Serving as a Chicago police officer is a difficult and thankless task. While 95 percent of our police officers are hardworking and decent people who struggle to do their job well, a very small percentage engage in conduct that disgraces their department and fellow officers. In the past year, our Chicago Police Department has been in the news for reasons we all consider appalling.
A Chicago resident was awarded $4 million last fall because he was attacked by officers with a screwdriver. Another resident was awarded $2 million after the courts decided that officers framed him. Furthermore, we have all seen the footage of an officer beating a female bartender and read about the officers who got into a fight with businessmen at a Rush Street bar. In addition, a barrage of public criticism led to the disbanding of the elite Special Operations Section (SOS) last October after extensive media coverage of kidnappings, robberies, and false arrests by police officers in this unit.
Craig Futterman, a University of Chicago law school professor, conducted a study of 10,000 reports of serious abuse (including excessive force and false arrests) between 2002-2004. Only 19 of these complaints led to an officer’s suspension of a week or more. That is less than one percent of total complaints made.
Last summer, when members of the City Council asked for the names of officers with 10 complaints or more, the list we received from the Corporation Counsel had the names blacked out.
The city's refusal to furnish the list to the Council is consistent with a lack of transparency that permeates this critical department. It has been reported that the list includes members of SOS who are currently under federal indictment. Along with 27 of my fellow aldermen, I have requested the names from a federal appellate court and the case is currently pending.
The denial of access to the list reinforces the tarnished image that the department acquired in the 1990's as torture cases related to Commander Jon Burge became public. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, suspects were routinely tortured by Area Two detectives to force confessions. Since there is no doubt that torture took place, the only question can be to whom compensation is owed. It is disgraceful that the City continues to fight these cases. We need to acknowledge that the police officers were responsible for torturing suspects, apologize for that conduct, compensate the victims, and implement plans to reduce the likelihood such abuse will occur in the future.
The disbanding of the Special Operations Section shows that the Chicago Police Department is not immune to public pressure, but it is only a small step on the road to creating permanent change. The reestablishment of trust will come only after the department accepts its responsibilities and begins to discipline, rather than shelter, officers who abuse the citizens they are sworn to protect.
Toni Preckwinkle is Alderman of Chicago's 4th Ward.
politilady on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 11:28
How many more millions of tax-paying dollars will the city still pay out in settlements OPS deemed "justified" shootings? Chicago constituents deserve to know which aldermen did not actively advocate for the release of the censored police officer names and why.
maroonmind on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 15:40
What legitimate actions could be yielded with the names of the 10 un-named police officers? They were certainly fired and will not recieve their pensions and possible criminally held responsible as well-what can ultimately be gained? Perhaps the direction of investigation should shift to those adjusting and interpreting the laws of the city/county and abusing their power? I am by no means an expert on Chicago politics, but as an Illinoisan, it often befuddles me as to how incompitent the County Board and Ward leaders have become. On a side note, as an undergrad, I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Preckwinkle and found her to be one of the most honorable leaders in the city, by far. I applaud her consistant efforts on behalf of her constituents but believe that the CPD has accepted responsibility for their actions and recompensed accordingly.
politilady on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 16:54
What right does CPD have in censoring the names to begin with? Again, how can the public be asured these have been penalized? To me these settlements reflect the city's attempt to put a price on justice by covering for the "bad apples" in the system.
politilady on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 16:59
I will agree with you though that Preckwinkle is a highly honorable leader...
Josh Kalven on Tue, 04/01/2008 - 17:37
Just to be clear, the list with the names redacted did not include only 10 officers; rather, it listed all the officers -- 415 in total -- who received more than 10 complaints between May 2001 and May 2006.
And Maroonmind, I'm afraid there's no real basis for your assumption that all of these officers have been fired. In fact, if Futterman's study is any indication, I'd be surprised if more than a few of them were even suspended.
That's the practical reason for the aldermen's efforts to have the names made public. They want to know how many of these 415 officers are actively patrolling their wards. They also want to compare this information to other data in the public domain and assess whether these patterns of conduct are in any way being addressed.
But beyond those practical considerations, for the city to shelter these public officials from public scrutiny is simply a blatant violation of the democratic process.
Indeed, releasing the names is a crucial step in ensuring police reform in Chicago.
(I should also disclose that my father, Jamie Kalven, has been instrumental in the effort to force the city to release the names.)
Post new comment