Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Last month, Governor Pritzker announced the resignation of Prisoner Review Board Member LeAnn Miller…
“The Prisoner Review Board must be able to operate independently as they review enormously difficult cases, but I believe LeAnn Miller has made the correct decision in stepping down from her role.” said Governor JB Pritzker. “It is clear that evidence in this case was not given the careful consideration that victims of domestic violence deserve and I am committed to ensuring additional safeguards and training are in place to prevent tragedies like this from happening again. My thoughts are with Laterria Smith as she recovers and with the entire family of Jayden Perkins as we mourn this tragic loss—may his memory be a blessing.”
* Today from WTTW…
Donald Shelton, who served on the Prisoner Review Board since 2012 and who led the board since last year, took issue with a statement released by Pritzker concerning board member LeAnn Miller’s resignation. […]
“I don’t agree,” said Shelton, in an exclusive interview with WTTW News. “It’s one thing to say that I think the judgment was in error. It’s another thing to say that there was a lack of concern for a victim of domestic violence.” […]
“If the decisions are being made in good faith, then I don’t think she (Miller) is responsible for a murder that happened that she could not anticipate,” said Shelton. […]
“[Board members] have an obligation not only to hold the person that’s before them accountable for their actions if they believe that’s the appropriate point of view,” said Shelton. “They have an obligation to hold the state responsible for making its case to a preponderance of the evidence standard. Now, that’s a low standard, but it’s still a standard. And I can’t tell you how many cases in 11.5 years where I had a gut feeling that, ‘Jeez, I don’t think I like this person.’ But I can’t decide that a person’s going to be held in custody and is a violator because I have a gut feeling that they’re not a nice person.”
Thoughts?
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 10:42 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“If the decisions are being made in good faith, then I don’t think she (Miller) is responsible for a murder that happened that she could not anticipate,”
But isn’t that the job? To anticipate what the person before you is capable of. Obviously mistakes happen, but this seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of the job itself.
Comment by New Day Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 10:49 am
Why wouldn’t a board member anticipate that may happen based on the offender history not by feel. How the inmate could show by a preponderance of the evidence they wouldn’t reoffend is beyond me
Comment by Spooky32 Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 10:55 am
I just don’t buy it.
The Prisoner Review Board knew that he had violated his parole by showing up at the woman’s apartment. They knew (or should have known) that he had sent her text messages threatening her. They knew that he’d just completed 8 years (out of a 16 year sentence) for a domestic abuse case involving a different woman.
Preponderance of the evidence is just simply “is it more likely than not that this person did what they are accused of” The facts against Crosetti Brand should have easily met that threshold.
Comment by Sad Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 10:55 am
The quote was harsh and I wonder what prompted him to even comment. That’s not generally his style.
Comment by Politix Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 10:57 am
===a fundamental misunderstanding of the job itself===
Hindsight is 20/20, but foresight isn’t completely blind, and this case had the victim and the perp saying they were at the address and GPS (which now appears to have been ignored by Miller) flagged him as being in a red zone.
And she let him out anyway, and two people agreed, I assume because they didn’t bother to read the document because Miller was more of a keep ‘em locked up person.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 10:58 am
PRB member Miller didn’t believe the woman. She believed the man. So they let him go.
DV/SA training 101 is, put very simply, to believe the woman. Despite what some argue, survivors don’t have a reason to claim an abuser is abusing them when they are not. In many cases, it puts them in more danger to do so. With a history of domestic violence, a report from the victim of a parole violation stemming from the perpetrator’s visit to the survivor’s home, and previous orders of protection issued, Miller believed the man when he said he didn’t go to her house. The situation was interpreted as a he said/she said situation. And Ms. Miller believed him.
The consequence was pretty easy to anticipate.
Comment by Who else Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:03 am
The FBI says that one-third of domestic violence victims are men. Yet there are zero shelters in the US for men victims. And most shelters that take women won’t take their sons if they are over the age of 12.
Comment by Trying to be Rational Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:07 am
The entire interview is worth a watch. If he believes the decision was made in good faith and based on the preponderance of the evidence, as he seems to indicate, then I’m not sure why he resigned. A good soldier, I guess.
== I can’t decide that a person’s going to be held in custody and is a violator because I have a gut feeling that they’re not a nice person. ==
I think the determination should be based on whether the terms of release were violated and a maybe “gut feeling” on whether or not the individual is likely to re-offend.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:12 am
It’s true that decisions made in good faith result in bad outcomes. But it also seems in this case that there was a preponderance of evidence that the accused intended to harm the victim and her family.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:16 am
Curious to hear from the other 2 PRB members who voted to spring the mope? That seems to be a missing factoid in this debate
Comment by Annonin' Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:24 am
“It’s one thing to say that I think the judgment was in error. It’s another thing to say that there was a lack of concern for a victim of domestic violence.”
Is that what he’s writing inside the sympathy card to the victimized mother?
How clueless and tone deaf can one be?
Comment by Friday Addams Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:34 am
==Yet there are zero shelters in the US for men victims.==
While you can argue that there aren’t enough shelters for male victims of DV, your assertion that there are “zero” in the U.S. is wrong. The Family Place in Dallas opened one in 2017. There are a couple in Minnesota, I believe. And many shelters will accept both male and female victims.
Comment by ??? Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:37 am
===he’s writing inside the sympathy card===
PS: “I can’t decide that a person’s going to be held in custody and is a violator because I have a gut feeling that they’re not a nice person.”
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 11:46 am
Trying to be Rational — ==The FBI says that one-third of domestic violence victims are men.== Please cite source, not even close to accurate. From the Dept of Justice “The majority (73%) of family violence victims are female. Females are 84% of spouse abuse victims and 86% of victims of abuse at the hands of a boyfriend or girlfriend.“
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvs02.pdf
Comment by MaireK Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 12:26 pm
==But I can’t decide that a person’s going to be held in custody and is a violator because I have a gut feeling that they’re not a nice person==
Sure you can. It’s your job.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 1:01 pm
I think the Governor is presuming that “governors own” transfers to others involved in governmental decision making.
The governor seems to be assigning individual responsibility to LeAnn Miller. I don’t think that is an appropriate action for the Governor to make and it is certainly an unwise position for the governor to take.
There are a lot of things that happen within State Government that Governor Pritzker had the power to prevent or otherwise authorized. Does he think he should be held individually responsible for those things? I don’t think it is constructive, but it would not be difficult to create a list of deaths that the Governor is responsible for in one way or another.
I think he is setting a dangerous precedent for a man who seems to let problems languish until they are reported in Propublica.
Comment by Candy Dogood Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 1:07 pm
Prisoner Review Board obviously erred & is in need of a revamp Sorry if that disturbs you, former board member. you know what is worse? that kid is dead.
Comment by Amalia Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 1:23 pm
=== Sure you can. It’s your job. ===
No.
If you serve on a jury, and the prosecutor fails to meet the burden of proof, you cannot vote to convict just because “your gut” tells you they did it. You have taken an oath office to follow the law, not your gut.
This is why OJ walked on the criminal case but was held liable in the civil case.
If people do not like the way things work, change the law to place the burden on the convict to show by preponderance of evidence why they should be released, not on the state to show why they should remain incarcerated.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 1:55 pm
===burden of proof===
This ain’t a trial. And, either way, there was plenty of evidence which was simply ignored. And there was no attempt beyond talking to the defendant’s attorney to get to the heart of what happened.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 2:06 pm
I’m no fan of the Trib editorial board, but I agree with their piece on this topic today.
@Candy’s mention of “governors own” is on target. I’m not sure most folks would blame him for this particular episode, (the fact that the LRB members most involved were Republicans helps.) But these things have a tendency to get worse once reporters start lifting lids. He might want to fill those empty spots on the board.
Comment by Roman Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 2:47 pm
=== This ain’t a trial. ===
No, it is an administrative hearing, and the burden of proof in an administrative hearing is “preponderance of evidence,” whether its work comp or human rights violation or a labor violation.
As for what evidence was - or was not - presented, I have seen conflicting reports. Atleast one suggested that IDOC didn’t give the PRB the full picture.
I don’t think PRB is subject to FOIA, but perhaps in this case we ought to make an exception and release the record,
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 3:17 pm
=== these things have a tendency to get worse once reporters start lifting lids ===
Tru dat.
Comment by Thomas Paine Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 3:18 pm
Agree with Candy Dogood.
Comment by Back to the Future Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 3:41 pm
@Thomas Paine
You can be an apologist all you want but the fact remains that the PRB could have in fact chosen to keep this person in prison no matter what you say.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 4:20 pm
Agree with Thomas Paine even tho he wrote it eons ago
Comment by Hank Sauer Thursday, Apr 4, 24 @ 4:50 pm