Truth-in-Sentencing Laws and Policies in Illinois: A Complex History with Room for Reform

Truth-in-sentencing laws in Illinois have a long and complicated history. These laws restrict the amount of time incarcerated people can earn off their sentences through good behavior and programming. Before 1998, Illinois had a fairly flexible system where most people could earn up to half their sentence off through these credits. But over the past few decades, truth-in-sentencing has substantially increased the time many people spend behind bars.

While some see these laws as necessary for ensuring sentences are fully served, others argue they are ineffective and even counterproductive. This article will provide an overview of how truth-in-sentencing has evolved in Illinois, who it impacts, and arguments around reforming the policy.

A Brief History of Truth-in-Sentencing in Illinois

Truth-in-sentencing laws first passed in Illinois in 1998. They created different tiers based on offense, with each tier limiting how much time could be earned off a sentence[3]:

• 50% Truth-in-Sentencing – For lesser offenses, up to half the sentence can be earned off through credits. This is similar to how Illinois’ system worked before 1998.
• 60% Truth-in-Sentencing – At least 60% of the sentence must be served.
• 75% Truth-in-Sentencing – At least 75% of the sentence must be served. This initially applied mainly to drug offenses.
• 85% Truth-in-Sentencing – At least 85% of the sentence must be served. This covers many violent offenses like armed robbery and aggravated battery.
• 100% Truth-in-Sentencing – The full sentence must be served day-for-day. This applies only to first degree murder.

Over the years, the number of offenses subject to truth-in-sentencing has expanded through further legislation[2]. Today, about a third of Illinois’ prison population is serving sentences impacted by these laws[3].

Who is Impacted by Truth-in-Sentencing?

According to June 2017 data, around 11,000 people were serving 85% truth-in-sentencing sentences, making this the largest group affected[3]. The chart below shows the breakdown of offenses for these inmates[3]:

The two other major groups impacted are[3]:

• 75% Truth-in-Sentencing – Around 8,500 people, mostly those convicted of drug offenses
• 100% Truth-in-Sentencing – Around 2,500 people, almost exclusively those convicted of first degree murder

Black Americans are disproportionately harmed by truth-in-sentencing. While they make up only 14% of Illinois’ population, they account for over half of those incarcerated and serving sentences under these laws[2].

Concerns Around Truth-in-Sentencing

While truth-in-sentencing may sound straightforward, critics argue the policy has concerning implications[2][4]:

• Ineffective at Reducing Crime – Research shows longer prison stays have diminishing returns for improving public safety. Meanwhile, the disruption caused by incarceration can increase recidivism.
• High Costs – Keeping people imprisoned for longer strains state budgets. Housing an inmate in Illinois costs over $38,000 per year.
• Undermines Rehabilitation – Limiting sentence credits removes incentives for personal growth and program participation. This can leave people unprepared for re-entry.
• Disproportionate Impact – People of color face higher rates of incarceration and poverty. Truth-in-sentencing exacerbates these disparities.
• Judicial Discretion – While truth-in-sentencing is meant to prevent “circumventing” judicial sentences, judges can already assign sentences at the higher end of ranges if desired.

Many argue the policy should be reformed to make sentences more proportional, incentivize rehabilitation, and address racial disparities.

The Path Forward for Illinois

Illinois’ truth-in-sentencing laws were born out of a “tough on crime” era. But today, evidence suggests this approach is often ineffective and even counterproductive. As Illinois works to reduce its prison population and reform criminal justice, rethinking truth-in-sentencing deserves serious consideration.

Potential changes could include[2][3][4]:

• Allowing the 85% group to earn up to 50% off sentences through credits
• Reducing the 75% group to 60% truth-in-sentencing
• Allowing the 100% first-degree murder group to earn up to 25% off
• Capping “technical violation” reincarceration periods
• Expanding parole and judicial discretion

Such reforms would help make sentences more proportional, give incentives for rehabilitation, reduce prison populations, and begin to address racial disparities.

Illinois has made some progress in recent years, but substantial reform of truth-in-sentencing remains a challenging next step. While concerns around public safety are valid, evidence suggests our current approach is ultimately doing more harm than good. There are smarter ways to hold people accountable while also encouraging rehabilitation and successful re-entry.