Minimum jail sentences

Wish I had an answer for you, Writingismypassion, but my first thought was hopefully it's 99.9 years. A top-notch defense attorney may have a more definitive answer if you have time to scroll through the Illinois yellowpages. Hope this helps.

It depends largely on whether he has a plea agreement. Depending on the terms of the plea arrangement it could be pretty much anything. Often a prosecutor will allow a criminal to plead to a lesser offence.

There wouldn't be a minimum because (a) if you plea to a crime, it's generally pleading to a lesser offense than you were charged with and (b) "rape" is a big term that encompasses a lot of crimes in Illinois.

Aggravated criminal sexual assault is a Class X felony in Illinois. That is usually sentenced by 6-30 years in prison. Prison time must be served (in other words, no probation in lieu of).

But, if they pled, it's almost certain they would plead to a lesser charge. If what they plead to is still sexual assault, but a different type it could be Class 1 sexual assault, which usually carries a 4-15 year term. Some Class 1 felonies are non-probationable (meaning jail time must be served), but I'm not sure if this is one of them. Class 2 sexual abuse is probationable.

Disclaimer: not a criminal lawyer, and not barred in Illinois.

What punishment serves your story best? Probation in-lieu-of or 30 years prison time or anything in between? From there, we could probably figure out a way to make it realistic. Also, the exact "type" or rape and the "type" your character pleads to makes a HUGE difference.

Impossible to answer. Rape can consist of consensual sex between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old or a brutal assault on a young child. I've walked a client on a suspended sentence and I've got one who's leaving in a box and people in between.

Either you need to give us the facts you're using or tell us what your story needs. Prior criminal record will also matter here.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

I knew some guys who didn't spend a day in jail for some sex crimes in Illinois. They mostly ended up in mental health hospitals or similar. The court system in that state leaves a lot to be desired. I've seen corruption there and it gets wild.

42 months seems reasonable for a plea. I think the charge would have to be downgraded to a Class 2, or possibly a Class 1. Depending on what exactly he was charged with, he might not even get that much of a sentence after being found guilty at trial. For a first time offender, I would think he could get even less time in a plea if his lawyer worked at it.

JCD?

I can see a plea of 3.5 years on a violent rape, no serious injuries, no weapon, no issue of consent, and good forensics for a first time offender. It would be more likely with a violent rape with a weapon with the plea involving the weapon's charge being suspended consecutive to the rape sentence. In both cases, the rape charge would be reduced from an aggravated sexual assault down to a sexual assault (each state calls this stuff something different and I'm too lazy to look at Illinois' statutes).

I can see a sentence of 3.5 years on a violent rape, no injuries, no weapon, issues of consent, and iffy forensics. Jury will usually choose a lesser included offense, bringing the rape charge down, and first time offender won't get the max from a judge unless he really pisses people off.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

AlanF said:

Wish I had an answer for you, Writingismypassion, but my first thought was hopefully it's 99.9 years. A top-notch defense attorney may have a more definitive answer if you have time to scroll through the Illinois yellowpages. Hope this helps.

Click to expand...

Sadly, many of the terms I've seen are ridiculously short. I don't live in Illinois, but I've seen some sentences in the States as short as two years, some as long as twenty, but for good behavior they might let you go early. In a case like this, you could probably get away with 2.5. I would believe it as a reader because the U.S. Judicial System is Effed-up. Heck! My cousin stole prescriptions, forged Dr.'s signatures, and got a shit-load of narcotics (for herself and to sell) and all she's gotten so far is community service and a five hundred dollar fine.

Good defense attorney, crappy prosecutor, bad lab work, bad police work, jail was overcrowded, stars in the wrong place, jury hates women, and the list could go on all night. Biggest question is whether you want this to be a surprise. In other words, did she expect him to be gone at least 3.5 years and all of a sudden he's let out? Or was she expecting him to be gone for only 2.5 years? I can give you something if you want sudden.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

writingismypassion said:

I was going with her knowing when he would be out. However, I did consider having her not know (perhaps because she never found out what his sentence was; she didn't care and was just glad he was going to jail). I also considered having him get out early on good behavior, but I wasn't sure it's possible for a sex offender to get out early. Sex offenders can get out at their earliest release date providing they meet the requirements. Usually the requirements involve the defendant admitting to the offense and meaningfully participating in sex offender counseling. There may be other requirements imposed either by the court or the prison system.

Illinois appears to use a minimum and maximum sentence. For instance, a defendant can receive a minimum sentence of 3 years and a maximum sentence of 7 years. This means the defendant must serve at least 3 years and no more than 7 years. There may be good time credit involved in the minimum as well, but I don't know.

If the defendant is of good behavior in prison, meeting the requirements he had to do in prison, and meeting the requirements for parole, then he can be released after he serves three years as soon as he convinces the parole board that he has met those requirements.

Also, you made me think of something else, Jim. The way I currently have the story written has the MC not testifying in court because the guy admitted he did it. Also, there was evidence found at the guy's house (a broken necklace and ripped shirt). Is that realistic or would she have had to testify anyway? If the defendant admits to the crime, then there would be no trial, but a plea bargain, or more technically, a plea and sentencing. At a plea and sentencing, the defendant goes before the judge and says that he is guilty. At that point, the judge will ask the prosecutor what facts the prosecutor would rely on at trial to proof the State's case.

The prosecutor then recites the facts of the case (just in case the prosecutor doesn't actually have a case). Defense counsel is asked if he/she agrees with those facts. Defense counsel agrees and that's it. No testimony. No exhibits. Victim doesn't have to even go to the courthouse.

Plea and sentencing is by far the most common outcome in criminal cases (something like 90% of all criminal cases end in a plea agreement). Criminals are often overwhelmingly guilty and not completely stupid. Defense counsel gets to see what the State has for evidence. Plea negotiating is based upon the strength of the State's case. Good case and the defendant gets close to what he would at trial. Iffy case and the defendant gets a lot less. But pleas take less than an hour while trials take at least a half a day or more. Courts are backed up and everybody wants things to move as cheaply as possible.

Click to expand...

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe