Is anyone really shocked the jail inmates cheered for the cop killer?

I really have a hard time believing that Cook County sheriff’s police officials could be shocked that jail inmates awaiting their day in court on Thursday would cheer for the guy who’s facing criminal charges for the shooting death earlier this week of Chicago Police Cmdr. Paul Bauer.

Defendant? Or anti-hero?

If anything, I’d be shocked to learn they had been respectful of their jailers, or the legal system that I’m sure many of them believe is railroading them into a few years’ residence within the state prison system.

NEWS ACCOUNTS FROM both of the major metro newspapers (Sun-Times, Tribune) indicate the sheriff, who runs the county jail and criminal courts complex, wants to identify the disrespectful inmates.

With their names to be turned over to the assistant state’s attorneys who are prosecuting their pending criminal cases. Their hope is that someday, those disrespectful inmates will have extra time added to their punishments because of their behavior this week.

While several of the inmates awaiting trial in Cook County may wind up finding themselves transferred to county jails elsewhere. They may wind up awaiting trial in some rural county jail where their legal proceedings will be far more complicated to carry out.

But a little bit of inconvenience is being deemed as warranted for acting as though Shomari Legghette were some sort of hero because of the half-dozen gunshots he fired when Bauer tried to catch him Wednesday at the Thompson Center state government building.

THE NEWSPAPERS ARE going along with this tone – the county sheriff provided video taken of a holding cell so we can see, and hear, crude images of the cheering inmates as Legghette is brought past their cell en route to the courtroom – where a judge decided that Legghette should await trial inside the jail without the option of bond.

Now I’m not saying I think these inmates were anything but buffoons in the way they behaved, or that Bauer (who will get the full-ritual police funeral on Saturday) is deserving of disrespect.

It’s just that I wouldn’t expect anything but tacky behavior from jail inmates.

No matter what legal basis there is for saying these men (including Legghette) are innocent until proven guilty, the fact is that many of them are misfits from the standard beliefs of our society.

WHICH IS WHAT led most of them to actions that would bring them under suspicion by police and prosecutors and cause them to have criminal charges pending against them.

Besides, there’s something about incarceration that would break the spirit of just about anybody – surround yourself with enough misfits, and you’ll find yourself starting to take on their ideals.

I remember one time I was inside the Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet (as a reporter-type person). As the group I was with was passing the roundhouses, we could hear the inmates taunting us – letting us know they regarded us as being as much a part of the problem as anybody else.

It was execution duty (back in the days when Illinois still committed homicide in the name of justice), and the inmates let me and others know we would “burn in Hell” as much as anyone else for being a part of the ritual.

I ALSO RECALL crude and vulgar threats shouted specifically at the prison staffers – letting them know how they would be “f---ed up” by the inmates if they ever wound up inside the prison proper.

With that kind of mentality, it wouldn’t shock me in the least to learn that some of the county jail inmates (some of whom are bound to wind up in the Illinois Corrections Department eventually) would think cheers and applause would be worthy of a man charged with the shooting death of a cop.

Could he be Cook County sheriff?

So to learn that aides to Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart are saying the inmate behavior is “disgraceful and despicable, just beyond the pale” has a familiar ring to it.

Something similar to that of Capt. Renault from “Casablanca,” when he uttered his now-memorable line about being “shocked, shocked to learn that gambling is taking place on the premises” of Rick’s Café. Both of them are worthy of an equally insincere sigh.

  -30-

Paying for incarceration? What stops demands for better accommodations?

I’m not overly concerned about prison inmates – many of whom probably do have a screw or two loose and would think nothing of bashing my skull in if they thought there was something in it for them.

Is there really big money in suing former inmates?

But I can’t help but think the only people with more loose marbles rattling around in their skulls are those amongst us who get all hung up on wanting to make inmates' lives as miserable as possible.

PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY envision they’re a part of the society that’s never going to have to do time (they can afford the legal representation that gets them probation when they screw up in the eyes of the law).

So it is with a sense of outrage that I read a Chicago Tribune report about the lawsuits the state files on behalf of the Department of Corrections in order to seize any financial assets a prison inmate may obtain – even after being released.

The idea is that the state is trying to recoup the living costs it had to pay in order to actually house that particular individual.

After all, having to feed and clothe and house the tens of thousands of people who at any given time are inmates of the state prison system is quite an expense. And particularly at a time like now when state government finances are tight – every dime counts.

YET THERE IS something repulsive about the concept of trying to get money from these people. It is embarrassing because I believe it lowers all of us in Illinois to the base level of the criminal element.

It feels like Illinois is trying to run a scam that feeds off people who, because of their own circumstances, don’t have much to offer.

Balancing budget on inmates' backs?

And let’s be honest, because of the expense of keeping people under high security (even those in minimum-security facilities), the amount of money likely to be obtained through such lawsuits is NOT going to cover the full cost of their incarceration.

Which, to me, makes it seem like the state is trying to ensure that those people who wind up doing prison time are never capable of rebuilding their lives.

THAT’S NOT A ludicrous thought. I remember one time talking to a state legislator who once was a Chicago police detective who told me he believed that people who went to prison (regardless for what or how little time they served) ought to carry a stigma for the rest of their lives.

What goes through their minds at times?

As though the idea of someone rebuilding their lives and putting their past behind them is somehow a subversive idea. Perhaps they think having a permanent “inmate” class is somehow a key to success.

It may make the rest of us feel better about ourselves that we have someone to look down upon. Until we realize that we as a society are really no better off than our weakest links.

We probably want to think that all the schoolyard bullies grew up into criminals and are now in prison somewhere. Although actions like this make me think those bullies grew up into government officials who use their official authority to terrorize those they can to make themselves feel stronger.

BESIDES, WHENEVER I think about the idea of suing inmates in order to get any money they may obtain, I think about all the corrections officials who view any lawsuit by an inmate as frivolous. Why are these not as bad?

Particularly since I wonder what would stop an inmate from trying to sue the state for better living accommodations during their period of incarceration – particularly if they’re expected to pay for it with money they earn after their imprisonment.

Better quality food? Perhaps do something about the cockroaches and rats that run about in the older prison facilities? Some people may think prison inmates deserve to live under perpetual fear of assault by their fellow convicts, but it has the potential to make us appear as barbaric as we’re often willing to say other countries are with their incarceration procedures.

I’m sure the attorneys can argue against such a lawsuit. But requiring people to live under such conditions is punishment enough – particularly since such lawsuits are uncollectible because many former inmates aren’t capable of rebuilding their lives into anything, what with all the negatives they will face in life.

  -30-

No loss. I wasn’t buying Tilapia or goat cheese from Whole Foods anyways

I must confess to being surprised by news reports about how the Whole Foods chain of upscale supermarkets said it would no longer stock items made by prison inmates.

No inmate-made goods, that they know of

Largely because I wasn’t aware they were making such goods available for sale.

YOU’D THINK THAT a business so concerned with putting up an image of hoity-toity, high-falutin’ products would think something made by prison inmates was too crude to include.

Then again, the whole point of prison-made products is that they’re so cheap to produce because the cost of labor is so minimal – it amounts to slave labor, which is the only circumstance under which it is legally permissible in this country.

Now I know I have never purchased such products because I’m not particularly fond of goat cheese or tilapia (It’s fish, for those who don’t know). Also, I rarely shop at the local Whole Foods except to occasionally buy a special item or two that aren’t readily available elsewhere.

Also, I’m not sure if I have ever seen the items in question that were produced by Colorado Corrections Industries, which officially exists to try to train prison inmates in skills that might be usable in their post-prison lives.

THE FISH AND cheese products they produce get sold to distributors, who then provide it to various stores – including some of the Whole Foods supermarkets – where it gets sold to the general public.

Although considering how much Whole Foods likes to boast that it includes locally-made products amongst its stock in the stores, I don’t know if any Colorado-made goods would make it to Chicago-area stores.

Tilapia and goat cheese ...

But I’d like to think this move is a beneficial one – because a part of me wasn’t exaggerating when I equated such inmate programs with slavery, even though I realize that the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution that outlawed slavery does permit such forced labor “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.”

While I understand the concept oft-spoken by corrections officials that such work programs provide inmates with something to do – rather than have them spend all that idle time coming up with ideas of their own that might not be so constructive – the idea that anybody gets to benefit financially from cheap inmate labor still strikes me as being offensive. As if companies can’t benefit if they have to pay legitimate wages for the labor to produce their products or services.

SO PERHAPS IT is a plus that Whole Foods officials in Texas were responsive to protests at their stores in the Houston area to the practice.

... will have to go upscale to remain at Whole Foods

Just as some people get all worked up if they find out that articles of clothing offered for sale may be tied in some way to slave labor (or child labor under extreme circumstances) in foreign countries.

It would seem that the idea of “buy American” is not a protection against products produced under duress. Perhaps we ought to play closer attention to just about anything we buy. No matter how much less it might cost in the long run.

Although that shouldn’t be seen as a blast against people who prefer to shop Wal-mart. For it seems even the upper-scale shopping outlets are capable of getting caught up in this scheme. We really don’t know much about where our goods are made – and probably think of such knowledge as being the equivalent of learning about the process of manufacturing sausages.

Training inmates? Or gaining cheap labor?

BESIDES, THE KIND of people who are inclined to want to buy significant shares of their groceries from Whole Foods are obviously willing to pay a premium for the image they think they’re acquiring. Even if it could be argued that the image itself is fake and not worth the higher price.

The idea that this inmate labor results in cheaper prices for food just doesn’t fly.

  -30-

Recalling Hale’s violin

It has been quite a while since I have given Matt Hale any thought.

 

But the native of East Peoria, Ill., is back in the news because of his violin, the instrument he tried to use many decades ago to try to give himself a sophisticated image – or at least sophistication compared to the usual ranks of white supremacist activists trying to peddle their image of what our society ought to be like.

 

FOR THOSE OF you who have forgotten, or are too young to remember, Hale was a product of the 1990s who managed to get himself into the national news because he was a law school graduate who was denied the chance to get a law license in Illinois.

 

The state officials who handle such licensing matters for the legal profession ruled that Hale’s racist views, which he didn’t try to conceal., were inconsistent with someone who was an officer of the court and supposed to uphold the law.

 

It was one of those freak stories. Hale, who said he wanted to be a lawyer who represented other white supremacists when they ran afoul of the law, was kind of a sad joke. But he took the attention to mean that he had something significant to say to society at large.

 

He kept pushing his image into the public eye until he eventually got caught up with what federal prosecutors said were his attempts to try to arrange the murder of a U.S. district judge in Chicago. He was found guilty and got a 40-year prison sentence, which he is still serving at a closed-security facility in Colorado.

 

MEANING HE SPENDS the bulk of the day locked in his cell, and has only minimal contact with other people.

 

I suspect the isolation is for his own good. I could envision many other inmates thinking they could bolster their jailhouse ‘cred’ by trying to kill him.

 

But being locked away from other people is bound to do something to the mentality of just about anybody who has to endure such treatment. Hale claims his treatment in prison violates his civil rights.

 

Which has led him to file a lawsuit against the federal government seeking $19 million in compensation for the harm being done to him. Or so he claims!

 

ALTHOUGH THE CHICAGO Tribune reported Tuesday how Hale offered to drop his lawsuit in exchange for one personal concession. He wants his violin back. He wants to be able to play it while in his cell.

 

There could be a cell block in Colorado where inmates would have to endure his rusty playing (who knows how long it has been since he has held an instrument?).

 

Then again, maybe not.

 

For the newspaper reported that federal officials rejected his request. They’re also not offering up anything in the way of explanation as to why he can’t have a violin.

 

IS IT POSSIBLE that the bow could be construed as a weapon? Or converted into something that could cause harm? It wouldn’t shock me to learn that federal officials try to make that claim. Then again, prison inmates are people with a lot of free time that they can use to concoct assorted schemes.

 

Imaginations run wild can cause great harm if not closely watched enough.

 

Although that violin reminds me of the old days when Hale first cropped onto the public scene. I still recall every television reporter who felt compelled to interview Hale had to include two images in particular – the toilet bowl in Hale’s father’s home that had a Star of David inside it, and the sight of Hale playing his violin.

 

Maybe Hale thinks if he gets his violin back, he can somehow turn back the clock when he was a young man with potential for a future – instead of just another inmate who has more than two more decades of time to serve before he can dream of freedom!

 

  -30-

EXTRA: Jail not a pleasant place. That doesn’t make lawsuit’s claims proper

I find it odd that a television in the background while I write this is showing the 1997 film “Pleasantville,” which tells the tale of a 1950’s-era community where everything is pristine and pleasant.


Just because Cook County had a miserable jail back in 1910 doesn't mean we have to strive today to be even worse


Of course, that film shows us the dirty underside of such a white-washed community. And a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court shows us the dirty underside of Chicago these days.

AS IN THE Cook County Jail.

The lawsuit says that the county’s management of the jail amounts to “sadistic violence and brutality.” What with the way guards use physical force to maintain order, or turn their heads to look away from brutal acts committed by inmates on themselves.

Now I know the reality I have heard from corrections officials that they are outnumbered by inmates within a jail or prison facility, and how any attempt to impose order by total domination would likely provoke the inmates into a riot.

So they tend to let the inmates have a sense of policing themselves.

THIS LAWSUIT BY the MacArthur Justice Center and the Uptown People’s Law Center gives a horrific image of incarceration that ought to make us ashamed that we could permit such a thing to happen within our society.

Although I’m also sure there are those amongst us who will read the reports about the lawsuit and merely shrug their shoulders, thinking to themselves, “Prison isn’t supposed to be pleasant.”

I’ll agree. But I also tend to believe that how we treat our most vulnerable (or choose to ignore them) also says a lot about us as a society and how seriously we deserve to be treated.

Personally, I’d like to think we deserve better than any reputation we’d get from letting the violence run amok out there at the jail in the Little Village neighborhood.

EVEN IN PLEASANTVILLE, in that scene where Toby McGuire’s “Bud” character spent time in a jail cell (charged with actions that made life “less pleasant”), nobody was threatening him with “an elevator ride.”

As in a place where he could be beaten up without being recorded on any security cameras – according to the jailhouse code included in the lawsuit.

  -30-

What do we learn from prison tours?

I have, from time to time during my decades as a reporter-type person, had a chance to see prison facilities from the inside.



A picture postcard view of a non-touristy location in Illinois.



So it was with some self-interest that I read the recent Associated Press report about how the Illinois Department of Corrections, under Gov. Pat Quinn, has been inclined to reject all requests for prison tours.

QUINN DEFENDS SUCH rejections on the grounds that they are highly-secure facilities and that having to make the arrangements to ensure that visitors don’t get harmed while on the inside.

“Prisons aren’t country clubs. They’re not there to be visited and looked at,” the governor said.

From my own observations, they definitely aren’t country clubs – except that they’re out in the country in locations fairly isolated from urban areas.

Yet I’m not sure I can get all offended by the restrictions on people being taken on tours of the facilities. In part because that wire service report had something of an undertone of a reporter writing a story to take out their frustration on someone who’s denying them some information.

BUT ALSO BECAUSE of my own experiences in seeing prison facilities (which include Stateville near Joliet, Pontiac and Tamms).

I always got the sense that what I was seeing was such a highly restricted view of prison conditions. I doubt that I was seeing “reality” as it exists within the Illinois Department of Corrections system.

I doubt any reporter-type has seen reality in prison – unless, by some chance, they managed to do something that got them locked up as an inmate!

I remember being shown a stage at Stateville and being told of the quality theatrical productions that inmates there put on from time to time. I also recall the sight of athletic fields and basketball courts.

I’M SURE THERE are some inmates who wile away their time dribbling or wielding a bat in a socially-acceptable manner.

Yet I’m not going to be naïve enough to think that what I saw was close to being the entirety of prison life. Even if that is what I saw on an official tour, as provided by the Illinois Department of Corrections of the kind that it seems are no longer given.

So while some people are going to make sincere arguments about how access to information is better for society, and how state facilities are taxpayer-funded so that we ought to be aware of what is going on, I’m not sure the official prison tour is the best way to find things out.

If anything, I’d want to know about the things I’m not being permitted to see on a tour. That’s probably where the real news lies.

AND AS FOR what I have been allowed to see of prison facilities in Illinois, I must admit to having an impression. The system, by and large, is old!

We have facilities that date back more than a century – 19^th Century incarceration for the needs of the 21^st Century.

When Stateville is one of the state’s newest facilities (opening in 1925), we have to admit that our Department of Corrections probably is long overdue for a construction boom.

All kinds of new facilities to replace those that have been around for decades and are physically capable of having incarcerated generations of certain families. Not a pleasant thought.

NOT ONLY BECAUSE it means so many repeat offenders, but because it means a need that the state can’t possibly pay for. The state can’t even afford to maintain the facilities it has now – take Tamms (one of the few newly-built prisons in Illinois) into consideration.

That, in and of itself, is a story that I’m sure state officials wouldn’t want a lot of emphasis placed upon. Just think what other ugly stories exist within the state prison system?

  -30-

Being cautious? Or careless?

There are times when I’m not sure whether to think that our government officials are being cautious and protective of the tax dollars they’re spending – or if their unwillingness to rush into something is just evidence that they don’t have a clue as to what they’re talking about.

That was definitely the impression I gained Tuesday from watching the Cook County Board in action.

THE ISSUE OF the moment was approving an item that would have allowed the county to seek bids for, “the purchase of uniforms and clothing for various county departments.”

When I first read that on an agenda, my gut reaction was to wonder, “What departments?!?”

So it was with a jolt of excitement that I heard county board member Deborah Sims start off debate on this issue by asking the very blunt, and straightforward, question.

“What departments are we talking about?”

GEE. A GOVERNMENT official wanting to have a clue as to what is going on. In fact, a government official refusing to just cast a knee-jerk vote in favor of something – even though it really was just a procedural step in the whole purchasing process.

But before you start using e-mail to send me all your horror stories about Sims and her past government actions, this commentary isn’t about to become a piece praising the county board member from the Far South Side and surrounding suburbs.

In fact, it’s not a piece that will make anyone happy – except for maybe the malcontents who like to complain about government and get their joy from watching our public officials screw things up.

I don’t, because I realize it ultimately harms our interests and reflects badly upon us. After all, we voted for Sims and all the other members of the Cook County Board. Her gaffes are our gaffes.

WHAT ENSUED IN response to Sims’ question was a back-and-forth in which the bureaucrats who handle government purchases for the county government tried to avoid giving a direct answer.

“Various departments” was the initial response. Upon some pushing by Sims, one such department was identified as the sheriff’s police.

Which led to some confusion since the sheriff’s deputies and other law enforcement personnel are required to purchase their own uniforms – with eventual reimbursement for their expenses, provided they don’t get carried away with their sartorial demands.

After much more squabbling, it eventually came out that what was being considered here were those deliberately-hideous jump suits that inmates at the Cook County Jail and other facilities are required to wear so that they stand out in a crowd of people.

WHAT THIS IS about is seeking bids from companies to sell the county the khaki clothing that inmates must wear.

But county purchasing agent Maria de Lourdes Coss said, “we do not want to limit it,” because there’s also the chance that they may include bids for uniforms worn by the civilian personnel who work for the sheriff – such as the janitorial staff.

It was a lot of squabbling over what should have been a very straightforward issue. We do, after all, have to clothe those inmates while they are in the custody of the county. It’s one of those dreaded, but very necessary, expenses.

And Sims was legitimate in her indignation upon finally being given a straight answer, saying of the written description provided to county officials, “this doesn’t tell us anything,” adding later, “you’re not telling us who these departments are.”

AGREEING WITH HER was county board member Robert Steele, who said, “we want to be quite aware of what we’re voting on.”

In fact, Sims at one point tried to postpone a vote on this measure (which is just about seeking the bids, it’s not about actually awarding a contract) until a future meeting.

Yet that is where Sims goes from being the good-government aggressive-type to being the official who probably didn’t have a clue what she was being told.

Because when she was finally given the explanation, she ultimately voted for the measure to seek bids – even though she admits she’s still upset about the lack of details provided.

“I THINK THEY should give us a better explanation, but this will suffice for today,” she said in backing the measure. Was this just a backing-down to cover up her confusion? It sure seems that way.

So in the end, the routine measure got a routine vote of support – everybody said “aye.” If anybody opposed this measure – which seeks bids for a one-year contract to sell the county inmate uniforms, with three one-year renewal options – they kept it to themselves.

Which in the end means this was county business, as usual.

That may be the real key to comprehending the way government at any level operates. Something does not have to be illegal in order to be bad. Sometimes, it’s the most innocuous moments that are the most cheesy in character.

  -30-

Some just aren’t happy unless they can label other people in a derogatory way

I recall a moment over a decade ago when now-former state Senator Walter Dudycz told me that it is proper that someone who serves some time in prison has to live the rest of their lives with something of a stigma on their reputation.

At the time, I dismissed it because it came from Dudycz, who was a former Chicago cop who also was a rare breed – a Republican elected official who lived within the city limits (the far Northwest Side, to be exact).

BUT THEN, THE General Assembly created laws requiring people convicted of sex crimes to have to register with the police – even after they have served their sentence. Those registries are public, which means everybody gets to know what once happened.

Considering that some communities have local ordinances that allow landlords to refuse to rent to people with criminal records, this does get to be a major inconvenience.

It may well be a hindrance to the ability of some people to get their act together and live something resembling a normal life.

Now, we have the state Legislature wanting to impose similar requirements for anyone who has a murder conviction.

EVEN AFTER SERVING their prison terms (which are lengthy in and of themselves), those people would have to go to the police department in their home community and put themselves on a list for public inspection.

Perhaps we want a scarlet “M.” Or maybe some ghoulish individuals would rather it be a “K” (for “killer”).

Such a requirement, according to the bill that got passed this spring by the General Assembly, would be in place for 10 years after being released from prison. This measure is now pending before Gov. Pat Quinn, who’s going to have to decide whom he is willing to offend.

Because he’s going to upset somebody, regardless of what he does.

YES, I SEEM to be on the side of people with a murder conviction. But only because I think the “logic” of the people who are most eager to have this bill enacted into law is based in mean-spirited sentiments.

I happen to believe that the prison sentence itself (along with the inevitable probationary period that follows) IS the punishment. This just strikes me as an attempt by people of a certain mentality (they’d call themselves “law and order,” while I’d say they’re mere “vigilantes”) who are eager to pile on the punishment.

There literally are some proponents of this new bill who say the reason they want it is to provide additional reminders to the individuals of what they did.

As though the actual prison sentence (a significant portion of which likely was served in a maximum-security facility) didn’t provide ample reminder, or an experience horrific enough that they could ever forget it.

IT STRIKES ME that the kind of people who want a law like this are the same people who are going to complain that 10 or so years in a federal prison isn’t enough for former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and that they wish he could get something close to the 300 years that, in theory, is an option.

Anybody who gets a murder conviction has at least a 20-year sentence to serve (and it is that short only IF the person was a model individual in the rest of their life AND if the actual crime could somehow be portrayed as something resembling an accident).

In most cases, a murder conviction results in a prison sentence of severe length. Forty to 60 years is common, although with the concept of “extended sentence” it can be a virtual life prison sentence.

That is, if the inmate doesn’t get an actual life-without-parole prison term.

THE IDEA THAT anyone thinks there is a need to add on to that punishment is absurd. Even the Chicago Sun-Times saw that logic in officially editorializing against this bill.

Which is why I don’t get swayed by the stories told by the measure’s proponents, including state Rep. Dennis Reboletti, R-Elmhurst, who talk of cases where someone got out of prison after serving about a decade for a murder conviction (which is possible in cases where the original crime wasn’t severe and where the inmate behaves so well in prison that they qualify for all the early-release good time possible).

The cases they are describing are the exception. They are so far from the norm. But these proponents seem more interested in exaggerating the situation, even if it penalizes the masses.

Even though these individuals have a conviction for one of the most heinous crimes imaginable (I know those who’d argue that sex crimes are worse because the victim survives), they do still have some sense of humanity.

I’M NOT FOR trampling on that, just because some people feel the need to have someone else to look down upon.

Let’s hope that Quinn, when he makes his decision on this particular bill sometime this month, sees this issue sensibly – and doesn’t decide to give in to a “bullying” mentality that should have died once we got past the mentality of the schoolyard.

  -30-

C-number inmates not a new issue

A series of inmates who by now have spent at least three decades of their lives in Illinois’ prison system say the Illinois Prisoner Review Board is so obsessed with punishment that it ignores rehabilitation.

That was the stance taken earlier this week by the John Howard Association, the Chicago-based group that monitors prison conditions and attempts to ensure that the basic human rights of inmates are observed.

SPECIFICALLY, THE ASSOCIATION spoke out once again on behalf of “C number” inmates – which refers to inmates who were sentenced prior to 1978. Their Corrections Department case numbers all start with the letter “C,” hence the nickname.

The significance of that date is that was the year the General Assembly and then-Gov. James R. Thompson approved a new sentencing scheme for people convicted of crimes. Judges now hand down specific sentences.

Previously, judges would set a range of time, and ultimately it was up to the parole board (which has morphed into the Prisoner Review Board) to decide when an inmate should be released from prison.

The change was made out of a belief back then that setting specific sentences was more reasonable, since it let an inmate know exactly how long he could expect to spend in prison.

UNDER THE OLD system, an inmate’s fate was completely out of his control, and he had no clue what would happen to him.

The result is that some inmates kept perpetually coming up for parole, only to be turned down. Take the case of Richard Speck, who was convicted of the 1966 slayings of eight student nurses at South Chicago Community Hospital.

After his death sentence was overturned in 1972 (all death sentences everywhere in the United States were overturned that year by the Supreme Court), Speck was re-sentenced to eight consecutive prison terms of between 50 and 150 years each.

He kept coming up for parole every few years, until he finally died at Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet – having never convinced a parole board of his ability to rehabilitate himself.

BUT SPECK WAS not the only case. Although inmates since 1978 have been sentenced to specific terms (with set rules by which specific amounts of time can be knocked off the sentence for “good behavior”), the Prisoner Review Board continues to hear these old cases – for the inmates were sentenced under different rules.

Although some inmates have managed to win their parole throughout the years and others have died off, the John Howard Association estimates there are roughly 300 inmates still in the Illinois Department of Corrections system who have to go through the old system.

The problem, as inmate rights activists see it, is that there are two systems, and the old system has turned out to be unfair to the inmates, since there are many cases of the older inmates who wound up doing significantly more time in prison for the same crime as an inmate sentenced under the modern way of doing things.

Now like I said, this is not a new issue. Although the John Howard Association held a press conference earlier this week to stress the concept that these inmates have spent so much of their lives in prison that they are old and incapable of posing a threat any longer to the general public, this is not a new issue.

SO I HAVE heard the Corrections Department note that some of these older “C number” inmates were given a choice back when the system was changed in 1978 to be re-sentenced to a specific prison term – rather than the indeterminate method that was once common in prison systems across the country.

These older inmates chose to keep their existing sentences, perhaps out of a belief they could persuade a parole board to let them free somewhere closer to the minimum end of their prison term.

By that logic, these inmates chose their own fate, and should not be allowed to have the rules changed just for them. It is the same logic used whenever people argue on behalf of William Heirens (convicted of three North Side slayings in 1946, including that of a 6-year-old girl), who remains in prison to this day and has shown an impressive record of achievements while in prison.

Yet his detractors argue that he agreed to a life prison term to avoid execution, and ought to accept the fact that he will die in prison.

THE PROBLEM BECOMES that the Prisoner Review Board (which argues that it gets criticized by both liberal- and conservative-oriented activist groups, so it must be doing something right) has developed the mentality that it exists to keep people in prison.

Perhaps it is because it spends most of its time these days hearing the worst criminal cases in the Corrections Department system (among its duties, the review board makes recommendations to a governor whenever a condemned inmate appeals for clemency) that it is not suited to deal with many of these remaining old cases, which have resulted in some inmates doing decades in prison for crimes that comparable younger inmates did a few years.

So what is likely to happen? I won’t be surprised if the answer turns out to be, “nothing much.”

Like I said before, this is not a new issue. I remember hearing these same activists making their arguments a decade ago to a lack of interest among state officials.

THEIR ARGUMENTS THAT these are “model inmates” who have taken opportunities to educate themselves in prison and who no longer pose a threat to society because of their age and/or physical condition were ignored back then.

For the bottom line is that too many prosecutors are willing to take the view of DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett, who told the Peoria Journal-Star newspaper that these inmates committed heinous crimes and deserve to remain in prison. “It’s not the age that defines who a person still is. It’s their character, what makes them tick.”

With that attitude, this is an issue that will only go away when many of these inmates wind up dying in prison. And for those who think somehow that paying attention to their situation is misguided, all I’d have to say is that it somehow seems to be a waste of state resources to continue to incarcerate these inmates – especially since many now have to be kept in special facilities to accommodate their deteriorating health conditions.

All this is paid for on your (and mine) tax dollars.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Inmate rights activists are once again trying to stir up support for prisoners (http://www.pjstar.com/homepage/x332634564/Prison-boards-parole-rate-criticized) sentenced under old guidelines that have resulted in them spending significant portions of their lives in Illinois’ prison system.

The John Howard Association has created a special project within its group to address the concerns (http://cnumbercampaign.org/ourcause.html) of “C-number” inmates.