Policy Focus On The State’s Attorney Candidates: Donna More

Donna More, CBS Local
Donna More, CBS Local

The race for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has gained national interest of late due to controversy surrounding the brutal killing of a black teenager by a white police officer followed by an apparent delay by the state’s attorney office to bring charges against the officer.

This particular incident, of course, represents only a small part of a breakdown of trust between criminal justice agencies and communities of color, concerns regarding codes of silence within and between the State’s Attorney’s Office and the Chicago Police Department, and, more broadly, the trends in law enforcement which have resulted in a system of mass incarceration both locally and nationally.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office is in a particularly powerful position not just to prosecute crimes but, with immense influence in Springfield and locally, to set criminal justice policy. It is with this in mind that we at Cook County Justice Watch present the policy goals of each of the candidates for the State’s Attorney and hope to steer the discussion toward the effect their policies may have on communities going forward.

Donna More is a former assistant State’s Attorney under Richard M. Daley and a former federal prosecutor; she has since spent much of her legal career representing casinos and other companies involved in the gaming industry. Her campaign is principally funded by personal wealth, family member donations, followed by companies such as More Sports Management, Universal Gaming Group LLC, and MBR Properties and Management LLC.

What Sets Donna More Apart: Political Stances and Media Focus. Media attention has focused attention on a 2014 contribution made by her to Republican Bruce Rauner’s campaign for governor and pulling a Republican ballot, despite the fact that More is running as a Democrat in this state’s attorney race.

In terms of political stances, More has positioned herself as someone not beholden to vested political interests, attacking the integrity of the office under State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and painting the other challenger, Kim Foxx, former assistant State’s Attorney and former Chief of Staff to County Board President Preckwinkle, as underqualified. Specifically she has criticized Kim Foxx for spending much of her career in the juvenile division of the Cook County State’s Attorney office and attaining supervisory ranks there as opposed to working in the adult felony division where More spent some of her time under, then State’s Attorney, Richard M. Daley. This stance reflects longstanding beliefs within and without of the State’s Attorney’s Office that adult felony cases, particularly involving very serious crimes, define the office more than the juvenile division, which, though dealing with similar crimes at times, often has a more rehabilitative focus.

Below are positions on particular policies. We, in our series on the Cook County State’s Attorney race will include the positions of all the candidates on the following issues which have been most remarked upon by the candidates:

  • Special Prosecutor for Police Shootings: She has opposed the need for a special prosecutor for police shootings. A Special Prosecutor would be an independent prosecutorial office that works apart from the State’s Attorney’s Office and the police department, to insure independence, and would be brought in to investigate and prosecute when police officers are charged with crimes. This would be similar to how prosecutions are carried out when it is a state’s attorney who is charged with a crime. More has instead proposed a unit within the State’s Attorney’s Office that would be dedicated toward prosecuting police officers and reporting directly to herself.
  • Violence: She has called for a gun court to be established and has named ‘gun violence’ as her number one priority. The gun court proposal puts Donna More at odds with many research institutions, including Northwestern’s Bluhm Legal Clinic, the Center for Court Innovation, and results arrived at by the Cook County Violence Prevention, Intervention, and Reduction, all of whom have indicated that gun courts may not be effective at decreasing crime and in their sentencing run counter to current best practices for courts, limiting both individual justice and judicial discretion.
  • Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC): During the recent debate hosted on WBEZ on Thursday, January 28, 2016, Donna More seemed to be previously unaware of CPAC proposals but foreword by several community groups, but seemed willing to support one so long as that council would not decide upon the bringing of criminal charges.
  • Response to Low Level Crimes, Alternatives to Traditional Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution: More has been less vocal on expanding alternatives to prison for low lever crimes as compared with the other candidates, Foxx and State’s Attorney Alvarez, but has suggested that the cost of jailing individuals for cases that will likely be thrown out to be a waste of taxpayer money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Upcoming Interview Series: Chicago Votes

Our partners at Soapbox Productions and Organizing have teamed up with Chicago Votes staff to tell the story of what it’s like to grow up in an over-policed neighborhood in Chicago. These young organizers shared their perspectives on police accountability, our public school system, community safety, Black Lives Matter, and why they’ve chosen to work toward getting young people registered to vote and involved in politics. They also shared some spoken word pieces, providing a look at how young people express themselves through art.

During National Voter Registration Day, Chicago Votes registered over 1000 people on college campuses across the city. It will be interesting to see what impact the youth vote will have on crucial races to the administration of justice. Both Cook County States Attorney and Illinois State Senate elections will take place on March 15th, 2016.  In 2012, 35.2% of registered voters ages 18-24 voted in the general election.

The complete footage is set to debut in the coming weeks, but for now please enjoy this sneak peek. Stay tuned for updates on this exciting partnership.

State’s Attorney Program Denies Probable Cause Hearings To Low Level Offenders And Extends Court Supervision

Cook County’s Deferred Prosecution Program has been on display recently. At symposia and public presentations locally and nationwide, State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez has presented the program as a success and as a keystone feature of a smart-on-crime, evidence-based approach to prosecution. However, recent studies of the program dispute its efficacy and seriously call into question the ethics of how the program is structured. It is critical that this program be scrutinized before its rapid expansion this September.

Far from being a source of diversion from the criminal justice system, the Deferred Prosecution program further entangles first-time offenders in the criminal justice system whose cases had a substantial likelihood of being dismissed had their case ever been allowed to go before a judge. The program approaches low-level first-time offenders at a vulnerable time when they’ve recently been in jail and have had no real chance to speak to a defense attorney, and it asks them to waive any probable cause hearing in exchange for a 12-month term of court supervision. In essence, it avoids judicial oversight and treats the accused as guilty in the name of diversion.

Denying Probable Cause Hearings

Throughout Cook County—and the nation overall—there are several types of programs that present alternatives to the standard criminal justice system for those who would have better results from lighter levels of intervention or from programs that guide individuals through drug or mental health treatment. These programs, such as specialty Drug or Mental Health Courts are popular throughout the country and the scholarship around them and their procedures grow year by year. Specialty Courts are typically offered to individuals after they plead guilty, following a determination of probable cause of their case and a discussion with their attorney about the costs and benefits of accepting the program.

The Cook County Deferred Prosecution program, however, does not wait until after a defendant has been given their probable cause hearing. In fact it offers the program before their probable cause hearing on the explicit condition that the defendant will waive their right to that hearing.

The program consists of a year’s worth of court supervision offered to individuals who have no history of violent arrests and no previous felony convictions. If they succeed, the case is dropped and expunged. If they fail, prosecution proceeds but the original probable cause hearing never happens. At the point the defendant is presented with the offer of the program, they have not had time to discuss the likelihood of their case’s dismissal and or have any real input from a defense attorney—typically a public defender who they have not met before. This means that the only person who has exercised any judgment about the case before the defendant is placed under a year’s worth of court supervision, is the arresting officer.

The risk of individuals being placed under this penalty while not having probable cause is substantial. 47% of nonviolent drug possession charges are dismissed at preliminary hearing, meaning there is a nearly a fifty fifty chance that individuals who have been offered deferred prosecution on these charges would have not been in the adult system any longer – at no further cost to the tax payer – if the state’s attorney’s office had allowed their case simply to go to preliminary hearing before going to trial.

Study Shows No Benefit 

A recent study of the Cook County Deferred Prosecution Program done by Loyola University in conjunction with the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority found no different in the re-arrest rates of those in the program versus a comparison group of individuals who met the deferred prosecution program eligibility criteria but were instead sentenced to probation (31.4% and 34.6% were re-arrested within 18 months of completing their form of court supervision, respectively). And this does not take into account that many of those who were placed into the Deferred Prosecution program would have been dismissed at preliminary hearing anyway, which would have cost far less to the tax payer, not to mention the individual going through the program.

(George, Orwat, Stemen, Hilvers, Cossyleon, & Chong, Evaluation of the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office Deferred Prosecution Program, May 13, 2015, Presentation).

Targeting the Least Experienced and Most Vulnerable Population

The last 25 years of empirical research on behavior management and alternative sentencing programs has determined that the level of criminal justice intervention should be matched to the level of risk and need of the individual Mismatches result in higher rates of recidivism and worse outcomes for communities. This means that those who are at the lowest risk of re-offending on their own are better off having little to no interaction with the criminal justice system: incarceration or challenging court supervision only increases their chances for offending. Likewise, the level of drug or mental health treatment services that are offered to individuals should match their actual level of clinical need: connecting people who do not have serious drug dependence issues with seriously addicted groups of heroin addicts, for example, hurts the sobriety of both groups.

The deferred prosecution program specifically targets this low risk, low need population and matches them with a level of intervention that is likely more intense than is appropriate. Only those individuals with no prior felony convictions, and no arrests for violent crimes, are offered the deferred prosecution program—a program no likelier to result in reduced recidivism than straight dismissal, and at a much higher cost to taxpayers.

In the September 2015 the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office is planning on greatly expand this program to target individuals with more than one drug possession conviction in their history, with the aim of connecting these individuals to drug treatment, but no plan has been put forward to ensure that the individuals being referred actually have drug dependence issues aside from what little can be learned from their current charge.

No risk or needs assessments are used (like those that are used for specialty courts following best practices) before deciding upon the current program. Rather, the level of intervention is based solely on the defendant’s criminal history – a measure that has been repudiated by researchers, including National Drug Court Institute.