Sunday, August 12, 2012

Bye-Bye I-Bond

This is an innovative way to fight the gangs -- no more I-Bond releases for gang members.

CPD brass listened to its street cops, who said they were sick of the 'bangers they arrested getting back to the streets before the cops could process the paperwork for the arrest.

An I-Bond is basically a signature release for misdemeanor arrests, which promises that the person accused will appear in court.  No bond money is required.  But now, if the arrestee is a gang member, he or she must come up with the dough to be released.  We like it, we really like it!

So, gangbangers, keep on getting new tats proclaiming your gang allegiance.  You'll have some extra time in jail to admire the artwork.


  1. This will help some. But they will still get an I-bond from the Judge at Cook County Jail. A better strategy would be to stop giving people on probation, double probation when they are arrested again. But that is an issue with the liberal Court system & not the police.

  2. Actually, the conseevative element is at least equally responsible...the failed, but continuing war on drugs; the disproportionate sentencing; lack of funding. Very conservative ideals.

  3. Years ago, anyone with ANY warrant would get locked up until they got bailed out OR spent the night in a cell and faced a judge at a bond hearing the next morning. A court ruled, however, that on warrants for NON-jail able offenses, you CANNOT be jailed for the warrant (eg. parking warrants or municipal violations). That is when there was a huge increase in the use of I-bonds.

    Eventually, due to issues of liability like suicide attempts, prisoner fights and/or injuries, etc. District Commanders decided that the fewer prisoners in the lock-up, the better. That's when everyone got I-bonds unless the law said they couldn't, like for felonies.

    Unfortunately, I'll predict right here that some lawyer (ACLU?), will take up the cause of these poor, mistreated gang members and get a ruling from the courts that this law is unconstitutional as it is specifically being utilized against only ONE segment of the public (ie. gang members) and NOT everyone.

    Nice idea and well intentioned, but doomed to fail... just saying.

  4. Ah, Conie, always such a ray of sunshine...

  5. Yeah, sorry Boohoo, but reality is a downer sometimes. You can't pick and choose when you want to violate the Constitution.

    On the positive side, everyone in law enforcement would love to see these clowns have to do a little jail time, even if it is only overnight, and even if it will only be until an injunction is granted against its enforcement by a Cook County judge ruling on its constitutionality.

    To hell with all gang-bangers!

  6. I don't see the unconstitutionality argument. Or how the ACLU could enter this.

    It wasn't unconstitutional before as CoS said it was changed as a matter of policy.I could be wrong, like everyone else.

    Gang members are already treated differently at the Cook County Jail, they are segregated from opposing gangs and "neutrals" are separated from gangs all together. They do this for safety in the jail for staff and prisoners alike

    The tattoo habit kinda makes identification clear-cut.

    My guess is the ACLU will keep their powder dry on this one.

  7. @ Littleton Arts Uptown... When the government passes laws that are designed to be enforceable against only ONE group of citizens and not ALL of its citizens, these laws are generally, eventually found to be unconstitutional. It is NOT against the law to be a gang member nor to claim gang affiliation, (or to be left-handed or a member of the Communist Party, for that matter). THAT is what, I believe, makes this law unconstitutional.

    When you say "It wasn't unconstitutional before..." my response is that NOTHING is 'officially' unconstitutional until the courts actually designate them as such and that only happens when the question is brought before a judge. As I said, I predict that some lawyer WILL have the question of constitutionality in front of a judge soon.

    To be honest, I'm surprised that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton or Farrakhan or any number of West side reverends haven't rallied against this ordinance claiming it will unfairly impact the poor and people of color. Could be they've received reassurances that the law was passed for 'appearances' only, to make it LOOK like the alderman are tough on crime, sort of like how we scoff at immigration laws by touting various DREAM act programs. But that's a whole other conversation.

  8. @ CoS

    I see what your saying, it is not constitutional for a lawyer working alone or with others to challenge this law.

    I think however your over-reaching in thinking the "ministers, Louis Farrakhan", and others would automatically step-up and challenge this. They have not and it does not surprise me.

    The individualls and groups you've mentioned know what I, you and most people know. It is the gangs that are as you put "...unfairly impact the poor and people of color....".

    Your basically predicting a future quote by "somebody" based on something that might have been said in another context.

    In the wash it may not be an entirely bad thing for this to be challenged, a challenged law that survives is stronger. I doubt it will happen though.

    I'm not a lawyer or even close, it would be interesting to see how the recently passed RICO laws as they apply to gangs would affect the constructional muster of this law.

    If a gang leader is designated the leader of a criminal enterprise with RICO wouldn't that change the picture? I am not sure, it seems like that would remove race, ethnicity and the like from the question as it has for more traditional organized crime...for lack of better words.

    Like the great majority of Chicagoans I am not a lawyer, a prosecutor, or a cop. We can only speculate.

    Side note:

    The Nation of Islam was out in force at Lawrence and Sheridan night before last, in sharp suits with their publication trying to talk to the youth hanging out. I don't agree with all they believe but it is there right to do so. If there presence calms down the scene, and I hope it does more power to them.

    We all want PEACE.

  9. Im a 33yearChicago man from chicago i was locked up for cannabis the arresting officer said in his paper work I refused a weed ticket and that I told him I was a Blackstone from terror town
    If officers can lie n say you said anything and it can't but be checked is bias and uou should not go off blind faith alone. Considing not all police are truthful n there practices

  10. Lyteskynn, you broke the law to begin with, so no pity here. Do the crime, serve your time...