Crime
Over the last decade, the focus of the U.S. criminal justice system has shifted significantly. The system has oriented more toward the rehabilitative or restorative social work model and away from the retributive or punitive model. Urban areas like Chicago are at the forefront of this movement. It has gone so far there that in some instances, the prosecutor is indistinguishable from the defense attorney. A recent incident is illustrative.
In 2003, nineteen-year-old Chicago native, Dante Brown, was convicted of double murder and sentenced to life without parole. At the time, Illinois law required a mandatory minimum sentence of LWOP for such a crime. In the intervening twenty years, Illinois law changed to remove the mandatory minimum sentence Brown had faced. In addition, Chicagoans elected a progressive prosecutor who instituted many reform measures, including a Conviction Integrity Unit. The Conviction Integrity Unit was tasked with reviewing past cases not only for wrongful convictions, but also for sentences perceived as too lengthy.
In 2023, Deputy Prosecutor, Michelle Mbekeani, was promoted to lead the Conviction Integrity Unit. A press release went out announcing Mbekeani’s new role, and several profiles of her were written in Chicago papers. Prosecutor Mbekeani soon identified Dante Brown’s case as having an unjust sentence. She joined Brown’s attorneys in the courtroom advocating for his release. Unfortunately for Mbekeani, the Judge had read the press on her following her promotion. One of the stories noted that Mbekeani was not just a prosecutor, but that she also ran a company on the side that matched criminal defense attorneys with defendants seeking conviction and sentence review. Mbekeaki was using her position in the prosecutor’s office to identify cases where she could agree with the defense attorneys that paid her to source clients.
When the Judge in Brown’s case confronted Mbekeani about this ethical issue, she lied. She claimed there was no such company. The Judge, however, had printed the articles of organization from the Illinois Secretary of State’s office listing Mbekeani as the owner, operator and registered agent of the criminal defense business. The Judge barred Mbekeani from ever appearing in his courtroom again, and she has since resigned from the prosecutor’s office.
Mbekeani’s dishonesty with the court is shocking. Less so is the fact that she didn’t see a problem operating a business of that nature while also serving as a prosecutor. Blurred lines is a feature of today’s criminal justice system that encourages prosecutors and judges to behave social workers. In such a collaborative model, we’re all on the same team anyway, right?
The judge in Brown’s case, at least, understands the necessity of everyone playing their proper role. In his order he wrote, “A prosecutor takes an oath to be an advocate for the victims of crimes, and families of the victims of crime. Our criminal courts work as an adversarial system. We have defense attorneys representing the accused on one side, and we’re supposed to have a prosecutor representing the People on the other. When those roles become entangled and blurred, as they most certainly were in this case, the public loses trust and confidence in our criminal justice system.” Indeed. You can read more about case here.
More crime
In a recent Gallup poll, 63% of Americans say the U.S. crime problem is extremely or very serious. A vast majority, 77%, believe crime has gotten worse over the last year. More people are reporting being crime victims, too. Over 28% of Americans report that their household has been victimized in the last year. This is up over 5% since 2020. You can dig into the data here if you want.
Gallup has been running this same crime poll since 1972. The last time the numbers were this bad was 1992. Not surprisingly, urban dwellers report crime as more serious than suburban and rural residents. Americans’ increasing concern about crime is a direct result of the movement toward less accountability for criminals that has taken hold across the country in the last several years.
Free speech
Alexa, why are you censoring conservative speech? That’s the question some lawmakers are asking Amazon this week after videos went viral showing the company’s Alexa service treating questions about the presidential candidates differently. When asked why someone should vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, Alexa would respond with something like, “I cannot promote content that supports a certain political party or a specific politician.” Fair enough. However, when asked why someone should vote for the Democrat nominee, Kamala Harris, Alexa would spill forth tons of reasons to vote for Harris, including that she is a woman, that she was a prosecutor, and that she has fought for immigration reform.
Amazon quickly responded that the issue was not intentional censorship. Rather, they said, it was caused by a glitch in the algorithm. They always say that. The algorithmic “glitches” only ever run in one direction, though.
As always, thank you for reading Judex! If you enjoy this, please share it with your friends and suggest they subscribe. It’s easy. Just click the link below.
Excellent article!