“Prosecutorial discretion”
Thursday, Apr 18, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Tribune…
Effingham County State’s Attorney Bryan Kibler last month told a raucous crowd the origin story behind the “Second Amendment sanctuary county” movement, which began in Effingham a year ago and now includes 64 of the state’s 102 counties, counties in three other states, and nine more states in which counties are eyeing similar nonbinding measures. And as Illinois legislators, emboldened by Gov. J.B. Pritzker, look at more gun-control measures, counties are looking at more ways to resist them. […]
Kibler has said state’s attorneys are able to weigh decisions on a case-by-case basis and that will continue. When explaining discretion, he often uses the example of a man from Mississippi who was passing through Effingham County on his way to visit relatives in Chicago. The man had a small revolver visible inside a driver’s-side door compartment when he was pulled over. He originally was arrested by a state trooper for having a loaded weapon in the car.
“I said, ‘get him out of here and give him his gun back.’ The state of Illinois should not be making a felon out of this man,” Kibler said.
Kibler also said the central and southern parts of the state are dealing with high rates of methamphetamine use and police and the state’s attorney’s office don’t have time to pursue minor gun cases.
“We don’t have the luxury of trying to enforce the laws that come on down from high from liberal jurisdictions while we’re making record numbers of arrests in a meth epidemic,” he said.
* New Yorker…
[Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx] runs the second-largest prosecutor’s office in the country, responsible for prosecuting crimes in Chicago and a hundred and thirty-four municipalities. Her staff sees almost half a million cases every year. Prosecutorial discretion is one of the pillars of our justice system, and it is her job to discern what deserves her staff’s attention, as opposed to what has grabbed the most public attention. “I cannot run an office that is driven by anger and public sentiment,” Foxx said on Saturday.
The onslaught of criticism against Foxx exposes an uncomfortable truth about the depth of America’s attachment to mass incarceration. In theory, criminal-justice reform is more popular than ever. A majority of Americans support reducing punishment, especially for nonviolent offenders. Across the political spectrum, voters want law enforcement to focus more resources on the most serious crimes. But there’s no way to reconcile what we claim to believe and what commands our outrage. There are currently two million incarcerated people in this country. Another four and a half million are under some other form of correctional control. Yet, with the Smollett case, it is leniency that gets the attention. There’s a common belief that criminal-justice reform is one of the few bipartisan issues left in politics. But our thirst for punishment is equally politically salient.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in Chicago. In 2014, the Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke shot Laquan McDonald, an African-American teen-ager, sixteen times. Dash-cam footage shows that McDonald was walking away from Van Dyke when the officer began shooting, and that he continued shooting for thirteen seconds after McDonald fell to the ground. The video is deeply distressing, and makes it impossible to characterize McDonald’s death as anything less than the execution of a child. But, for thirteen months, the former state’s attorney Anita Alvarez chose not to charge Van Dyke with murder. In the end, she only brought charges against him when the video was going to be made public, in November, 2015. (In January, Van Dyke, who was convicted of second-degree murder, received a sentence of nearly seven years in prison.)
For eight years, Alvarez had aligned herself with law enforcement, aggressively prosecuting even minor crimes. In 2010, Cook County Jail, the largest single-site jail in America, was so crowded that federal authorities stepped in, requiring that the county reduce the population. But, by 2013, the inmate count had only increased, and Alvarez continued to file unnecessary charges, including prosecuting people for misdemeanor marijuana possession three years after the state decriminalized it.
- Amalia - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:05 am:
LOL that last paragraph about Alvarez. fantasy writing, like she charged everything. and ask suburban cops, just not true. heck, ask city cops, read SecondCityCop from back in the day, just not true. I’ll credit Kim Foxx and her supporters with one thing, they are ramping up their outrage machine just like they did before. what does recuse mean, Kim?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:07 am:
What’s the cause of the meth epidemic the SA is talking about in central and southern Illinois? Lax morals and family values? How did this culture come about? Where were the parents?
I imagine all those meth cooks and distributors are happy to know that being illegally armed ain’t a big thing, and gear up accordingly. I wonder what the coppers who have to bust them think about that.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:12 am:
===read SecondCityCop===
lol
- Da Big Bad Wolf - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:13 am:
I don’t know if Alverez filed too many unnecessary charges or not. But I’ll believe the New Yorker over anything on Second City Cop. Come to think of it, I’ll believe a fortune cookie over Second City Cop.
- Jocko - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:14 am:
==I said, ‘get him out of here and give him his gun back.’==
So he can go back to guarding the strongbox while the other fella is driving the stagecoach? /s
Just out of curiosity, what was the race of the individual?
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:18 am:
–When explaining discretion, he often uses the example of a man from Mississippi who was passing through Effingham County on his way to visit relatives in Chicago. The man had a small revolver visible inside a driver’s-side door compartment when he was pulled over. He originally was arrested by a state trooper for having a loaded weapon in the car.
“I said, ‘get him out of here and give him his gun back.’ The state of Illinois should not be making a felon out of this man,” Kibler said.–
Perhaps the trooper was aware that the Mississippi to Chicago run is a major source of illegal guns in the south and west side shooting galleries.
- Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:18 am:
And Alvarez paid with her job for her actions or lack thereof. I generally do align with not jailing many nonviolent offenders, but I would at least like them to have to carry a conviction and apologize, something Jussie Smollett didn’t have to do. Now Kim Foxx may have to pay with her job for tilting too far the other way.
- Anon - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:22 am:
I wonder if these prosecutors open themselves up for civil liability if one of the “law abiding gun owners” that was charged with violating the law and winds up having the charges dropped goes on to murder someone?
Our history is full of examples of women murdered by boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, spouses, ex-spouses, stalkers, and so forth because the law enforcement didn’t take their role in protecting those women seriously.
Now — we’re not just going to have a Waffle House shooter that shouldn’t have gotten their guns back, these local prosecutors are opening up the door to celebrating giving the weapons back to a person that may go on to commit murder.
- Anon - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:23 am:
The irony is that both Foxx and Kibler are right in a sense. Both parties and our society in general are way too reliant on incarceration. Gun prosecutions are more popular with liberals, but just like every other form or prosecution, they tend to criminalize poor black and brown folks and not Jimbo, the good ol’ boy on his hunting trip who forgot his FOID card at home. The problem is that folks like Foxx and those allied with her will call for more social services and the like to address the root causes of crime, while Team Kibler thinks you can jail your way out of a public health crisis. Kibler of course also won’t call for de-carceration for anything other than guns, which makes him the only hypocrite here.
- The Captain - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:34 am:
“Prosecutorial discretion” is basically how the south did it for a very long time. If you look at our system of government, especially over very long timelines, the part that works the best is the checks and balances. That’s not just lip service that we learn as grade-school kids, it really does work well. But there’s not enough of a check over the prosecution power in this country, and it’s worth addressing.
- Soothsayer - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:38 am:
Can anyone clarify whether Foxx’s mistake in assuming she had the right to appoint Maggats after her recusal messed up the case? Is that likely why there was such a swift and unexpected dismissal and sealing of the case?
- Chris Widger - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:41 am:
==I wonder if these prosecutors open themselves up for civil liability if one of the “law abiding gun owners” that was charged with violating the law and winds up having the charges dropped goes on to murder someone?==
They don’t. Prosecutors and judges generally enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability. This is probably a good thing; if your family might lose their house if you show any amount of leniency, it would incentivize prosecutors and judges to be extremely harsh. The optimal amount of recidivism is not zero–to say otherwise is to argue that everyone who does anything wrong should get life without parole.
- Montrose - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:46 am:
What Foxx did with Smollett was consistent with what she has been doing with similar low-level cases. If you don’t like that policy or the idea of prosecutorial discretion, fine, but if she prosecuted Smollet, that would have been the inconsistency. Not the other way around.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:47 am:
–Can anyone clarify whether Foxx’s mistake in assuming she had the right to appoint Maggats after her recusal…–
She did not recuse.
- Downstate - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:57 am:
“Is that likely why there was such a swift and unexpected dismissal and sealing of the case?”
My problem with Foxx’s dismissal is best explained by the “yelling fire” analogy.
If there a difference in someone yelling “fire” in a single theater vs. someone using public media to post a threat against the city of Chicago?
Both are wrong, but the individual that uses the national media to wrongfully and widely incite social unrest deserves a greater level of justice.
- Roman - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 10:59 am:
Watching the back-and-forth between Foxx and Graham (the FOP prez,) it occurs to me how much they both need each other.
Graham doesn’t want to be the third consecutive one-term head of the FOP — and playing off the siege mentality of his membership with Foxx-bashing will certainly help when he stands for re-election. While Foxx can avoid explaining her bumbling of the Smollett case by dismissing any criticism of her as racially motivated anger fueled by cops in MAGA hats.
Graham gets re-elected for standing up for his guys and Foxx gets re-elected by rallying black voters and progressives.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:03 am:
===incite social unrest ===
I must’ve missed the Smollett riots.
- Perrid - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:04 am:
I don’t want Jussie incarcerated so that argument doesn’t hold much water (for me, I get a lot of people wanted to through away the key), I do wish he had been forced to fess up though, ideally with a record. There should be consequences. And even more I wish Foxx has been more transparent and methodical. The whole thing seems like it was rushed to make it go away. It stinks to high heaven.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:05 am:
===I do wish he had been forced to fess up though, ideally with a record===
Same. The over-charging was ridic. But at least tag him with a misdemeanor or two.
- Medvale School for the Gifted - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:07 am:
Rich,
Great post contrasting prosecutorial discretion based on politics rather than law.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:07 am:
==Perhaps the trooper was aware that the Mississippi to Chicago run is a major source of illegal guns in the south and west side shooting galleries.==
Somehow I doubt a person driving with a single gun is a gun runner. If the person was licensed to carry in Mississippi he would’ve been lawfully carrying in his car here, so it’s also possible the Trooper made a mistake.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:29 am:
I supported bail reform, but you also have to go for remand sometimes. It seems there were a couple cases recently where they should have at least tried to keep the defendant in jail. Foxx’s campaign, at least to me, included things like going after big straw purchasers of guns and treating gangs more like organized criminal enterprises, like the mafia. It seems those ideas left with Eric Sussman. No one can convince me that the Smollett matter was handled well either. Doing things like not prosecuting Ronald Watts victims are really low hanging fruit for me. Also, Mayor Emanuel will be gone in a few weeks and Anita Alvarez has been gone for a while. You can’t define yourself as not those people forever.
- Downstate - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:29 am:
===incite social unrest ===
Rich,
Smollett’s efforts to willfully mislead on both the race and political affiliation of his attackers was an effort to inflame social division. It may not have caused riots, but it was an clearly an effort to widen our divides.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:30 am:
===was an effort to inflame social division===
It was an effort to keep himself employed. Besides, if inflaming social division was a crime, the Eastern Bloc would all be in prison. /s
- Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:31 am:
There’s a difference between prosecutorial discretion and coming out and saying that you aren’t going to enforce a law. That’s not discretion. That’s a violation of his oath to enforce the laws.
- Soothsayer - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:32 am:
Word, yes, Foxx did not formerly, before a court of law, recuse herself. Does that mean that her public statement of recusal could not be used against the SAO in a court of law on a motion to dismiss? I have been scratching my head trying to figure out what Patricia Brown Holmes’ leverage was over Foxx that caused her to act so rashly. Why not quietly plead the case out or dismiss it at a later stage when tempers have settled?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:32 am:
===That’s a violation of his oath to enforce the laws===
AG Raoul disagrees with you. He was asked about this gun sanctuary thing in committee recently.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:34 am:
===Why not quietly plead the case out or dismiss it at a later stage when tempers have settled? ===
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2tk7ethx1Q
- Downstate - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 11:38 am:
–It was an effort to keep himself employed.—
But the harm was so much greater.
If person A falsely reports to the police that he was shot at on Lake Shore Drive by (insert racial profile here), and person B reports the same thing but then goes on social and broadcast media to turn it into a national story, should they both be treated the same? They certainly didn’t cause equal levels of harm.
Jussie’s actions directly impacted the level of police resources wasted.
- lovecraft - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 12:01 pm:
Meth heads with guns. That’s a winning combination.
- Roman - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 12:11 pm:
On the recusal issue: She did not legally recuse herself and her office — which would have formally transferred the case to the AG or another county’s SA. She invoked a “soft” recusal, saying in a public statement she would not personally be involved in the case. The FOIA release clearly demonstrates she violated that promise. Not sure if that creates an ethical question that could be examined by the ARDC, but it certainly constitutes a violation of the public’s trust, for which she can be held politically responsible on Election Day.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 12:43 pm:
=64 out of 102 counties=
With a combined total of 1,000 residents.
Kibler’s words will come back to haunt him when he decides he wants to prosecute someone for the same thing he let the Man from Missouri go free on.
- thechampaignlife - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 12:49 pm:
===there’s not enough of a check over the prosecution power in this country===
While I agree in principle that prosecutorial discretion may be too great, there is still the legislature that writes the laws and the judiciary who interprets it as a check and balance on prosecutors. To use the law to clearly target a minority group would require the legislature to write laws that target that group (or everyone), cops and/or SAs to enforce that law discriminately, and judges to go along with it. While it can certainly happen, as was the case in the South, it was not a problem of prosecutorial discretion as much as systemic racism at all levels of governance.
Plus, the discretion is itself a check and balance on unjust laws, such as choosing not to prosecute violations of anti-miscegenation laws. As with racism in the South, the ultimate check and balance is a higher power (the feds) and/or the citizens/voters.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 12:51 pm:
==AG Raoul disagrees with you.==
And I find that disturbing. He’s essentially saying that law enforcement officials can unilaterally decide what laws they will or won’t enforce. If that’s how he thinks the system should work then I question his competency to be the Attorney General.
- Boone's is Back - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 12:52 pm:
I think one of the major issues that this New Yorker article misses is the large number of people who consistently rotate in and out of the Cook County jail because they are mentally ill. Sheriff Dart has called the Cook County Jail the largest mental institution in the country. Petty possession is not a major driver of incarceration at the jail but mental illness is.
- Huh? - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 1:36 pm:
“Prosecutorial discretion” = Selective law enforcement.
States Attorneys are elected to enforce all of the laws. Not just those they don’t like. Until a court rules otherwise, a duly passed law is constitutional.
- cdog - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 2:48 pm:
Anyone that thinks the administration of fair and equal justice, in light of evidence, testimony, and resources, etc., is completely objective and not related to subjective opinions of the humans involved, is not processing the realities of humanity.
Maybe justice should be automated by AI. /s
- Thomas Paine - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 3:51 pm:
The difference here, Rich, is that gun laws work much like immunizations. They are only effective if they are equally enforced my everyone.
The Nashville Waffle House shooting is a perfect example.
When a state’s attorney in downstate Illinois waves through a guy with a firearm just because he’s headed to Chicago….you have a problem.
The state ought to start requiring counties to track gun arrests and non-prosecutions.
Maybe we should save the state some cash by electing state’s attorneys by appelate district instead of county.
- revvedup - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 6:25 pm:
Foxx was right about one thing: She can’t run an office, except into the ground. Complaints on her law license can be filed with the Illinois Attorney and Disciplinary Commission for violating the attorney rules of conduct. Wonder how many have already been filed?
- Amalia - Thursday, Apr 18, 19 @ 8:25 pm:
re Pat Brown Holmes leverage….she’s smarter, and having spent time in the building lately—-as the special prosecutor—she’s back to being one of them, in effect. well played Pat, well played.