This is a very long story, but very good. Go read the whole thing. Essentially, Cook County implemented “reform” where they let more crooks out without bail. The judge in charge proceeded to cook the books to show that there were no negative consequences. After pressure from the Chicago Tribune, they found the underlying data to be flawed and there were, in fact, significant negative consequences. This is a good insight to the consequences of criminal justice reforms being considered in Wisconsin and elsewhere.
Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans for months has defended the bail reform he ordered by citing an analysis produced by the office he runs.
His report, released in May, noted that Chicago saw no increase in violent crime after judges began implementing those reforms by reducing or eliminating monetary bail for many pretrial defendants. Far more of these defendants were released from custody, yet only “a very small fraction” were charged afterward with a new violent offense, the report states.
But a Tribune investigation has found flaws in both the data underlying Evans’ report and the techniques he used to analyze it — issues that minimize the number of defendants charged with murder and other violent crimes after being released from custody under bail reform.
One central conclusion of Evans’ analysis was that only 147 felony defendants released from custody in the 15 months after bail reform went on to be charged with new violent crimes, or 0.6% of the total. He has called this a “rare” occurrence.
But Evans’ definition of violent crime, while acceptable to criminologists under some circumstances, was limited to six offenses and excluded numerous others, including domestic battery, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, battery, armed violence and reckless homicide.
Hundreds of these charges were filed against people released after bail reform took effect, according to data Evans provided after the Tribune filed a public records petition to the Illinois Supreme Court. If those charges were included in the analysis, the total would be at least four times higher, the Tribune found.
The report’s underlying data also was flawed in multiple ways that led to an undercount of murders and other violent crimes allegedly committed by people out on bail.
In one example, the Tribune identified 21 defendants who allegedly committed murder after being released from custody in the 15 months after bail reform. Evans’ report said there were three.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, Sheriff Tom Dart and other law enforcement officials have championed the intent of Chicago’s reforms. But they also have warned that there are consequences when judges release people with violent charges and backgrounds into neighborhoods already shaken by crime and gunfire.
“The low bails give those dangerous criminals a sense of impunity and make their victims less likely to cooperate with police,” Lightfoot said at a news conference as she stood beside police after the July 4 weekend, when 66 people were shot, five fatally.
A lying Lefty lawyer-in-black robes?
So ironic in light of the recent developments in the Stone case.
This must be the title of the liberal “How to handle crime handbook.”
Awful. Just awful.
Le Roi, if you pardon them, they’re innocent, right?
Ah, no, jjf. If they are pardoned at some point they were found guilty.
Not “ironic.” Consistent. Obozo-appointed black-robe judge clears jury foreman/ette who is a rabid Trump opponent in Stone case. Same judge did NOT allow Stone defense to perempt-exclude a second juror who was married to a Mueller-team prosecutor.
Like I said, consistent.
But you’re very smart–according to you–so I didn’t think you misunderstood the term “ironic.”
Looks like only you and trump feel that way about the forewoman. Stone had a chance to exclude her during selection and didn’t. Now make it the fault of the judge. I’d blame the defense table.
And you have the rest just wrong.
But facts don’t mean anything to you, anyway.
“Ah, no, jjf. If they are pardoned at some point they were found guilty.”
Wrong again, Le Roi. President Nixon was pardoned by President Ford and Nixon was never convicted of anything.
That was a preemptive pardon.
“After Ford left the White House in 1977, he privately justified his pardon of Nixon by carrying in his wallet a portion of the text of Burdick v. US, a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision that suggested that a pardon carries an imputation of guilt and that its acceptance carries a confession of guilt”.
Geezer, Le Roi, a pardon is a pardon. You are wrong. Get over it
> You are wrong. Get over it
He can’t, he’s a gaslighting narcissist .
If you think this is bad, look at New York, the state and city. Crime is way up, mostly due the criminals dont fear going to jail.
Welcome to liberalism hell.
There needs to be accountability for criminals. If there is no punishment, what incentive is there to stop committing crimes?
Wrong. This is a Federal court, and in that venue, the judge interviews the jurors, although a defense or prosecuting attorney may request a specific disqualification.
So Obozo’s pet “judge” screwed up her interview on the foreman. IN ADDITION, she denied defense’s request to dismiss a SECOND juror.
That’s OK, though; given what we know, it’s likely the verdict will be tossed out and the juror-foreman (who happens to be a lawyer) will incur the standard punishment for Democrat criminals: nothing at all PLUS $10’s of thousands of appearance fees.
>>Wrong. This is a Federal court, and in that venue, the judge interviews the jurors, although a defense or prosecuting attorney may request a specific disqualification.So Obozo’s pet “judge” screwed up her interview on the foreman. IN ADDITION, she denied defense’s request to dismiss a SECOND juror.<<
Attorneys can ask questions if the judge permits it, which was the case:
"Stone's counsel, Robert Buschel, also asked a few questions but was either entirely uninformed or utterly incompetent. Buschel only asked about Hart being a Democrat who ran for Congress. The examination by the defense amounted to less than two pages and roughly 250 words of exchange with Hart. It seems most likely that Buschel did not have a clue about Hart's actual political activism and commentary."
You can't accuse Judge Jackson but excuse Stone's attorney. It seems they were both deceived by Hart.
Do you have more details about the "second juror"? The defense would have been able to remove up to ten jurors without having to show cause. Are you saying Stone challenged ten, then tried to exclude two more for cause?
All I know is what I read in the paper about a ‘second juror’. And I have no problem agreeing that Stone’s attorney is a bozo, too. The profession attracts them.
>>And I have no problem agreeing that Stone’s attorney is a bozo, too. The profession attracts them.<<