Proposed reforms prove decisive
To what extent have those opposed to the criminal justice bill been misled?
State Rep. Debbie Meyers Martin said she has heard from many people about the state’s landmark criminal justice reform legislation.
“I’ve heard from both sides,” the Matteson Democrat said Tuesday. “Many people contacting my office support it. People are also against it.”
Last week, both chambers of the state legislature passed a criminal justice bill, a controversial and comprehensive piece of legislation. The bill awaits the signature of Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who has indicated he supports many of the proposed reforms.
Judging from displays of lawn signs that use the governor’s name in a derogatory manner, many southwest suburban residents will oppose anything supported by Pritzker or any other Democrat, for that matter.
The reform measure is part of an even broader Black Caucus platform that seeks to also address systemic inequality in economic opportunity, education and health care.
“We are trying to make a difference,” Meyers-Martin said. “This is a step in the right direction.”
State Sen. Elgie Sims said he is puzzled by vocal opposition to the criminal justice reform legislation he sponsored.
“The pushback we’re getting from law enforcement is a little confusing,” Sims said Monday on WGN Radio’s “The Karen Conti Show.”
In the week since the Illinois Senate voted 32-23 and the House voted 60-50 to approve the bill, misinformation about it has spread like wildfire across social media. Some of the rhetoric sounds downright apoplectic.
Some have criticized the process, saying the bill was too big and lawmakers had too little time to digest it before voting. That criticism is valid. However, both parties do this when they hold legislative majorities. Congressional Republicans were guilty of the same sin in 2017 when they rushed through huge tax cuts for wealthy corporations.
Illinois lawmakers held numerous public hearings on the proposed criminal justice reform measures during 2020 and collected input from law enforcement groups and others, MeyersMartin said. The legislature had to act to address systemic problems that courts, municipalities,
and others were unable to solve, she said.
“We have been waiting for law enforcement to address these issues internally and thus far these problems still arise,” she said.
Supporters have pushed back against criticism that the legislation was rushed.
“It is false to say we did not know what we were voting on,” state Sen. Michael Hastings, DFrankfort, said in a video message shared on social media. Hastings used the word “cesspool” to describe the outcry on social media to proposed reforms.
Many of the proposed reforms would be phased in over the next two to four years, giving law enforcement agencies ample time to plan for implementation.
Sims shared a graphic with bullet points about what the bill does and does not propose. The legislation would modernize sentencing laws, end cash bail, institute certification and decertification statewide for police officers, ban the use of chokeholds and require the use of body cameras, among other steps.
It does not seek to defund the police, modify or remove immunity protections to allow police to be sued, change or take away collective bargaining rights or allow suspected criminals charged with serious offenses to be immediately released from custody.
I asked Meyers-Martin whether some of the outcry on social media was based on outdated information. Initially, the bill proposed reforms to qualified immunity and collective bargaining but those proposed changes were removed from the legislation before lawmakers voted on the bill.
“When the bill passed in the Senate it did not have those elements,” MeyersMartin said. “People are angry or overly critical because they believe those elements still exist in the bill.”
Another big misunderstanding seems to concern a proposal to phase out the use of cash bail. Some seem to think this means that jails and courtrooms will be equipped with revolving doors to put suspected murderers, carjackers and other violent offenders back on the streets as quickly as possible.
In fact, judges will continue to have discretion and may refuse bail in some instances.
“The system we have currently, it will allow for a wealthy person who is guilty to go free but a poor person who is innocent to stay incarcerated,” Sims said. “We have an obligation to ensure everyone is treated fairly and equitably.”
Meyers-Martin said it is challenging to deal with some of the untruths that are spreading across the internet.
“We are doing our part, the Women’s Democratic Caucus and others in support of this legislation,” Meyers-Martin said. “We have been trying to correct the misrepresentations, misunderstanding and misinformation that is out there.”
The proposed reforms seek to add accountability and transparency to the criminal justice system, Sims told Conti.
Sims did not immediately respond Tuesday to an interview request.
One provision would require an officer to step in if a colleague used excessive force against a suspect.
“There is a duty to intervene,” Sims said. “Also, there is protection for whistleblowers. Often, officers don’t step in because they fear retribution.”
Police officers should always do the right thing, but sometimes they don’t. Sometimes, they cover for colleagues accused of wrongdoing.
“This problem is sometimes referred to as the thin blue line,” then-Mayor Rahm Emanuel told the Chicago City Council Dec. 9, 2015. “Other times it is referred to as the code of silence. It is the tendency to ignore. It is the tendency to deny. It is the tendency in some cases to cover-up the bad actions of a colleague or colleagues.”
For how long are taxpayers expected to continue collectively ignoring police misconduct by pretending this problem does not exist?
Police work can be difficult. The job can take a physical and mental toll. Some officers pay with their lives, like the officer killed by the insurgent mob that overran the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
You can support police and hold bad actors accountable. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
In addition to Hastings and Sims, south suburban state Sen. Napoleon Harris voted to approve the bill. State Sens. Bill Cunningham and John Curran voted against it. State Sen. Patrick Joyce did not vote.
In the House, in addition to Meyers-Martin, south suburban Reps. Will Davis, Marcus Evans, Mary Flowunions ers, Thaddeus Jones, Justin Slaughter, Nick Smith and Andre Thapedi voted yes. Reps. Kelly Burke, Fran Hurley and Tim Ozinga voted no. Rep. Anthony DeLuca did not vote.
One would think police officers, unions that represent them and others who profess to “back the blue” would support reforms that make it easier to hold bad actors accountable.
Those who violate their oaths and harm others give good police officers a bad name and cost taxpayers billions of dollars in legal fees, financial awards for lawsuits and settlements because of their misconduct.
“We’ve spent billions here in the state of Illinois,” Sims told Conti. “There are better uses of those resources for taxpayers.”
Where is the outrage about inadequate or ineffective training, lax supervision and a lack of accountability that results in huge liability costs for excessive force, civil rights violations, wrongful arrests, no-knock raids that send officers storming into the wrong homes and other costly misconduct?
For instance, there is never a situation in which a police officer should use a chokehold as a means of restraint, Sims told Conti.
“These have been used as a tactic when it’s not necessary,” he said.
Perhaps many civilians believe that by condemning the legislation on social media they are showing support for police officers. That position sounds noble. However, blind expressions of loyalty can cause more harm than good.
The criminal justice bill is a good piece of legislation that seeks to improve accountability and transparency in the criminal justice system.
If signed into law, those reforms could save Illinois taxpayers billions of dollars.