The release of this report sure is a curious bit of timing:
- About a third of Chicago police officers brought up for termination in the last 10 years have actually been fired, according to a report by a watchdog group.
The civilian Chicago police board responsible for disciplining officers has backed the police superintendent's recommendations for terminating officers only 37 percent of the time, though the city's top cop has recommended firings in 97 percent of the cases, according to the report by the Chicago Justice Project, which advocates public access to justice-related information.
Rulings made by the nine-member police board are generally binding unless either the superintendent or the officer challenges it in court, the report states.
The report -- which analyzed more than 300 cases against sworn officers and civilian workers between 1999 and 2008 -- recommends that the board release a report explaining their rulings when they go against the superintendent's recommendations.
So just over one-third of the time, a recommendation of firing is upheld by the Police Board. This is news why? What is it compared to? Does anyone have the conviction rates for Anita Alvarez's office? Because 100% of the time that they go to trial, they think they have enough evidence to convict. That's why there's a trial. It gets all the facts out in the open and a jury (or judge) decides whether or not a conviction is warranted. Leaving out plea agreements, does anyone think the number approaches 50%? We don't.
The Superintendent probably believes with all his...we want to say "heart" here but we're pretty sure he doesn't have one...so whatever stands in for his heart, 97% of the cops in these cases deserve firing. But they still have a right to appeal to the Board. And if the Board decides that 63% of the cases brought before it are worthy of a lesser penalty, then that will be the finding. After all, the entire Board was appointed by Shortshanks, and Shortshanks would never compromise the integrity of the Police Board with political hacks. Would he?
But it says "Police Board" on the door, so anything coming out of there must be the fault of the police somehow is how we read it. More spin from the spin master.
The Superintendent probably believes with all his...we want to say "heart" here but we're pretty sure he doesn't have one...so whatever stands in for his heart, 97% of the cops in these cases deserve firing. But they still have a right to appeal to the Board. And if the Board decides that 63% of the cases brought before it are worthy of a lesser penalty, then that will be the finding. After all, the entire Board was appointed by Shortshanks, and Shortshanks would never compromise the integrity of the Police Board with political hacks. Would he?
But it says "Police Board" on the door, so anything coming out of there must be the fault of the police somehow is how we read it. More spin from the spin master.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire