Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Madigan roundup
Next Post: State levels first-ever fines for late filing on Blue Cross Blue Shield’s parent company
Posted in:
* A Republican operative joked last week that they should probably be required to report Foxx as an in-kind contribution. From the Richard Irvin campaign…
In yet another example of his pro-criminal, anti- police positioning, J.B. Pritzker last year signed a law allowing far-left State’s Attorney Kim Foxx to petition for sentence reductions for violent criminals. Naturally, despite skyrocketing crime in Chicago and Cook County, Foxx announced that this week she will begin petitioning the courts to release violent criminals from prison early.
Thanks to Pritzker’s enabling, Foxx’s resentencing initiative will potentially grant early release to criminals serving long sentences for violent crimes. Foxx will present three resentencing motions as early as this week with more planned for later this month. In total, Foxx’s office anticipates the early release of as many as 25 people by the end of the year. This is the latest affront to crime victims, in addition to her support for ending cash bail and her call to allow Jussie Smollet to escape paying for his crimes.
“Whether via pardon or commutation, signing his anti-police crime bill or enabling Kim Foxx to push for lighter sentencing for criminals, J.B. Pritzker always sides with criminals over police and community safety,” said Irvin for Illinois Spokesperson Eleni Demertzis.
* From the linked story…
Three men are slated for possible resentencing next week, the first to potentially benefit from a new state law allowing prosecutors to petition for shorter sentences ”if the original sentence no longer advances the interests of justice.” […]
The office is first reviewing cases of people who have served at least 10 years for a drug, theft, robbery or burglary conviction; people 65 or older who have served at least 20 years for a case not related to a sex crime or homicide; and people who have served at least 15 years for a case other than a sex crime or homicide and who were younger than 21 when they committed the offense. […]
Victims in each case will be notified “at different steps of the resentencing process,” and will have a chance to submit statements to the judge to consider at sentencing, the office stated.
Foxx did not offer an estimate of how many cases may be eligible for resentencing under those criteria. But prosecutors are scheduled to present their first three resentencing requests in court [this] week, according to Foxx’s office.
* Sun-Times…
Larry Frazier, 63, is one of the men hoping to shave significant time off his sentence when his case goes back before a judge Wednesday.
Frazier was 40 when he was given 60 years in prison for a home invasion that took place in Calumet Park when he was 36, according to court records.
At the time he was sentenced in 1999, Frazier was given an extended sentence because the victim was 62 — only a year younger than Frazier is now, documents show. Details of the case were not immediately available, but other charges Frazier faced included weapons offenses and unlawful restraint.
By that time, Frazier had already amassed a significant criminal record of charges, including theft and armed robbery, going back to the early 1980s, state records show.
In their motion, prosecutors noted the victim wasn’t hurt physically in the home invasion and argued that since being locked up, Frazier “has taken substantial steps toward rehabilitation,” though no details were provided. […]
Ed Wojcicki, executive director of the Illinois Chiefs of Police Association, said he finds the idea of resentencing inmates for the crimes they were convicted of fundamentally unfair.
“The rules are what they were when they were sentenced,” he said when reached by phone Friday. Wojcicki said he worries about the impact the resentencing hearings will have on crime victims.
* WBEZ…
The small number of cases means the initial impact could be small, but the effort carries significant political risks for Foxx because it turns the conventional understanding of America’s adversarial court system on its head, putting prosecutors and defense attorneys on the same side, pushing for leniency and forgiveness.
Foxx said they are embarking with caution, seeking to prove to the people of Cook County that the early releases will not endanger public safety before expanding the effort. Ultimately, it will be up to judges whether they will grant the motions and what kinds of sentences will be handed out.
Still, the county’s controversial top prosecutor is taking up the initiative at a time when her office is already under fire because of a perception that Foxx is going easy on criminals during a surge in violence.
“I think we have to show people that it works … There are segments of our population who believe, ‘you’ve done the crime you do the time, even if you wouldn’t get that same time today,’ ” Foxx said. “So I think the initial foray into this is to show people what it looks like, to de-stigmatize what the process looks like, to demonstrate that this is actually good public policy and it’s actually good for us as a community.” […]
“I’m always expecting backlash because it’s different than what we’ve normally done,” Foxx said. “Here in Cook County, we have been very much entrenched in a culture with our justice system that had been very punitive, that … the way to fight crime was to just lock everybody up.”
Thoughts?
*** UPDATE *** Greg Hinz followed up…
Foxx is firing back: “As a former and longtime defense attorney, Mayor Irvin knows all too well, of the evolution in sentencing laws, which he has used to advocate for the criminal defendants whom he represented,” her office said in a statement. “The resentencing initiative recognizes that the sentences previously imposed would be less if imposed today. The purpose of the law is to address that discrepancy.”
The Pritzker folks took aim at both Foxx and Irvin.
“The governor had hoped prosecutors would’ve first prioritized those who committed non-violent offenses,” they said in a statement. “This decision sends the wrong message at this moment in time.”
Still, they added, “As we continue to put forth good-faith solutions to both reduce crime and reform our criminal justice system, we will not be lectured by Republicans who see crime as yet another issue to exploit for cheap political shots. Richard Irvin can’t seem to decide what side of his mouth he wants to talk out of today and while he continues to ignore his long career profiting off of keeping violent criminals out of jail and free from accountability.”
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:30 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Madigan roundup
Next Post: State levels first-ever fines for late filing on Blue Cross Blue Shield’s parent company
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
IL GOP is getting ready to go full Willie Horton at the drop of a hat.
Comment by Dankakee Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:35 am
Has anyone asked Irvin the recidivism rate of his own clients? Have any of the people he’s personally profited off keeping out of prison committed further crimes? I wouldn’t care if he wasn’t running this tough on crime campaign.
Comment by Dankakee Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:37 am
- Dankakee -
Explain “Willie Horton”, not the buzz word, explain the context to compare.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:39 am
are the victims available to comment? at the very least the original letters which accompanied the convicted to prison should be available to understand original context. Foxx giving more fodder for Republicans.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:41 am
This is such a terrible idea. What is Kim Foxx thinking?
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:44 am
I’ll let history do that, literally. But for the uninitiated, Bush played on White fears of Black crime to tank Dukakis in one of the worst cases of dog-whistling in modern political history.
https://www.history.com/news/george-bush-willie-horton-racist-ad
Comment by Dankakee Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:46 am
Seems to pretty clearly violate the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. Clemency is exclusively the power of the Governor.
Comment by Miso Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:48 am
=== I’ll let history do that===
So at this point, explain..,
===In total, Foxx’s office anticipates the early release of as many as 25 people by the end of the year.===
Isn’t that after the election?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:54 am
Well if one of these convicted criminals get out early and commits a murder, those responsible for this terrible concept being enacted and implemented should be Willie Hortoned right on out of office. They are putting a lot of trust in the concept of rehabilitation and putting the rest of us at higher risk of violence.
Comment by Captain Obvious Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:55 am
Odd shift considering Foxx just last year said her office wasn’t offering opinions on parole anymore.
Comment by City Zen Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 8:55 am
Commit the crime
Do the time
Period
Comment by MOON Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:00 am
I’m not against it but the law/discretion needs to be narrowed. Out of the three cases cited I have some sympathy for the homeless guy and understand that one (would like some background on the other conviction however). The other two I flat out do not understand. The justification of it wasn’t violent or no one was physically hurt when someone enters your home, ties you up, and points at weapon at you seems an odd choice for the CCSA first crack at this.
Comment by 1st Ward Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:06 am
=== I’ll let history do that===
Are you positing that the Willie Horton ads were NOT racist, at the posting a link from History.com to explain what happened was NOT context? I feel like there’s an argument you want to make, but aren’t for some reason.
Comment by Dankakee Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:11 am
Because a judge ultimately decides, and there is a public hearing, I have no real problem with this. I would like to see the rules they are starting with (over 60 and have served at least 20 years for a non-homicide/non-sex crime or have served at least 10 for theft, robbery or drugs (so non-violent) be laid out in a minimum rule i.e. we will reduce no sentences unless x years have been served for each class/age of offender.
But having this all be public via hearing is very fair. It gives time for the people victimized by the crime to organize and make an impact if they do not agree with the sentence reduction.
On the other hand, there is a case in my hometown of a person that killed 5 children and every 5 years he comes up for parole and the surviving family members have to organize and get signatures etc. to prove impact so he stays in prison. It seems unreasonable that anyone would come up for parole after killing multiple people. So a bright line has to be drawn that this sentence reduction will never apply to homicide or sexual crimes.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:11 am
People are petty and vindictive, so yeah I think Foxx being a decent human being is probably bad for Democrats and good for Republicans electorally.
Comment by Perrid Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:13 am
Willie Horton was a convict who was let out on furlough and committed another crime. The idea being that once someone is convicted and in the system they can never, ever be trusted.
I doubt that is always true. But enough people believe that.
“Here in Cook County, we have been very much entrenched in a culture with our justice system that had been very punitive, that … the way to fight crime was to just lock everybody up.”
I think that’s an interesting statement. What informs this sentence? Is there another way to fight crime? What research has been done? Recidivism is a problem so what lowers it?
Comment by Da big bad wolf Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:14 am
Our civil society seems to be stuck on the idea of having a function and operating justice system that actually makes a good faith effort to reform criminals and having a place that just disappears people in order to satisfy public outrage.
Where’s the 25 to life sentences for white collar crimes? A public official that embezzles more than $100,000 ought to be in prison for 25 years to life due to their betrayal of the public trust and the fact that those public monies represent literal hours worked by members of the public being stolen by a public official.
I think there’s a reason we don’t talk about that which is pretty obvious, but I also think the big factor in how awful our judicial system is towards people is that the flexibility afforded to prosecutors and judges allows them to punish whatever class of people they desire more harshly while laying on soft treatments for criminals that come from a higher social class.
These men would not have received these sentences is they were rich white guys breaking the same laws and committing the same offenses.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:15 am
=== Seems to pretty clearly violate the separation of powers clause of the Illinois Constitution. Clemency is exclusively the power of the Governor.===
Petitioning the court and granting clemency are two different things.
“or enabling Kim Foxx to push for lighter sentencing for criminals, J.B. Pritzker always sides with criminals over police and community safety.”
Pritzker has nothing with this.
Comment by Da big bad wolf Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:18 am
Journalists do everything a disservice when they publish articles about sentencing and never mention that basically every study about sentencing shows sentencing enhancements do nothing as deterrence, and generally do not affect the crime rates significantly.
Comment by Homebody Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:20 am
=== Frazier was 40 when he was given 60 years in prison for a home invasion that took place in Calumet Park when he was 36, according to court records. ===
Home invasion is one of the most serious crimes in the criminal code. I don’t think this should be one of the types of crimes that should be at play here. Here is the statute:
(720 ILCS 5/19-6) (was 720 ILCS 5/12-11)
Sec. 19-6. Home Invasion.
(a) A person who is not a peace officer acting in the line of duty commits home invasion when without authority he or she knowingly enters the dwelling place of another when he or she knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present or he or she knowingly enters the dwelling place of another and remains in the dwelling place until he or she knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present or who falsely represents himself or herself, including but not limited to, falsely representing himself or herself to be a representative of any unit of government or a construction, telecommunications, or utility company, for the purpose of gaining entry to the dwelling place of another when he or she knows or has reason to know that one or more persons are present and
(1) While armed with a dangerous weapon, other than a
firearm, uses force or threatens the imminent use of force upon any person or persons within the dwelling place whether or not injury occurs, or
(2) Intentionally causes any injury, except as
provided in subsection (a)(5), to any person or persons within the dwelling place, or
(3) While armed with a firearm uses force or
threatens the imminent use of force upon any person or persons within the dwelling place whether or not injury occurs, or
(4) Uses force or threatens the imminent use of force
upon any person or persons within the dwelling place whether or not injury occurs and during the commission of the offense personally discharges a firearm, or
(5) Personally discharges a firearm that proximately
causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, permanent disfigurement, or death to another person within the dwelling place, or
(6) Commits, against any person or persons within
that dwelling place, a violation of Section 11-1.20, 11-1.30, 11-1.40, 11-1.50, or 11-1.60 of this Code.
(b) It is an affirmative defense to a charge of home invasion that the accused who knowingly enters the dwelling place of another and remains in the dwelling place until he or she knows or has reason to know that one or more persons is present either immediately leaves the premises or surrenders to the person or persons lawfully present therein without either attempting to cause or causing serious bodily injury to any person present therein.
(c) Sentence. Home invasion in violation of subsection (a)(1), (a)(2) or (a)(6) is a Class X felony. A violation of subsection (a)(3) is a Class X felony for which 15 years shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court. A violation of subsection (a)(4) is a Class X felony for which 20 years shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court. A violation of subsection (a)(5) is a Class X felony for which 25 years or up to a term of natural life shall be added to the term of imprisonment imposed by the court.
(d) For purposes of this Section, “dwelling place of another” includes a dwelling place where the defendant maintains a tenancy interest but from which the defendant has been barred by a divorce decree, judgment of dissolution of marriage, order of protection, or other court order.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:21 am
The political timing is bad, but more why not go back to the old parole system if we are going to do it in all but name anyway?
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:26 am
From an appellate decision that summarized what happened in the Frazier case:
I. Factual and Procedural Background
A. The Home Invasion
We accept the facts determined in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). At trial, Mary Holman testified that she lived alone in a street-level apartment in Calumet City, Illinois. On an early morning in September 1995, she had left the door to her home open as she carted in items from her car.
Frazier had been released recently from prison after serving a sentence for robbery. Seeing Holman’s open door that morning, he entered her ground-floor apartment with a coat over his hand. He told her, “I’m gonna shoot you, give me your money,” and ordered her to lie down. Holman replied, “I can’t, Mister, I got arthritis.” She also had no money to give him. Holman tried to stall Frazier by saying she had money stashed around the apartment. She warned Frazier that her husband—a husband she did not have—would be right back.
As Holman started rummaging through drawers, Frazier—also rummaging through drawers—found a .38 caliber revolver in a nightstand. He threatened Holman again: if she did not give him some money, he would shoot her. Finding a cookie tin full of pennies, Holman handed it over. Frazier took a look and dumped the contents of the tin on the floor. He again threatened to kill her if she did not come up with some real money.
Not knowing what else to do, Holman grabbed the gun with both hands and struggled with Frazier. The gun fired, but Holman was not injured. Still, she failed to wrest the gun from Frazier, who now held it to her head. With no other option, she pled for her life, claiming to know where her fictional husband kept the real money. Frazier gave Holman one last chance to search through a table for money, and he demanded her car keys. She tossed them his way, but he did not pick them up.
Holman then saw that Frazier was bleeding. Seeing her chance to escape, she ran from the apartment. Luckily, she found two policemen in a nearby alley and “just ran up to [th]em and fell in their arms.” The police found Frazier in Holman’s apartment. He was slumped over with a jacket pressed against his chest.
Sound like someone we should consider for “re-sentencing?” I don’t think so.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:28 am
1) Thank you Homebody. Once again worth repeating that there is no provable connection from length of sentence to deterrence. Reporters just blindly repeat claims to the contrary without attempting to verify them.
2) A lot of people say they are for decreasing mass incarceration. But, we cannot do that simply by looking at crimes for possessing marijuana people. Acutally doing so requires us to look at cases like Mr. Frazier’s….
3) Say what you will about Foxx, but she basically ran on this agenda twice and won twice. None of this should come as a surprise to voters. Recall that she won reelection AFTER the Smollett scandal…
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:32 am
Homebody,
I would agree with that, when a sentence enhancement is mentioned as reducing crime, then the reporter should bring up those stats.
Sentences, however, serve a few purposes. One is deterrence. Another is to state society’s repugnance for the act that the sentence is for. So if the people find the act of hitting senior citizens over the head and stealing their money then having an enhancer against senior bashing is reasonable as a way for society to say this is a repugnant act. Finally, sentences are about society extracting vengange instead of the relatives. Part of the social contract is that the family of victims and the victims themselves will not extract vengeance themselves but the state will do it for them, using the concepts of human rights and the ethics of the community to temper that vengeance.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:33 am
Oh and lastly nobody bats an eye at prosecutorial and judicial discretion in sentencing when it leads to longer sentences. So arguments that this is an abuse of power are pretty flimsy.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:33 am
==A Republican operative joked last week that they should probably be required to report Foxx as an in-kind contribution.==
A common joke among staffers, but I think you really only get a limited amount of mileage out of running against someone who is not your opponent or the incumbent President in a midterm.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:34 am
City Zen makes a very good point. guess she wants to run her own parole board.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:35 am
Add this to the growing list of issues Democrats must deal with. Policywise it might make all the sense in the world but politically its awful.
Inflation+Madigan+crime+war= a very difficult year for IL Dems, esp if GOP is smart and nominates Irwin.
Comment by low level Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:47 am
@cermak_rd: == Finally, sentences are about society extracting vengange instead of the relatives. ==
While I respect the pain that victims of crimes and their families go through, I fundamentally disagree that it should be a major motivating factor in how we structure a functioning criminal justice system. Vengeance isn’t justice. Period.
Pretending otherwise just means throwing away more people’s lives and public dollars, while allowing us to collective continue to ignore the human rights abuses that are constantly occurring in jails and prisons throughout our country, because we’ve convinced ourselves that someone deserves it.
Comment by Homebody Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 9:54 am
I think the separation of power argument is interesting here.
I also think a huge issue with this is very few trust Kim Foxx to properly administer this policy rightly or wrongly.
Comment by Peoples Republic of Oak Park Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:06 am
@Homebody
That’s a pretty thoughtful comment on the various purposes of sentencing. I guess I’d just say that I think all of that can be accomplished by a 10 year sentence rather than 20, a 20 year sentence rather than 40, etc etc.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:11 am
=== These men would not have received these sentences is they were rich white guys breaking the same laws and committing the same offenses. ===
Can you point me to the example of a rich, white guy breaking into a poor person’s apartment and trying to steal their money at gunpoint?
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:11 am
I meant @cermak. Oops!
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:12 am
@People’s Republic
Anything to back up the claim that people don’t trust Foxx? Last I saw she won reelection fair and square…
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:12 am
=People are petty and vindictive, so yeah I think Foxx being a decent human being is probably bad for Democrats and good for Republicans electorally.=
@Homebody- with respect- I would like to understand what it is you are looking for? Particularly when it comes to violent crime like armed robberies, home invasion, attempted murder and murder.
Foxx has not proven that she is simply trying to be a decent human being. Her position on Smollet is problematic.
I am not opposed to revisiting sentencing decisions, especially for those sentenced in the 90″s and early 2000’s. A time period notorious for overly harsh sentences during the “zero tolerance” period.
=Where’s the 25 to life sentences for white collar crimes? =
Not Illinois, and probably proving your point, but Bernie Madoff was given a 150 year sentence. Very rare and one of the few from a slew of life altering (for the thousands of victims)financial crimes that led to the 2008 financial crisis. They do happen, but the wealthy often possess the means for significant defense efforts that the rest of us cannot summon.
Comment by JS Mill Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:13 am
=== Anything to back up the claim that people don’t trust Foxx? Last I saw she won reelection fair and square… ===
That doesn’t mean that those that voted against her now trust her and think she is doing a good job. Also, she actually lost suburban Cook County so its not like the has a countywide mandate on all of her policy initiatives.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:23 am
@Hannibal Lecter
I’m just saying I have something to back up the claim that Foxx is somewhat popular among her electorate.
I’m not sure what y’all have to back up the notion that “few trust her.”
I thought elections matter? She ran on these policies.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:34 am
I didn’t say that few trust her, but there is a significant number of Cook County residents that do not trust Kim Foxx.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 10:49 am
No problems with this initiative (the state should however make sure they are reviewing the prisoner’s record while in prison). I do however have an issue with the demoralization happening in the CCSAO and we have yet to hear Kim Foxx announce any initiatives around improving employee morale.
Comment by Chicagonk Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 11:04 am
@ Hannibal Lecter
Again that’s no reason not to enact your platform. Elections have consequences.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 11:30 am
“I’m not sure what y’all have to back up the notion that “few trust her.”
You clearly haven’t seen recent polling. Hopefully someone will release private polling or a media org will do some public polling.
Comment by New Day Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 1:10 pm
It really surprises me that any states attorneys office has time or staff to revisit old cases in this fashion. These offices are flying by the seats of their pants. It’s no way to run a railroad.
One of the best things we could do to increase fairness and justice is not instinctive- we should increase the number of assistant states attorneys in all counties. Prosecutors need more time to consider these cases and prepare the cases they choose to prosecute.
Comment by Moderated Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 1:44 pm
Homebody,
I do think those human rights should be respected in our prison systems. I find it appaling that prisoners don’t get adequate health care (including dental), don’t get good psychiatric care (not just group), do die of heat stroke due to badly cooled cells, do suffer rape at the hands of other prisoners etc. These are all gross human rights violations. And there have been nations that have refused to extradite criminals here due to our non-human rights respecting prisons.
But right of private vengeance is what in the social contract individuals give up and they give that up and in exchange the state does it for them. Which is why I added tempered with human rights and the ethics of the community.
Comment by cermak_rd Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 1:48 pm
=== Again that’s no reason not to enact your platform. Elections have consequences. ===
No disputing that. Just know that if your platform involves letting violent criminals out of jail early, you better be able to accept the criticism when people push back. But you are correct - the winner of the election gets to implement their policies. The voters will have another opportunity in 2024 to reevaluate whether they think the office holder has done a good job in office.
Comment by Hannibal Lecter Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 2:03 pm
Really stunning but not out of character for JB Pritzker, who is also a lawyer, to criticize someone for being a criminal defense attorney.
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was also a criminal defense lawyer. Is she disqualified as well?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 2:38 pm
=== Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was also a criminal defense lawyer. Is she disqualified as well?===
Has she declined her nomination and decided to run for Illinois governor?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 2:53 pm
The public should have some right to intervene in these cases to ensure that the judge is hearing from all sides.
Comment by de Gaulle Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 3:05 pm
Maybe you can unwind your pretzel logic and explain why JB Pritzker thinks criminal defense work is disqualifying for Illinois Governor and not US Supreme Court Justice.
Why has he not condemned Judge Jackson for long her long career profiting off of keeping violent criminals out of jail and free from accountability?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 3:06 pm
=== not US Supreme Court Justice===
I’m not going to presume the “why” to your silliness, the idea of only worrying about who he may face in a campaign I think is germane however.
I say for myself, any jurist with defense attorney experience could be an asset to make justice blind.
Isn’t the want of a justice is one who can be on the bench and be impartial?
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 3:14 pm
It is the silliness and hypocrisy of our Governor OW but of course you can’t bring yourself to admit it.
On the other hand it is the first time I have heard him criticize trial lawyers who are an important part of his base- another no no
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 3:21 pm
Through his distancing of Kim Foxx JB is certainly reading the room.
I can’t recall him criticizing her before like the Mayor Lightfoot, Police Chief Brown or countless other politicians have done recently.
What is telling is that JB and the Democrats, whose soft on crime policies have contributed to skyrocketing crime, really believe holding them accountable for their failures is a “cheap political shot”?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 3:43 pm
=== It is the silliness and hypocrisy of our Governor===
How exactly is a jurist up for the highest court remotely the same.
Even in your silly simple mind do both even relate.
It’s like saying Thurgood Marshall was a terrible choice for the Supreme Court because being a defense attorney he must not have any idea about crime… and even though Marshall had no intention of being a governor, let’s put Marshall as a bad benchmark.
You need reprogramming.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 3:48 pm
I am disappointed she has not selected any cannabis offenders. Very few meet her criteria. The law does not require a minimum amount of incarceration for early release, except for Class X offenders.
Comment by muscular Monday, Mar 21, 22 @ 4:18 pm