation to try to correct the situation. If you show people who are locked up that you care, by establishing programs — almost any kind of program will help — you reduce recidivism by a minimum of 10 percent."

The second rule focuses on determinate sentencing and long prison sentences. "I tell my students, and anyone who will listen, that almost any offense can be rehabilitated in 10 years." Even murderers? Sex offenders? "Yes," said Coldren. "There are community-based treatments that work." And of course, evidence abounds for successful treatments for drug dependency.

"Concerning rehabilitation," Coldren continued, "programs are what matter, not the amount of time-served — especially anyone serving more than 10 years. Programs with a multi-approach, both cognition and behavioral, work very well."

Programs may work, but the need is clearly greater than the funds available. Experts such as Paula Wolff are aware of this problem: "I don’t know if policy makers have caught up to public opinion on the need for sentencing reform. We have now seen the draconian effects and people realize change is needed."

[Ra Chaka is a former offender who served 30 years in Illinois’ juvenile and correctional institutions. He has been out of prison for 11 years and currently works as an advisor in a Chicago-based legal clinic.

Bryan Brickner is a Chicago-based freelance writer, a political scientist, and author of Article the first of the Bill of Rights (2006).]