Illinois crime and punishment

The New Neo Posted on by

The murder of 11-year-old Jayden Perkins has made me wonder about the punishment for murder in the state of Illinois, where the crime occurred.

In Illinois, capital punishment was outlawed in 2011 under these circumstances:

Democratic Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation on March 9, 2011, to abolish the death penalty in Illinois to go into effect July 1, 2011, and commuted the death sentences of the fifteen inmates on Illinois’ death row to life imprisonment. Quinn was criticized for signing the bill after saying that he supported the death penalty during the 2010 gubernatorial campaign, after which he defeated the Republican candidate with 46.8% of the vote.

In 2018, then Republican Governor Bruce Rauner called for the reintroduction of the death penalty for those convicted of killing police officers. This was opposed by state lawmakers and Rauner was subsequently defeated by Democrat J. B. Pritzker.

So the political angle is that a Democrat ran for governor as a death-penalty supporter in 2010, won the election, and then went on in very short order to sign legislation banning it. In the 2018 campaign a Republican governor ran for re-election advocating the reinstatement of the death penalty in the case of the killing of police, but he was defeated and Pritzker – one of the most “progressive” governors in the US – took the post and is the present-day governor.

Which brings us to this news from about a year ago:

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed a new law on Friday that extends parole eligibility for people convicted of offenses when they were under 21, making Illinois the 26th state to abolish life-without-parole sentences for children.

Illinois provided parole review for most young people in 2019, but that Youthful Parole Law did not apply to people sentenced to natural life imprisonment, people convicted of first degree murder of a law enforcement officer, or people convicted of predatory criminal sexual assault.

The new law, Public Act 102-1128, eliminates the first two exceptions and, because people under 18 cannot be sentenced to natural life for predatory criminal sexual assault, it finally abolishes all life-without-parole sentences for children under 18.

It also means that most people sentenced after June 1, 2019, for offenses when they were under 21 will now become eligible for parole after 10 years for most offenses, 20 years for first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault, and 40 years for natural life sentences.

Rep. Rita Mayfield (D-Waukegan) co-sponsored the bill in the House. “Even when a crime is particularly severe, it should be recognized that a legal minor with their whole life still ahead has the potential to be reformed,” she said.

That’s actually true. It’s also true that people of any age have the potential to be reformed. But in addition, it’s true that it can be difficult to ascertain who is really reformed and who is not, and reform is neither inevitable nor common.

There is also the question of deterrence; if the penalties are weakened (such as, for example, “20 years for first degree murder and aggravated sexual assault”), the deterrent effect is weakened.

Demonstrations for Jayden Perkins? Compare and contrast to George Floyd

The New Neo Posted on by

Jayden Perkins was the 11-year-old Chicago boy murdered trying to protect his pregnant mother from a violent ex-boyfriend who’d been let out on parole. Jayden was an innocent boy attempting a heroic deed against a bigger, stronger, armed assailant.

And yet I doubt Jayden’s name will be remembered in a few months. I’m not even sure that all that many people outside of Chicago have heard of him at this point. I very much doubt millions of people around the world will be demonstrating on his behalf against domestic abuse or against early release of dangerous criminals. I doubt billions of dollars will be raised in his name by “trained Marxists” who practice grifter capitalism on the side. I doubt he’ll be buried in a gold-plated casket.

Those are of course references to George Floyd and in particular the reaction to his death. Floyd almost certainly died of natural causes related to serious heart disease and the ingestion of a high dose of drugs rather than the restraints the police used on him. But George Floyd, criminal (who by the way had been guilty years earlier of home invasion and threatening a pregnant woman with a gun, which made him more akin to the man who killed Jayden Perkins than to Jayden himself), has been lauded and elevated to near-sainted and a cause, and why? Because there were cops to blame, and in particular because there was a black/white angle.

Never mind that actual killings by police of black suspects who are not armed and threatening or otherwise trying to kill police (for example, with a motor vehicle) are vanishingly low. It is a cause that can be made to suit political purposes. The death of Jayden Perkins cannot. All the people involved – the victim and his family as well as the perpetrator – are black. As such, it is much more typical of violent crime, which is disproportionately black on black. That means it is of little political use.

How much money has been raised to help Jayden’s family? There’s this, although that information is from March 18. But I doubt there’s been a whole lot in comparison to the astounding amount of money donated in Floyd’s name.

Here’s a description of Jayden:

Organizers from Peirce Elementary School, the Friends of Peirce group, the Smith & Turner Family and Gus Giordano Dance School have started a fundraiser to honor Perkins’ memory and to support his family during this difficult time.

“Jayden was an exceptional young man, respected by his peers and admired by his teachers. He excelled academically, earning straight A’s and consistently making the honor roll. He was also deeply involved in extracurricular activities, participating in cross country, football, and the arts. Jayden had a passion for performing and theater, and he had the lead role in several school plays, including “Finding Nemo” at Peirce Elementary,” the fundraiser reads.

RIP.

[NOTE: A fairly irrelevant personal note is that I lived in the Chicago area for a while and took dance lessons at the Gus Giordano studio, from Gus himself. I recall him as a nice guy.]

Canadian law infringing on Jewish ritual slaughter is challenged

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the situation:

Jewish organizations are taking the federal government to court to challenge new rules they fear spell the end of kosher animal production in Canada.

In a statement of claim filed earlier this week in Federal Court, the applicants seek to strike down new Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) rules requiring that non-stunned animals be subjected to cognitive tests to ensure they’re irreversibly unconscious before being processed.

Kosher killing does not involve stunning animals first, whereas non-kosher commercial killing does.

[Jewish groups] say the effect of the rules will eventually end kosher slaughter in Canada because the CFIA’s rules have drastically slowed down the practice, which they say is already humane. Some slaughterhouses in Canada have already stopped producing kosher meat because it has become uneconomical under the CFIA’s new requirements.

In typical non-kosher abattoirs, cattle are usually rendered unconscious via a powerful blow to the head from a bolt gun, then are hung up and have their necks slit, and are drained of blood until dead.

In kosher slaughter, or shechita, animals are killed by trained shochetim who use smooth, razor-sharp knives to sever the animal’s throat in a single, uninterrupted motion before letting the animal bleed out. It is commonly believed that the method is painless and at least as humane as the stunning technique, although Jews believe it is the more humane method because the animal is rendered almost immediately unconscious.

“It is applicants’ position that with shechita the massive bleeding and rapid drop in arterial pressure caused by the complete severing of the trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries and jugular veins leads to near instantaneous unconsciousness,” the plaintiffs argue in the statement of claim.

Rabbi Saul Emanuel, director of the MK Kosher Certification Agency, which is also a plaintiff in the suit, said that stunning animals violates Jewish dietary laws, as they need to be alive, healthy and alert before being slaughtered.

While the CFIA permits licensed abattoirs to slaughter non-stunned animals, the new rules require processors to subject each animal to cognitive tests, particularly by tests on their eyes or checks for arhythmic breathing, before being hung and drained.

Bolt-stunned animals, the suit alleges, are not subjected to the same scrutiny as non-stunned animals, and the stunning process results in some animals surviving and suffering as they are skinned alive. The plaintiffs argue that shechitah’s hands-on method ensures animals are irreversibly unconscious before being processed.

A joint statement from The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA,) MK and COR maintains that kosher slaughter is humane, and they have the scientific studies to prove it.

That part about what sometimes happens to stunned animals conjures up a James Agee story I read when young, “A Mother’s Tale.” It terrified me. You can find it here. It almost made me into a vegetarian – almost, but not quite. But it seems to me that kosher slaughter is at least as humane as non-kosher slaughter.

This article sheds further light on what’s going on, and includes a historical note that one of the first acts of the Nazis when they came to power in Germany was to ban kosher slaughter:

The process is well underway and already one-third of abattoirs in Canada have stopped producing kosher meat. The kosher certifiers and their representatives had been working with the Canadian government to find a solution, including a recent meeting in Ottawa, but according to the application, “…those efforts have proven fruitless.” …

Speaking of blows, seal clubbing remains legal in Canada. The new regulations ending shechitah are, ostensibly, being put forward as a measure protecting animal welfare, however, selectively singling out Jewish slaughter as an odious treatment of animals has a long and ugly history, intimately intermingled with international antisemitism. …

Modern European antisemitism was, and continues to be, associated with bans on shechitah. As reported in the Times of Israel, last month the European Court of Human Rights upheld a ban on shechitah in Belgium. …

The Canadian shechitah issue is also different in practice from European iterations in that it does not affect Muslims. In Europe, a ban on shechitah is almost always accompanied by a concomitant ban on Halal, which uses a similar technique in ending an animal’s life. This dual ban has allowed Europe to claim that its various proscriptions of shechitah are not anti-Jewish. … [T]he Muslim community has been a bulwark whenever there have been threats to end shechitah [in Europe]. The Canadian regulations, however, offer an additional loophole in that they mandate methods that make shechitah impossible, but allow Muslim ritual slaughter to continue unabated.

The greatest disconnect in the war against shechitah is that the methodology of Jewish halachic slaughter is precisely designed to prevent pain and suffering to the animals involved in the process.

Whatever the motives behind the move to hamper kosher slaughter, the effect may be to drive away many Orthodox Jews from Canada. Or, I suppose, cause them to become vegetarians.

Political change: straws breaking camels’ backs

The New Neo Posted on by

In my recent post about Dershowitz saying that he really might stop voting for Democrats because of the Biden administration’s stance on Israel in the Gaza war (in particular the US’s abstention in the UN), a number of people in the comments wrote that they saw him as caring more about Israel than about all the other things Democrats are doing to destroy our country.

I think they might have had a point if the interests of Israel and of the US were at odds here. They are not, however. Dershowitz also made that plain when he wrote that it’s a “terrible decision both for us and for Israel.” He might even have added, “and for the Western world.” Because that is also true. And also, “for humanity.”

That’s what has caused such a powerful reaction for Dershowitz and so many others, including many non-Jews who previously had been moderate Democrats.

What’s more, Dershowitz has written extensively and strongly in recent years against what Democrats and Biden have been doing on a host of other topics. He also defended Trump in his impeachment trial in Congress, at great personal cost.

The “dual loyalty” or “higher loyalty” charge is an old one against Jews. In this case it is especially inappropriate.

Dershowitz has opined on a myriad of questions and issues over the years that support conservative positions. I’ve written about many but certainly not all of them; you can see the list here. No, he’s not a conservative or even a Republican and doesn’t support the position of the right down the line. But he’s been more courageous in defending positions that are essentially conservative than a lot of Republicans have, and the majority of those positions have had nothing to do with Israel. He is strongest on anything that has to do with liberty and law.

One glaring exception, however, is when Dershowitz defended a cause that was anti-liberty: his statement that vaccine mandates are okay in certain circumstances. Dershowtiz said that there is no inherent legal right to refuse a vaccine if the government required it in order to protect others in situations of grave danger, but he later said he was not in favor of such mandates for the COVID vaccine, especially once it was proven that it didn’t protect against transmission.

Dershowitz has been one of the most prolific and thoughtful writers in the US for many decades on a host of issues. But until now he’s also been a Democrat, something that puzzles a great many people on the right and seems contradictory. However, I’ve noticed for many years that he’s been edging closer and closer to repudiating his Democrat affiliation and making a clean break. He hasn’t done it quite yet, though – not even over the UN abstention concerning a ceasefire – although he’s been tantalizingly close. What holds him back from making the full break? I believe it is mostly what I discussed in this post, and is summarized by my oft-stated observation that “A mind is a difficult thing to change” – particular in terms of long-term political affiliation.

I assume you’re familiar with the saying “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” When I was very young, I misunderstood it and thought it refered to the sort of “straw” with which I was most familiar: a drinking straw made of paper. I pictured such a straw on a camel, and why it would break the beast’s back was completely puzzling to me. A few years later I learned it was about a straw of the haylike variety, which made even less sense rather than more.

And then I finally learned what the saying really meant, which was that a huge pile of straws can be placed on that camel’s back and then at a certain point a single straw more will be too much. It will be the last straw, the final straw. For Dershowitz, there obviously has been a long line of disillusionments, disappointments, and disagreements with Democrats, and at some point he might actually say “enough!” and his Democrat affiliation will be broken

Dershowitz lives in a state where his defection from the Democrats wouldn’t really matter in terms of the vote: Massachusetts is thoroughly blue. That’s not the issue, of course. It’s more a question of conscience. I recall hearing him say some years ago (can’t find it now) that he stays in the Democratic Party in order to try to reform it from within. I think that may have been true for a while, but I believe part of what he’s wrestling with now is that he’s given up on having much effect on a party that’s been spinning ever leftward and more and more distant from the principles Dershowitz holds dear.

Here is what Dershowitz said a while back about voting for Obama’s second term. Note that back then the alternative to Obama was Romney and not Trump. Romney was an easier alternative for Dershowitz to contemplate:

Why am I focusing on Dershowitz so much? I do so because I think he’s emblematic of the struggle many people go through in wrestling with political change. His struggle is just more public. I don’t think most people are politically all one thing or another. There are hundreds (or maybe thousands) of elements that combine to make up a political position, and how we vote ends up being a result of which side weighs heavier in the balance scale. But early and habitual political affiliation, as well as the environments in which we live, also play a role.

The Illinois Parole Board makes a deadly mistake

The New Neo Posted on by

And a family pays a terrible price for it:

An 11-year-old Chicago boy died Wednesday [March 13] as he tried to protect his pregnant mother from her knife-wielding ex-boyfriend who was released from prison a day earlier.

Crosetti Brand, 37, is accused of stabbing the boy in the chest and the 33-year-old woman before he was arrested for the heinous killing of Jayden Perkins, according to the Chicago Police Department.

Brand had been paroled Tuesday from the Stateville Correctional Center, where he was serving a 16-year sentence for home invasion and aggravated assault. …

Perkins’ 5-year-old brother was also present and witnessed the attack. …

The mother, who had a “lifetime” order of protection against Brand, dated the felon more than 15 years ago, Chicago Police Chief of Detectives Antoinette Ursitti said. …

The alleged child killer had been previously paroled last year in October.

However, Brand was reasserted in February after “he threatened the female victim via text – and also showed up at her home,” Foxx said.

The mother and baby are in critical condition but are expected to survive. I assume that the murderer, Brand, thought he’d killed them too. It also appears that he’d been trying to kill this woman, or wanting to kill her, for many years – perhaps fifteen.

The article is so poorly written that it’s a bit hard to follow, but I supplemented it with this one from three days ago:

The chair of the Illinois Prisoner Review Board and a board member have resigned over backlash for granting the release of a man who fatally stabbed his ex-girlfriend’s young son less than 24 hours after he was freed.

Board chair Donald Shelter and board member LeAnn Miller stepped down on Monday in the wake of 11-year-old Jayden Perkins’ murder on March 13, according to CBS 2. …

… Smith had begged for an order of protection against Brand just last month.

At the time of the filing, Brand was doing 16 years behind bars for home invasion and aggravated assault.

A Cook County judge scheduled a hearing about the order for March 13, according to CBS 2.

Both parties were expected to attend, with Brand being notified about the hearing in prison.

Miller, however, wrote a report that approved Brand for parole on the 12th — and Smith and her son were attacked just hours before the hearing was supposed to take place.

Both the Illinois Department of Corrections and the Illinois Prisoner Review Board subsequently claimed they did not know about the protection order hearing, CBS 2 reported.

But emails obtained by the outlet indicated that the Department of Corrections knew about the hearing as early as Feb. 22.

This is confusing as well. The previous article said she had a “lifetime” order of protection against Brand. Which was it?

My prior experience, however, is that such orders are worthless when someone really wants to kill somebody. All they do is allow the person who obtains the orders to call the police if the threatening person appears, and have that latter person arrested and perhaps reincarcerated.

This guy wanted to kill this woman and appeared at her home when she was leaving with her children; no protection order would have helped her in this case. Keeping Brand in prison much longer would have helped her, but since he didn’t have a life sentence he couldn’t be kept there indefinitely. However, he certainly could and should have been kept there as long as possible. I can’t find an article that says how much of his term he had already served and how close he was to release even without being paroled; that seems as though it’s an important fact, as well.

I used to work with battered women who were living in shelters, back in the days before the internet. It was easier then for people to move and keep their new addresses secret. I don’t know whether this woman attempted to do that or not, but the internet makes it more difficult to be successful at hiding, although not impossible.

And here’s a little more information:

According to police, Smith has an order of protection against Brand.

Brand was out on parole when the incident occurred. He was serving a 16-year sentence for a home invasion and currently has three orders of protection violations against him, according to police. ABC News has reached out to Brand’s legal team.

Chief of Detectives Antoinette Ursitti, in a March 15 press conference, said Brand had been “paroled and placed on electronic monitoring last October. While he was on parole, he threatened the female victim via text and also showed up at her home. He was sent back to prison in February for this parole violation.”

RIP Jayden Perkins. You were a hero.

A California judge has recommended the disbarment of John Eastman for giving legal advice that Democrats don’t like

The New Neo Posted on by

Part of the Democrats’ lawfare against Trump and the right is their decision some years ago (see this) to go after lawyers for Trump or Trumpian causes and make them afraid to defend him or give him legal advice. The latest victory in that war on the right is the judicial recommendation for the disbarment of John Eastman in California:

The attorney and former law school dean facing imminent disbarment from the California Bar, based on a recommendation by California Bar Court Judge Yvette D. Roland for his legal work in support of President Donald J. Trump’s attempts to resolve irregularities in the 2020 presidential election, promised to fight for his reputation and livelihood in a statement released his legal team.

Here is her very lengthy opinion.

Eastman’s lawyer had this to say:

“Dr. Eastman maintains that his handling of the legal issues he was asked to assess after the November 2020 election was based on reliable legal precedent, prior presidential elections, research of constitutional text, and extensive scholarly material,” Miller said.

“The process undertaken by Dr. Eastman in 2020 is the same process taken by lawyers every day and everywhere – indeed, that is the essence of what lawyers do,” he said.

“They are ethically bound to be zealous advocates for their clients – a duty Dr. Eastman holds inviolate. To the extent today’s decision curtails that principle, we are confident the Review Court will swiftly provide a remedy,” he said.

From Judge Roland:

…[Eastman pursued] a strategy to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election that lacked evidentiary or legal support. Vigorous advocacy does not absolve Eastman of his professional responsibilities around honesty and upholding the rule of law. While his actions are mitigated by his many years of discipline-free practice, cooperation, and prior good character, his wrongdoing is substantially aggravated by his multiple offenses, lack of candor and indifference.

In other words, she disagrees with his argument and thinks it has no merit. So what? He’s a lawyer; lawyers argue meritless stuff all the time. Not that I agree Eastman’s advice has no merit; I’m just saying that, even if it had no merit, that wouldn’t be a reason for disbarment.

And if someone accused of something doesn’t think he or she did wrong, then lack of remorse is simply honesty.

Much more at the link.

I’m unaware of any similar case to this, and I find this sort of political lawfare very dangerous. One comparison Judge Roland cites is the Segretti case, whose facts are extremely different (“dirty tricks” under the lawyer’s direction in a campaign).

I certainly hope Eastman wins on appeal. I think to do so he might have to go further than a California appeal, however. I believe that SCOTUS does [see *NOTE below] have jurisdiction over a case such as this:

The State Bar “acts under the authority and at the direction of the Supreme Court[,]” which has “inherent jurisdiction over the practice of law” in the state. Cal. R. Ct. 9.3.

*NOTE: It’s been called to my attention that “Supreme Court” in the above sentence might be referring to the California appellate court rather than the US Supreme Court. I tried to get clarification on the question of whether the US Supreme Court has any jurisdiction in a case like Eastman’s, but I haven’t found anything so far on it.

Dershowitz reaches a turning point of sorts

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m talking about this statement:

US Law Professor Alan Dershowitz spoke to Channel 12 News about the Biden Administration’s decision not to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan and criticized the administration for its stance.

“I was surprised by the US decision not to veto Israel. This is a terrible decision, because it gives Hamas everything it wants, without demanding anything in return. This will lengthen the war. This is a terrible decision both for us and for Israel,” Dershowitz said.

He added, “Many Americans won’t vote for Biden after this. This vote is not a difference between Biden and Netanyahu, this is a difference between Biden and Israel. There is no dispute about the need of getting the hostages back. Biden is going against Israel.”

On a personal note, Dershowitz said, “I’ve been voting Democrats since 1960. This is the first time that I am thinking of not voting for them. I can’t vote for them, because that is a vote against Israel.”

As I’ve said many many times, a mind is a difficult thing to change.