|
Illinois Voices Legal Efforts
|
Litigation
The Courts are an important front in our fight for rational, evidence-based sex offense laws and policies. We’re standing up for the principle that everyone’s civil rights matter. Here are a few of the important victories we’ve achieved in partnership with civil rights attorneys:
The Courts are an important front in our fight for rational, evidence-based sex offense laws and policies. We’re standing up for the principle that everyone’s civil rights matter. Here are a few of the important victories we’ve achieved in partnership with civil rights attorneys:
Over-Detention in Prison
No one should be imprisoned just because they don’t have a home. But for decades, that’s exactly what happened to people with convictions for sex offenses in Illinois.
Thousands of individuals convicted of sex offenses were held in prison beyond the time they were sentenced to serve solely because they couldn’t obtain a place to live that complies with Illinois’ myriad restrictions on where they can reside while on supervised release. Instead of supervised release serving as a period of community reintegration, it became an extension of time in prison.
In a series of three class action cases, we’ve slowly but surely tackled this problem. The courts have repeatedly found that it violates the Eighth Amendment and due process clause to keep people in prison just because they can’t obtain a compliant place to live.
We’ve obtained three injunctions that make housing more available to people on the registry. The Department of Corrections has been forced to change its policies so that people with sex offense convictions—like everyone else in IDOC custody—have an opportunity to transition back to life in the community after serving their time.
Read more:
Parole and Probation Conditions
Everyone on parole, probation or supervised release is expected to comply with conditions designed to help them reintegrate into the community, including regular check-ins with a parole agent, attending mandated therapy, and complying with a curfew.
But persons with convictions for sexual offenses are subject to a host of other restrictions that make it almost impossible for them to successfully reintegrate into the community and establish positive, productive lives.
We’ve taken the Department of Corrections to court to challenge some of the conditions that impede reintegration and violate people’s constitutional rights.
We’ve successfully taken on policies that ban people on the registry from residing with or even talking to their own children and from accessing the internet. We’ve also successfully challenged housing policies that prohibit individuals on supervised release or probation from residing in the same building as another person on the registry.
Our work for more just and rational parole and probation policies continues.
Read more:
Residency Restrictions
Housing banishment laws don’t make anyone safer. Study after study has discredited the theory that regulating where people with past convictions can live will prevent crime and shown that such laws do nothing other than increase homelessness and drive instability. Even the U.S. Department of justice has recommended against implementing residency restrictions.
Nonetheless, many jurisdictions continue to pass laws that regulate where people with past convictions can reside. It’s an important part of our mission to stop the proliferation of these counterproductive laws and push back on these restrictions in court.
Read more:
Registration
We should all want public policies that work. A large and growing body of research shows that public conviction registries are a counterproductive policy—they do not decrease the incidence of sexual offending and they brand people with past convictions with a permanent scarlet letter for decades after they have been held accountable and reestablished positive, law abiding lives in the community.
We’ve gone to court to push back on unconstitutional aspects of the registry and are making headway on issues including extending registration periods without due process and mislabeling of individuals with out-of-state convictions on the registry.
Read more:
Looking Ahead
Our fight for fair, just and effective laws continues in the courts. Check back for updates.
No one should be imprisoned just because they don’t have a home. But for decades, that’s exactly what happened to people with convictions for sex offenses in Illinois.
Thousands of individuals convicted of sex offenses were held in prison beyond the time they were sentenced to serve solely because they couldn’t obtain a place to live that complies with Illinois’ myriad restrictions on where they can reside while on supervised release. Instead of supervised release serving as a period of community reintegration, it became an extension of time in prison.
In a series of three class action cases, we’ve slowly but surely tackled this problem. The courts have repeatedly found that it violates the Eighth Amendment and due process clause to keep people in prison just because they can’t obtain a compliant place to live.
We’ve obtained three injunctions that make housing more available to people on the registry. The Department of Corrections has been forced to change its policies so that people with sex offense convictions—like everyone else in IDOC custody—have an opportunity to transition back to life in the community after serving their time.
Read more:
- Murphy v. Madigan, 16-cv-11471
- Barnes v. Jeffreys, 20-cv-2137
- Stone v. Jeffreys, 21-cv-5616
Parole and Probation Conditions
Everyone on parole, probation or supervised release is expected to comply with conditions designed to help them reintegrate into the community, including regular check-ins with a parole agent, attending mandated therapy, and complying with a curfew.
But persons with convictions for sexual offenses are subject to a host of other restrictions that make it almost impossible for them to successfully reintegrate into the community and establish positive, productive lives.
We’ve taken the Department of Corrections to court to challenge some of the conditions that impede reintegration and violate people’s constitutional rights.
We’ve successfully taken on policies that ban people on the registry from residing with or even talking to their own children and from accessing the internet. We’ve also successfully challenged housing policies that prohibit individuals on supervised release or probation from residing in the same building as another person on the registry.
Our work for more just and rational parole and probation policies continues.
Read more:
- Montoya, et al. v. Hughes, 18-cv-1991
- Tucker, et al. v. Hughes, 18-cv-3154
- Potkaj et al. v. Watkins, 22-cv-7176
Residency Restrictions
Housing banishment laws don’t make anyone safer. Study after study has discredited the theory that regulating where people with past convictions can live will prevent crime and shown that such laws do nothing other than increase homelessness and drive instability. Even the U.S. Department of justice has recommended against implementing residency restrictions.
Nonetheless, many jurisdictions continue to pass laws that regulate where people with past convictions can reside. It’s an important part of our mission to stop the proliferation of these counterproductive laws and push back on these restrictions in court.
Read more:
- Do Not Pass Go, et al. v. City of Rockford, 23-cv-50074
- Hoffman, et al. v. Village of Pleasant Prairie, 249 F. Supp. 3d 951 (E.D. Wis. 2017)
- Koch v. Village of Hartland, 43 F.4th 747 (7th Cir. 2022)
Registration
We should all want public policies that work. A large and growing body of research shows that public conviction registries are a counterproductive policy—they do not decrease the incidence of sexual offending and they brand people with past convictions with a permanent scarlet letter for decades after they have been held accountable and reestablished positive, law abiding lives in the community.
We’ve gone to court to push back on unconstitutional aspects of the registry and are making headway on issues including extending registration periods without due process and mislabeling of individuals with out-of-state convictions on the registry.
Read more:
- McFarland v. Kelly, 20-cv-02334
- Winter v. Schmitz, 18-cv-03667
Looking Ahead
Our fight for fair, just and effective laws continues in the courts. Check back for updates.
Media:
Why Some Are Rethinking Illinois’s Byzantine Sex Offender Laws (7/12/16 Chicago Public Radio)
Federal Judge Finds Illinois Rules On Sex Offenders Unconstitutional (4/1/19 WBEZ Chicago)
For Illinois Sex Offenders, Six Years Can Turn Into Life In Prison (11/24/17 WBEZ Chicago)
Federal judge lifts ban on sex-offender's calls to daughter (Daily Herald 3/29/18)
Former Sex Offenders Can Proceed With Lawsuit Challenging Restrictions on Internet Use (Freedom Forum Institute 10/4/19)
Why Some Are Rethinking Illinois’s Byzantine Sex Offender Laws (7/12/16 Chicago Public Radio)
Federal Judge Finds Illinois Rules On Sex Offenders Unconstitutional (4/1/19 WBEZ Chicago)
For Illinois Sex Offenders, Six Years Can Turn Into Life In Prison (11/24/17 WBEZ Chicago)
Federal judge lifts ban on sex-offender's calls to daughter (Daily Herald 3/29/18)
Former Sex Offenders Can Proceed With Lawsuit Challenging Restrictions on Internet Use (Freedom Forum Institute 10/4/19)
