CBA Record March-April 2024

clause. Part III interprets the clause, and Part IV examines Illinois case law to deter mine if Illinois courts have interpreted the clause consistently with the vision of the 1970 proponents. After giving the necessary context in parts I and II, the authors put forth a meaning of the clause that requires courts to consider rehabilitation when determin ing punishment for criminal offenders. They rely on the plain language: “restor ing the offender to useful citizenship.” This language was fought for and is deliberate. The article ends on a sobering note about how this clause has gone unfulfilled. Starting in the 1970s, mass incarceration ballooned in the United States and in Illi nois. It discusses Illinois cases that have pushed the robust history of the clause to the side. Overall, the article makes a persuasive argument that the courts must revisit the proportional penalties clause.

REVIEW OF REVIEWS

CONTINUED

Past, Prologue, and Constitutional Limits on Criminal Penalties by Maria Hawilo and Laura Nirider. Maria Hawilo & Laura Nirider, 114.1 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (forthcoming) (2024) Reviewed by Connor Wise, 3L at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law

State constitutions may go further than the federal constitution in protecting their citi zens. Illinois does just that with its propor tional penalties clause, which states that “all penalties shall be determined both accord ing to the seriousness of the offense and with the objective of restoring the offender to useful citizenship …” The article argues that this clause

requires courts to consider rehabilitation when determining punishments, and more specifically, that courts are not giving the clause its full thrust. Part I describes events in Chicago, and the rest of the country, through the 1960s that led up to the Illi nois constitutional convention in 1970. Part II is an up-close look at the drama of the convention that passed the relevant

48 March/April 2024