[ Search ] [ PDF text ] [ Legislation ]
[ Home ] [ Back ] [ Bottom ]
| [ Introduced ] | [ Engrossed ] | [ Enrolled ] |
| [ Senate Amendment 001 ] | [ Conference Committee Report 001 ] |
92_HB5652gms
STATE OF ILLINOIS
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
SPRINGFIELD, 62706
GEORGE H. RYAN
GOVERNOR
July 16, 2002
To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
92nd General Assembly
Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor by
Article IV, Section 9(e) of the Illinois Constitution of
1970, and re-affirmed by the People of the State of Illinois
by popular referendum in 1974, and conforming to the standard
articulated by the Illinois Supreme Court in People ex Rel.
Klinger v. Howlett, 50 Ill. 2d 242 (1972), Continental
Illinois National Bank and Trust Co. v. Zagel, 78 Ill. 2d 387
(1979), People ex Rel. City of Canton v. Crouch, 79 Ill. 2d
356 (1980), and County of Kane v. Carlson, 116 Ill. 2d 186
(1987), that gubernatorial action be consistent with the
fundamental purposes and the intent of the bill, I hereby
return House Bill 5652, entitled "AN ACT in relation to
criminal law," with my specific recommendations for change.
House Bill 5652 contains three separate provisions. The
first would amend the Unified Code of Corrections to provide
that a defendant convicted of cannabis trafficking or
controlled substance trafficking may receive only a maximum
of 4.5 days of good conduct credit for each month of his or
her sentence of imprisonment. Secondly, House Bill 5652 would
further amend the Unified Code of Corrections to add certain
reckless homicide offenses involving drugs or alcohol and 2
or more deaths to the list of offenses for which a prisoner
may not receive the additional good conduct credit that is
provided for participation in drug abuse and certain other
correctional programs. Finally, this bill would amend the
Criminal Code of 1961 to clarify that the offense of
aggravated robbery only applies if the offender had no
firearm or other dangerous weapon in his or her possession
when he or she committed the robbery.
The latter two of these provisions are needed technical
changes to insure that the law is applied fairly and
equitably. However, the first provisions, which would add
cannabis trafficking and controlled substance trafficking to
the "Truth-In-Sentencing" law (TIS) poses several problems.
First, when TIS was first considered, it was known that
funds were not available to cover all criminal offenses
because of costs of incarceration associated with the longer
time spent in prison under the Truth-In-Sentencing law.
Since covering only some offenses with TIS raises
constitutional proportionality questions, this risk was
minimized by the decision to cover only the most serious
criminal offenses with TIS. This led to TIS for crimes
committed against the person such as murder, criminal sexual
assault, armed robbery, etc. Since TIS was enacted in 1996
only one new offense has been added, and that was aggravated
arson last year due to its inherent life-endangering nature.
Because cannabis and controlled substance trafficking is not
a violent crime against the person, including it in a
category with only the most violent crimes against the person
raises potential constitutional issues.
Furthermore, the Federal "Violent Offender
Incarceration-Truth-in-Sentencing" (VOI-TIS) program, which
provided funds to states to pay for additional incarceration
costs and prison construction costs brought on by increasing
prison time was discontinued last year. As discussed, adding
drug trafficking to TIS would seem to be a significant
departure from the original intent of VOI-TIS and would have
a significant fiscal impact particularly given that federal
funds are no longer available to pay for any of the existing
Truth-In-Sentencing offenses, let alone new offenses.
This one component of the bill accounts for the full $3.3
million fiscal impact (over ten years) that the Department of
Corrections estimates would result from the enactment of this
bill as written. While proponents of this change are likely
to argue that the violent nature of most drug trafficking
warrants its inclusion in the Truth-In-Sentencing laws, it is
difficult to justify spending more money on longer prison
terms for drug offenders at the same time that funds are
being cut at both the federal and state level for
incarceration and prison construction. Moreover, there is a
growing consensus that treatment programs, not longer
incarceration, may offer better results in combating the
scourge of narcotics. Further, as noted earlier, the fiscal
impact becomes even more difficult to justify when one
considers the inconsistency that this provision would bring
to the current list of Truth-In-Sentencing offenses which
would include only the most violent crimes.
Finally, the current trafficking offenses already double
the minimum time in prison from what the sentence would be
for the actual delivery of that amount of cannabis or
controlled substance to a person. Consequently, under current
law the sentence for high-end amounts of controlled
substances under the trafficking law is a minimum 30 years
imprisonment, which means at least 15 years served (less six
months of potential meritorious good time). Requiring that
85% of the 30 years or 25.5 years be served in prison for
drug trafficking would result in a longer minimum sentence
and length of stay than the minimum sentence and length of
stay for murder, which are both only 20 years. Some judges
have already criticized the trafficking provisions as too
harsh. Our state's prisons are already overcrowded with drug
offenders who may be serving more time than warranted by the
offense and adding these drug trafficking provisions to our
Truth-In-Sentencing laws only creates the risk of the courts
invalidating Illinois' other TIS provisions. For these
reasons, I return House Bill 5652 with the following
recommendations for change:
on page 1, line 29, by replacing "Sections 3-6-3 and
5-4-1" with "Section 3-6-3"; and
on page 4, by deleting lines 11 through 20; and
on page 5, by replacing "or" with "or"; and
on page 5, by replacing lines 17 through 21 with "date of
this amendatory Act of the 92nd General Assembly."; and
on pages 6, by replacing lines 15 through 18 with
"Assembly, or first degree murder, a Class X"; and
on page 10, by deleting lines 16 through 33; and
by deleting all of pages 11 through 16; and
on page 17, by deleting lines 1 through 24.
With these specific recommendations for change, House
Bill 5652 will have my approval. I respectfully request your
concurrence.
Sincerely,
s/GEORGE H. RYAN
Governor