September 19, 2019
Chicago Sun-Times
When should a teen be tried as an adult? Let judges decide
Lake County State’s Attorney Michael Nerheim did the right thing in dropping felony murder charges against five teenagers.
Charging the teens with felony murder always seemed upside down.
It was a member of the teens’ own group, 14-year-old Jaquan Swopes, who was fatally shot during an alleged auto theft on Aug. 13. And it was the man whose car they allegedly were trying to steal - not one of the teens - who fired the bullet.
Instead, Nerheim on Thursday announced he will proceed with lesser criminal charges, and four of the cases will be moved to juvenile court.
Though Nerheim wisely changed course, this strange case has exposed a serious flaw in Illinois law.
It is wrong that criminal cases involving teenagers aged 16 through 17 automatically are moved from juvenile court to adult court when the charges are first-degree or felony murder, aggravated criminal sexual assault or aggravated battery with a firearm. The cases are moved without regard to the degree of a defendant’s culpability, and there is no consideration of the many background factors juvenile court judges routinely weigh.
Such cases should not be transferred automatically to adult criminal court. In each instance, there should be a hearing first before a juvenile court judge, who would decide whether a transfer to adult court is appropriate.
That’s how 16 other states do it.
Illinois has looked at this issue before. In 2015, the state ended automatic transfers to adult court for all cases involving teens who are 15 or younger, and it narrowed the transfer of cases involving 16- and 17-year-olds to only the most serious crimes.
It was a good reform. It just didn’t go far enough.
Automatically sending to adult court a case of a minor accused of aggravated battery with a firearm, for example, fails to take into sufficient account whether this might have been a matter of self-defense, given the age of the accused.
Sending a case of aggravated criminal sexual assault to adult court doesn’t take into account whether the sex was consensual, though it involved an under-aged person.
Police and prosecutors generally use sensible discretion in how they charge cases. But when cases are sent to adult court in the heat of the moment, the chance to harness the rehabilitative capabilities of juvenile court is lost.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that young people don’t have the maturity and fully developed sense of responsibility necessary to be judged on the same basis as adults. Teens are more risk-prone, impulsive and reckless.
It is unlikely that a juvenile court judge would have moved the Lake County case to adult court, given that none of the teens fired the gun. It is entirely likely, though, that an adult court judge, following increasingly harsh sentencing rules, would have dispatched the teens to prison for far longer than is reasonable or necessary.
For some types of serious crimes in the adult criminal justice system, the policy of day-for-day good time has been eliminated. Truth-in-sentencing laws require some inmates to serve 100 percent of their sentences.
As a result, the punishment gap between juvenile and adult courts has grown into a chasm. A 16-year-old tried in juvenile court for a gun crime faces a maximum sentence of about five years - until his 21st birthday. But if tried and convicted in adult court, that same teen could be looking at 45 years in prison - and the judge might be unable to do anything about it.
Some crimes committed by juveniles are so brazen and heinous that they will always be tried in adult court. We understand that.
But juvenile court judges understand it, too. And they are in the best position to decide which cases belong where.
___
September 20, 2019
Sauk Valley Media
Lee County Board breaks from the pack
City and county government bodies are working feverishly to prepare for the legalization of recreational marijuana, effective Jan. 1 in Illinois. That means drawing up ordinances on what they have the authority to control. Priorities have been amending zoning ordinances, establishing regulations for businesses, and setting local taxes on sales.
Their jobs are made more difficult by some gray areas that exist in the original state statute. Unfortunately, the biggest question mark greatly impacts the way everything else is addressed - or not. According to the Illinois Municipal League, a municipality can choose to ban all marijuana business establishments. Many municipal attorneys, however, read the same language and don’t think it gives the ability to opt out without risk. The fear is that municipalities that do opt out could eventually be challenged in court.
A trailer bill that would clear up all of the statute’s murky territory is expected, but probably won’t be done before the new year begins.
We’ve seen the Whiteside County Board set its tax on recreational marijuana at 3.75% in unincorporated areas of the county and 3% in its cities. It was done without discussion and approved unanimously.
Sterling approved a 3% tax on recreational marijuana last month, while Dixon set its local tax at 3% on Monday. Rock Falls has been busy with zoning issues, recommending that the council give the businesses an adult use tag and confine them to the industrial parks. In Rock Falls, some members of the Planning and Zoning Commission have expressed an interest in opting out, but were advised to consider the legal risk. They are putting plans in place and awaiting clarification on the opt-out matter.
So it was surprising to see the Lee County Board on Tuesday vote against putting the same tax in place that the Whiteside County Board has instituted. The discussion became heated in Lee County before the board, with three members absent, shot down setting the taxes by a vote of 7-to-14. The board now plans to vote on an opt-out measure next month.
While Lee County wouldn’t be the only municipality to opt out based largely on broad moral objections to recreational marijuana, some of the logic from the meeting was hard to follow.
Board members Jim Schielein and Tom Kitson said it’s hypocritical for the board to sign off on taxing marijuana when they’re participating in a nationwide lawsuit against opioid companies. Schielein called it “hypocrisy for the sake of revenue.”
There is much debate right now among health professionals as to whether marijuana can help to solve the opioid crisis. Regardless of where you stand in that conversation, it applies mainly to medical marijuana and not recreational.
Another board member, Dave Bowers, said instituting a tax would send a bad message - that the county was in the drug business. Bob Olsen, however, pointed out that not taxing it could be counterproductive to that end. Olsen’s point is valid - not being taxed by the county could actually be perceived as an incentive for businesses considering Dixon.
The Dixon City Council hasn’t formally made a decision on dispensaries but is in the process of drafting zoning regulations for them. A developer is also considering Dixon if it gets one of three recreational licenses the state will grant in the region in May.
While we respect everyone’s personal views on the morality of recreational marijuana, we caution Lee County Board members to look beyond their own personal views to get a clear picture of what is in the best interests of the county. The county could have passed the tax and still chosen to opt out of the dispensary business, allowing it to collect revenue from businesses in Dixon or its other municipalities.
The most important question residents should be asking right now is whether a concerted countywide effort has been made to plan for the advent of marijuana legalization. We would hope that county and municipal leaders, especially in Dixon, have worked together to determine whether this should be an important part of its economic future. From what we’re seeing thus far, it’s questionable as to whether Lee County’s leaders are on the same page.
___
September 22, 2019
The (Champaign) News-Gazette
Future drawing ever closer
It was just last week that Rivian Automotive, an electric-vehicle startup with a production plant in Normal, announced that Cox Automotive was investing $350 million in its burgeoning enterprise.
The announcement sparked considerable speculation about Rivian’s future and its spin-off benefits for East Central Illinois and the entire state. After all, Cox’s large investment was preceded by even bigger investments in Rivian by Ford ($500 million) and Amazon ($700 million).
What was speculation about Rivian’s future just days ago is now entering the realm of fact about the company’s prospects. That’s because Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos revealed Sept. 19 that his company plans to buy 100,000 electric delivery vehicles from Rivian as part of its goal of using 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, up from its level of 40 percent today.
Bezos said it’s his hope that Amazon’s first electric delivery vans will be on the road by 2021.
News reports indicate the order may well be “the largest ever for electric delivery vehicles.”
It’s exciting, not just because of the groundbreaking possibilities represented by growing progress on the electric-vehicle front but also because of the potential economic impact.
Think hundreds, perhaps thousands, of good jobs for people who need them. Think about the economic growth and social stability fostered by increased high-level employment. Think about increased tax revenues paid to state and local governments that will allow those entities to fund the high cost of important public services.
It’s important not to get too carried away by what’s happening. But, with apologies to songwriter Steven Allen, this could be the start of something big.
Based in Michigan, Rivian was founded just 10 years ago and focuses on what it calls “sustainable transportation.”
Working with state officials on a tax-incentive plan, it took over the vacated Mitsubishi plant in 2017, where it employs 130 people.
Its initial production plan is modest by auto-industry standards. Its forecast calls for producing roughly 20,000 vehicles over two years, starting in 2020.
Or maybe there will be more, thanks to orders from companies like Amazon. Perhaps that’s why its long-term goal is to produce 250,000 electric pickup trucks and SUVs a year.
Rivian, of course, is not the only manufacturer interested in building electric vehicles to replace internal combustion engines. Indeed, they’re involved in a highly competitive race with big and small companies to see who builds the best vehicle the fastest and cheapest.
The winners will have access to a worldwide market and the resulting profits. The losers will go the way of the Packard.
Whatever happens and whoever wins, the benefits vis a vis the economy and the environment will be significant and many.
There is, of course, a long way to go in this groundbreaking pursuit. One can call it “sustainable transportation.” Or, to borrow an older phrase, building a better mousetrap.
But the ultimate resource, people’s capacity to use their knowledge to achieve great progress, is on display once again.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.