A statement on the issue of Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) from IllinoisVictims.org

All my grown life I have been a passionate advocate for and educator about Human Rights for all human beings. Because of that I respect and understand the questions being raised by some advocates regarding the LWOP sentence for juvenile offenders. We believe a thorough public discussion on this topic could be a positive thing, but only so long as the victims of those horrible crimes are fully notified of such debate, and empowered to participate if they so choose.

I am one of those victims – three members of my family were killed by a 16 year old later diagnosed as sociopath. He meticulously plotted and carried out their murders over a period of months. He shot my brother in law, a very good man he did not know and picked at random, and then he turned the gun on my beautiful 25 year old pregnant sister who was begging for the life of her unborn child. He shot her directly in her abdomen where she was trying to protect the baby. He did it for the “thrill” of it, and he planned to kill again months after he did it. He was mature, intelligent, from a good and wealthy family, was a top student, and to this day is unrepentant and still enjoying his mind games with those foolish enough to fall for him. He fits no stereotype of the cases that advocates against JLWOP are concerned about. He is the poster child for those rare few cases where LWOP is actually the appropriate sentence for an offender under 18. He is currently serving three LWOP sentences in the Illinois Department of Corrections. My concerns about the discussion about this sentence are not, however, changed by the facts of my case. They are the concerns I have for all of my fellow murder victims’ family members.

The primary purpose of the LWOP sentence, no matter the age of the offender, is to protect public safety. It also is the best sentence for victims in terms of the least amount of on-going traumatization caused by constant parole hearings. Other states that still have indeterminate sentencing, unlike my state of Illinois, hold regular hearings for parole that re-open the victims’ scars constantly, causing a lifetime of never-ending engagement with the offender.

When a reasonable determination can be made that the offender would never be judged releasable then the human rights of the victims to not have to face re-engagement with the killer regularly for the rest of their lives should take precedence over the “rights” of the offender. Then and only then, in those rare cases, is the sentence appropriate.

It is hard for those of us who care about human rights to have to admit that sometimes human rights of one person can be in direct conflict with the human rights of another. This requires a very nuanced and sophisticated understanding of human rights, but it is, sadly, sometimes real.

When those rights are in conflict, the innocent victims needs should be the ultimate consideration.

Someday perhaps we will become a society where all people in it are able to live with fully actualized freedoms and not be at all in conflict with each other. I think however most intelligent people know we are not there yet.

Also, the LWOP sentence supports a much more important human rights agenda, that we provide a viable alternative to becoming killers ourselves through the use of the death penalty. It is a reality-based observation that some are so dangerous and have done such awful things that they must be kept forever away from the rest of us, even from a young age, but I stress again, only in the rarest and most extreme cases.

As I have learned more about the approximately 103 cases of JLWOP in the Illinois Department of Corrections, it has become clear to me that there are definitely one or two of these offenders who should not have received this sentence, but because of some mandatory sentencing laws, judges had no choice. There is definitely room for work on this problem.

As I work hard to advocate for victims in the now raging legislative discussion on this issue in Illinois, I am reminded that those here that proposed a bill that would eliminate JLWOP, deliberately chose to leave victims out of the most important discussion that they could ever have – what should be the fate of the offender who brought untold agony into their lives? And oh, by the way, you know how the state of Illinois promised you that the killer would never walk free, and all your legal matters that were “permanently resolved” and in many cases discarded from your lives? They didn’t really mean it. Now you will have to start dealing with it again every day for the rest of your lives. A life sentence for you, the victim.

We have discussed this on my IllinoisVictims.org website – the entire field of victimology affirms it — that victims have a tragic and absolutely indissoluble relationship with the fate of the offender. This is a relationship created by the offender, about which the victims have no choice. This, perhaps better than any other definition, defines what it means to be a victim.

The original supporters of a bill to end JLWOP in Illinois only began to speak of the importance of representing victims voices in this discussion after my sister and I found out about their bill on our own and insisted that they do the right thing. They saw us frequently in anti-death penalty work, and deliberately chose what they later called “an under the radar strategy” with their legislation.

They lost credibility on any advocacy for Restorative Justice.

Restorative Justice is ALL about the victims and their healing. Bringing them to the table.

As of now, these advocates in Illinois have only paid lip service to their concerns for victims – with no action steps or follow though. Many of these advocates have yet to earn their real human rights credentials. When they begin to care for the victims of these crimes as much as they do the “poor criminals”, they will have earned the right to be at the table in this discussion.

I have paid the dues to be at the table in this discussion but they have not. They were simply lazy – they did not want to take the time necessary to do the hard work of the more difficult dialog that talking to victims would require.

I took action at the national level on this problem and began a conversation with staff at Human Rights Watch, one of the leading organizations nationally trying to end JLWOP. To their credit, they immediately agreed with my challenge regarding their neglect of victims in their campaign. At my personal suggestion, they authorized, researched, and soon will be publishing a report that I suggested the title to – “Victims Rights Are Human Rights” – at least a step in the right direction. (And a proud accomplishment for us in both victims and human rights advocacy – this publication will be a first for our movement.)

We encourage all advocates opposing JLWOP in Illinois to practice what they preach with regards to Human Rights.

We know that even discussions about the sentences of brutal offenders who caused untold trauma to a victims’ family will, in and of itself, be re-traumatizing. Those advocates who propose changing the status quo and retroactively changing sentences already given due process of law are responsible to find and notify the victims of such crimes to be informed about any proposed changes before they happen. Victims families who have gone on in their lives with the understanding that the sentence is permanent and the offender can never be released cannot be given a “bait and switch” without their full informed consent.

It is not only unconstitutional, it is morally abysmal.

Those who wish to propose changes to a sentence retroactively are also ethically obligated to generate appropriate emotional support and counseling for the very foreseeable emotional consequences such discussions could have on victims’ families.

We do not believe that advocates who claim to be concerned only about human rights are being ethically consistent if they are willing to make changes to sentencing law that deeply hurts victims families in the process. You cannot protect the human rights of one group selectively while at the same time hurting another innocent group of people. This is the challenge that we put to that part of the human rights movement, that we have long been a part of, that seem to be so focused on seeing prisoners, not victims, as underdogs and in most need of help. The measure of their success and credibility will not be in how much they help prisoners’ human rights, but how they protect prisoners’ human rights while at the same time preserving the rights, dignity and well-being of the innocent victims of those criminals.

Until the public determines after full discussion that JLWOP should no longer be a sentencing option, advocates should only work to make changes going forward “prospectively” – for all cases from here on. Such a change would not be a violation of victims’ rights, because they would know what to expect from the outset in all cases from here on.

But any retroactive changes to sentencing have to be treated completely differently because of the essential legal foundation of due process rights as well as the emotional and psychological process of the victims families and all the people involved in the prosecution of the cases.

We have been trying to point out, loud and clear, that a remedy already exists in law to address miscarriages of justice. Rather than battle a whole new bill through the state legislature, why not use the system already in place? That system is Clemency. The Constitution prescribes that the checks and balances between the branches of government can correct themselves for error. If there has been an over-sentencing, then clemency can be used to correct those cases retroactively that need correcting.

We find the proposals to change the sentencing for ALL of the JLWOP offenders somewhat disingenuous, not only because of their deliberate refusal after many requests to find and include the victims families in their years of work, but because not a single one – not even one – of the 103 or so Juvenile Lifers in Illinois have applied for clemency.

They have not even tried to apply.

And worst of all, one organization, the John Howard Association, the primary group in Illinois pushing for this legislation (in defiance of a larger coalition they were partners in that were moving responsibly in a “go slow” process, willing to collaborate with victims families), has admitted openly to us that their primary motivation in pushing this legislation was to position themselves for funding opportunities. Some foundations have been giving out money to organizations who will work against JLWOP.

If these 103 or so cases need to be reviewed, a process that would be horrific for victims families, then it should be limited to a one-time only review — in courts of law that are subject to the full accountability and due process of our legal system. But this only if all victims families are found, notified, and empowered to participate in the decision to do so. To propose anything more is asking victims to bear the full pain of the worst trauma of their lives over and over again. And would be a fundamental violation of their human, constitutional, legal, and victims rights.

What we object to vehemently is proposals that do not inform victims families of proposed changes before they push them, and take no account to the effect that such changes would have on them. I personally spent months of tears, sleeplessness, and genuine horror for the first time since my sister was killed. I was scared – for the first time in years – of the very thought that this very dangerous man could possibly walk free. I experienced genuine re-traumatization. Other victims families will go through the same or worse.

And even more serious are concerns that some proposals would require victims families to go through regular parole-review type processes every few years for the rest of their lives, making impossible any life that allows them to heal and move on from the horrific crimes that forever changed their lives. These kinds of proposals are absolutely unacceptable. They would truly cause more harm than good. There are lots of different ways to address concerns with sentences such as these without recreating the nightmarishly racist, random, expensive and ineffective bureaucracy of parole that was quite rightly done away with in Illinois in 1978.

The Hippocratic Oath for doctors is a good standard to follow: First, do no harm.

We have begged on several occasions, in person, in writing, and in organizational meetings, that all advocates against JLWOP in Illinois take just a small percentage of the significant resources that they have and have invested into documenting the cases of the 103 juveniles lifers and send a simple letter to the victims families informing them of their study, their legislative goals, and invite them into this process. They have refused this request.

Their refusal to deal honestly, fairly, and compassionately with victim families is beyond our understanding and is costly to them in terms of credibility.

Victims families may definitely not want to participate, and can refuse absolutely to participate in any such conversations. But it is their right to make that choice themselves. That right is absolutely ensconced in the Constitution of our state.

And it is unconscionable that people who have the ability to care for those in prison, as I do, would not have enough concern for the victims of these same crimes to even tell them what they are planning. I would like to ask those advocates for Juvenile Lifers to give as much time to victims as I have to prisoners over the years. That would be a good standard for them to work for.

We do believe that JLWOP is appropriate in some few extreme cases. We believe that it is currently over-used, and should be applied only in the most serious of cases. But we know that there are some offenders so dangerous, so unrepentant and unchanging, such as truly violent sociopaths, that the LWOP sentence is the only appropriate sentence for them, especially when considering the most important factor of public safety, and the need to absolutely not submit brutalized victims families to one more moment of trauma.

We believe in the ability of human beings to make sound judgments about which of those cases do need to receive the LWOP sentence. We do not believe that something as arbitrary as an 18th birthday should be the determination point for such decisions. We know that human development varies widely, and some people are fully developed and mature enough to be held accountable at different ages, depending on the person and the individual circumstances of each case. And from what we know of the 103 or so cases of JLWOP in Illinois, there are many for whom the brutality, and often repeated and multiple instances of horrific violence, is so dramatic, and their personal maturity adequate to provide for adult levels of culpability, that we have no doubt that almost everyone would concur that their sentences were quite appropriate.

There is an almost impossible to solve legal concern here for those who would contemplate retroactively changing some sentences. If a case is decades old, records are gone, witnesses and court officials long gone, and no viable hope of the Constitutional Right of Due Process being made available to all those involved in a given case, that it will not be possible to fairly re-try or re-sentence a case. Clemency is an option that the system provides that would allow un-doing of grievous miscarriages of justice.

A significant study was just completed and the Illinois public was still not given the hard look at the facts of some of the JLWOP cases in Illinois. The report was bad news for the researchers – they found not lots of cases of innocence, legal error, abuse, poor representation, etc., that they were predicting they would find. Instead they found that they were all pretty much guilty mass murderers with virtually nothing to make them sympathetic. These killers are serving the appropriate sentence in many cases, and other cases may be appropriate for clemency. Some of the facts of these cases are so brutal that it defies description, but at least one of them is a clear candidate for executive clemency. I have been working positively and pro-actively with these advocates to work towards these changes. And I will stand with them before the Governor and support the appeals for clemency in some of these cases.

A single crime cannot be adequately diagnostic for determination of LWOP. And the law should not allow it to be so. But if we are not willing to give the LWOP sentence to those who clearly need and deserve it, then they will go on in prison or after release to re-victimize even more innocent people. Such tragic stories abound in the news. We are responsible to use our best judgment to prevent this.

So, I will work to defeat all changes to current JLWOP law until and unless all affected victims families are found and informed and invited to be part of any discussion about possible changes to the law. This is not an extraordinary request – there are only a few hundred people involved here. This task is a finite one — definitely “do-able”. Once they have all been found and informed, a meaningful discussion can begin.

We call on the advocates that have been funding and staffing the study of the 103 or so cases to take the list of names of the victims families that they already have and contact them all. Provide them with appropriate support. Empower their voices in this discussion. We promise to work to help them do this.

For all the advocates opposing juvenile life sentences to refuse this request renders your motivations and your efforts not credible, even unthinkably cruel and heartless towards innocent and deeply wounded victims of crime. That anyone could care for protecting the interests of guilty violent offenders and not those of their innocent victims . . .well, words just fail me on this point.

When these advocates have found these families, informed them, supported their inevitable re-traumatization, and empowered their voices in this process they have created, then they will have earned their credentials as human rights advocates in this situation and can stand with pride before the Illinois Legislature and Public and can propose the changes they think should happen. And we all will discuss it and decide – together.

Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins

7 responses to “A statement on the issue of Juvenile Life Without Parole (JLWOP) from IllinoisVictims.org

  1. Jennifer,

    I truly appreciate you guest blogging here today. You have educated me on some aspects of this issue that I really had not previously considered. I agree with you that these issues must be discussed and decided jointly, with the human rights of all involved as part of the process. This is the kind of dialogue that I had hoped to have here at Compassion in Juvenile Sentencing and I thank you sincerely for helping to create that dialogue.


  2. Pingback: Children & the Law Blog » Blog Archive » State Movements Seek Ban on Life Sentences without Possibility of Parole Applied to Children

  3. I read through most of Jennifer’s post. To be honest, it was a little…. lengthy? Jennifer can never be accused of brevity in her writing.

    Jennifer has spent the years following her sister’s tragic death being involved in human rights pursuits. Kudos to her for that. I have no doubt that had the child accused of killing her sister been an adult, instead, she would be rallying against the injustice of JLWOP. While there are many exaggerations and “inventive” assertions made in her writings and speeches, the issue to which I object most is her using her considerable visibility to continue a personal vendetta against the offender in her sister’s case. She should recuse herself from this issue and focus on the myriad others in which she is involved.

    She has not had a dialogue with this offender in years. She has chosen not to talk with him until he fully accepts responsibility for the crime. The young man continues to assert his innocence. Do I believe he’s innocent? I don’t know that I believe that. I do believe it’s a possibility given some of the things I’ve heard from him and verified through facts discovered through independent professional investigation. What leads me to think he is not innocent is that he was given a way to once and for all prove his innocence. As far as I know, he has not (yet) pursued this course. If I were sitting in prison facing 2 consecutive and one subsequent life without parole sentences, I would jump at any opportunity to prove my innocence, and particularly one that would so easiliy accomplish it. I can’t say for sure he is not pursuing it, but I haven’t heard that he is. If he doesn’t do it, then I have to believe it is because he also realizes that just as it could prove that he is innocent, it could also prove he is guilty.

    But his case is but one of many. It was interesting to read that of the 103 JLWOP cases, Ms. Jenkins only believes one or two are in question, though she believes the sentence should only be used in the most extreme cases. What exactly is a most extreme case when it involves a child? While it is true that some children given life sentences do not improve over the course of their incarceration, it is impossible to know that at the time of sentencing. Likewise, it is just as likely that a person committed to a 20 year sentence will not only not improve during his incarceration but will worsen!! Yet, he will return to society as there are no provisions available to determine an offender’s readiness to be released.

    The vast majority of the kids sentenced to JLWOP are not evil. They were not (and are not) psychopaths or sociopaths. Ms. Jenkins used to claim that the offender in her sister’s case was a diagnosed sociopath. After having it pointed out to her on numerous occasions that a child under the age of 18 cannot be diagnosed as a sociopath, she now says he was “later diagnosed a sociopath.” Interestingly, both the offender and his father insist he was NEVER diagnosed as a sociopath by any examining psychologist/psychiatrist. So perhaps it was a diagnosis made by someone who read the file? Perhaps, before making further such allegations, Ms. Jenkins should look for current mental evaluations on the boy rather than relying on hearsay or idle prison gossip. Yes, it is true that she has actively sought out information on how the offender is doing, what his activities have been, with whom he associated, etc. She once sent a verbal message to him via an ex-death row inmate, meant (surely) to intimidate. She enlists the help of inmates to get her information. Enough said.

    The fact is, most juvenile offenders (even the so-called worst of the worst) can be helped. But not in an adult prison in Illinois. They are simply thrown to the wolves as children and expected to figure it out.

    Advocates of legislation to abolish JLWOP do not advocate throwing open cell doors and sending 103 juvenile offenders home. They advocate replacing the sentence of Life Without POSSIBILITY of Parole to a sentence of Life WITH the Possibility of Parole. It simply says, let’s take another look at these kids after 20 years, 25 years, 30 years and see if they have progressed, transformed, accomplished anything during their incarceration. It is no guarantee they’ll be released. In the case of a person serving consecutive life sentences, EACH LIFE SENTENCE would have to be served. So an offender with 3 consecutive Life sentences would serve a minimum of 60 years – and that’s assuming the 20-year scenario.

    To be very blunt, I need to say what few will say directly. It is not the victims with whom we do not wish to work. It is Ms. Jenkins herself. She and her husband are demanding and bullying and do much harm to the process whenever they are involved. In fact, there are other victims with whom we DO work. They just don’t have the bully pulpits to which Ms. Jenkins is privileged.

  4. abolition life imprisonment without parole(lwop) for juveniles; spanish experience
    Some of the most harrowing of the Law of Minors (www.libertaddigital.com)
    ————————————————– ——————————
    The entry into force of the Juvenile Penal Law 13 January 2001 marked the release of 1515 persons who had committed serious or extremely serious crimes, including murder, which was retroactively. Many associations and institutions and ideologies of all kinds called an initial review of the law, leaving the victims vulnerable and almost no punishment for criminals and murderers simply because they are minors.

    (Libertad Digital) The trial begins Monday for the murder of Sandra Palo. The body of Sandra, a young man of 22 years with mental retardation, was charred on May 17 on the road in Toledo, Leganés height. She was raped, repeatedly hit and burned alive. Police arrested four persons, three of them minors, in connection with the murder. If they apply the Law of Minors, those under 14, 16 and 17 years could be released soon.

    Remember that some cases have caused alarm for his brutality:

    “THE MURDERER OF CATANA”. Rabadán Joseph, aged 16, killed his parents and his sister with Down syndrome on April 1, 2000, with some 70 coups CATANA at home, while they were sleeping. The prosecution and defense agreed on 6 years in an internment center, therapeutic treatment, and after four years of probation. He was released after completing 6 months of interim measures, pending trial. Rabadán was sentenced on June 1, 2001 to the rehabilitation of 12 years of confinement in a treatment center for the three murders, with the legal limitations of 8 years, to be followed by another 2 probation.

    CRIME OF SAN FERNANDO Iria, 16, and Rachel, 17, wanted “to become famous” and “know what it felt to kill a person.” So one day caught Clara Garcia, 16 years, led by deception at night to a clearing in the town of Cadiz and San Fernando settled 32 stabbed and slaughtered. The judge found that both children knew what they were doing and had the capacity to discern between the licit and illicit rioja, rioja rioja moral and immoral, and that the killing was with premeditation and conspiracy. But the sentence is 8 years in an internment center, subject to review after five years and 4 probation. Were released when they turn 6 months of relief, re later.

    CRIME OF THE OLYMPIC VILLA Carlos Javier Robledo of 22 years was killed by M. Valentine 9 guests and leaving a nightclub under the guise of an argument over a jacket. He burst the duodenum, the testes and the left skull. Valentin M. andalusia missing two hours to meet 18 years, it was martial arts expert, was to kill as explained in detail above. Convicted of murder, assault and robbery, will be a maximum of 8 years in an internment center, subject to the 4, and five probation. He was released while the ruling was not final when they turn 6 months of relief.

    CRIME AND THE RAMÓN CAJAL Luisa Maria Dominguez, a lady of 64 years, was murdered at his home on December 19, 1998 by three children, 15 and 17 years to conceal a theft of £ 150,000. The sentence tells that the crime was brutal and ruthless, with a machete 60 dealt the two of them stabbed in the heart of the child 15 years after the trial had a measure of 2 years in an internment center. The other two were sentenced to 8 years and 18 months respectively in the centers.

    CRIME ALGECIRAS boy 10 years, José Luis Moreno, was found dead from asphyxiation in services offices in September 1999. They were later arrested two persons under 16 and 17 years for this murder, who confessed that he brought his head in the toilet until he drowned because he refused to do fellatio. They were released when they turn 6 months of relief. Comply with a penalty of 5 and 2 years respectively.

    CRIME Olive. The child of 11 years Antonio Carrillo, was raped and murdered in an olive grove in Spain in late September of’98. The two responsible for his murder, lower EC and A.A. who were their neighbors, sodomized and stabbed 28 dealt andalusia small. The maximum confinement that meet the Act is 8 years, and revised his sentence in half.

    CRIME low. A small 6 years Jacob Yanes, was assassinated by a young man of 17 years, MMM, which had escaped 11 times from the center of lower half. He nailed a pair of scissors 16 times and smashed his head with a stone of 20 pounds after sexually assaulted. He was sentenced to 8 years of confinement and five probation. In half of the sentence will be reviewed their situation.

    CRIME OF MINES Riotinto Sergio B.V. murdered his parents when he was 17 years. He was sentenced in 1998 to 24 years in prison, but with the entry into force of the Juvenile Law was revised and his sentence was 8 years of confinement and three probation. In half of the sentence to 4 years, the measure will be reviewed.

    CRIME OF THE PALO Manuel Lara, a neighbor of 33 years, was killed on May 14, 2000, by the lower Rafael FR, aka The Cachulo. After scolded for disturbing another couple in a bar, he threatened his victim with a pistol and a CATANA subsequently dealt him 8 stabbing that caused his fall to the ground where he finished with four stab wounds. He stated that he had been killed because “he gave the point.” He was sentenced to 8 years of confinement and five probation. He released over time measures. A half of the sentence his situation will be reviewed as the law prescribes

    According to the Platform for Reform of the Law of Minors in the past two years (2000-2001) have been arrested 139 juveniles allegedly responsible for murders, for crimes of 1963 injuries per 631 sexual assaults, robberies by 8531 with violence and other crimes to a total of 53,610 detainees. Children under 14 years, responsible for 5 murders, 125 injuries, 97 sexual assaults, 662 robberies with violence and other crimes to total at least to 3984 (data from the Internal º F) were placed under the guardianship of parents to be out of Juvenile Law.

    (Article made with information from the Platform for the Reform of the Juvenile Law)

  5. Thanks for stopping by the Reading Den – I love the Bangkok series (by Tim Hallinan) & I’m looking forward to the 3rd installment, releasing this summer. Your site is wonderful – very informative – dealing with a very difficult issue, that unfortunately has been neglected for far too long!


  6. I wanted to reply to Jacki’s post. Jacki is an offender advocate associated with the IllinoisPrisonTalk website. She has often used these talking points about me before.

    1. The “diagnosed sociopath” reference that I make in telling my story is from the civil suit in which my family sued the convicted killer in our case. He was a patient briefly in 1989 in Charter Barclay for mental evaluation after attempting to poison his own parents. It is also published in a book called I AM CAIN written about him that the doctors at Charter Barclay warned his family that the young man was a “dangerous sociopath” and that he should stay at Charter Barclay. He did not, however, want to stay and talked his parents into bringing him home. Several months later he murdered my three family members.

    2. I am not in any privileged position at all. I have just been willing to tell my sister’s story to anyone who will listen because of the many important lessons that must be learned from it. I am one of many victim activists who, after a tragedy, devote themselves to trying to make sure that this kind of horror never happens again.

    Jacki, I am not the issue. You should argue the issue on its merits. And if critizing the length of a blog on a very complicated issue is a point of concern for you, I would caution you that arguing this issue on its merits will make being pithy more difficult.

    Also, that fact that you have reached out to and built a relationship with the offender in my case, because of my advocacy on behalf of victims, speaks volumes.

    3. Neither I nor my husband or anyone else we work with have ever bullied or demanded anything of anyone. We do stand up for victims rights. At one meeting where Jacki was present, we did express our emotion at one point where re-injuring innocent and devastated victims horribly was being discussed. (If you can’t hear victim emotion comfortably at appropriate times, you have no business being in prison reform advocacy work. In response an even angrier voice used the F word to us, but I did not see you express concern at her behavior).

    We have always stood for the restorative justice principles of all stakeholders being at the table in a discussion. If you want to debate JLWOP in Illinois or anywhere else, lets bring all the stakeholders to the table and have that civilized and well-informed discussion. I will work with you to make it happen. I will trust the outcome as well, because I know with all the information about and above board, there is no question but that the good citizens of Illinois will continue to support LWOP sentences for those very few most violent offenders in our nation.

  7. You actually make it seem really easy along with your presentation however I find
    this matter to be really something that I think I might never understand.
    It sort of feels too complicated and very huge
    for me. I’m taking a look ahead on your subsequent submit, I will try
    to get the cling of it!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s