Illinois State Attorney is a pos that let crimial walk.

[brycejones]

All I know she often refuse to press charge to known criminal. Let's put this way, is there any logical reason why it is a known carjacking and the retired officer shoot one dead and they were let go.

You really need to have evidence to support your assertion. Also the very story you linked provided a reason why charges were not filed.

 

[pete6032]

but "I don't want to look bad" politics has put many hundreds of thousands into prison during that time without need.

Unfortunately now, "I don't want to look bad" politics in Cook County has turned into being very lenient in charging offenders with crimes. That was part of the Kim Foxx platform, reduce convictions.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicag...ger-picture-in-first-year-as-states-attorney/

 

[Darwin333]

By the way, America has a greater prison population that countries with several times our population.

Actually we have the highest prison population in the world by far both in raw numbers and per capita. We have roughly 25% of the worlds prison population while having a bit over 4% of the world's population. We really really love putting people in jail for very long periods in the US.

The DA in the OP is definitely an outlier and not the norm. The norm is they charge them with a dozen or more crimes so the person is looking at 60 years in jail and then offer them a plea deal for 5 or 10 years. I'm not just talking about these particular assholes BTW, they actually deserve it, but just about every poor bastard that is caught up in the criminal justice system for whatever reason. The last thing a DA wants to do is actually bring a case to trial so they overcharge the shit out of you, tell you that if you take it to trial they will go for the maximum of 60 years (or whatever) but if you take the plea bargain you will only get 5 years. There are a ton of innocent people who have taken plea bargains, granted not all of them resulted in jail time but still a criminal record, because of the insane amount of time they would face if they lost at trial.

Considering all of the above, I find it really hard to believe that the DA couldn't charge these guys.

 

[Darwin333]

We're #1!! We're #1!! We're #1!! America, fuck yeah!!

That's rarely a concern when deciding whether or not to prosecute. In most places they just shovel them in and out faster if there are overcrowding problems, go shorter sentences, but get the convictions to supposedly send a message and look tough on crime. If a prosecutor declines to follow up on a case it's probably for some other reasons. It's possible the case against the other two really is wobbly, no prosecutors go after anything but slam dunks. Wins make careers and losses ruin them. Nobody cares about who is actually guilty or not, the scoreboard is the only thing that counts. It's also possible that it's a marginal or bad shooting and that they want the whole thing to go away quickly before it all blows up and they're forced to go after the ex-cop. If I was a gambling man I'd put the ranch on option #2.

You are completely right about prosecutors and their motivations but they could have easily charged them and dropped the charges later without taking a hit to their scorecard. I also think that #2 might be plausible and is something that I hadn't considered.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

You are completely right about prosecutors and their motivations but they could have easily charged them and dropped the charges later without taking a hit to their scorecard. I also think that #2 might be plausible and is something that I hadn't considered.

It works the other way too. They're free to file charges later on if they want, not filing them immediately is meaningless. Could just be a test balloon to judge reaction and fallout. If the others were not chargeable like not being in the area at the time or conclusively not involved in any way they're just say so. So I'm sticking with option 2. It smells really fishy to not charge the other two guys in a case that involved a fatal shooting. If they were really involved it would be an easy win and if not involved it would be easy to exonerate them and take out the uncertainty. A simple "the dead guy acted alone, the other two were not accomplices" would satisfy everyone if it was true. The skeptic in me thinks there's something more and the shoot being questionable is the likeliest thing. This just looks like something that they want to get over with REALLY FAST. Clearing those two guys in a fatal shooting with almost no investigation isn't normal.

 

[Darwin333]

That's true. It's a shame we've been able to do something material about much of it, drug penalties, for decades, especially in the last dozen years with our current state of science, but "I don't want to look bad" politics has put many hundreds of thousands into prison during that time without need.

Ah well, that's how politics rolls.

The entire "tough on crime" movement is exactly what got us into this position. Our prison population exploded at the same time that crime was generally falling. Today it's still hard for the politicians to do more than small things, luckily some states are but not nearly fast enough. Being labeled "soft on crime" is too scary for a politician. Crime rates today are substantially lower than when we started exploding our prison population.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The entire "tough on crime" movement is exactly what got us into this position. Our prison population exploded at the same time that crime was generally falling. Today it's still hard for the politicians to do more than small things, luckily some states are but not nearly fast enough. Being labeled "soft on crime" is too scary for a politician. Crime rates today are substantially lower than when we started exploding our prison population.

Don't be soft on crime, just use the means provided by law to reduce the sentencing possibilities with MJ to start, which I've gone over more than once.

 

[The Merg]

Actually we have the highest prison population in the world by far both in raw numbers and per capita. We have roughly 25% of the worlds prison population while having a bit over 4% of the world's population. We really really love putting people in jail for very long periods in the US.

The DA in the OP is definitely an outlier and not the norm. The norm is they charge them with a dozen or more crimes so the person is looking at 60 years in jail and then offer them a plea deal for 5 or 10 years. I'm not just talking about these particular assholes BTW, they actually deserve it, but just about every poor bastard that is caught up in the criminal justice system for whatever reason. The last thing a DA wants to do is actually bring a case to trial so they overcharge the shit out of you, tell you that if you take it to trial they will go for the maximum of 60 years (or whatever) but if you take the plea bargain you will only get 5 years. There are a ton of innocent people who have taken plea bargains, granted not all of them resulted in jail time but still a criminal record, because of the insane amount of time they would face if they lost at trial.

Considering all of the above, I find it really hard to believe that the DA couldn't charge these guys.

Your assertion that DA's will overcharge just to get a plea is pretty out of line as much as you might think it is true. I have seen many cases where someone can be charged with dozens of charges and they are only charged with 2 or 3 or so. Most of the prosecutors don't want someone charged with tons of charges since if they need to bring the case in front of a jury they don't want the jury to be confused with multiple charges. I have even seen it where if someone is charged with 5 or 6 charges, they will actually drop charges and only pass through one or two to Grand Jury so as to make the case easier for them.

Now they might hold over them the fact that they can bring more charges in order to get them to plea to the charges they are facing, but they definitely don't normally hit people with a dozen or more charges from the beginning.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

Your assertion that DA's will overcharge just to get a plea is pretty out of line as much as you might think it is true. I have seen many cases where someone can be charged with dozens of charges and they are only charged with 2 or 3 or so. Most of the prosecutors don't want someone charged with tons of charges since if they need to bring the case in front of a jury they don't want the jury to be confused with multiple charges. I have even seen it where if someone is charged with 5 or 6 charges, they will actually drop charges and only pass through one or two to Grand Jury so as to make the case easier for them.

Now they might hold over them the fact that they can bring more charges in order to get them to plea to the charges they are facing, but they definitely don't normally hit people with a dozen or more charges from the beginning.

- Merg

I have seen quite the opposite. Like I said, there is a reason that 94% of cases never see a jury and are instead plea bargained and that also severely lessens, if not completely removes. I'd be very surprised if prosecutors fear of a case being confusing to a jury if brought to a trial even enters their minds save a very few select cases. Hell a good majority of people they prosecute they know for a fact won't have anything but a shitty public defender who has an hour at most to prepare for the case.

I have seen quite the opposite. Charging a person with a ton of crimes and then dropping all but a few, even reducing those few left to lesser charges.

 

[The Merg]

I don't deny that prosecutors will drop charges or reduce charges for a plea. I see that all the time. It would be impossible and too costly to take every case to trial.

As for confusing a jury, they are always worried about that. As soon as you enter in the possibility of multiple things needing to be decided, there is always the fear that the jury will get confused. Public defenders will always go for a jury as they know that all they need is one juror to get their client off.

As for the time public defender's have to prepare for a case... it is very little when it comes to misdemeanors as in many cases they don't even meet their client in person until the day of court. With regard to felonies, if it goes to a trial, they will normally have plenty of time to prepare.

- Merg

 

[Darwin333]

In Florida in 2009, the annual felony caseload per attorney was over 500 felonies and 2,225 misdemeanors. That was just the first link I clicked when I googled it, I could spend the time to post a shitload of facts from other states but I don't really think that is necessary. There are 260 workdays in a year so they are handling 2 felonies and 8.5 misdemeanors every single workday. That includes all of their time to prepare, talk to their clients, everything. Aside from the obvious shitty council it also hurts poor people another way, since a ton of poor people can't afford bail they are forced to sit in jail for much longer before even being able to plead guilty. A first time offender arrested for possession can sit in jail for months before pleading guilty and getting 6 months probation. To make it even worse if they are innocent and want to take it to trial they can sit in jail for up to two years, sometimes longer, awaiting trial.

And again, you are missing the point. 94 percent of cases are plea bargained. So when they initially charge someone, by the numbers alone, they have only a 6% chance of potentially confusing a jury and a 94% chance of having more ammunition to force a plea bargain. They also aren't dumb and they can foresee a large portion of that 6% that might take the case to trial. Not to mention that if they do overcharge someone and it's one of the rare cases that do take it to trial that they couldn't foresee they still have the ability to drop some of the charges and only bring the "meat" to trial.

If somehow every person criminally charged all decided to take their cases to trial a large majority of them, like 95%, would have their constitutional right to a speedy trial violated, hell a lot of them already have that right violated right now. The courts would have no choice but to dismiss the prosecution with prejudice for most of the criminal cases going through the system while they concentrate only on the worst of the worst. Even if just double the people decided to take their cases to trial it would probably have the same result.

 

[Xellos2099]

Here is another evidence on her soft on crime.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loc...it-Documents-on-Southeast-Side-481556151.html