41 Comments - DuPage Saint - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 3:45 pm: I understand all the anger directed at Van Dyke but it seems to me much of it should be directed at the judge who gave him a unique sentence based upon what VanDyke was convicted of. Has anyone or group worked to get the judge a vote of non retention? - Arsenal - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 3:46 pm: In my experience, a lot of people’s thoughts on crime are highly correlated with who they perceive as “the other”. I know a lot of very committed reformers who nonetheless blanche at the idea of reducing sentences for rapists (and now police, tho when we first started having these conversations, we didn’t quite know how often police were killing people). And, as we can see here, even FOP will back off an extremely punitive position when it’s directed at one of their own. In whom do we see ourselves? To whom do we afford empathy? - AlfondoGonz - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 3:50 pm: I work in the Cook County courts. I asked several judges on the day of sentencing what they thought JVD would get, and the range was between 12-16 years. I’d elect the higher end of that range. - Leslie K - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 3:53 pm: I agree with AG Raoul. Van Dyke is just being treated like any other convicted person–a day for a day, probably plus 180days good time going in. The way to deal with the travesty was on the front end (conviction), not the back end (release). - Donnie Elgin - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 3:54 pm: “And you may recall that the FOP, which is a lock ‘em all up group, put Jason Van Dyke on its payroll before he went to prison” To be clear - Van Dyke was only on the FOP payroll, as a custodian, during his trial. His employment and pay stopped when he was sent to prison. From the Sun-Times… Before his trial, while he was suspended without pay by the department, Van Dyke was hired as a custodian at the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7 headquarters. - JoanP - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:02 pm: I agree with AG Raoul’s take on the original sentence. But I also really dislike the concept of dual sovereignty, even when the prosecutions are effectively concurrent. But it’s particularly offensive when someone has served his sentence in one jurisdiction, and the other decides to prosecute because they weren’t happy with the first result. It smacks of persecution. - Homebody - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:05 pm: My thoughts, in general: we are overly punitive for some classes of criminal convictions while being under punitive for others. The divide seems wholly based on power dynamics, where the individuals with more power (rich, connected) get under punished, while those with less power (poor, minority) get over punished. Regardless of your opinion on the purpose of punishment, this should be obvious to basically everyone. Anyone who denies that this is the current state of affairs has to be willfully ignorant, or just lying at this point. - Dotnonymous - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:09 pm: It’s a damnable travesty of justice…I did more prison time for a pot case….for just one out of hundreds of thousands of examples. This murder was a federal civil rights violation…and should be charged as such…immediately. - Roman - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:13 pm: Upside-downism indeed. Would be fun if a bill was being debated on expanding the state’s truth-in-sentencing law right now. The cops and the reformers would be arguing the exact opposite positions they’re taking on Van Dyke’s release. - Hair On Fire - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:15 pm: - we didn’t quite know how often police were killing people - We do now, and it’s extremely rare. Not condoning anything, a cops gun should remain holstered until there is a deadly threat against them or a member of the public. - Dotnonymous - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:18 pm: “(and now police, tho when we first started having these conversations, we didn’t quite know how often police were killing people).’ Were it not for the advent of camera equipped phones and the Internet…we would still not know. - Three Dimensional Checkers - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:22 pm: The video evidence was just one part of the state trial. The state called many witnesses at the trial. How reliable are people’s memory now 8 years later? There are a lot of considerations, but I think there may be some complications in the nuts and bolts of having another trial now. I don’t think sentencing Van Dyke on the second degree murder charge was legally incorrect. Second degree murder is more serious than aggravated battery. I thought Van Dyke should’ve gotten a longer sentence. - Pundent - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:23 pm: =His employment and pay stopped when he was sent to prison.= Doesn’t it always? I guess that the FOP have that hard a time filling custodian positions? I’m not saying Van Dyke didn’t deserve a right to make a living, but maybe for the FOP this wasn’t the best call to make? It suggests to me that taking care of “one of their own” is more important than any consequences it might bring to the community they protect and serve. - Stayinghome - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:24 pm: Laquan McDonald wasn’t innocent and this sentence wasn’t a travesty of justice. What Stratton and others object to is they want tougher sentences for white police officers and no sentences for criminals in general. - El Duderino - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:32 pm: I like Juliana, she’s a nice lady and unlike this, usually very thoughtful. This divisiveness, tension stoking, and disrespect for our judicial process is one of the various reason why I will not be voting for her this time around however. - Not a good look, Lt. Gov. - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:32 pm: You blast a guy then back off decrying civil rights violations? On Twitter , no less. Perhaps a better way to get the point across? - Hannibal Lecter - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:33 pm: === I understand all the anger directed at Van Dyke but it seems to me much of it should be directed at the judge who gave him a unique sentence based upon what VanDyke was convicted of. Has anyone or group worked to get the judge a vote of non retention? === This judge has been assigned to a number of high-profile cases over the course of his career (Brown’s Chicken murder case; R-Kelly child pornography case, etc.). While there are many people who disagree with the sentence, I really do not think that attacking the judge in a retention battle is what we want to do. The question of whether the sentence was incorrect made its way all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court and the sentence was upheld. In my opinion, a judge should be attacked on retention only if they have engaged in malfeasance or if they have proven to be incompetent on the bench. If we start attacking judges up for retention for decisions that are politically unpopular as opposed to legally incorrect, it would undermine the independence of the Courts. Judges would start making decisions based on public opinion as opposed to following the law so that they can preserve their position for retention. I really hope that we do not go down this road here. This case has opened a gaping wound in the social fabric of the City, and we do not need to re-open that wound by trying the case again in the court of public opinion. Moving ahead with appropriate reforms is the best path forward in my opinion. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:42 pm: ===Attorney General Raoul, who believed the judge erred when sentencing on 2nd degree murder instead of 16 counts of aggravated battery with a firearm.=== The sentencing was a bit confusing, for me, when looking at the time to be served and guilt to the charges found. Right now, Rahm is ambassador to Japan, Van Dyke is released, all in less than 5 years. Mind boggling. - wowie - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:42 pm: Not really sure it matters all too much what I think as a white guy but definitely agree with Raoul. - Lincoln Lad - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:46 pm: Agree with Kwame… the sentence was a gift, an undeserved one. - Ron Burgundy - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:46 pm: I agree he didn’t get long enough, but I also agree that going back after him several years later just because people don’t think he got enough time would be vindictive and improper. - Paddyrollingstone - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:47 pm: I believe the sentence he received was fair and am not entirely sure what federal criminal charges could be brought considering the statute of limitations. I also am not crazy about bringing federal criminal charges for the exact same incident in which Van Dyke was convicted of and sentenced for. - Da big bad wolf - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:49 pm: === and no sentences for criminals in general.=== When did LG Stratton say no sentences for criminals in general? Who were the other white police officers that she wanted tougher sentences for? Do you have a link? - pros mis - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:49 pm: “I don’t think sentencing Van Dyke on the second degree murder charge was legally incorrect. Second degree murder is more serious than aggravated battery.” It was most certainly legally incorrect. Gaughan followed a dissent in the controlling opinion. 1st year law students know dissents are necessarily the voice of the minority. Agg battery is the higher charge. - Payback - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:50 pm: “What the Lt. Governor is advocating for is that the Justice Department investigate and act on any civil rights violations.” Don’t hold your breath. The all-knowing, all-powerful Feds in Illinois is a myth based on watching reruns of Robert Stack in The Untouchables TV show. The only U.S. Attorney worth his rep in the Northern District has been Patrick Fitzgerald, for whom we had to wait seventy years after Eliot Ness came to Chicago in 1930. Since then, the party bosses have piped the tune that we need a federal prosecutor who concentrates on “violent street gangs” (not public officials or police). Zach Fardon, and now John Lausch, are softballs. Lausch won’t touch this. “…Attorney General Raoul, who believed the judge erred when sentencing on 2nd degree murder..” From the AG who failed to place criminal penalties for erasing police videos in his 2015 Body Cam bill. Raoul is a poser, not a reformer. - Perrid - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 4:58 pm: Charging him again for essentially the same crime seems improper, but it’s hard to stomach him getting less than 4 years for murder. I think I agree with Rich though, what’s done is done, running this into the ground won’t lead anywhere useful. - Lt Guv - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:04 pm: Arsenal with some very sage observations. - Amalia - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:09 pm: Gaughn should/will be a focus. but, that said, up is down and down is up so much lately when things are on the other side. kid (who was wielding a knife and jumping on a car) shot and too many times so we must be harder on crime, 16 year old shoots an 8 year old and suddenly juvenile criminal must be dealt with, Kim Foxx all serious. meanwhile in Illinois felony murder is supposedly some horrible thing but if that charge were not on the books in Georgia, two of the people responsible for the death of Armaud Arbery would not have the words murder associated with a guilty charge. see, when it’s one of your own getting hurt, you care. - Chicago 20 - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:10 pm: It would be interesting to compare the JVD murder 2 sentence to other murder 2 sentences in the same time period. - Thomas Paine - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:14 pm: There’s no reason the US Attorney’s Office should nor prosecute Van Dyke for depriving LaQuan of his civil rights. The US Attorney for Chicago clims he wants to hold public office holders accountable for violating the public trust. What greater public trust is there than the one afforded to police officers, and what greater violation is there than the one perpetrated by Van Dyke? - Taxpayer - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:16 pm: Charging someone with a civil rights violation after a conviction for the same facts seems like overreach and basic unfairness. I agree with Rev. Hunter, Laquan’s uncle, that it is over and we should move on without a second prosecution. JVD’s life is ruined. Isn’t that enough? - cermak_rd - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:16 pm: The sentence was a gift but only by American standards. One of the things that continues to shock me upon reading and hearing of case in Germany is their (to my American eyes) lax sentencing. And yet their recidivim rate is not worse than ours, so perhaps lighter sentences should be used across the board (and more therapy and job training while in prison, too). - West Sider - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:25 pm: I usually agree with Stratton, but she should have stayed out of this. No amount prison time will bring Laquan McDonald back, and so in that sense cannot make his family whole. Justice is imperfect, and this sentence seems far too short. But Van Dyke served his time. Trying to make a federal case after he has been released seems unjust too. - NorthsideNoMore - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:40 pm: As naive as it sounds justice has to be blind regardless of the person or the crime and should be meted out accordingly. One of the issues judges and parole boards have to deal with is If that person is released would they pose a threat to community. JVD was in a position of authority when that situation happened, he will never be in that position again as a police officer. It does not change the outcome for McDonald or his family. That said I did think he would have served more time ? - 33rd ward - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 5:48 pm: It’s kind of amazing how much the judge on this case is shielded from any criticism. You never hear his Judge Vaughn’s name or his background or his reasoning. You never hear that the police let him go for shooting at them once. You just never hear anything about the actual person who issued the light sentence. - West Side the Best Side - Thursday, Feb 3, 22 @ 8:07 pm: Who is “Judge Vaughn”? - pros mis - Friday, Feb 4, 22 @ 8:45 am: “You never hear that the police let him go for shooting at them once. You just never hear anything about the actual person who issued the light sentence.” Judge Gaughan didn’t shoot at them once, he barricaded himself in his apartment and was shooting at people out the window. Famously, before the CPD could breach the door, he asked for a “catholic priest and an Irish Sergeant.” “Oh, Vincent what have you done now.” -Gaughan’s father as quoted by the Tribune. - Glenn - Friday, Feb 4, 22 @ 9:39 am: O. J. Simpson was found not guilty in a state trial and later found guilty in a federal trial. Memories are short in these United States of Amnesia[as Gore Vidal put it]. - Rich Miller - Friday, Feb 4, 22 @ 9:56 am: ===later found guilty in a federal trial=== He lost a civil suit. - anon2 - Friday, Feb 4, 22 @ 10:01 am: == Laquan McDonald wasn’t innocent. == Did his guilt require or justify the lethal force of 16 shots? - Cityrat - Friday, Feb 4, 22 @ 12:31 pm: Questions should also be raised about how/why this case got assigned to Judge Gaughn. No way no how that was random. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.