SPRINGFIELD — It wasn’t exactly what they wanted.

But advocates of a law to prevent police from questioning juveniles who don’t have lawyers said a pared-down, Senate-passed version is still a positive step forward.

Senate Bill 2370, sponsored by Sen. Patricia Van Pelt, a Chicago Democrat, would prevent police interrogations of juveniles under 15 in homicide and some sex offense cases if they don’t have a lawyer present. Children under 13 are already afforded that protection under Illinois law.

The compromise legislation, which would also require all custodial interrogations of teens 17 and under in all felony and misdemeanor sex offense cases to be videotaped, is now headed for the House of Representatives after passage without opposition last week in the Senate.

“I think many people were shocked that children don’t automatically have lawyers, particularly in homicide investigations,” said Elizabeth E. Clarke, founder and president of the Juvenile Justice Initiative, one of the bill’s main supporters. “But I think it’s all part of an educational process. And as President (Barack) Obama just reminded graduates at Howard University the other day — change comes gradually.”

On the Senate floor Thursday, Van Pelt lamented that her original idea to prevent juveniles in any case from waiving their Miranda rights did not go forward.

“To me that was a simple, simple request, because a child 13 to 17 can’t even go to the Museum of Science and Industry without his parents’ consent,” she told colleagues. “So why would we want them to be able to be interrogated and maybe charged for something that’s going to impact them for the rest of their lives without their parent being there, without any attorney there, all by themselves?”

Still, she said, “this bill represents hope deferred, because it does move us down the road.”

The measure also contains a requirement for a “simplified” Miranda warning for minors. It would state: “You have the right to remain silent. That means you do not have to say anything. Anything you do say can be used against you in court. You have the right to get help from a lawyer. If you cannot pay for a lawyer, the court will get you one for free. You can ask for a lawyer at any time. You have the right to stop this interview at any time.”

After being read continuously, an official would ask the minor, “Do you want to have a lawyer?” and “Do you want to talk to me?” and wait for replies to each question.

Matthew P. Jones, top lobbyist for the State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s office, said the group supports the amended measure. He said both the expanded videotaping provision and the simplified warning, which is modeled on a similar proposal in New York, will help eliminate the possibility of coerced confessions.

“No one believes that we ought to be using statements that are not knowingly and voluntarily made,” Jones said. “So the simplified Miranda goes to the issue of knowingly and the videotape goes to both knowingly and voluntarily made. Because if there’s some question of coercion or lack of understanding, the videotape is going to speak to that.”

Supporters of the original bill had hoped the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Miranda v. Arizona decision this year and the popularity of the Netflix documentary “Making a Murderer,” which partly revolved around an intellectually disabled 16-year-old’s confession to police, would shine a light on juvenile interrogations.

Additionally, multiple Illinois Supreme Court cases in the last few years have upheld the validity of evidence gathered during police interviews with minors who did not have a lawyer present.

But the compromise is still “terribly significant,” said Clarke, the Juvenile Justice Initiative founder.

“It’s an extraordinary and really hopeful move forward,” she said. “Not just on this issue, but for all of criminal justice reform.”

The House sponsor of the legislation is Barbara Flynn Currie, a Chicago Democrat. The measure passed the Senate by a 56-0 tally.