Chicago Street Crime Today

[Boydstun]

 

Chicago Street Crime of Late

The Mayor

I don't know what will be effective against these continuing violent violations of individual rights, but I don't think any of the usual remedies proposed by Left or Right are going to be effective. I wonder if Chicago Police needs more help from the FBI.

[tadmjones]

Illinois is the first state in the nation to adopt no cash bail legislation in July of this year I believe.

Not being familiar with the extent of the bail system and how this legislation affects it's operation, on the face of it , it seems a mechanism that allows those accused of crimes (even violent crimes?) to be remanded on their own recognizance pending a future court date. Perhaps the nondescript attackers are due in court soon and will be stopped.  

Edited October 1, 2023 by tadmjones

[DavidOdden]

The question of whether Chicago “needs” more help from the federal government is more restrictive (a good thing) than the question of whether they “could use” such help. The automatic answer is, every governmental entity everywhere can “use” additional help. How would we determine that Chicago actually needs help? There is an underlying premise, that Chicago needs a local police department (not just “needs police”, they need specifically local police). I find that premise to be sketchy at best, but it is a fact that flows from the peculiar nature of the US system of governing (50 states plus the feds).

What is wrong with the rent-a-cop Tannahelp model of rights protection? Very simply, that my cops and your cops will get into a bloody shoot-out over your dog peeing on my car, because we have competing overlapping jurisdictions. So the US system is somewhat restrained, in that state cops only deal with state crimes and federal cops only deal with federal crimes (in theory). In order to invoke federal intervention (which BTW entails federal supremacy), there has to be a federal connection. Thanks to the commerce clause, all Congress has to do is write legislation that includes the expression “affecting interstate of foreign commerce”, and constitutional objections to federal overreach are swept away.

There are currently limits on federal intervention, one being that the military cannot be sent to enforce laws. There are baked-in limits on the FBI as well in 28 USC Ch. 33, but the only applicable provision for what is said to be the case in Chicato is 28 USC 540A which relates to violent crimes where the victims were selected because they are not residents of that state. There is no evidence of such intentional targetting. Therefore under extant federal law, regardless of whether Chicago needs help from the FBI, it would be a violation of the law to give it (except, the courts have not deemed that sharing of information is prohibited). Which brings us to the pertinent question of the virtue and vices of our federal model of government.

[tadmjones]

Police are just one component of a ‘justice system’, ideally police are the reaction to initiations of force. But practically police are used to target and control the ‘breakers’ of law , regardless of whether or not the ‘laws’ are objective principles to substantiate the noninitiation of force, or positively to punish or retard instances of ‘unlawful’ acts.

22 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

The question of whether Chicago “needs” more help from the federal government is more restrictive (a good thing) than the question of whether they “could use” such help. The automatic answer is, every governmental entity everywhere can “use” additional help. How would we determine that Chicago actually needs help? There is an underlying premise, that Chicago needs a local police department (not just “needs police”, they need specifically local police). I find that premise to be sketchy at best, but it is a fact that flows from the peculiar nature of the US system of governing (50 states plus the feds).

What is wrong with the rent-a-cop Tannahelp model of rights protection? Very simply, that my cops and your cops will get into a bloody shoot-out over your dog peeing on my car, because we have competing overlapping jurisdictions. So the US system is somewhat restrained, in that state cops only deal with state crimes and federal cops only deal with federal crimes (in theory). In order to invoke federal intervention (which BTW entails federal supremacy), there has to be a federal connection. Thanks to the commerce clause, all Congress has to do is write legislation that includes the expression “affecting interstate of foreign commerce”, and constitutional objections to federal overreach are swept away.

There are currently limits on federal intervention, one being that the military cannot be sent to enforce laws. There are baked-in limits on the FBI as well in 28 USC Ch. 33, but the only applicable provision for what is said to be the case in Chicato is 28 USC 540A which relates to violent crimes where the victims were selected because they are not residents of that state. There is no evidence of such intentional targetting. Therefore under extant federal law, regardless of whether Chicago needs help from the FBI, it would be a violation of the law to give it (except, the courts have not deemed that sharing of information is prohibited). Which brings us to the pertinent question of the virtue and vices of our federal model of government.

In as much as jurisdiction is an objectively important principle and that a court or legal ‘system’ is the progenitor and bound setter, the prevalence of crime or violence in a specific locality indicates that the system of justice is either structurally weak or if sufficiently sound in principle is failing to operate.

The need for ‘more’ police means as a component the amount is insufficient, either the population becomes more violent or the number of officers decreases relative to a static level.

[DavidOdden]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

The need for ‘more’ police means as a component the amount is insufficient, either the population becomes more violent or the number of officers decreases relative to a static level.

The two main questions that I have are (1) whether there is a significant increase in violent crime in parts of Chicago and, if so (2) what is the immediate cause? There are numerous imaginable answers such as citizen non-cooperation; de-policing at the level of individual officers, precincts or even the entire city; insufficient personnel or inappropriately-distributed personnel. Increasing personnel is not the solution is the cause is citizen antagonism or de-policing, and “education programs” are inutile if the problem is under-staffing. Which is why I’d want to know more about the nature of the problem.

[tadmjones]

2 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

The two main questions that I have are (1) whether there is a significant increase in violent crime in parts of Chicago and, if so (2) what is the immediate cause? There are numerous imaginable answers such as citizen non-cooperation; de-policing at the level of individual officers, precincts or even the entire city; insufficient personnel or inappropriately-distributed personnel. Increasing personnel is not the solution is the cause is citizen antagonism or de-policing, and “education programs” are inutile if the problem is under-staffing. Which is why I’d want to know more about the nature of the problem.

I think we can speculate on some of what may be sufficient and immediate causes if there is in fact as rise in crime level. Procedural changes that result in the nondetention of criminals, eg lowering bail requirements/conditions , the "Ferguson effect" playing out where the citizenry themselves promote criminal acts in a defiant manner agaisnt the 'system' , unbalanced responsibilities placed on officers through indemnification and the like. 

It does not seem that Chicago is an isolated city in regards to a seeming crime level rise, it seems as if internal changes to the "justice systems" of several states is having a noticeable effect.

Edited October 3, 2023 by tadmjones