may please the court for decades every sentence imposed in illinois has been to determine on the statute range of punishments in the trial court imposes a sentence with in that range and my client was convicted the m s r term the plain language of the statute indicates that the m s r term is a determinant one and second contrary to the state's arguments the law in acting the three years to life unless our term does not create a comprehensive system first the scrutiny not look beyond the plain language of the statute since february nine hundred seventy eight every time a range of punishment is mentioned in the correction spode the trial court must like the punishment within that range this does not apply only to imprisonment but also other offenders they're cut from the same cloth basically this brings me to my second point contrary to the states i would demand for ron acting the three years to life and i saw provisions does not create a comprehensive system for the prisoner review board to handle best five minute argument or whatever and why one case is cracked and the other is wrong i think i've heard it is obviously that case to follow here schneider i think finds ambiguity where there is no ambiguity it says that the three years to write and that's our provision can be read in three different ways and i think it can only be read in one way given illinois has to determine at sentencing because it doesn't find that the plain language in the part of the code which deals with sentencing but the only after is the trial court whereas the provisions for other conditions of sentence really discharge that sort of thing are in the section under the prime of corrections and specifically in the prisoner review board in fact the only reference to the length of the term within the the set the section of the code devoted to the prisoner of you board the first you back to the trial court to the section  is is this you know the change to this statute is that talking about those kind of crimes or i mean does this defendant fit within the great risk every citizen i haven't i haven't looked at his release is in the best position to determine the risk he's going to pose to society twenty years or in the future as opposed to the park corrections who has special he trained individuals who is also going to determination date and they determine he still continues to pose a great risk to society there's no record oh well that i mean that's the that's the civil provisions are such a dangerous person that someone was never position they certainly could be they could be problem that there's no way of determining what the sentence would be yeah i mean they simply conditions as to they can they can say whether he follows the conditions and from what i understand the conditions from us are almost are almost always the same for every mandatory requirement i think so i think it's a defect mandatory there's no there's nobody from the problems there's no way from the structure of knowing who determines what the sentences under the state's interpretation there's no way of is the court counsel sex offenders are different and i'd like to pick up on just the service notifications or his arguments cited earlier the legislative departure now making m s r for sex offenders to be indeterminate is a clear indication that the legislative hit people of this are the legislature in this state had required that sex offenders be treated differently and if there's any question let's look at a comprehensive statutory scheme i don't think it's an intellectual art imus argument to claim that this is a statutory solitary provision it's a comprehensive scheme and any argument to the term from three years to to life and after the three years that decision is supposed to be shifted to the department of corrections whose function it is and has special agents to monitor the sex offenders i  looking at the third reading of the bill in the senate where senator harman from oak park says something that i think is a little different and i'm going to ask you to comment on it and i'm quoting it permits courts to enact lifetime supervision for the highest risk sex offenders it permits course it doesn't his language isn't that it mandates or requires courts to put in a three to life time m s r is i think you're sex offenders it didn't say then it requires courts to put in an indeterminate three years to life some trying to figure out how do we you know balance these two i think you're taking that statement slightly literary and maybe perhaps out of context the statement is that a trial court or the deal see after the three years is up has the ability to mandate or to off minor somebody for life doesn't require them specialized people n p v r and d o c and at the time that those specialists determined that he is no longer a risk to the public a petition for release will be made less we could put not the legislative history for a moment but just the actual language of the statute and the problem that i have with it with your position is that it says that the term of the m s r shell range from a minimum of three years to a maximum of natural life right doesn't say that the term shall be three years to life it says that it shall range i mean just that just the plain language of the statute to me suggest that the trial  determinant sentence of a minimum of three years to life and also justice respectfully ignores the rest of the substance of legislation on this issue that the p b r is provided powers under the uniform unified code of corrections that the length of parole sex offender not ok what was it about this person this defendant mr mccurry that made him a high risk assessor sex offender that should be subject to a mandatory lifetime supervision i don't believe he was convicted as a high risk sex he's a sex offender i ask you though is he the kind of highest risk sex offender that ought to be subject to the type of mandatory life time supervision m s r that you suggest determined i must start cannot be made for sex offenders because of the high recidivism rate and because sex offenders are different right or simply ignores the statutory scheme it fails to recognize it fails makes sense that the trial court would be placed in this position to be a mind reader what his future sex offenses are going to be because that's not included in any kind of sentencing order that's just simply not there respectfully counsel i don't think it's a matter of being a mind reader i think it's a matter of being a statute reader and the reader the reader here of the stance you see is that it shall be there to show range from three to wife after that shelby three to life i think there's a difference there is a difference which is exactly why the r has been provided powers under the sentencing provision under three three a day because that section allows the p d are to enter an order releasing a defendant from paul a mandatory supervised release when it determines that the defendant is likely to remain at liberty without committing another fence and respectfully just did it all so we can morris that section three fourteen two point five sex offender sign extended m s r the department shall retain custody of all sex offenders placed on a mess are pursuant to clause of section five eight one and shall supervise such person during their term a supervised release in accordance with the conditions up by the p b r a section three three federal statutory scheme is simply meant to monitor their future conduct heat the range of a minimum of three years to maximum of natural life does not require natural life for every defendant that's precisely has been enacted because if a defendant is not some predatory high risk sex offender he has that reaction to be released after three years after according to the public act ninety four one sixty five a specialized p b r trained officer determines he is no longer at risk as a recidivist this is because of the thinking that the board has the authority to impose certain conditions because they're the best position to determine what particular conditions this