So is this now the Denny Hastert law?

J. Dennis Hastert of Yorkville used to be thought of as one of the few Illinoisans to ever rise all the way to the rank of Speaker of the House of Representatives, and is actually the longest-serving Republican to ever hold that all-powerful political position.

HASTERT: Is this now lis legacy?

One that actually puts its occupant in line for the U.S. presidency in the event of an emergency that takes down both the president and vice-president.

BUT JUST AS Dan Rostenkowski fell from grace and the notion he was the all-powerful chairman of House ways and means, Hastert also took a plunge in reputation.

To the point where he probably has experienced an even bigger fall. Which is illustrated by the new law in Illinois approved by Gov. J.B. Pritzker that relates to statute of limitations for people to be charged with sex crimes.

It now seems that aggravated criminal sexual assault and abuse are now the equivalent of murder – as in there’s no amount of time that can pass without someone running the risk of criminal prosecution.

Come Jan. 1, anybody facing criminal suspicion can face prosecution if state’s attorney officials somewhere are capable of putting together a criminal case. Whereas it used to be that prosecutors had 10 years to put together a criminal case – AND the case had to be reported to police within three years of the alleged incident’s occurrence.

THIS LAW WAS enacted because of political people who wanted to appear to be doing something significant in response to the predicament caused by Hastert – who once was a high school teacher and wrestling coach who later in life had some of his former students claim he took liberties with them of a sexual nature.

The incidents supposedly occurred back when Hastert was their teacher and coach in the late 1960s and early 1970s, but it wasn’t until the mid-2010s that the allegations became public.

Which meant that even if sufficient evidence could be procured, so much time had passed that Hastert was never in danger of criminal prosecution.

PRITZKER: Signed the measure into law

But it was because of actions that Hastert took to try to keep people from talking about things that eventually resulted in J. Dennis being found guilty of something criminal – which resulted in him getting a prison term (he’s been free for a couple of years now) and becoming the highest-ranking government official to ever have to serve time for a crime. While also proving the notion that it's the cover-up, and not the crime itself, that gets you in the most trouble!

WHICH HAVE SOME people convinced that something wasn’t fair. Which also is what motivated legislators of both Republican and Democratic partisan leanings to sponsor the bill that passed overwhelmingly this spring before getting Pritzker’s approval last week.

So now, theoretically, we could have prosecuted Hastert for the crime, instead of the technicality. Although I have to admit to being a bit wary of such incidents.

Usually because the passage of so much time means the actual evidence becomes weaker, more heresay, to be honest.

To be honest, the strongest criminal cases are the ones whose defendants literally are caught in the act right at the time of their alleged criminal occurrence.

WHICH IS THE point of statute of limitations laws – acknowledging that there are some instances where it is not practical to punish someone for something that happened many years ago and where people might have been too ashamed to talk about it at the time of occurrence.

Although some see that as a good thing (it means sexual predators cannot escape their actions ever) and a bad (people may wind up getting prosecuted and convicted based on testimony from people whose memories may not be quite as accurate as they once were due to the passage of time).

Not that I don’t doubt some people aren’t going to let that possibility concern them – they may want more prosecution, regardless of how solid the charges may be.

And Hastert’s contribution to our public discourse may well be something he did long before his 8 years as House Speaker (and 20 years in Congress overall) back in the days when he was a nobody to the masses – and “coach” to a select few individuals living out in what some of us would have dismissed as “the boonies” of the Chicago area.

  -30-

Women to become like knights in chess; leaping from square to square in search of safe space for abortions

There are those people with dreams that the Supreme Court of the United States is on the verge of striking down their 1973 ruling that made abortion of a pregnancy a legitimate medical procedure.

Queen the 'most powerful' chess piece, but women could become more like knight, hoping around the states looking for safe space when it comes to abortions

They fantasize that the overturning of the “Roe vs. Wade” court ruling will allow states to go back to the old days, so to speak, when a woman losing a child would be reason for a police investigation – to see if anyone did anything deliberate to cause the loss of a child.

WHICH ALSO MAKES these people the ones whose blood pressure shot sky-high Wednesday, when Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Reproductive Health Act into law.

That’s the measure approved this spring by the General Assembly (the one that got Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan and state Senate President John Cullerton excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the bishop for Springfield).

It is the one that says any attempt to take down a woman’s right to end a pregnancy by her own choice at the national level won’t change things in Illinois. Because our state will remain one where the issue is perceived as a gynecological one – rather than something involving morals.

Of course, that enhances the concept that our nation is destined to become a chessboard, of sorts.

OUR NATIONAL MAPS will start to have versions where abortion is regarded as a health issue – as opposed to one where the police are called for whenever a pregnancy ends unsuccessfully.

Abortion restrictions continue to evolve into national chessboard effect

Think I’m kidding?

Take our own Midwest. We could wind up one of the most split regions of our nation when it comes to abortion policy.

For Illinois is establishing itself as a state where a woman can go, if she needs/desires the procedure. While our bordering states are becoming places eager to establish themselves as one where we call the cops on any woman who doesn’t view the creation of a new life as her most significant function on this planet.

OVER IN INDIANA, the state has a law requiring a fetus to receive a proper funeral (either through burial or cremation), which would create more of a hassle for women viewing an abortion as a way of getting out of an inconvenient pregnancy. The Supreme Court recently upheld that.

Whereas over in Missouri, one of the controversies of late is the fact that officials are refusing to renew the permits allowing Planned Parenthood to operate a clinic in St. Louis that includes abortion amongst the services it performs.

That clinic happens to be the only one anywhere in Missouri where a woman can get an abortion. Meaning the clinic in nearby Granite City, Ill., is now likely to become jammed up with women crossing the state lines so they can no longer be pregnant.

Whose choice should it be … 

The Mississippi River could become a boundary women will have to cross. So too could State Line Road – the street that literally separates Chicago from Hammond, Ind. AND Illinois from Indiana. Since our Hoosier neighbors have made it clear they also view abortion as something that ought to be a police matter.

WITH THAT STATE’S attitudes receiving national prominence because many of its efforts to restrict abortion access came about back when Vice President Mike Pence was Indiana governor – and he makes it clear he’s not only not repentant, he’s one of those who’s hoping all the Southern states (Alabama, Mississippi, etc.) pushing their own anti-abortion measures ultimately result in giving the Supreme Court an excuse to take down “Roe vs. Wade.”

… with regards to that potential for a baby inside?

It’s going to be the chessboard effect – with some 30 of the 50 states enacting laws intended to make abortion, if not a criminal act, one that is next-to-impossible to obtain. Women in places like Illinois, New York or California (or other states dominated by a sizable urban area) will have it, while those in more rural places will be like the knight in a game of chess – leaping over state lines to wind up somewhere where political people are more tolerant.

Even though there is evidence that many women everywhere are supportive of the notion that abortion is a medical issue – a recent poll for NPR and PBS found 63 percent think a woman who is raped or suffers from incest (which are criminal acts) ought to be able to end a pregnancy, while 86 percent think saving a woman’s life or health is sufficient reason.

While only 24 percent think that a doctor performing such an act is a criminal – with 71 percent opposed. Just one more bit of evidence on how out-of-touch the ideologues are when they spew their rhetoric about the, “cruel dehumanization of unborn Illinoisans on a mass scale.”

  -30-

Dems hope ideologues shoot selves in 'right' foot with Alabama abortion law

There’s a lot of rhetoric flowing around about abortion these days – what with the state of Alabama having passed an overly restrictive law against terminating a pregnancy that many believe is intended to be the measure that the Supreme Court ultimately upholds as a way of striking down the Roe vs. Wade ruling of 1973 that found women have a right to abortion being legal.

Much of it is coming from Democratic partisan politicos who are quick to express their revulsion at people who think ending a pregnancy ought to be a criminal act. As the Washington Post is reporting, many Republicans are going out of their way to keep quiet.

ALMOST AS THOUGH they’re behaving like accused criminals who are exercising their Miranda rights “to remain silent” as “anything you say can be used as evidence in a court of law against you.”

That actually has some of the proponents of abortion remaining legal hoping that Alabama is the bit of evidence as to the immorality of the anti-abortion argument – along with the legal legitimacy of Roe vs. Wade!

Have the Republican ideologues overplayed their hand by showing how repulsive their intentions truly are? Will so many people wind up being turned off by what Alabama has done that it will drive many people into the “pro-choice” column?

Has Alabama done the progressives a favor by provoking the legal fight that will take down their pet cause – which is to go back to the days of viewing a woman as a criminal if she wants out of that unplanned pregnancy!

AND IS THIS going to make an even bigger priority out of abortion come the 2020 cycle – making the issue a key point for voters who may already want Donald Trump kicked out of the White House on his keister?

Right now, Trump benefits from the potential circumstances that Democratic voters may not be able to agree on a single candidate to challenge the president.

But if they really see that abortion could become such a mess, it could be the factor that forces many Democrats to shut up and vote for the nominee – even if their preferred candidate doesn’t win in the primary portion of the election.

As things stand, Ralph Reed, one-time head of the Christian Coalition, tells the Washington Post, that the possibility exists that anti-abortion stances will be turned on the campaign trail into support for what Alabama is trying to do – which could put abortion critics on the defensive.

OF COURSE, PUTTING those ideologues on the defensive may well be the just thing to do. Because all too often, the abortion critics want to claim a high-and-mighty moral tone to their stance – which is really nothing more than having people butt in to the actions of a woman whose pregnancy puts her in a predicament.

Personally, I know of one person (whom I’ve known for decades) who recently posted on Facebook that Alabama officials should be thanked, “for doing what is right instead of what the world tells you.”

To which I can only think that everybody has the right to be wrong. Although for all I know, she probably thinks the same of me (I don’t think the two of us have ever explicitly discussed the issue).

Perhaps it’s time we should. And I mean everybody -- and not just the usual ideologue nonsense about "baby killers."

THAT COULD BE the benefit of what Alabama has done with their measure – which basically is meant to take away the argument conservative politicos have long used to try to make themselves sound sensible. They say they favor abortion restriction exemptions for women who are impregnated by rape or incest.

While the ideologues are trying to undo such talk by claiming that a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy ought to end at the point when a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Which comes so early in the process of human conception that many women aren’t even aware yet that they’re pregnant. Causing many to complain that old, white men in Alabama are trying to impose their own morals on us all about what a woman should be permitted to do with her body.

I’ve often wondered if my own thoughts about abortion are of less importance because, as a male, I’m never going to be in a situation to have one. But am I now going to be dragged into the argument to provide a sense of balance to the political debate – rather than letting the ideologues and their bullying-like behavior prevail.

  -30-

A change is a gonna be coming with regards to the way pot is perceived

I don’t use marijuana, largely because I find the thought of smoking anything to be repulsive and I’m not thrilled about the concept of substances that alter one’s perception of the world around us.

PRITZKER: Backs 'home grow'

I want my senses at full power, and not altered into a haze. It’s not something I’d find relaxing.

BUT I’M ALSO realistic enough to know that many of the laws that exist to criminalize the drug’s use come from an ideological mentality that thought marijuana was only used by certain types of people – and harassment of those individuals was what the laws really were all about.

So we’re bound to have partisan political fights in coming years as we try to reach some realization that a person has some sort of right to get themselves stoned into oblivion. If they’re that stupid, who are we to really stop them.

After all, we did away with Prohibition decades ago. Some of those who argue vehemently about wanting to crack down on drugs will also argue one’s right to get themselves intoxicated beyond belief.

Then again, getting drunk is “cool” and a sign that one is an adult. While getting “stoned” is for hippie freaks still trying to live the Haight Ashbury lifestyle – failing to realize that truly trendy people are ridiculing them. Or if we’re talking about the more bigoted amongst us, we get the old allusions to jazz musicians (who were nothing but Negro ‘hopheads’) being the only people who get stoned.

From the Hippie perceptions … 

ALL OF THESE thoughts popped into my mind when I learned of Gov. J.B. Pritzker saying he supports the concept of “home grow.” As in the right of people to grow marijuana plants within their own homes for their own personal use.

With some of the state legislators who have supported measures to permit medical use of marijuana now talking about changes in Illinois law to allow for one to have their own pot plants in the house.

… to those of age-old prejudices … 

We’d have to stop thinking of the person with special lamps and ventilation systems set up in their closets to allow for marijuana growth (in part because the dark conditions can be prime and because of the lack of attention) as being some sort of criminal.

Those ads for the marijuana grow lights would take on a less-sinister connotation. Although I’m sure the ideologues amongst us will forevermore view it as their life’s mission to keep such changes in perception from ever fully taking place.

… to the ludicrousness of certain Mexican cinema

AS FAR AS the legislative process in Illinois is concerned, officials are contemplating a measure that would let people have up to five marijuana plants in the home. Similar to how possession of a tiny amount on one’s person is now considered a minor offense worthy only of a small fine.

Some states that already permit “home grow” allow more, with Michigan law permitting people to have up to a dozen plants in their homes.

In short, nobody is talking about allowing someone to convert the entire basement into a dark, dank pot farm of sorts.

I use that particular image because of a personal, of sorts, experience. When one of my grandmothers died and the family ultimately sold off the house in which she lived at the end of her life, we got our shock a few years later when we saw the house on the television news.

IT TURNS OUT the new owners bought the home because they liked its big, huge basement already broken up into several rooms, and turned those rooms into a sophisticated operation for the growing of marijuana.

I wonder what my grandmother would have thought of the idea of a police raid at her one-time home. But then again, I seem to recall those new owners paid cash up front for the home. It’s no wonder. Business must have been good.

Will its gags become obsolete?

But for those people who want to retort to all of this that marijuana legalization or decriminalization of any sort is an encouragement to inherently criminal activity, I’d argue that it only takes on its criminal essence because we make it so. Making such changes in law might actually undermine the ability of criminals to make money off drugs. Taking away the financial incentive would go a long way toward reducing crime.

Then again, it would make the old Cheech and Chong film “Nice Dreams” seem obsolete – future generations might not get the gag of the scene where the namesake characters were growing marijuana in their swimming pool, with a pool cover meant to make it appear from the air that the pool was filmed with water.

  -30-

Have times changed to shift support away from R. Kelly’s alleged penchant for being too close to young girls?

I’m eager to see how the whole saga related to R&B singer R. Kelly plays out – will his celebrity status continue to make people think he’s somehow above the law and shouldn’t be punished?

Or has his time finally run out? Will he wind up facing legal consequences as a result of the criminal indictments he was hit with Friday – as a result of allegations that Kelly (who is 52) has a thing for girls aged roughly 16.

THE CHARGES OF aggravated criminal sexual assault for which he was hit were for incidents involving four females – three of whom were 16 or younger. His initial appearance in Cook County Circuit Court for a bond hearing is set for Saturday.

Now the reason I’m not yet convinced that anything significant will become of all this is because this isn’t even the first time Kelly has faced criminal charges related to his conduct with young girls.

It was back in 2008 when prosecutors pushed for charges, and he wound up going on trial for claims that his use of video cameras to record his activities amounted to child pornography.

He was acquitted for all those charges, and there were people back then who were more than willing to believe speculation that Kelly was being persecuted. Similar to the 2005 trial of “King of Pop” Michael Jackson – who was found not guilty of criminal charges claiming he had a “thing” for young boys.

THERE WERE PEOPLE more than willing to see their prosecution as petty acts by petty prosecutors who couldn’t handle the thought of a black person being successful.

It was true that during Kelly’s last criminal trial, the case ultimately fell apart when the girls who supposedly were molested were unwilling to confirm that anything improper was done to them.

So what will happen as this case works its way through the legal process?

There are some who think that activists with a focus on abuse against women will manage to prevail. We’ll see his behavior as so tacky that we’ll eagerly hope he gets found guilty of each count against him – with prison terms piled up consecutively.

THERE ARE THOSE who already are speculating on a 70-year prison term for R. Kelly – with just the slightest touch of disgust that probation is also an option.

Not that I’m counting on such an outcome occurring yet. Let’s not forget the recently-completed criminal trial of former Chicago cop Jason Van Dyke. Remember the people who speculated on a pileup of sentences that could result it a 90-year-plus prison sentence?

And just what was it that Van Dyke ultimately got as punishment for the incident involving a 17-year-old being shot to death? A judge who figured out a way to give him a prison sentence that – when time off for good behavior is factored in – will come to just over three years served in prison somewhere.

There are those who think Van Dyke should suffer more. Will there be a outburst of anger from people eager to see Kelly suffer?

IT MOST DEFINITELY won’t be the same people. I suspect the kind of people anxious to see Van Dyke suffer will be the ones most likely to think that Kelly is somehow being persecuted.

It’s ultimately going to be a matter of how many people still have sympathetic memories of watching “Space Jam,” whose theme song “I Believe I Can Fly” was performed by Kelly. To the point where they can’t believe anybody connected through the film to basketball star Michael Jordan and Bugs Bunny himself could do anything immoral.

The fact is that some people do have the ability to overlook fact, thinking of them as the sordid details that distract from truth – or at least truth as they want to view it.

We’ll have to wait and see just how much we’re willing to take a serious look at what has occurred here.

  -30-

The issue that won’t die; Van Dyke fate

Former Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke may now be a convicted felon sentenced to serve a few years in prison (although Illinois Corrections Department officials still won’t say exactly which one) for the death of a teenager – but the racially-tinged shooting incident won’t wither away.

VAN DYKE: Case lingers on

For it seems that both the special prosecutor who oversaw the criminal case AND the Illinois attorney general’s office are considering legal maneuvers that could try to force a new prison sentence to be imposed.

SOMETHING, PERHAPS, CLOSER to the 18 to 20 years that prosecutors sought from Judge Vincent Gaughan, rather than the 6-year, 9-month sentence (of which he’s already done 3 months in the Rock Island County jail) that could see him released in a little over three years time.

Van Dyke was found guilty last autumn on a charge of murder in the second degree (implying there was some mitigating factor that could sort of justify the killing) and multiple counts of aggravated battery.

Literally one count for each of the 16 shots that Van Dyke was found to have fired at Laquan McDonald. Which theoretically could have resulted in prison time for each shot and could have added up to something close to 100 years of time,

In my own (admittedly non-law school educated) mind, that combination of charges never made sense. They conflicted with each other, and the real question to me about the sentencing that took place last week was how would Gaughan manage to reconcile the mismatch.

McDONALD: Means more in death than life

HE WOUND UP doing so by basing the sentence for Van Dyke off the second-degree murder charge and ignoring all those additional charges that could have brought about the lengthy, life-like prison term that the activist types eager to see imposed on a white cop for killing a black male who hadn’t even reached the age of maturity back on that October 2014 night that he was shot to death because he was acting erratically (his mind was messed up on illicit drugs that night) while walking around the neighborhood near a Burger King franchise.

It seems the legal minds wishing to appease those activists are wondering if the Illinois Supreme Court could issue a mandamus order – which essentially would say Gaughan screwed up and emphasized the wrong criminal charge.

Which could result in a resentencing with results more satisfactory to those people who back in autumn marched through the streets of downtown Chicago in celebration of the fact that a “cracker cop” got what he deserved by being found guilty.

RAOUL: Will he take on appeal?

We’ll have to see if Joseph McMahon (the special prosecutor brought in from suburban Kane County) or newly-elected state Attorney General Kwame Raoul wants to take on this issue – or is willing to accept the prison time that Van Dyke already must serve.

SOME WILL SAY that Van Dyke is now a former cop with a criminal record – which pretty much ruins him for any type of life he had hoped to live. They’re likely to think that prolonging this legal argument only stirs up more resentment amongst the city’s populace.

Although others will think the resentment lingers for as long as Van Dyke gets a penalty less severe than their imaginations have concocted.

This may be the real harm of the racist policies that were considered legitimate in our society in the past – they’ve created so much anger that it’s almost like we’re going to need white people to suffer unjustly in order to balance things out.

Which would only serve to ensure these racial tensions linger amongst us for decades to come – particularly fed on by nitwits in support of the Age of Trump we now live in who may well want to think that the only victim in this whole affair is Van Dyke himself!

OF COURSE, THERE will be others eager to keep the memory of this incident alive. Consider that newly-elected state Rep. Anne Stava-Murray, D-Naperville, is enhancing her reputation as someone eager to draw attention to herself by ticking off the sensibilities of political people around her.

STAVA-MURRAY: Wants McDonald Act

Stava-Murray introduced as her first bill ever a measure creating the Laquan McDonald Act. A measure applying only to Chicago and creating procedures by which we could have recall elections for mayor and alderman in Chicago and state’s attorney in Cook County.

It really does come across as an attention-grabber from the freshman legislator who already has indicated she’s not seeking re-election in 2020 – and instead will challenge Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., for his post on Capitol Hill. It certainly isn’t about necessary changes to the law – the electorate dumped Anita Alvarez as state’s attorney back in 2016 and Rahm Emanuel didn’t even try to seek re-election, largely because of public disgust over what happened to Laquan.

As though we’re supposed to forever remember Laquan, and not think of that silly clown and his mediocre hamburgers every time we hear the phrase “McDonald” in the future.

  -30-

Everybody upset w/ Van Dyke verdict

I suspect there was a moment, however brief, of joy when Judge Vincent Gaughan said “81 …,” giving people the impression that a former Chicago cop convicted of the shooting death of a 17-year-old black teen was about to put the 40-year-old cop away to rot in prison for life.

VAN DYKE: Nearly 7 years

But then, Gaughan continued with “… months,” not years.

AS IN GAUGHAN decided that his prison term will only last a period of just under seven years – of which he’s already served three months in the county jail out in Rock Island, Ill.

Considering that the family of Laquan McDonald came out and said Friday that they thought a prison term of at least 20 years was essential for Van Dyke to be properly punished.

And, in fact, prosecutors themselves made a recommendation of an 18- to 20-year prison term for Van Dyke.

But Gaughan ultimately chose to concoct a prison term based off the fact that Van Dyke was found guilty of a second-degree murder charge, and not to factor in all those additional counts of aggravated battery with a firearm – which in theory could have made for a prison term of nearly 100 years possible.

“A JOKE AND a slap in the face,” along with a slew of obscenities, was the reaction of McDonald’s family to the prison sentence after the sentence was handed down following a day-long sentencing hearing that occurred Friday.

McDONALD: Gone nearly as long as Van Dyke

But Gaughan made a point of saying he figured “100 percent” of people were going to be offended by his sentence. I don’t doubt that, because Van Dyke’s family made emotional pleas saying they have already suffered severely by the loss of Jason to incarceration for any length of time.

As it was, they argued that a sentence of probation would have been appropriate. Which I don’t doubt was an idea of great offense to the McDonald family. As it was, Laquan’s uncle read a letter into the record on Friday that was written as though it was crafted by McDonald himself.

Telling us that he was trying to make something of his life, give up his drug addictions, and that Van Dyke, by firing the 16 shots into his body, deprived him of that opportunity.

GAUGHAN: Upset 100 percent of people

THERE IS ONE thing that has to be conceded – it could have gone much worse for Van Dyke. He’ll be about 46 years old when he is released from prison. In short, he has a chance to put together a “rest of his life.” Even though I don’t doubt he’ll view the next six or so years as the most hellish experience he’ll ever have to endure.

It’s not going to be a pretty experience for a law enforcement officer. But some people see this whole Van Dyke ordeal as being about making police suffer.

If anything, they’re even more upset by the ruling earlier this week that three police officers facing criminal charges for filing false reports about what it was Van Dyke did to McDonald were NOT guilty.

There are those who wanted Van Dyke to rot in prison, and see a complete crackdown on the Chicago Police Department. Anything short of that is going to cause them to feel nothing but contempt for our legal system.

THEN AGAIN, THERE probably is nothing that would please those individuals. Some people get way too hung up on the concept of retribution. Even though what we as a society ought to be trying to do is figure out the way to move beyond this incident.

McCARTHY: Would win be seen as police victory?

Because the reality of the whole affair is that there’s nothing that can be done to bring Laquan McDonald back to life. There’s nothing that will restore the type of life that Jason Van Dyke had, or will protect his family from the harm they’re suffering as a result of what happened on that October night of 2014.

Of course, there could be one coming blow in the near future that would further “rub it in” the very notion that law enforcement is protecting itself, and NOT the public. What happens if Garry McCarthy somehow wins the mayoral election of February and run-off of April?

For McCarthy was the police superintendent who lost his job because of Van Dyke’s actions. Would the people eager to protect the police image be strong enough to make him our city’s mayor?

  -30-

Is this the calm before the storm?

VAN DYKE: Protector of the public?

The idea of August as being the summer doldrums gets reinforced all the more this year – what with the trial of the Chicago cop who faces criminal charges for the shooting death of a teenager back in 2014 finally scheduled to take place.

Come Sept. 5, the Cook County courts will finally get around to holding the trial that will decide the fate of officer Jason Van Dyke – the man who got captured on crude video firing 16 shots into the body of a 17-year-old who may, or may not, have been acting irrationally.

McDONALD: Could he have been a scholar?

THERE’S NO DOUBT that Van Dyke fired the shots that killed Laquan McDonald. The issue in this trial is going to be whether his actions were justified as part of his duties “to serve and protect” the people of Chicago.

Which is going to be a judgment call. It’s clear that no matter what, the public perspective will be such that Chicago will be seriously split. This verdict is going to leave the populace of Chicago seriously p-o’ed.

For every single person determined to believe this is an instance of a police officer committing cold-blooded murder, there’s going to be another individual wanting to believe that McDonald got what he deserved – and that perhaps we ought to be thinking of giving him a medal.

A concept that will seriously offend those who have been outspoken in their rhetoric that Van Dyke belongs in prison. They probably won’t be happy until they hear word that “inmate” Van Dyke was assaulted by fellow inmates while in prison.

THESE FACTIONS OF people are going to be going at each other once the trial gets underway. Which means we ought to regard the next few weeks of August as being the calm before the storm.

How will their reputation be altered?

Before the sides start going at each other with full force. Before the rhetoric gets ultra-ugly, and before things get said and done that manage to bring embarrassment to the public perception of Chicago.

I say full force because we got a little taste of what will be forthcoming this very weekend.

It was the Bud Billiken Parade, and the parade’s co-grand marshal, rap singer Vic Mensa, managed to ruffle the sensibilities of police. Mensa on Saturday carried a “Convict Jason Van Dyke” banner. Police officers on duty to maintain order during the parade gathered around him.

WORDS WERE SPOKEN between the two sides, and Mensa at one point taunted the police to arrest him. Daring them to make a national story out of the event by taking him into custody!

Police maintained enough professional restraint to avoid escalating the incident. But it is likely once the trial gets underway and we begin getting the daily dribble of testimony, we’re likely to learn something that offends the public sensibility to the point the outbursts will get out of control.

I’m not making a judgment, as the outburst could easily come from either side of those in our society who are going to take offense.

It could easily come from those people who are offended by the testimony that will be presented in the form of animation.

FOR IT SEEMS that the Van Dyke legal defense team wants to give us a very technical version of what happened – depicting some 5 of the 16 shots, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Even if relocated, Cook will get tainted by trial

Perhaps they think that an overly technical visual version of what happened will somehow make the incident seem less offensive and brutal.

Which is a concept that will offend those inclined to believe the worst about police and their brutality towards the people, particularly the segment that could never be described as Anglo in complexion.

I don’t know if it will become (I hope it doesn’t turn out to be) a race riot. But I suspect the next few months will provide anecdotes that will embarrass our city’s public perception – and we’ll all be very grateful come the arrival of 2019.

  -30-

Death penalty proponents may view Papal pronouncements as fightin’ words

It has been a few hours since Pope Francis’ comments Thursday about the death penalty being “inadmissible” in all instances, and I’m still trying to figure out why anyone should view this as a radical change.

FRANCIS: Church to more actively oppose death

As a reporter-type person who has, on several occasions (although none since 2001 when the federal government put Timothy McVeigh to death), covered the process leading up to executions, one of the standard pieces of the story is that the Catholic Church is opposed.

THE POPE HIMSELF invariably will make statements about how cruel the concept is of putting someone to death as a form of criminal punishment. As though it is Homicide, committed in the name of Justice.

I know church officials I have spoken to have always tried to describe capital punishment as something obsolete – something that there’s just no need for in the modern-day world.

There are provisions in Catholic teachings that were taught in the past to justify an execution as a form of public protection. Meaning that the criminal in question was so violent and such a risk to society that putting the person to death was the only way to ensure that nobody else was hurt by his acts.

The governors who did away … 

Modern-day prisons and life-without-parole prison terms are considered sufficient protection – thereby eliminating the need to take away an individual’s life.

ONE THOUGHT I always was taught was that execution as a form of providing someone with vengeance for a criminal act was wrong – if not a sinful thought to have itself.

Almost as though someone who is eagerly awaiting another person’s execution ought to be making a trip to their priest to perform confession of their sin – and seek penance so as to avoid the pains someday of Hell and eternal damnation.

… with death penalty in Illinois, … 

But now, Pope Francis is proclaiming that execution “attacks” human dignity, even in those who have committed violent criminal acts. A thought that is not going to be a popular one amongst those who publicly proclaim their desire for more executions – and those who think that one of Illinois’ drawbacks is that we had the sense to do away with the state’s capital crimes statutes nearly a decade ago.

… and the governor who hints at bringing it back

To the point where Gov. Bruce Rauner’s political re-election strategy has included making pronouncements implying he’d like to see executions restored in this state (there hasn’t been an execution in Illinois since the 1999 date when Andrew Kokoraleis was put to death by lethal injection at the now-shuttered prison in Tamms).

IT WOULD SEEM that instead of papal pronouncements against execution every time a death row inmate comes close to an execution date, it’s now going to be an active part of Catholic teaching to publicly support abolition of execution.

Catholics are now going to have to become truly “pro-life” in their views on mankind and society, instead of using the label to define their opposition to abortion being a legal medical procedure.

As for those political people who happen to be Catholic, I know there are those who happen to think they’re obligated to follow their religious faith over all when it comes to abortion-related questions. There are some clergy who like to make overly public pronouncements of excommunication for any government official who doesn’t rigidly support viewing abortion as a criminal act.

Are we bound to see government officials now facing a conflict with regards to capital punishment? Or could this become the ultimate reason why we should view a government official’s religious faith as a personal view, rather than one controlling their public policy actions?

YOU’VE PROBABLY FIGURED out that my own leanings go against capital punishment. I was supportive back when Gov. George Ryan effectively ended the death penalty in Illinois (although there are those who view his actions as the most heinous of his record – more so than any of the offenses for which he was convicted and incarcerated), and thought it a good day when Gov. Pat Quinn signed the legislation that abolished the death penalty altogether.

GACY: For some, he didn't die painfully enough

I still remember the day I came to my leanings – it was May 10, 1994. That was the date John Wayne Gacy was put to death for the dozens of slayings of young men he committed in the 1970s.

I was at the Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet when the execution was performed. There was nothing about the execution procedure that was particularly gruesome (Gacy essentially was put to sleep). But I was most offended by the sight of a trio of nuns and a priest who gathered at the prison to pray for Gacy’s soul – only to be harassed, jeered and taunted by the hundreds of people who gathered outside the prison to cheer on Gacy’s death.

A sight I suspect we’re going to see much more of in coming years as the Catholic Church attempts to show compassion for all of mankind.

  -30-

EXTRA: O.J. vs. “Sweetness” – several hundred dollars difference these days

A couple of bucks for his cardboard

I remember back when O.J. Simpson was a big deal as an athlete – an All-Pro football player with the Buffalo Bills who also had charisma and charm and was well on his way to a celebrity lifestyle.

Now, he’s the guy who did nine years in prison (for supposedly threatening to harm people whom he says stole sports memorabilia from him even though many will forevermore think him guilty of the other crimes for which he was acquitted), and apparently became lucky enough this week to learn he qualified for parole from a Nevada corrections facility. He could be released by October.

Worth $1,000 if authentically autographed

I COULDN’T HELP but look up a little bit of data on the sports memorabilia market – particularly that involved with the trading cards that used to be a kiddie-thing, but now get treasured by people wishing to relive their sporting memories.

For what it’s worth, the book value for an O.J. Simpson card from the 1976 set produced by Topps Chewing Gum is $5.63, but only if it’s in prime physical shape. For anything less, a buck or two is about all O.J. is worth these days, according to SportsLots.com.

By comparison, there’s another card from that same set – one portraying Chicago Bears superstar Walter Payton. Admittedly, that card (which I remember actually owning as a kid) gets value added because it was the “rookie” card for Payton – he was a fresh prospect from Jackson State University who was just beginning his days of trying to make the Bears a respectable team. Fantasies of a Super Bowl were still a decade away in the future.

The same price guide gives a book value for the Payton at $207 – and for what it’s worth, I found one person Thursday on eBay who had such a card and already had bids of $449.99 for it.

Book value: About one dollar

QUITE A DIFFERENCE for pieces of cardboard from the months following the Bicentennial whose only real difference is the image they depict.

And also an example of just how far the mighty are capable of falling in life. A point we should all keep in mind on those occasions when we’re tempted to do something stupid.

Although those of us who remember the Naked Gun movies that included Simpson as an actor know that the “real” villain amongst athletes is Reggie Jackson. After all, he was going to kill the queen!

  -30-

EXTRA: ‘Not Guilty?’ It’s just a plea

I can already hear the rants and rages coming from people in response to the fact that four young people facing criminal charges for the beating of a teenager with mental disabilities entered pleas of “not guilty” on Friday.
 

HOOKS: Here comes da judge!

“How dare those f---ers (or whatever racial slur they prefer to use) plead NOT guilty” to the crime that we all got to see committed because someone pulled out their phone, video-recorded the beating, then put it on Facebook for the world to see.

YET BEFORE WE get worked up about Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill, both 18, and sisters Tanisha and Brittany Covington (24 and 19, respectively), keep in mind that the purpose of the hearing Friday in Cook County Criminal Court was for their criminal case to be assigned to the judge who eventually will oversee their trial – or take their “guilty” plea if they choose to make one.

Cooper

All of them have been held without bond at the Cook County Jail since their arrest last month. They’re not going anywhere. This was just the start of the process that can easily take a couple of years before the criminal case is resolved.

For those people who want to think criminals should just plead their guilt and take whatever punishment is handed down to them, it doesn’t work that way.

Covington, T.

In fact, the four people facing assorted criminal charges, including aggravated kidnapping and hate crimes, could not have entered a “guilty” plea on Friday even if they wanted to. They plead “not guilty,” get assigned to a trial judge, then at some future date attorneys for the prosecution and defense negotiate the actual outcome.

Covington, B.

THE NEWS FROM the courthouse on Friday was that it will be Judge William H. Hooks who will preside over the trial of the four. He’ll be the one who winds up getting his moment of international glory, because the Facebook aspect of this case ensures the “world will be watching” to see what becomes of the young people who allegedly beat up a white boy as a way of venting their anger at the election of Donald Trump.

Hill

Although personally, I think it’s possible to make too much of that angle. It really doesn’t matter what convoluted reasoning they had for the attack – it was the suffering that the 18-year-old victim who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder endured during the beating.

There is no real reason anyone should ever have to go through such an ordeal.

And I’m sure by the time this case is resolved (it often takes two years or so to get through a criminal case in Cook County), Judge Hooks will feel similarly spent.

  -30-