REDUCING VIOLENCE IN CHICAGO.

>> THE SHOCKING KILLING OF AN 11 YEAR-OLD CHICAGO BOY IS PROMPTING CALLS FOR CHANGE AT THE STATE'S PRISONER REVIEW BOARD.

PROSECUTORS SAY JADEN PERKINS SHOW DANCING HERE WAS KILLED LAST MONTH WHILE TRYING TO DEFEND HIS PREGNANT MOTHER FROM FORMER BOYFRIEND.

CHRIS.

BRAND BRAND HAD BEEN CLEARED FOR RELEASE BY THE PRISONER REVIEW BOARD THE PREVIOUS DAY OUTRAGE OVER PERKINS KILLING 2 MEMBERS OF THE BOARD RESIGNED, INCLUDING THE BOARD'S CHAIR, FORMER CHAMPAIGN POLICE PATROL SERGEANT DONALD SHELTON AND JOINING US NOW FOR HIS FIRST INTERVIEW SINCE THAT RESIGNATION LAST WEEK IS FORMER CHAIR OF THE ILLINOIS PRISONER REVIEW BOARD, DONALD SHELTON, MISTER SHELTON, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

WELCOME.

LETS START WITH RECENT RESIGNATION FROM THE YOU SERVED ON IT FOR NEARLY 12 YEARS.

WHY RESIGN?

WELL, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS ASKED TO TAKE THE POSITION OF CHAIRMAN, I KNEW IN MY HEART THAT I WOULD BE TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR.

>> ALL THE DECISIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE BOARD, WHETHER I'M INVOLVED OR I KNOW THAT THE THE FILE THAT RESULT THAT WAS USED TO REFER THE CASE REVIEW.

AND THIS PARTICULAR WAS REVIEWED BY NO MEMBERS OF THE GOVERNOR'S EXECUTIVE TEAM AND THEY HAD ISSUES WITH RESULTS OF THOSE HEARINGS THAT HEARING SO.

YOU KNOW, TAKING MY RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY.

I FELT THAT THE ONLY REASONABLE THING FOR ME TO DO I WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED TRAINING OF MANY OF THOSE BOARD MEMBERS.

WAS TO RESIGN.

THAT'S ONE ANOTHER REASON ACTUALLY RELATES MORE TO.

YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A DECISION MADE BY 3 PEOPLE.

IT WAS DECISION WAS MADE IN GOOD FAITH.

I HAVE A REAL CONCERN ABOUT THE FACT THAT A DECISION THAT'S MADE IN GOOD FAITH BUT IS NOT AGREED WITH BY THE GOVERNOR'S TEAM WHERE THE GOVERNOR.

MIGHT RESULT IN A BOARD MEMBER BEING MADE TO FEEL THAT.

RESIGNATION WOULD WAS APPROPRIATE THING TO DO.

IF THE DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE IN GOOD FAITH.

AND I DON'T THINK.

I DON'T THINK SHE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MURDER.

THAT HAPPENED THAT SHE COULD NOT ANTICIPATE.

AND I WAS REALLY UPSET WHEN WHEN ATTENDED A RESIDENT UNDERSTOOD WHAT DID.

IT.

>> SO SO TO CLARIFY FOR OUR GOVERNOR PRITZKER RELEASED A STATEMENT REGARDING BOARD MEMBER LIAM MILLER AND HER RESIGNATION FROM THE THE IT SOUNDS LIKE SHE WAS A MEMBER OF THE 3 BOARD MEMBER PANEL BOARD MEMBERS WHO MADE THE DECISION IN THIS PARTICULAR CLASE THE PICK CASE.

GOVERNOR PRITZKER SAID, QUOTE, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS NOT GIVEN THE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION THAT VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DESERVE.

WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT STATEMENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT HAPPENED HERE?

I DON'T AGREE.

>> I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT STATEMENT.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS I DON'T AGREE.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ONE THING TO SAY THAT.

I THINK THE JUDGMENT WAS IN AIR.

IT'S ANOTHER THING TO SAY THAT.

DOMESTIC, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE WASN'T.

A LACK OF CONCERN.

FOR A VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

I READ THE FILE AS WE'RE CONCERNED WITH WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE POTENTIAL FUTURE VICTIM MADE A DECISION BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY HAD AT THE TIME.

WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT THERE'S NO REASON TO ASSUME THAT THEY WERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THOSE ISSUES.

>> THE FACT EVERY ONE OF THESE CASES WHEN THEY COME FOR BOARD MEMBER AND REVIEWED BY 2 ADDITIONAL BOARD MEMBERS, WHICH IS HOW IT WORKS.

THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION NOT ONLY TO HOLD THE PERSON THAT BEFORE THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS IF THEY BELIEVE THAT'S APPROPRIATE POINT OF VIEW.

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.

I CAN TELL YOU HOW MANY CASES AND 11 AND A HALF YEARS WHERE I HAD A GOOD FEELING SHE'S I DON'T THINK ELECT 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 GOOD FEELING THAT I DON'T KNOW.

THEY'RE NOT A NICE PERSON.

I HAVE TO MEET A THAT THE CASE NEEDS TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA, HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THAT PERSON, TOO.

HONOR HIS RIGHTS TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS RIGHTS ARE UPHELD THAT IS WHAT WAS DONE DURING THE COURSE OF THAT CASE.

LET'S GET IN A LITTLE BIT TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES, THE DUTIES OF THE PRISONER REVIEW BOARD.

GIVE US BRIEFLY.

IF YOU WANT AN EXPLANATION OF OF THE DUTIES RESPONSIBILITIES.

>> THERE IS NO BRIEF EXPLANATION.

BUT THE BOARD MEMBERS CONDUCT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF REVIEWS THEY CAN.

WE CAN WHEN I SAY WE ARE NOT PART OF THE WE ANYMORE.

THE BOARD MEMBERS CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THOSE CASES.

OF PERSONS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR EARLY RELEASE THAT THE 45 DAY STAGE, IF IF THEY'RE CONVICTED OF CLASS 3, A CERTAIN CLASS 3 IN OUR QUEST FOR FELONY OFFENSES, THEY CONDUCT THESE MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASE REVOCATION HEARINGS.

THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS IN THE CASE MISTER BRAND.

THOSE CASES ARE HEARD BY ONE PERSON AND DECIDED BY 3 THE CONDUCT PAROLE.

ELIGIBILITY HEARINGS.

AND OF COURSE, A LOT OF FOLKS ARE UNFAMILIAR OR THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PAROLE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY MOST OF US THINK OF IT.

MOST OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE IN ILLINOIS WERE SENTENCED.

>> BEFORE 1978, AND YOU MENTIONED MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASE.

THAT IS THE SITUATION UNDER WHICH MOST HAVE HAD SOME TIME SHAVED OFF OF THEIR SENTENCES THROUGH STATUTORY OTHER MEANS.

FOR STARTERS, THOSE PERSONS ON PAROLE WERE FOR THE MOST PART SERVING INDETERMINATE SENTENCES.

>> FOR EXAMPLE, 50 YEARS, 200 YEARS, 8 106 YEARS, YOU KNOW, 200 YEARS 500 YEARS.

THEIR RELEASE IS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD.

THEY ARE THE ONLY INDIVIDUALS FOR WELL, NOT THE ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE NEW TYPES OF HEARINGS NOW, BUT TRADITIONALLY, THEY HAVE BEEN THE PERSONS WHO THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO MAKE A FORMAL DECISION AS A GROUP AS AN ENTIRE BOARD, A MAJORITY DECISION A RULES.

WHERE THAT PERSON IS GOING TO BE GRANTED PAROLE IF THAT PERSON TO SERVE X AMOUNT THE SENTENCE THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR ANNUAL REVIEW.

THOSE CASES THEM COME BEFORE THE BOARD ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR THE MOST PART.

AND THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY THE ENTIRE BOARD MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASE, WHICH ARE THE WHICH IS REALLY THE NEW CROP UP HEARINGS THAT RELATE SIMILAR TO PAROLE HEARINGS, AS I SAID, ARE DECIDED BY THROUGH ONLY 3 ONE PERSON CONDUCTING HERE.

>> SO THEY'RE BEING THERE.

THERE'S BEEN SOME CALLS FOR MORE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE PRISONER REVIEW BOARD PRISONER REVIEW SHOULD BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO EXPLAIN OR DOCUMENT THEIR DECISIONS WHEN THAT PANEL OF 3 IS MAKING A DECISION ON WHETHER COULD OR SHOULD BE RELEASED OR THEY HAVE EXPLAIN WHY THEY DID OR DID GRANT.

I DON'T AS A RULE.

I'M NOT INCLINED ANSWER QUESTIONS LIKE THAT.

MY APPROACH TO THE WORK UP TO NOW HE'S BEEN WHAT IS MY STATUTORY OBLIGATION?

IS THIS WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO THAT?

I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS DO IT.

I'M GOING MAKE SURE THAT I DO IT.

>> THAT'S THAT'S MY APPROACH TO BEING THE LEADER OF THAT ORGANIZATION.

WHEN I WAS.

FOR WHAT PEOPLE THINK BOARD MEMBER SHOULD HAVE TO DO, THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE BY STATUTE.

THOSE DECISIONS ARE MADE IN NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN OUR LEGISLATORS AND OUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

AND WE'LL SIMPLY DO WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO DO TO BOARD MEMBERS SHOULDN'T MAKING THE DECISION.

THEN BASED ON.

>> THEIR OPINION OF THE INITIAL CRIME THEIR THOUGHTS ON ON THE THE CRIME THAT SEND SOMEONE TO PRISON IN THE FIRST WHAT DECISION WE TALKING ABOUT FOR TALKING ABOUT WEATHER IN THE CASE OF MS ARE THE HEARINGS THAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT.

HERE ARE THOSE PERSONS WHO ARE BROUGHT BACK IN CUSTODY AS ALLEGED VIOLATORS OF THEIR IMAGES ARE BECAUSE THE BOARD MEMBERS ON THE SIDE OF GO OF BY STATUTORY AS A AS A MATTER STATUTE.

IT'S NOT UNTIL THEY'RE BROUGHT BACK AS AN ALLEGED VIOLATOR THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS NOW HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE ABOUT.

ARE THEY A VIOLATOR IF THEY'RE NOT A VIOLATOR?

AND THE STORY THAT PERSON IS GOING TO BE RELEASED BECAUSE THE BOARD HAS DECIDED HE'S NOT A VIOLENT HERE.

SHE'S NOT A VIOLATOR.

IF THERE ARE A VIOLATOR, DOES THE VIOLATION AMOUNT TO A REASON TO?

KEEP THAT PERSON IN CUSTODY OR DOES IS IT MORE REASONABLE TO RESUME THAT PERSON'S MANDATORY SUPERVISED RELEASE THE PREVIOUS RULES OR MAYBE SOME NEW CONDITIONS.

SO SINCE THIS INCIDENT, REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE CALLING FOR REFORM AND THEY'RE BELIEVING THEY'RE CALLING FOR ALL BOARD MEMBERS TO HAVE AT LEAST 20 CUMULATIVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM.

PROSECUTOR POLICE OFFICER, A PUBLIC DEFENDER.

WHAT HAVE YOU?

>> SHOULD THAT BE THE CASE OR SHOULD THERE BE A DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCE AMONG BOARD MEMBERS?

ABSOLUTELY DIVERSITY.

YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST WAS APPOINTED, I WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH THAT.

I WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH THAT.

I'M COMING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD AGREE AGREED WITH THAT.

>> OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT SOME OF THE MOST EDUCATING EXPERIENCES I'VE HAD HAVE BEEN THOSE 6 HAVE BEEN THE CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD IN THE BACK ROOM.

WE'RE 6 OR 7 OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ON A DAY WHEN WE WERE ASSIGNED TO COME IN JUST SIT DOWN SIGNINGS AND DISCUSS THE RATIONALE US WHY WE THINK THIS PERSON SHOULD HAVE THIS COUNSELING.

WHY THIS PERSON'S ABSTENTION HEARING SHOULD RESULT IN REVOCATION BECAUSE EXPERT KNOWLEDGE, ONE FEELS VERY NARROW KNOWLEDGE AND IT TAKES A WIDE.

SCOPE OF KNOWLEDGE.

I THINK TO GIVE A PERSON THE BEST.

>> THE BEST REVIEW THAT YOU ALL CAN REVIEW THAT THEY CAN GET.

THERE YOU GO, OK, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

MY THANKS TO FORMER ILLINOIS PRISONER REVIEW BOARD