> [Public Defenders'] work is as noble as ours. But we have an obligation to fight like hell on behalf of the People. It should go without saying that this must be done ethically and evenhandedly.
I was on Jury Duty last year and every day I had to walk past a tiny decrepit Public Defender office and then past sprawling, spotless floors of Attorney General offices. I probably have the wrong terms, the specifics are fading, but the general meaning of the signs seemed clear enough. What a shameful disgrace. Society doesn't have a thumb on the scale, it has a foot on the scale.
No, I don't think shifting the extreme imbalance even further towards Prosecution is going to fix crime.
Maybe things are different in Chicago, but I'd want to hear from Defense before just believing a rant from Prosecution.
I wouldn't call this well thought out letter a rant. Further he is putting his money where his mouth is: he is leaving so that his son can live in a safer situation.
Your experience about jury duty is important, but it was not in Chicago. I grew up there. I get what he's talking about.
Depending on the neighborhood, things can get very unsafe very quickly. No one talks about "what a disgrace" when they can hear gunfire three blocks away.
The applicable quote I heard once is “while you are presumed innocent, the system is designed to convict you”. I think I heard that on some random YT video I’ve seen through the years.
Worked at the public defender's office prior to working as a developer.
Despite the salary schedules being the same (or similar), the State will always have more resources; they have forensic labs, and an army of investigators. The multifaceted mission of a prosecutor's office necessitates the resource disparity.
The Public Defender's priorities are much more focused; (1) provide criminal defense services for those in need, mainly the indigent, (2) influence criminal justice policy through by identifying judiciable appellate matters; and, (3) working with private defense attorneys to challenge prosecutorial policy on a broader level.
With offers from various state attorneys general and public defender offices, I selected the latter for the more focused mission. Yes, resources were scarce, dollars had to be selectively spent on experts to get the most bang for our buck. But you would be surprised at what a feisty PD can do with a handful of retired state police investigators to assist.
Yup. Anyone charged with a crime would be well advised to do whatever it takes to seek council directly, as in finding a way to pay for it.
Public defenders are doing noble work. They are also denied the resources necessary to perform that work with the same zeal seen in the prosecution side of the justice system.
Then fund public defenders better, this has nothing to do with abolishing bail or releasing people who need to be locked up for a good reason. Free representation may be important for individual justice, but impact on public safety is not huge. Vast majority of those arrested are guilty of something, what some deserve is reduced charges that indicate what they have actually done, not what can be pinned on them without a good lawyer.
This is a strange letter. It claims specific policies have a direct causal relationship with crime and gun prevalence, and therefore the entire state of Illinois is unsafe. Do we actually have evidence that proves this out? (Edited to add: I’m admitting ignorance here, not trying to say the above is false! I am very good faith behavior here.)
I am immediately questioning this depiction that public defenders and prosecutors are on even footing. It’s been well known public defenders are forced to take up an unreasonable number of cases where the prosecution decides to hand over the evidence to be debated about— the prosecution is supposed to hand over everything, but there’s been multiple cases of prosecutors happenstancely not handing over evidence that would prove innocence and then not losing their jobs for doing so!
> I am immediately questioning this depiction that public defenders and prosecutors are on even footing.
I've always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that "the state" has an overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and manpower.
From the letter:
> we live in a society with adversarial court and criminal justice processes I've also assumed that our system of government and burden of proof in criminal cases is also designed to make it harder for the prosecution than for the defendant.
Perhaps this is another case where I'm wrong, but I alway assumed that this was by design. The prosecution has a much higher burden of than the defense.
Crime is a complex problem. Blaming prosecutorial policy is an odd, and likely deliberate choice. Talking about cities, Chicago has a crime rate in between Jacksonville FL and Oklahoma City OK, which are both very conservative cities. Among the highest crime states, conservative ones are very well represented.
To me, this sounds like the precursor for a planned political career wherever he's moving to. Chicago is the icon for terrible awful no-good very bad liberal crime policies in popular conservative politics and an Illinois prosecutor who's moving because they just can't take it anymore would be optimally positioned to capitalize on that. Ah, politics.
Taking a look at the data up till 2019 it appears to be a bell curve with a increase into the 1980s followed by a decrease into 2019. I do wonder if this is more of a being involved in it for 20 years has just mentally drained this person.
I agree on the causation. During the same time hasn't the US had a major drug crisis across the country? He might be right but he is not showing much evidence (ironically) of it.
I believe he is referencing the passage of a major, controversial Illinois state bill that passed just five months ago, eliminating cash bail among a host of other enforcement restrictions against known criminals. So we wouldn't see any solid empirical data from this policy for the next 1-2 years at minimum.
i think the obvious policy he the former attorney lists as causing more crime:
"Bond reform so no one stays in jail"
if every american suspected of shooting someone is held in jail rather than released, we have just removed the most likely population of people who cause future shootings. from the safety of the publics perspective, now the surviving victims/witnesses are more likely to be victims of more crimes because the suspected violent attackers are back on the street.
i dont really think there is room for debate on the "truthyness" of his statement, as if we kept more people in jail, less people would be out in public able to commit crime. how much is a good question tho.
So I'm not the OP, but I found this letter interesting because I think it's a nice illustration of ways in which so-called 'liberal' policies drive some people to become more conservative.
Politics is about perception, and whether or not a well-identified paper finds a causal link from bond policies to crime is kind of neither here nor there. His anecdotal evidence (gunfire within earshot, drug-dealing behind his house) suffices for him. It's really hard to argue with that kind of reasoning by pointing to abstractions, i.e. a statistical model.
Basically when I see even faint signs of folks' favoring more authoritarian policies (e.g. being "tough on crime,") I want us to notice those signs, and think hard about how to keep that instinct from getting a full head of steam.
What I don’t understand about the opponents of things like bail reform is that very few other countries have a similar system to the USA at all. A determination is made about whether the person charged is a flight risk, a danger to the public, etc. If they are determined to meet those criteria, they are remanded. If they don’t, they are bailed. Why does money have to have anything to do with it?
Why does money have to have anything to do with it?
There are two justice systems in the US, one for the rich and one for the others. In effect, this is one cog in the machine of systemic racism, as minorities tend to not be part of the rich class.
Unfortunately everything in the USA is underlain with financial cost and incentive. It is a hardscrabble life for those who live hand-to-mouth and extremely easy to game for those with means.
Bail lets you out if can get anyone, relative or a bail bondsman, to vouch for you in a material way. Under other systems, same guys who are prosecuting you decide if they feel like letting you out. In US, you can still be released on your own recognizance if the system believes you are not a flight risk. But even for substantial crimes like robbery, where there are reasons to believe you a flight risk, you still can be let out if someone trusts you enough to lend bail money.
After being railroaded by a dirty prosecutor, I’d like to dispel one trope:
Brandolini’s law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, states that it takes 10x the effort to dispel bullshit as it takes to make it. Therefore, every set of bullshit charges takes a public defender 10x the resources to counteract. Any fair system, every fair system, would have public defenders substantially better funded than prosecutors.
I think I speak for a good number of Cook county residents when I say: Bye Felicia.
Personally, I think there should NOT be a prosecutor's office and a public defender's office. It should be the same lawyers, and randomly get the cases for or against.
That way the resources are in the same 'pot' if you will.
Still have to contend with the fact that a mere accusation colors public perception, and so often gives the advantage to the prosecution in the court of public opinion
So, I know nothing of Illinois or State Attorney Kim Foxx, but I do have a litmus test where I search the author/person in focus and note the top results who are sharing the story — New York Post, Daily Mail, Fox News, etc.
Does such things invalidate the points made in the article? No. But it helps me judge the level of scrutiny I need to apply.
I'm from the distant suburbs of Chicago, in a different county, and I believe the author is alluding to frustration about crime and corruption possibly correlated with this person below.
There was an earlier comment wondering where the letters author might move to, since Illinois is an average state in terms of violence and crime.
Ironically?, Massachusetts would be one of the safest states in the country for him to move to if he’s concerned about gun violence, but we also tend to elect progressive reform minded prosecutors that he thinks are the problem.
Former Chicagoan here. Grew up there, lived there most of my adult life, raised kids there, and finally, thankfully, moved to another state three years ago. It's easy to pile on, but one of the main things that did it for me was sorta this realization that Chicago is more or less hopeless. There's no willingness to even discuss Chicago's problems honestly, let alone do something about them. The culture there is just too far gone - it's depressing. Was I worried that violent crime was going to imminently find its way to my doorstep? No, not really. But with three kids in Chicago Public Schools (no more dysfunctional, shameful organization exists in this country than CPS) I turned to my wife one day and said, "You know, we don't have to live like this." So we left.
> Bond reform designed to make sure no one stays in jail while their cases are pending with no safety net to handle more criminals on the streets,
At the time you make bond, you have merely been charged with a crime—you are not a criminal. I’m sure a prosecutor does get tired of having to argue cases against defendants who were able, by virtue of habeas corpus, to prepare a defense.
> shorter parole periods, lower sentences for repeat offenders,
Things that mitigate real inequities present when the justice system interacts with poor people.
> the malicious and unnecessary prosecution of law enforcement officers,
This is a terrible thing to say in a world where police officers have no obligation to serve and extraordinary legal defenses that protect them from almost every form of wrongdoing.
> overuse of diversion programs,
The United States already incarcerates a relatively large fraction of the world’s children. He would prefer incarcerating more.
> intentionally not pursuing prosecutions for crimes lawfully on the books after being passed by our legislature and signed by a governor,
This prosecutor has had this power for twenty years, and I’m certain he’s used it freely. He’s likely used it to protect people he feels sympathy toward, and refrained from using it to protect people he feels no sympathy toward. He’s likely used it because he feels overworked or under-appreciated.
> all of these so-called reforms have had a direct negative impact, with consequences that will last for a generation.
As a prosecutor, he had wide-reaching legal power to make his community a better place. What did he do instead? To hear him tell it, he was the one in prison for twenty years.
I don't know where exactly in Illinois they live, but violent crime has generally fallen in the state, and is almost certainly much lower than when they moved there. Some local exceptions exist in Chicago, but they keep calling themselves an "Illinois" prosecutor and do not mention the city.
The key issue here is the difficult choice between:
a. Incorrectly and significantly disrupting people's lives by locking them up pre-trial when many cases up getting acquitted. This can often sink folk into much worse situations than they were before, creating an endless cycle
b. Potentially releasing some dangerous criminals back into society while they wait their trials
edit: to be clear, I think the likelihood * impact of false positives is way worse than the false negatives
One thing with the bail reform movement is that the voters who are asked whether they support it don't necessarily understand the seemingly obvious, but technically non-obvious terms being used.
For example in NY, it was sold as only applying to non-violent crimes.
So one might say - sure this sound great, obviously we don't need to pre-trial hold non-violent criminals!
However technically, as defined in law, theres a lot of things that "sound violent" but are considered non-violent felonies.
Second degree manslaughter (125.15) is, for the purposes of NY State law, a non-violent felony.
So the next question - what might get a person charged with second degree manslaughter?
* Well, a guy recently chocked an erratic mentally ill homeless man to death on the subway was charged with second degree manslaughter only
Other historical examples just to name a few-
* Speeding 55mph in a 25mph local road (Delancey), killing a pedestrian and fleeing the scene
* Guy accidentally shooting a friend with an unregistered gun while playing video games
* DUI with kids in the car so badly you flip the car, killing one child
* Drunken stealing a truck, driving up 7th Ave and hitting a Bus so fast they killed the driver
* Guy overdosing his 10 month old on fentanyl somehow
* Cop accidentally shoots a guy in the stairway of a housing project, proceeds to leave and call union rep rather than render assistance, while arguing with his partner not to report the shooting
* Drunk driving 90mph in a 25mph, crashing into another drunk driver who was on a suspended license, killing a passenger in the back, and the most either of them got charged with was again, second degree manslaughter
It is not a choice, (b) is not and has never been what bail was supposed to be about. If your prosecutors were using it that way, it was very much a misuse, at the very least out of sheer laziness (because getting insane bail amounts was easier than actually demonstrating a need for remanding) and most likely racist and / or classist.
Don't fall into the trap of already thinking of the accused is guilty. Also, framing this as an a or b choice is a false dichotomy. There are other outcomes, and they largely depend on the factors involved - prosecutors have the option to prove the accused is a danger to society, and if they can, they won't go back.
How does this lawyer, who is supposed to be trained in logic, not see the doublespeak here. On one hand they say there are needless prosecutions of police, but then laments the discretion to not prosecute some crimes. Which do you want - to vigorously pursue crimes, or to use discretion? It seems they want discretion, but to only use it with police. It's laughable they think the defenders have an fair chance and even resources (as implied in their mention of the adversarial system and respect for them).
I agree that some of the policies listed are problematic. One thing this guy completely misses is that crime is primarily driven by socioeconomic issues. Did the policies in place exacerbate crime? Many likely did. But the majority of the increase in the past few years has been driven by the pandemic and policies around that.
The whole thing is a sham but this guy is nuts to think prosecutors can't pull punches. I would agree with this guy if only I could be allowed to sue him when he over prosecuted or under prosecuted. What kind of a prosecutor does not appreciate prosecutorial discretion?
"The people" can fight for themselves by voting and they voted for his bosses. Fighting for the people means honoring their electoral decisions!
There is a lot being said between the lines here that I won't get into but this guy leaving the state and his job is a good thing for everyone involved.
You know, many developed countries are far more lenient on bail bonds,sentencing,etc... than even illinois. But the fact of the matter is, criminals can get caught and do get locked up even in his state but the police and his colleagues are worried about locking up drug dealers and users and overpolicing minorities to meet quotas. He and his cop buddies suck at their jobs and like their peers in other big cities they are conservative and blame their own incompetence on liberal elected politicians whom the people support.
Criminals they go after can't afford good lawyers like the ones that make ADA and overworked and resource starved public defenders can only do so much and this guy has the nerve to claim they are equally resourced like prosecutors are!
The more I think about it the more this guy pisses me off. Who told him locking up criminals and preventing victims was his job? His job is to prosecute in accordance with his elected boss's policies! Not appointed, but elected!
It should go without saying that this must be done ethically and evenhandedly.
I don't think it "goes without saying" at all. We have an adversarial system. They make it very explicit that neither ethics nor honesty are required.
Every lawyer will be very clear that you absolutely, positively need a lawyer for any interaction with the legal system. You cannot assume that the other people will be "evenhanded". It's your lawyer's job to force ethics on them. Without that, it goes without saying that they can get away with behaving unethically.
To have it "go without saying that this must be done ethically and evenhandedly" would require a completely different legal system than the one we have. Our current one says exactly the opposite, by design.
I spoke to a prosecutor recently that in his office, it was spoken out loud that they were to be ethical and evenhanded. But that was not a requirement, and other prosecutor's offices did not follow it. Their job was to be zealous in prosecution, just as the defense's job was to be zealous in defense, and everybody hoped that "justice" would emerge from that somehow.
Make all crimes have unlimited statue of limitations
Understand you have no Constitutional right to be charged with a crime you have been accused of doing
This loophole avoids due process for an accused person entirely
The unlimited statue of limitations will allow any law enforcement agent investigating you to have unlimited powers as judge, jury and possibly executioner.
The state legislature will no longer need to worry about passing laws with associated crime and punishment
Since the accused will never have a day in court and never have to face any punishment defined by law, it will save lots of money paying for courts, judges, Juries, prosecutors and public defenders.
All accused people can be treated as guilty until proven innocent and will have no opportunity to prove innocence
The endless "investigation" can slowly take away the accused life over time. First family and friends, followed by their career and home.
Before long they cannot work, they become homeless, and the process itself simply becomes the method of execution.
> ... we live in a society with adversarial court and criminal justice processes.
That actually explains a lot. Like blatant disregard for the concept of truth in the entire justice system. From the lowliest convicts to the top judges. When there's competition and relationships are adversarial, the truth is the first victim. "If you are not cheating you, are not trying hard enough." mentality sets firmly in.
[+] [-] jjoonathan|2 years ago|reply
I was on Jury Duty last year and every day I had to walk past a tiny decrepit Public Defender office and then past sprawling, spotless floors of Attorney General offices. I probably have the wrong terms, the specifics are fading, but the general meaning of the signs seemed clear enough. What a shameful disgrace. Society doesn't have a thumb on the scale, it has a foot on the scale.
No, I don't think shifting the extreme imbalance even further towards Prosecution is going to fix crime.
Maybe things are different in Chicago, but I'd want to hear from Defense before just believing a rant from Prosecution.
[+] [-] djha-skin|2 years ago|reply
Your experience about jury duty is important, but it was not in Chicago. I grew up there. I get what he's talking about.
Depending on the neighborhood, things can get very unsafe very quickly. No one talks about "what a disgrace" when they can hear gunfire three blocks away.
[+] [-] whartung|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] soderfoo|2 years ago|reply
Despite the salary schedules being the same (or similar), the State will always have more resources; they have forensic labs, and an army of investigators. The multifaceted mission of a prosecutor's office necessitates the resource disparity.
The Public Defender's priorities are much more focused; (1) provide criminal defense services for those in need, mainly the indigent, (2) influence criminal justice policy through by identifying judiciable appellate matters; and, (3) working with private defense attorneys to challenge prosecutorial policy on a broader level.
With offers from various state attorneys general and public defender offices, I selected the latter for the more focused mission. Yes, resources were scarce, dollars had to be selectively spent on experts to get the most bang for our buck. But you would be surprised at what a feisty PD can do with a handful of retired state police investigators to assist.
[+] [-] ddingus|2 years ago|reply
Public defenders are doing noble work. They are also denied the resources necessary to perform that work with the same zeal seen in the prosecution side of the justice system.
[+] [-] cat_plus_plus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flerovium|2 years ago|reply
This is the fundamental misunderstanding of anti-plaintiff reform. Justice isn't served when neither the plaintiff nor defense are doing anything.
[+] [-] masklinn|2 years ago|reply
Given the contents of the rant, especially as it pertains to bail reform, I don’t think it is.
[+] [-] SamoyedFurFluff|2 years ago|reply
I am immediately questioning this depiction that public defenders and prosecutors are on even footing. It’s been well known public defenders are forced to take up an unreasonable number of cases where the prosecution decides to hand over the evidence to be debated about— the prosecution is supposed to hand over everything, but there’s been multiple cases of prosecutors happenstancely not handing over evidence that would prove innocence and then not losing their jobs for doing so!
[+] [-] fatnoah|2 years ago|reply
I've always assumed, rightly or wrongly, that "the state" has an overwhelming advantage in terms of resources and manpower.
From the letter:
> we live in a society with adversarial court and criminal justice processes I've also assumed that our system of government and burden of proof in criminal cases is also designed to make it harder for the prosecution than for the defendant.
Perhaps this is another case where I'm wrong, but I alway assumed that this was by design. The prosecution has a much higher burden of than the defense.
[+] [-] chefandy|2 years ago|reply
To me, this sounds like the precursor for a planned political career wherever he's moving to. Chicago is the icon for terrible awful no-good very bad liberal crime policies in popular conservative politics and an Illinois prosecutor who's moving because they just can't take it anymore would be optimally positioned to capitalize on that. Ah, politics.
[+] [-] dubcanada|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] quickthrower2|2 years ago|reply
PS Very cute username!
[+] [-] garbagecoder|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natural219|2 years ago|reply
https://www.city-journal.org/article/illinois-un-safe-t-act
[+] [-] pxmpxm|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crumpusBaggins|2 years ago|reply
"Bond reform so no one stays in jail"
if every american suspected of shooting someone is held in jail rather than released, we have just removed the most likely population of people who cause future shootings. from the safety of the publics perspective, now the surviving victims/witnesses are more likely to be victims of more crimes because the suspected violent attackers are back on the street.
i dont really think there is room for debate on the "truthyness" of his statement, as if we kept more people in jail, less people would be out in public able to commit crime. how much is a good question tho.
[+] [-] setgree|2 years ago|reply
Politics is about perception, and whether or not a well-identified paper finds a causal link from bond policies to crime is kind of neither here nor there. His anecdotal evidence (gunfire within earshot, drug-dealing behind his house) suffices for him. It's really hard to argue with that kind of reasoning by pointing to abstractions, i.e. a statistical model.
Basically when I see even faint signs of folks' favoring more authoritarian policies (e.g. being "tough on crime,") I want us to notice those signs, and think hard about how to keep that instinct from getting a full head of steam.
[+] [-] noodlesUK|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pixl97|2 years ago|reply
Short answer: Bounty hunters.
If you jump bail, they get part of the bail payment for capturing you. It's a long standing privatization of law enforcement in the US.
[+] [-] dfxm12|2 years ago|reply
There are two justice systems in the US, one for the rich and one for the others. In effect, this is one cog in the machine of systemic racism, as minorities tend to not be part of the rich class.
[+] [-] jason-phillips|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cat_plus_plus|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mchannon|2 years ago|reply
Brandolini’s law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, states that it takes 10x the effort to dispel bullshit as it takes to make it. Therefore, every set of bullshit charges takes a public defender 10x the resources to counteract. Any fair system, every fair system, would have public defenders substantially better funded than prosecutors.
I think I speak for a good number of Cook county residents when I say: Bye Felicia.
[+] [-] strawhatguy|2 years ago|reply
That way the resources are in the same 'pot' if you will.
Still have to contend with the fact that a mere accusation colors public perception, and so often gives the advantage to the prosecution in the court of public opinion
[+] [-] MichaelZuo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nness|2 years ago|reply
Does such things invalidate the points made in the article? No. But it helps me judge the level of scrutiny I need to apply.
[+] [-] jjtheblunt|2 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Foxx
[+] [-] zdragnar|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Izkata|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wffurr|2 years ago|reply
Ironically?, Massachusetts would be one of the safest states in the country for him to move to if he’s concerned about gun violence, but we also tend to elect progressive reform minded prosecutors that he thinks are the problem.
[+] [-] bedhead|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thebooktocome|2 years ago|reply
At the time you make bond, you have merely been charged with a crime—you are not a criminal. I’m sure a prosecutor does get tired of having to argue cases against defendants who were able, by virtue of habeas corpus, to prepare a defense.
> shorter parole periods, lower sentences for repeat offenders,
Things that mitigate real inequities present when the justice system interacts with poor people.
> the malicious and unnecessary prosecution of law enforcement officers,
This is a terrible thing to say in a world where police officers have no obligation to serve and extraordinary legal defenses that protect them from almost every form of wrongdoing.
> overuse of diversion programs,
The United States already incarcerates a relatively large fraction of the world’s children. He would prefer incarcerating more.
> intentionally not pursuing prosecutions for crimes lawfully on the books after being passed by our legislature and signed by a governor,
This prosecutor has had this power for twenty years, and I’m certain he’s used it freely. He’s likely used it to protect people he feels sympathy toward, and refrained from using it to protect people he feels no sympathy toward. He’s likely used it because he feels overworked or under-appreciated.
> all of these so-called reforms have had a direct negative impact, with consequences that will last for a generation.
As a prosecutor, he had wide-reaching legal power to make his community a better place. What did he do instead? To hear him tell it, he was the one in prison for twenty years.
[+] [-] aqme28|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ab_goat|2 years ago|reply
a. Incorrectly and significantly disrupting people's lives by locking them up pre-trial when many cases up getting acquitted. This can often sink folk into much worse situations than they were before, creating an endless cycle
b. Potentially releasing some dangerous criminals back into society while they wait their trials
edit: to be clear, I think the likelihood * impact of false positives is way worse than the false negatives
[+] [-] steveBK123|2 years ago|reply
For example in NY, it was sold as only applying to non-violent crimes. So one might say - sure this sound great, obviously we don't need to pre-trial hold non-violent criminals!
However technically, as defined in law, theres a lot of things that "sound violent" but are considered non-violent felonies. Second degree manslaughter (125.15) is, for the purposes of NY State law, a non-violent felony.
So the next question - what might get a person charged with second degree manslaughter? * Well, a guy recently chocked an erratic mentally ill homeless man to death on the subway was charged with second degree manslaughter only
Other historical examples just to name a few-
* Speeding 55mph in a 25mph local road (Delancey), killing a pedestrian and fleeing the scene
* Guy accidentally shooting a friend with an unregistered gun while playing video games
* DUI with kids in the car so badly you flip the car, killing one child
* Drunken stealing a truck, driving up 7th Ave and hitting a Bus so fast they killed the driver
* Guy overdosing his 10 month old on fentanyl somehow
* Cop accidentally shoots a guy in the stairway of a housing project, proceeds to leave and call union rep rather than render assistance, while arguing with his partner not to report the shooting
* Drunk driving 90mph in a 25mph, crashing into another drunk driver who was on a suspended license, killing a passenger in the back, and the most either of them got charged with was again, second degree manslaughter
[+] [-] masklinn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dfxm12|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] giantg2|2 years ago|reply
How does this lawyer, who is supposed to be trained in logic, not see the doublespeak here. On one hand they say there are needless prosecutions of police, but then laments the discretion to not prosecute some crimes. Which do you want - to vigorously pursue crimes, or to use discretion? It seems they want discretion, but to only use it with police. It's laughable they think the defenders have an fair chance and even resources (as implied in their mention of the adversarial system and respect for them).
I agree that some of the policies listed are problematic. One thing this guy completely misses is that crime is primarily driven by socioeconomic issues. Did the policies in place exacerbate crime? Many likely did. But the majority of the increase in the past few years has been driven by the pandemic and policies around that.
[+] [-] the_absurdist|2 years ago|reply
Let's see if anyone with a username linked to their true identity can figure out a way to speak honestly about this without tanking their career.
[+] [-] yellow_lead|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] suzzer99|2 years ago|reply
I stopped reading here. It's nearly impossible to prosecute a cop for anything but the most heinous abuse of the system. This is just gibberish.
[+] [-] lowmagnet|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] badrabbit|2 years ago|reply
"The people" can fight for themselves by voting and they voted for his bosses. Fighting for the people means honoring their electoral decisions!
There is a lot being said between the lines here that I won't get into but this guy leaving the state and his job is a good thing for everyone involved.
You know, many developed countries are far more lenient on bail bonds,sentencing,etc... than even illinois. But the fact of the matter is, criminals can get caught and do get locked up even in his state but the police and his colleagues are worried about locking up drug dealers and users and overpolicing minorities to meet quotas. He and his cop buddies suck at their jobs and like their peers in other big cities they are conservative and blame their own incompetence on liberal elected politicians whom the people support.
Criminals they go after can't afford good lawyers like the ones that make ADA and overworked and resource starved public defenders can only do so much and this guy has the nerve to claim they are equally resourced like prosecutors are!
The more I think about it the more this guy pisses me off. Who told him locking up criminals and preventing victims was his job? His job is to prosecute in accordance with his elected boss's policies! Not appointed, but elected!
[+] [-] jfengel|2 years ago|reply
I don't think it "goes without saying" at all. We have an adversarial system. They make it very explicit that neither ethics nor honesty are required.
Every lawyer will be very clear that you absolutely, positively need a lawyer for any interaction with the legal system. You cannot assume that the other people will be "evenhanded". It's your lawyer's job to force ethics on them. Without that, it goes without saying that they can get away with behaving unethically.
To have it "go without saying that this must be done ethically and evenhandedly" would require a completely different legal system than the one we have. Our current one says exactly the opposite, by design.
I spoke to a prosecutor recently that in his office, it was spoken out loud that they were to be ethical and evenhanded. But that was not a requirement, and other prosecutor's offices did not follow it. Their job was to be zealous in prosecution, just as the defense's job was to be zealous in defense, and everybody hoped that "justice" would emerge from that somehow.
[+] [-] treebeard901|2 years ago|reply
Make all crimes have unlimited statue of limitations
Understand you have no Constitutional right to be charged with a crime you have been accused of doing
This loophole avoids due process for an accused person entirely
The unlimited statue of limitations will allow any law enforcement agent investigating you to have unlimited powers as judge, jury and possibly executioner.
The state legislature will no longer need to worry about passing laws with associated crime and punishment
Since the accused will never have a day in court and never have to face any punishment defined by law, it will save lots of money paying for courts, judges, Juries, prosecutors and public defenders.
All accused people can be treated as guilty until proven innocent and will have no opportunity to prove innocence
The endless "investigation" can slowly take away the accused life over time. First family and friends, followed by their career and home.
Before long they cannot work, they become homeless, and the process itself simply becomes the method of execution.
Crime solved. /s
(This is actually being done to me)
[+] [-] Ballu|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scotty79|2 years ago|reply
That actually explains a lot. Like blatant disregard for the concept of truth in the entire justice system. From the lowliest convicts to the top judges. When there's competition and relationships are adversarial, the truth is the first victim. "If you are not cheating you, are not trying hard enough." mentality sets firmly in.