Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Statehouse loses 6 reporters in less than a month
Next Post: “Angels we have heard on high”
Posted in:
* The AP writes about Sen. Kwame Raoul’s upcoming anti-gun-crime bill…
Raoul and the legislative black caucus have said they don’t want to increase mandatory minimums, which have drawn criticism for putting nonviolent drug offenders behind bars for decades - something even Obama is trying to undo in his final days through commutations and other actions.
Instead, Raoul says, he’ll propose directing judges to use the higher end of the sentencing scale when someone has a prior gun-related conviction. Judges would keep their discretion in sentencing, but Raoul’s bill may require them to explain their rationale.
As is, someone with a previous felony weapons conviction faces 3 to 14 years; Raoul’s measure might have judges consider more than 10 years. Currently, someone with a 3-year sentence can be freed after serving half their term with good behavior.
“The question is … whether (repeat offenders) are incapacitated long enough to create a breather for some neighborhoods that are just ravaged by gun violence, and long enough to create a deterrence,” Raoul said.
But such an effort could turn into a “war on guns” that would resemble the war on drugs of the 1970s and 1980s, according to Cook County Public Defender Amy Campanelli, whose staff represents many of the accused. It didn’t lead to a drop in drug usage, but to the “demonization” of mostly young African-American and Latino men, she said.
I’m not sure what the exact answer is here, but comparing this to the war on drugs is a bit on the specious side. That war was touted as a way to prevent people from putting what were believed to be harmful products into their own bodies, or selling those products to others. Guns used in the act of a felony would seem to be an entirely different matter.
On the other hand, the war on drugs was decidedly racist…
One of Richard Nixon’s top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently published in Harper’s Magazine.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people,” former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper’s writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
“You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Ehrlichman said. “We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
Campanelli, by the way, argues for more police on the streets and far more community involvement.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 10:37 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Statehouse loses 6 reporters in less than a month
Next Post: “Angels we have heard on high”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
John Ehrlichman couldn’t be reached for comment.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 10:48 am
Unfortunately there is no answer unless there is a way to change unruly culture and to embrace respect for life.
Comment by Rocky Rosi Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 10:49 am
–But such an effort could turn into a “war on guns” that would resemble the war on drugs of the 1970s and 1980s, according to Cook County Public Defender Amy Campanelli, whose staff represents many of the accused. It didn’t lead to a drop in drug usage, but to the “demonization” of mostly young African-American and Latino men, she said.–
When did the NRA start funding the Public Defender’s Office?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 10:52 am
“What is the answer” - well, obviously jobs, education and strengthening families is the long term solution, but in the short term here are my stray thoughts:
1) High crime regions should be under a teen curfew
2) Yes, call out the guard - if you don’t want them on the streets, train them for desk/traffic duty and free up more trained police to put on the street
3) So did they ever do that wave of civil rico suits against gang leaders they talked so much about? If not…
4) Legalize pot and decriminalize some other drugs - suck some of the money out of gang enterprise
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 10:57 am
Same answer as always; Project Exile. There is no debate if you honestly want to seriously reduce the violence.
Comment by weltschmerz Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:03 am
I agree with Rocky and it starts at home with parents. The structure of the family unit needs to be restabilized and preserved. Too many single-parent or no-parent households exist. Absent that, youth will continue to associate success with gang leaders, thugs, and babies.
Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:06 am
I can tell you what’s NOT the answer: the current lenient sentencing policies as applied in Cook County
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:09 am
So instead of mandatory minimums, this idea dances around it by encouraging sentencing that’s towards the maximum. A similar, yet slightly watered down concept.
Side note: a lot of the gun violence seems to be related to the war on drugs in the first place.
Comment by BK Bro Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:12 am
“On the other hand, the war on drugs was decidedly racist…”
With Nixon I will buy that line of logic. But the operative word in this sentence is “was.”
Is it still? Was Reagan racist against Blacks, was Bill Clinton? It is far more complex than racism and to reduce it to that charge today is a red herring.
And just pointing to numbers gets a little old also. Is a crime sexist if more men (of any color) commit it than do women and then are sent to prison? No.
Yes, I do support the decriminalization of mere small amount of possession of pot (perhaps 20 gms or less). When I say possession that is what I mean. That does not mean selling it and then calling that a non violent crime. To send anyone to prison of any color or sex for mere personal use is insane.
As to Raoul’s proposal, I believe it deserve serious consideration. It should keep violent people off the streets for a longer time. It does nothing to solve the core problems which I have outlined on this site a number of times.
Comment by Federalist Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:17 am
In order to impose mandatory minimum sentences the individual has to be arrested for a gun related crime. The city has seen a significant drop in arrests made for homicides and nonfatal shootings, as well as other crimes, since Nov 2015. Sen Raoul’ bill will have no significant effect in reducing gun crimes in Chicago.
Comment by Rod Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:20 am
The problem with more police on the streets is that there will be more interactions between police and minority youth in the neighborhoods where those additional police will presumably be assigned. And more interactions equal more arrests, mass incarceration, destruction of neighborhoods and livelihoods, and so son.
One possibility would be more pre-arrest diversions so the person stopped for nonviolent offenses such as drug possession, doesn’t get a record. In today’s labor market, a police record is a killer of one’s employment prospects. This approach is being piloted elsewhere in the US but I haven’t heard of it being used in Illinois.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:24 am
–The problem with more police on the streets is that there will be more interactions between police and minority youth in the neighborhoods where those additional police will presumably be assigned. And more interactions equal more arrests, mass incarceration, destruction of neighborhoods and livelihoods, and so son.–
Really? More police “means destruction of neighborhoods and livelihoods, and so son.”
Who do you call when someone breaks into your garage? Roto-Rooter?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:32 am
Beware of old interviews containing controversial statements. There was good reason to keep this in mothballs. Ehrlichman was furious with Nixon because he wouldn’t grant a pardon after his firing and conviction. Near the end if his life, Ehrlichman wanted to settle scores.
There isn’t others who back him up on these charges.
What is the point of this thread?
Want to discuss gun deaths?
War on guns?
On crime?
Drug war ineffectiveness?
Or the claim Nixon ‘ s bitter lawyer made before he died a quarter century ago?
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:33 am
So, what’s the right number, Wordslinger? Or can there never be too many? Maybe not, but there are consequences to a large security presence in one’s neighborhood, and in this country mass incarceration appears to have been one of them.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:39 am
Cassandra, meet Campanelli. Both ignore reality. bodies are dead, people have gunshot wounds, people are sexually assaulted. things actually happen, people are really victims. in whatever area, and done by whomever. Unless you want that to be ignored. Even Kwame is afraid of the “my baby, my baby” crowd, hoping the judge statement will explain all. Get real.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:41 am
–Maybe not, but there are consequences to a large security presence in one’s neighborhood, and in this country mass incarceration appears to have been one of them.==
Your logic is whack. It’s akin to “you always see firetrucks at fires, so firetrucks cause fires.”
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:43 am
@Cassandra, since you have such a pulse on this, can you stop crime in certain neighborhoods? or do you want it to be ignored?
Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:44 am
While we can’t take away people’s rights to fire arms, because… well… the Constitution. We can and should make punishment for gun related crimes heavy enough to discourage irresponsible use. If someone commits a crime with any sort of fire arm, the punishment should be so severe and lengthy, that there will be little chance of a repeat offense.
Comment by Dude Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:48 am
Cassandra……the right number? Well it certainty isn’t the half a billion dollars the city has spent settling police abuse cases.
Comment by Galena Guy Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:50 am
Project Exile would be good as it would expose not only the anti mandatory minimum crowd but the extreme right wing gun owners, as it did elsewhere. Here’s betting that Kim Foxx does not focus local gun crime prosecutions for Federal shift as is sometimes possible and has been for years.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:54 am
@Dude. How is that logical? Evidence has shown that the mandatory minimum/long prison sentences for drugs did nothing to stem the use and sale of illegal drugs. Why would applying that same concept reduce gun violence?
Comment by BK Bro Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 11:59 am
“Guns used in the act of a felony would seem to be an entirely different matter.”
I agree. With drugs we’re doing it to ourselves. With guns we’re victimizing others.
My desire is to see less people locked up for nonviolent drug crimes and prisons used more for violent offenders. I support tougher sentences for repeat gun offenders.
“by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana”
The war on marijuana had racist roots in the 1930s and earlier, when people associated it with blacks and Mexicans.
Comment by Grandson of Man Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:28 pm
Prison exists not just to punish and rehabilitate, but to protect the community from bad actors. Gun violence spreads like a virus through a community. Tougher sentencing for repeat violent offenders is a necessity right now.
Comment by Chicagonk Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:37 pm
“Wordslinger” Firemen don’t ride around looking for fires. But, police have been known to “stop and frisk”.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:45 pm
institutionalized racism isn’t going anywhere.
Factory jobs, decent jobs aren’t coming back
I was super surprised lately to hear an economist say the just Friday at a holiday party when discussing this very topic.
Universal Basic Income
I know I know, look I’m as left as you can get and I guffawed. But the longer it has sat with me the more I begin to think Italy be the only way out. I have digested a few article over the weekend and it might just address more than a few social ills.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:48 pm
Look to the right on your screen, at the Tribune headline about shootings down by half over the weekend. What we need is more crappy weather.
Comment by Cheryl 44 Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:48 pm
–Universal Basic Income–
As proposed by Hayek and Friedman.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:51 pm
Damn phone. It might ……not Italy
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:51 pm
Wow word you just blew my mind
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:56 pm
“…someone with a previous felony weapons conviction faces 3 to 14 years; Raoul’s measure might have judges consider more than 10 years.”
The minute you walk out your front door with a cased firearm without an FOID card in your wallet, it’s felony UUW. This type of legislation can be extremely dangerous to hunters who transport firearms, not just gang members.
There is now a pool of over 1.5 million FOID holders in IL and over 150,000 concealed carry license holders, all of which could get caught in this type of crackdown, although I doubt the NRA types have the brain power to see the danger.
It was carry bill sponsor Brandon Phelps and the NRA that got in bed with the police unions to have criminal penalties for every violation of his bill. How do we know that penalties for licensed citizens will not escalate to felonies over time, the same way George Ryan made simple possession of a gun without an FOID a felony in 1995?
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 12:58 pm
It does not take new laws. Simply enforce the current laws. Refer every fellon who is in posesion of a fire arm to the US attorney for prosecution under the existing federal law. During the sentencing phase, recommend a prison in Idaho. As mentioned earlier, Project Exile.
Comment by SOIL M Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:04 pm
The mayor and CPD blame sentencing.
A master class in trustworthy + transparent sources, they are.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:06 pm
=== And just pointing to numbers gets a little old also. Is a crime sexist if more men (of any color) commit it than do women and then are sent to prison? No.===
The methods of enforcement are such that blacks pot smokers are many times more likely to be arrested and charged than white pot smokers, though the incidence of smoking is not higher among African Americans.
Comment by Anon Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:10 pm
Anon 12:58
You’re wrong.
1. there are 2 million FOID cards
2. a cased firearm, even loaded, by someone who has been issued a FOID is only a misdemeanor
3. in Order for Sen. Raul’s bill to apply one would need to be a convicted felon, hense NOT a FOID card holder, plus have a prior gun conviction, plus be charged again with another gun possession crime.
It clearly would not apply to current law abiding FOID card holders or other non-resident gun possession.
Comment by Todd Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:14 pm
I’m very open to UBI - it has the conservative advantage of relying on market forces rather than social planning and is a lot more realistic than the Democrats “let them go to community college to retrain” plans to help workers affected by tech disruption. But UBI is incompatible with a quasi-open border combined with birthright citizenship.
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:27 pm
UBI-a bit farfetched in today’s political climate, but a major expansion of the EITC not so much. It already exists,the pols don’t have to sell a new concept, but a major expansion would give low-income workers significantly more after tax income for their work. And the benefits could potentially be extended into the middle class.
It also costs money, and at least at the state level, this state has no money.
Comment by Cassandra Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:45 pm
>>>>>>>>>>Look to the right on your screen, at the Tribune headline about shootings down by half over the weekend. What we need is more crappy weather.
Comment by Downstate43 Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:48 pm
I realize you’re probably at least half kidding, but it’s pretty true. There are only two demonstrably proven “easy”, “short-term” ways to reduce VIOLENT crime: 1. Long-term incarceration for repeat offenders and 2. bad weather.
Deterrence through harsher sentencing is a joke and a myth when it comes to violent crime. The only proven benefit of harsher sentences is keeping repeat offenders (statistically the most likely to reoffend after release) off the streets.
Also, whomever mentioned the ridiculously lenient sentences coming out of Cook County also raises a relevant point, but it only applies if they are even prosecuted at all. Ask a DuPage, Lake, or Will prosecutor about the “nolle pros” records for offenders coming out of Cook.
Comment by Downstate43 Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:49 pm
The only Reps who opposed criminal penalties of six months or one year in jail for every violation of Phelps carry bill plus the new “crime” of Duty to Inform were Black Caucus Reps LaShawn Ford, Chris Welch, and Will Davis.
NRA had no problem throwing Otis McDonald and black people in Chicago under the bus in their carry bill, but they love to use blacks as face men for their lawsuits. Who would trust NRA to look out for gun owners when the Black Caucus had to do their job? Watch NRA and the police unions closely on this one.
Comment by Anonymous Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:52 pm
Oh I get it Cassandra, it’s a huge leap. I do know fromy years serving the poor disabled and elderly is that hardly anything gives dignity like being able to provide for yourself or a family. EITC is good but only helps the working. Here in the Meteo East our unemployment is double the national rate. Not to even mention African American unemployment rates or heck any number of groups. UBI gives equally. I think it would take a decade but I think we had better start thinking that direction fast.
Comment by Honeybear Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 1:58 pm
Amalia: I’d trust you to have some worthwhile thoughts on this issue.
Of course it could be better family experience, education, social alternatives, economic opportunities, less structural racism, or whatever else we want to propose to fix this long term. But way too many people are dying right now. What do we do short term?
I admit to being at a loss.
Comment by walker Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 2:03 pm
===Wow word you just blew my mind==
For better or worse, that’s what he lives for. lol
Comment by A guy Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 2:22 pm
The solution, if there is one, has to be two phased and multi-generational. It will cost a bunch of money.
1) Work on saving the next generation. New /expanded / better social support system to reach the kids before they get into the gangs.
2) Resign yourself that at least part of the current generation will be lost, mostly by using stiff prison sentences to keep the people who are a threat locked up. If they are really lucky, by the time they get out of prison they will be old enough to no longer have the violent tendencies. Harsh, but the only short term answer I have.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 4:38 pm
Hey Walker! yep, this is a both/and situation. long term strategies may decrease the large overall issue. trouble is, the folks who want the long term don’t want the short term/think it is racist. it’s not. it’s just reality. do the crime, do the time. and realize that bad actors will exist no matter what happens, in all sorts of places. that’s how Sarah Kustok’s dad murders her mom, how former Officer Peterson murders a few women, how Al Capone ran his empire. they are violent people. Violent people will exist no matter what. but we have to deal with them by isolating them. it’s an immediate protection thing. people in these communities need protection from certain bad actors in the community. until the State Reps get that, they can look in the mirror and see they are part of the problem. vote stiffer gun penalties. don’t wait for a judge to handle. handle your own business.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 4:45 pm
RNUG - I don’t know if you know this, but Bob Greene once asked the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois (I think at the time it was Judge Will?) how we could solve the problems of our inner cities and he gave a very similar answer.
Comment by lake county democrat Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 5:11 pm
The Universal Basic Income is an idea whose time has come if the robotic and AI advances continue to deteriorate opportunities in the lower income levels. One little discussed adverse effect is potential birth rate increases in the lower strata to enhance family income. How to offset this likely phenomena is little discussed. Notwithstanding, the likelihood of serious discussion is minimal in the current atmosphere where there is a belief lower level jobs are coming back. And then there’s the political pushback of the disappearance of many welfare programs which have a substantial voter base on the left.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 6:14 pm
-lake county democrat-,
No, I didn’t know that.
Comment by RNUG Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 6:15 pm
How sad the state of modern man/woman. UBI necessary to counter progress. Unable to adapt to changes and doomed to a life of indolence. Damn all of you smart people.
Comment by weltschmerz Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 6:46 pm
So long as the Black Legislative Caucus won’t allow those caught with an illegal gun to be charged with a felony (it is currently a misdemeanor) nothing will change on Chicago’s south and west sides. Gang bangers found with guns are back on the streets in hours. The blood is on their hands.
Comment by striketoo Monday, Dec 12, 16 @ 10:18 pm
Weltschmerz- the studies actually show the opposite. People actually start to pursue work that means something to them when they don’t have to worry about starving. My work here in casework confirms this. Only about 2% are indolent. Most people hop between meaningless low paid temp jobs.
Comment by Honeybear Tuesday, Dec 13, 16 @ 8:57 am