35 Comments - Dan Johnson - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:20 am: This may be an out of context issue with the story about Berlin, but the clip contradicts itself. Either (a) cash bail forces poor people to plead guilty to get out of jail so….we are going to see more poor people go to trial or (b) it doesn’t force poor people to plead guilty so it is a very small percentage of people that do that. If the truth is (a)….that is horrifying. If the truth is (b)….then the end of cash bail is no big deal. The opponents of the law should pick a lane. Like Sharone, I respect the hell out of Berlin as well, but it would be better to get some clarity over what the objection to granting freedom based on risk, not wealth, actually is. - Dan Johnson - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:23 am: (Meaning….forcing poor people to plead guilty to get their freedom is horrifying and the law is an historic step for basic liberty and justice for all). - Guzzlepot - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:24 am: @Dan Johnson. Unfortunately it is (a). I see it all the time in our court system. - Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:28 am: By lawless is Durkin referring to the numerous S.A.’s and Sheriffs that vowed not to enforce Pritzker’s court-upheld E.O.s? - NIU Grad - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:33 am: Durkin has found his issue that he thinks can win back the suburbs and unite the Trumpian voters (and maybe just keep the Trumpian politicians “on message”). “If you want to reform policing and the criminal justice system in an effective manner, repeal this horrible law and start over.” Republican translation for “start over” is: “repeal the law and then leave everything exactly how it is.” - Quibbler - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:33 am: == “That means there’s a burden on victims, witnesses, police and prosecutors,” Berlin said.== Oh no, we wouldn’t want to burden police or prosecutors on the way to throwing people in cages. - Actual Red - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:39 am: I have had some contact with the criminal justice system. I worked on two cases on the defense side. I can say, with near certainty, that one of the clients was not guilty and would have won had he gone to trial. He pled guilty to get out of jail. Obviously, that’s anecdotal, but the lawyers I worked with said this happens all the time. Another category of defendants this affects, are those who may or may not be guilty, but have had their constitutional rights violated in the process of their arrest and/or pre-trial incarceration. These people should have the chance to vindicate their rights in court, even if they committed a crime. Someone who cannot afford bail also likely cannot afford a civil lawyer. Their criminal trial would likely be the only time to raise these issues with the help of an attorney. The current system places a ton of pressure on indigent defendants to plead rather than go to trial, reducing the likelihood the constitutional issue will ever be raised. In turn, the current system reduces the incentives on law enforcement to respect people’s rights. This will apply mainly to those accused of nonviolent or less serious offenses, as they will be more likely to be released pre-trial under the new system. - don the legend - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:44 am: ==If you want to reform policing and the criminal justice system in an effective manner, repeal this horrible law and start over.== And how would this happen exactly? - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 9:53 am: I’m not sure if I’d call this debate as much as fear of change. Durkin especially seems to be lost on the concept of what reform actually means, and is just venting his frustration that the world around him is changing - for the better. === This is not fearmongering. This is reality. === Did I miss the part where Durkin submitted a series of bills of what he thinks police reform should look like. Without any hard action, or detailed proposed solutions on his part, his words do in fact look like fear mongering. “repeal this horrible law and start over.” That isn’t a plan Jim. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:00 am: To the other claims “without that officer being confronted by his or her accuser.” I recall a rather publicized case where a police officer was taking license plates of people who went into a store to buy organic soil, because his words in front of the judge were “In my experience people grow pot this way”. The police officer went to a judge to get a warrant to raid the house of a middle aged woman, and found no growing operation. I’m curious at what point the woman who was raided was able to confront her accuser in front of the judge when the decision was being made to issue the warrant or not. Does Durkin think the accused should be present to confront their accusers seeking out warrants for their arrest. I’d like to hear him put that concept into words, and state this is what he thinks police reform should look like. It may seem like snark, but I really do want to hear what Durkins ideas are for reform, specifically. - RWC - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:06 am: Dan, I do think your issue A exists. But I think you’ve drawn the question inaccurately. There are also a fair number of people charged who know they’re guilty, who will now see no cost to rolling the dice to see if they get lucky on trial. Most any honest observer of the system knows that. In 2019, there were 16,000 total cases advanced by felony review, and 15,500 of them pled guilty. Overwhelmingly, these people were guilty. But the cost to society of having a few plead guilty if they’re innocent is significant. Some people (like Berlin presumably), believe there are very few such defendants. Others believe there are more. But no one with any familiarity with the system really believes this category is some large percentage of those pleading guilty. The underlying problem is the slowness of the justice system. We added huge numbers of judges in the 80s and 90s, and now with changes in both marijuana laws and prosecutorial decisions, there are far fewer cases - the 16,000 in 2019 is down by about 25% from 2011. But cases aren’t moving much faster. Most of these are not cases where detectives are still tracking down evidence or public defenders are wading through volumes of testimony. They’re fairly simple cases that languish in part because of the logistics of getting everyone in the same room. It’s a poorly kept secret that many judges in Cook are lazy, coming in late, leaving early. Neither the State’s Attorney nor the Public Defender have enough attorneys, so the caseload is too high. And defendants miss court cases with fewer consequences, all of which is like sand in the gears, slowing things down. Meanwhile, the major bar associations treat judicial elections like a parlor game for colonial aristocrats. “If we just post our advice on a website, the plebeians shall read about it, and they’ll vote against the lesser judges.” Somebody needs to run a genuine political campaign on retention — direct mail and maybe radio. “Here are the 10 judges to vote no on. They don’t show up on time, they don’t know the law …” And then push to increase head count for the SA and PD, so they can dispose of cases more quickly. Get people out of jail by either convicting them or letting them go, not by leaving them with a case hanging over their heads for months and years. That would be justice reform.. - Jocko - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:12 am: ==punishing the men and women who wear the badge== Because their work up to this point has been above reproach, right? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/02/18/chicago-cops-didnt-adequately-report-use-force-summer-report/4495618001/ - Precinct Captain - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:13 am: Berlin is horrific. How could you respect someone who thinks his role as a prosecutor is to pressure poor people into pleading guilty because they can’t afford bail? That’s the height of injustice. If prosecutors aren’t prepared to prove their allegations through a trial, they shouldn’t be charging people. What is going on in DuPage County? - RWC - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:15 am: I’m curious what people who believe recent reforms have zero negative effect attribute the several year rise in carjackings too? And what they attribute the Mag Mile shoplifting crisis of the last several years to? Each of these is a real trend, and each coincides with seemingly relevant justice reforms - in one case, the monetary threshold for felony prosecution, and in the other, a change in the way juvenile prosecutions are handled. Are those just coincidences, and there are other reasons behind the massive increases in shoplifting and carjacking? I never heard of a carjacking in my life before about 5 years ago. - RWC - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:17 am: That is, never heard of one relevant to anyone I knew. I know that carjacking had occurred. But it became common. I also recognize there were and still are problems with our justice system. But it seems that some people want to wish away the problems that have been caused by the reforms. - 33rd ward - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:20 am: There’s a lot of unjustified fears in the new law. The law will not allow folks to keep committing crimes; if you commit a crime while waiting for trial then you end up in jail, unable to get out. That’s the law. The trial issue is trickier than many folks think. For instance, in many jurisdictions, there’s a penalty for going to trial. While, it may be unlawful or unethical, many many judges impose a higher sentence for a defendant that loses at trial. And it can be almost impossible to prove or do anything about. This is for two reasons. 1, it discourages bad cases from going to trial; saving those resources for closer cases, and 2, it punishes defendants if they testify for what the court considers “lying on the stand” as opposed to “admitting guilt”. Most folks that get out of jail don’t believe a judge would impose a 15 year penalty on a $20 drug sale case because the defendant choose a jury trial, but it does happen. When the sentence range for a $20 sale is 6-30 years, a lot of leeway is available to judges. I’m not saying things shouldn’t change. I’m saying the result of more trials for everyone (including most of all the public defenders) has consequences, at least in the past. We’ll see what happens. - Dan Johnson - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:23 am: RWC: it’s a fair question. I think someone should ask the kids who get arrested for shoplifting whether they are aware of the felony threshold (are they careful to steal less than $1000?) and if so are they aware of the consequences of a misdemeanor conviction? No snark. And for the carjacking, we should ask them. Do they think they will avoid any responsibility or consequences because they are teenagers? Or are they like most male teenagers pretty dumb about risk-reward? I also think the real deterrent is the lack of trials and convictions (even outside of a pandemic, we take *way* too long to get defendants into trial and convicted or released). Best research I’ve seen shows that the certainty of a speedy punishment is the best deterrent, not the fear of a long and unlikely sentence. Lots of work to do to get speedy and certain trials but that’s our best bet. - H-W - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:23 am: Durkin argues, “… serve no purpose other than to trip up an officer. This law also allows for an officer’s dismissal based on anonymous complaints, without that officer being confronted by his or her accuser.” If Mr. Durkin is truly concerned that “anonymous” complaints can lead to the administrative dismissal of officers accused of egregious misconduct, the Durkin should advocate for formal court trials instead of administrative hearings. In the administrative hearing, the officer is in fact confronting the accuser - the administrative team that has found substantial reason to question the actions of the officer in question. The administrative team is in fact the accuser, if in fact a hearing actually results. If Mr. Durkin wants the accused officer to face his or her accuser, then Durkin should advocate for legal trials before juries, rather than oppose administrative hearings. - anon2 - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:26 am: Berlin’s guess that few innocent detainees plead guilty to get out is rather self-serving. Of course he wouldn’t admit that he’s convicting lots of innocent people because they’re poor and incarcerated. Much more convenient to speculate that it almost never happens. - charles in charge - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 10:33 am: Durkin’s statement that we are living in “one of the most lawless times in our state’s history” would be laughable if it weren’t so ignorant. - H-W - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:01 am: Just as an aside, carjackings have been around for a very long time. Very long. - @misterjayem - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:06 am: If State’s Attorney Bob Berlin thinks that the burden of actually proving the guilt of those accused of crimes is too onerous, then he needs to find another job. – MrJM - Former Mayor Dupage - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:17 am: 99.9 % of police are already in the guardian mode - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:19 am: ===99.9 %=== You got any actual proof for this bold claim? - Former Dupage Mayor - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:43 am: Good question…no proof… just an impression from 40 years of serving as a public official - duck duck goose - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 11:49 am: Berlin is a prosecutor. His job is to prosecute people whom he believes are guilty. It’s a problem if he believes that anybody he’s charged is not guilty. - AlfondoGonz - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:03 pm: Berlin and Mitchell are both right. Eliminating cash bail will increase the likelihood that defendant’s out on bond commit new offenses and will demand trials. It will also address the injustice of punishing the indigent more so than those with means. It’s a very tricky issue. - Jocko - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:14 pm: ==99.9 % of police are already in the guardian mode== If that’s the case, why are police unions so quick to shield themselves using qualified immunity? - Payback - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:30 pm: “I believe that most people who plead guilty plead guilty because they are guilty.” So Berlin is a mind reader too? Right there you have proof that prosecutors and police are joined at the hip. A private detective friend, who had been set up by police many times, told me it’s an “us and them” mentality. “Good guys” and “bad guys.” Like most of the brain dead ‘Merica types that Durkin thinks he represents, most people think all defendants must be guilty, otherwise the police would not have arrested them in the first place? The problem with this bill is that it doesn’t go far enough to root out police criminality. To accomplish that, you would need statewide grand juries in IL that could directly indict cops apart from county SA’s like Berlin. That’s why police crimes and public corruption are sky-high in IL, and citizens have to wait for federal authorities to prosecute police like Jon Burge. - ArchPundit - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 12:47 pm: ====I never heard of a carjacking in my life before about 5 years ago. Were you born 7 years ago? - Just Another Anon - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 1:05 pm: >who had been set up by police many times Tell me another story, this time with dragons and ninjas. - thisjustinagain - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 1:37 pm: The warrior mentality will still survive. When you enforce the law, you are a target. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being of a mindset that you will survive alive and intact every day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing what you can do legally and tactically, and doing that immediately if the circumstances warrant taking those actions. The body-worn camera should be your friend, and criminalizing use of the video to write an accurate report is stupidity only Illinois could create. To blame qualified immunity is also absurd; it applies not only to police but government employees from the false complaints and unsupported lawsuits filed in revenge for people doing their jobs in accordance with law. - Bigtwich - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 3:10 pm: ==I’m curious what people who believe recent reforms have zero negative effect attribute the several year rise in carjackings too? And what they attribute the Mag Mile shoplifting crisis of the last several years to?== A Google search for carjacking and for shoplifting crisis brings up stories of these things increasing in various parts of the county. That makes it a little difficult to attribute it to local reforms. - The 647 - Wednesday, Mar 10, 21 @ 3:24 pm: Looks like Sharone Mitchell is having a big day. He just got selected to be Cook County’s next Public Defender. - Anonymous - Friday, Mar 12, 21 @ 12:12 pm: - Jocko - If that’s the case, why are police unions so quick to shield themselves using qualified immunity? this statement is so ridiculous. Just proves how little you understand about qualified immunity. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.