Gov. Pritzker is commuting sentences because of pandemic. Compassionate pardons should follow

Over the past two months Gov. J.B. Pritzker has quietly commuted the sentences of 20 state prison inmates, releasing them before their projected parole dates.

In his first year in office, Pritzker commuted just three sentences.

The governor’s recent flurry of commutations suggests that the COVID-19 outbreak has been a factor in his thinking. Because the coronavirus is especially dangerous in crowded spaces such as prisons, governors across the country have been urged to release inmates who are already in poor health, close to their parole eligibility date or would not pose a risk to the community.

I wonder if we can draw insights from this into how Pritzker might rule on future clemency petitions seeking a pardon?

When a governor grants a pardon — as opposed to the simple act of commuting of a sentence — the state officially is forgiving someone for the crime or crimes they committed. A pardon allows the person to have their record expunged, which can be of enormous importance to their ability to get a job and build a new life.

To date, Pritzker has granted 24 pardons — and none so far this year.

As we all can attest, we are living in far from normal times. And I like to think that maybe — just maybe — the governor’s stay-at-home order during the pandemic is giving us time to reflect on how all of us, including the governor, can be better citizens to one another, and how we can show greater empathy for those who have not had the same opportunities in life.

Commutations for serious crimes

What I noticed first about Pritzker’s recent batch of commutations was the number of murder convictions on the list — 7 of the 20. The governor also commuted the sentence of a person convicted of involuntary manslaughter.

The sentences commuted ranged from 20 years to life, and nobody was released early who had not served a significant amount of time. The oldest conviction dated to 1992; the most recent was 2007.

Four of the commutation cases involved armed robbery, and in three of those cases the defendant received a life sentence. The remaining cases involved drug-related offenses, with sentences of as long as 60 years to natural life.

In contrast to this, Pritzker has granted pardons largely in cases involving low level crimes, such as misdemeanors and, in one instance, an ordinance violation — what I think of as low-hanging fruit. In cases such as these, the convicted person can readily petition a court to seal their record, removing it from public view. Once your entire conviction record is sealed, you legally can say you’ve never been convicted of a crime.

I’ve always been of the mind that pardons are intended for the more difficult cases — the ones in which the person’s record cannot be sealed or where sealing doesn’t entirely solve the problem. For example, sealing a felony conviction won’t reinstate someone’s gun rights.

Among the pardons granted by Pritzker so far, only four involved prison sentences. Of those, the most serious case was that of Miguel Perez Jr., a U.S. Army veteran who was deported to Mexico after completing a sentence for a drug offense.

In granting Perez clemency last August, Pritzker said he wanted to “allow a U.S. veteran the opportunity to be treated fairly by the country he served.” Two months later, Perez became an American citizen.

Pritzker, however, has granted clemency to someone convicted of a non-sealable, violent misdemeanor offense — in this case domestic battery — just once.

Pardons for serious offenses?

Which brings me back to Pritzker’s decisions in the last two months to commute 20 prison sentences. Fifteen of those commutations were for cases that involved violent crimes. If Pritzker is apparently more willing now to commute sentences for violent crimes, might he also be more receptive to granting pardons in cases involving violent crimes?

There are many instances when the governor would have good reason to do so.

A critical factor in considering whether to pardon someone, as you would expect, is whether a person has successfully rehabilitated himself or herself. And one of the most relevant factors in making that determination is the offender’s age when he or she committed the crime.

A wealth of research into human brain development explains why young people so often make grievously bad decisions. For purely physiological reasons, younger people, right up into their middle 20s, are more likely to be more impulsive, more sensation-seeking, more susceptible to peer influence and less able to delay gratification.

And we also know, from extensive medical research, that trauma experienced early in life can alter one’s brain chemistry in harmful ways.

Redemption and second chances

In commuting sentences, Pritzker clearly has been taking age into consideration. In the 13 cases involving the most serious criminal offenses, at least seven of the offenders were only between the ages of 15 and 24 when they committed their crimes. And possibly only four (I was unable to find an age for one defendant) were older than 30.

It is my hope that Gov. Pritzker, having read the personal stories of the men and women whose sentences he’s commuted, better appreciates that even men and women who commit serious offenses are often redeemable and deserve a second chance to be contributing members of society.

Ina R. Silvergleid, a Chicago attorney who specializes in post-conviction relief, is owner of A Bridge Forward LLC.

Send letters to letters@suntimes.com.