Let the Punishment Fit the Crime
The New York Times ran an interesting opinion piece on the harm caused by lengthy prison sentences without the chance of parole.
There is a bill in Illinois to bring parole back. Unfortunately, John Connor, the chairman of the Senate Criminal Law Committee, has not brought the bill up for a vote. One reason he gave is he “feared the possibility of even a single paroled sex offender going on to commit a grievous crime.”
It appears that Mr. Connor will be leaving the Illinois Senate and running for Will County Circuit Judge. I was unable to find an email address for Mr. Connor but am hoping that an FAC member can find it.
So, we sacrifice the lives of many people with a past sex offense, who will never re-offend, just in case one individual might re-offend. Yes, we would want to prevent any and all future sex offenses from occurring but not at the risk of punishing people who have become law-abiding citizens.
To show the extreme tunnel vision this man has, he is also willing to sacrifice the lives of people who are incarcerated for something other than a sex offense by denying them the right to parole consideration.
The vast majority of sex offenses are never reported. No one is watching or trying to prevent these perpetrators. Because they have never been caught and served time in prison, they are more likely to re-offend. But those who have been caught and served out their sentence are far less likely to re-offend, and Mr. Connor needs to understand this.
So much money and other resources are spent monitoring people who don’t need monitoring.
So, this Conner is trying to become a judge with such apparent bias? Every criminal defense lawyer in that state should file complaints to the appropriate bar association.
That it is better 100 guilty person’s escape than one innocent person should suffer, is a maxima that has been long and generally approved.
Ben Franklin
Jurist William Blackstone said almost the same he only changed it to 10 guilty.
But that is lost in today’s society. The idea is if there is even a 00.0001% chance of a possibility you may commit a crime lock you up. Its sad that innocent until proven guilty does not mean what its supposed to nor does proof beyond reasonable doubt. As long as they have a complaining witness they don’t need evidence its they’re word against yours and who the judge and jury want to belive. How can anyone say thats proof beyond reasonable doubt ? But they do and convict you . sad sad so sad
He hides behind a web page email script.
https://www.senatorconnor.com/contact-me
Thank you, JJJJ.
Shit like this doesn’t help our case about “stranger danger”….
https://lawandcrime.com/crime/indiana-man-pleads-guilty-to-molesting-and-trying-to-kill-young-girl-in-crime-so-graphic-most-people-who-observed-it-sought-mental-health-treatment/
This really pisses me off.
I think Great Britain tried this back in the day. It is now Australia. Kudos to Australia showing the world that recovery is possible
Yeah and now if you have a felony conviction they won’t let you into the country. Talk about irony