Juvenile justice court alternative proves successful in Illinois

by Terri Dee
Illinois News Connection

---

CHICAGO - Anyone age 18 or younger accused of violating Illinois law, who has formal charges filed against them, has historically had their case tried in a courtroom but some judges are choosing another option in hopes of keeping young people out of the system.

Courts in Avondale, Englewood, North Lawndale and Sauk Village in Cook County use restorative justice for nonviolent felony or misdemeanor cases for people ages 18-26. They attend court-appointed conferences or "peace circles" with family, friends and community members to encourage accountability.

Elizabeth Clarke, founder and executive director of the Illinois Juvenile Justice Initiative, thinks the restorative justice model should be expanded.

"Cook County should be using it, not just in low-level cases, but in really serious felony cases," Clarke contended.

Victims and survivors of crimes may volunteer to participate in the conferences. This Friday, the Juvenile Justice Initiative will host two restorative justice practitioners with the Youth Justice Agency in Belfast, Northern Ireland, speaking at the Adler Institute on Public Safety and Social Justice in Chicago.

The Cook County Circuit Court website said a "Repair of Harm Agreement" lists what a young offender must complete, from performing community service and writing a reflection letter, to attaining a high school equivalency diploma and finishing a substance abuse program.

Joshua Brooks restorative justice hubs coordinator for the Institute on Public Safety and Social Justice at Adler University, said restorative justice is a practice; a way of life borrowed from Indigenous beliefs.

"It's really based on the principle that we belong to each other, and we need to do right by each other," Brooks explained. "There are just several different principles and values that include relationship building, confidentiality, repairing harm, community building, shared power. And the way that it's practiced is usually through circles."

Brooks argued strengthening relationships with community members and bringing them into a place where they can trust one another is also important. If the young person completes the items on their list, criminal charges are dismissed and the case is expunged.

Chicago Appleseed for Fair Courts data show between 2020 and 2023, 100 people completed a restorative justice program. By March 2023, 94% had their charges dropped or dismissed.

Commentary |Cash bail is unfair and violates the right to due process

Photo: Sasun Bughdaryan/Unsplash

---

Election years are a scary time for people of color in the U.S. They are marked by race-based voter suppression efforts, a rise in racist political rhetoric, and even a surge in racist hate crimes.

by Sonali Kolhatkar

---

---

Many Americans haven’t heard of cash bail. But the idea is central to an election year battle over racism, policing, and mass incarceration.

When arrested on suspicion of committing a crime, everyone in the United States has the right to due process and to defend themselves in court. But in a cash bail system, when judges set bail amounts, those who cannot pay the full amount remain jailed indefinitely — a clear violation of their due process rights — while the rich can pay their way out of jail.

A 2022 report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights examined the impact of cash bail and found that between 1970 and 2015, the number of people jailed before trial increased by a whopping 433 percent.

There are currently about half a million such people stuck in jails across the nation who haven’t been tried or convicted of any crimes. The report also found “stark disparities with regards to race,” with Black and brown men most often subject to higher bail amounts.

Thankfully, many states and cities are moving to reform this unfair practice.

In 2023, Illinois became the first state to entirely abolish cash bail. Other states, such as New Mexico, New Jersey, and Kentucky, have almost entirely ended cash bail requirements in recent years. In California, Los Angeles County has also similarly eliminated cash bail for all crimes except the most serious ones.

But in this election year, Republicans are rolling back these efforts — most recently in Georgia.

The state recently passed a bill expanding cash bail for 30 new crimes, some of which appear to be aimed at protesters, such as unlawful assembly. Further, it criminalizes charitable bail funds — and even individuals — that bail out people who can’t afford to bail out themselves.

Marlon Kautz, who runs the Atlanta Solidarity Fund, called cash bail “a loophole” in the criminal justice system, allowing courts to indefinitely jail people without charges if they cannot pay exorbitant bail amounts.

“Police, prosecutors, and politicians want a bail system that allows them to punish their political enemies, poor people, and people of color without trial,” said Kautz, whose fund has bailed out people protesting a massive new police training facility opponents call “Cop City.” Kautz was one of three people affiliated with the fund to be arrested on apparently politicized charges last year.

Reversing progress on bail reform is a new flashpoint in the GOP’s culture wars. “It could be a sign that Republicans intend to bash their Democratic opponents as soft on crime,” the Associated Press reported. Alongside Georgia, Republicans in Indiana, Missouri, and Wisconsin have introduced numerous bills expanding the use of cash bail.

Expanding the racist criminal justice system is a cynical GOP election-era ploy, one that has little to do with public safety.

“It is exceedingly rare for someone who’s released pretrial to be arrested and accused of a new offense that involves violence against another person,” said Sharlyn Grace, an official at the Cook County Public Defender’s office in Illinois. “Fears about public safety are in many ways greatly overblown and misplaced.”

“National studies contradict” the claim, the AP adds, that people are any less likely to show up for a court date if they’re released without bail.

Election years are a scary time for people of color in the U.S. They are marked by race-based voter suppression efforts, a rise in racist political rhetoric, and even a surge in racist hate crimes. The expansion of cash bail laws is yet another attack on Black and brown communities — one that must be exposed and confronted.

We shouldn’t let reform efforts fall victim to election year politics.

---

Sonali Kolhatkar is the host of “Rising Up With Sonali,” a television and radio show on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. This commentary was produced by the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute and adapted for syndication by OtherWords.org.

---

Commentary |Appeals court rules against Trump, deciding presidents are not immune from prosecution

by Claire Wofford
Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston

---

---

In a 57-page opinion issued on Feb. 6, 2024, a federal appeals court ruled against former President Donald Trump, deciding that presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for actions they took while in office.

The decision allows the federal prosecution of Trump for attempting to undermine the 2020 election to continue.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit – two appointed by Democratic presidents and one by a Republican – affirmed the Dec. 1, 2023, ruling of District Court Judge Tonya Chutkan, in which she said that a former president does not enjoy complete immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.

The Hill reported that Trump spokesman Steven Cheung responded to the appeals court ruling by saying, “President Trump respectfully disagrees with the DC Circuit’s decision and will appeal it in order to safeguard the Presidency and the Constitution.” The decision, Cheung said, “threatens the bedrock of our Republic.”

The appeals court panel rejected Trump’s argument that the structure of U.S. government and the demands of the presidency necessitated immunity, instead stating that his claims of “unbounded authority to commit crimes” would “collapse our system of separated powers.” In their words, “President Trump has become citizen Trump,” and therefore had only the defenses available to any criminal defendant, not a special immunity privilege unavailable to anyone else.

As a scholar of judicial behavior and American politics, I have been closely watching this case. The court’s decision, particularly if the Supreme Court allows it to stand, is likely to have ramifications across the U.S. legal and political systems for decades.

‘Divine right of kings’

Trump is the subject of multiple civil and criminal cases in both state and federal courts. He is currently appealing several of them, including one relating to his appearance on the Colorado ballot, which the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear.

In mid-December 2023, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the immunity dispute as well, but the court declined to do so, at least until the appeal was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

This particular case involves the prosecution of Trump by special counsel Jack Smith. On Aug. 1, 2023, Smith indicted Trump on four counts of violating federal law for his conduct relating to the 2020 election, including conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. The proceeding in the appeals court was not about whether Trump committed these crimes but whether he could be prosecuted for them at all.

Trump’s argument centered on a claim of presidential immunity – the notion that a president cannot be subjected to legal action for official conduct or actions taken as part of the job. While there is no explicit language in the U.S. Constitution about such immunity, the Supreme Court had previously ruled in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that presidents can be protected from civil lawsuits for their “official acts.”

The Nixon decision did not control the outcome here, however, because that case involved a civil lawsuit rather than a criminal prosecution. As highlighted during the oral argument in Trump’s appeal, that distinction – of whether it’s a civil or criminal case – makes a world of difference.

Protecting the president from the hassles of civil litigation is one thing; permitting the president, charged in Article 2 of the Constitution with faithful execution of the laws, to be able to break those same laws with impunity is quite another.

That sort of upside-down world is precisely what led District Court Judge Chutkan to issue her sweeping ruling on Dec. 1, 2023, that presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office. As she put it, Trump did not have the “divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability.” The court today agreed with that sentiment.

High stakes

The oral argument before the appeals court on Jan. 9, 2024, was similarly dramatic.

The three judges spent over an hour rigorously questioning both sides, and the language was often sweeping.

Trump’s lawyer spoke of a president’s need to take “bold and fearless” executive action, to not have to constantly “look over their shoulder” for fear of prosecution and of the “republic shattering” consequences of ruling against the former president. Judge Florence Y. Pan raised striking hypotheticals about presidents assassinating political opponents or selling national security secrets to foreign governments. The lawyer for the federal government noted the “frightening future” if presidents were free to violate the law while in office.

The court’s opinion addressed Trump’s argument that future presidents would be unable to take decisive action for fear of prosecution. The judges ruled that the risk of “chilling … Presidential action appears to be low” and was outweighed by the public’s interest in accountability.

The appeals court judges included a passage from a Supreme Court opinion in their decision:

“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.”

That principle, the appeals court panel wrote, “applies, of course, to a President.”

The court’s Feb. 6, 2024, decision will have a substantial impact, at least until any final ruling is issued by the Supreme Court.

Trump can be criminally prosecuted for the actions he took to overturn the 2020 election. Whether the case makes it to trial or results in a conviction, what happens to all the other pending cases involving Trump, and whether the former president is returned to the White House, are unanswered questions so far.

The Supreme Court will surely be asked to provide some of those answers.

---

Claire Wofford, Associate Professor of Political Science, College of Charleston This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.