John Burge, a former Chicago police detective is accused of overseeing the torture of suspects and participating in coerced confessions. He faces charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for lying about his knowledge and participation in the abuse of suspects. Jury selection for his trial began yesterday.
Victims of Burge include Mark Clements, who spent 28 years behind bars, and Ronald Kitchen who was freed after 21 years in prison. The allegations are that Burge and other detectives used beatings, electric shock, Russian roulette and near-suffocation on various victims. An investigation by Cook County prosecutors found that Burge and his cohorts had coerced confessions by using these abusive methods, but did nothing because they claimed the statute of limitations had run on many of these cases (full story here).
Burge’s abuse and torture went on for about two decades before he was finally fired on allegations of torture in 1993. American children are taught generation after generation that the American system of government is noble and trustworthy in part due to a functional system of checks and balances. It is difficult to see here where exactly those checks and balances were functional while Burge and his comrades tortured suspects for 20 years.
The prosecutors aided, and indeed actively protected these cops. The courts did not adequately question police testimony or evidence, or investigate coerced confessions. The executive branch is nowhere to be seen in this picture. Further, when it comes to compensating victims of this kind of senseless torture and incarceration, the legislative scheme is an utter sham.
In a case called Briscoe v. LaHue, the Supreme Court held that witnesses, and in particular police officers were absolutely immune from civil liability for committing perjury. The Supreme Court reasoned that “the claims of the individual must yield to the dictates of public policy, which requires that the paths which lead to the ascertainment of truth should be left as free and unobstructed as possible.” Such illogical reasoning clearly leaves out the undeniable possibility that removing certain consequences will also cause the path to lies and coverups to be as “free and unobstructed as possible” also.
This attitude assumes that every witness, and specifically every police officer, never has any motivation to wrongly testify against someone. This simply is not the case. People, and police officers are induced to blame others all the time, sometimes purposely, sometimes accidentally; this is a fact of life. To assume witnesses never have ulterior motives is utterly asinine. Unless one believes that human nature is erased once a person is on the witness stand, this kind of reasoning makes absolutely no sense.
Further, civil liability for perjury would mean witnesses could only be liable if they intentionally lied on the stand. To say that people should not be held accountable in civil court for the damages, ruin and incarceration they wrongfully imposed upon another human being is to go above and beyond what is necessary for maintaining “the paths which lead to the ascertainment of truth.”
In the same vein, Justice White explained that in Imbler v. Pachtman that the absolute immunity of public prosecutors was “based on the policy of protecting the judicial process.” Except in the Burge case, it appears that since the prosecutors who failed to take any action against known torturers were absolutely immune, there was absolutely no check or balance of any kind. What Justice White really means is that the immunity of public officials is based on the policy of protecting government and its employees, not justice.
Judges like to talk about “public policy” and “protection of the judicial process” but one must be wary when members of government carve out special rules for themselves allowing for the abuse of individuals and without facing monetary recourse. Judges, lawmakers, prosecutors and police are the process. Claims of protecting the “process” are precisely that – laws, rules, hurdles that allow the people in power behave recklessly with no adequate check on their abuse of discretion.
Some victims of Burge’s torture were eventually compensated when the Chicago City Council approved settlements totaling as much as $19.8 million. But of course, the police who actually tortured, abused and coerced confessions will not be footing this bill. Chicago taxpayers will.
This is how the government works. It protects its own by creating absurd laws absolving government employees of personal responsibility, and shifts the costs of government abuse onto the general public.
Adam,
The problem with YouTube is when you say stupid stuff on it the whole world gets to see it. You come accross as a complete idioit and are doomed to a frustrating life because you can’t make sense of the world you live in. The good thing is most of your problem of ignorance stems from your youth so perhaps you have a chance.
Why you would ask a police officer to choose which laws he wants to enforce is laughable in its stupidity. I’m sure the public would love some officers ticketing speeders at 30 mph over the limit while other chose 1 mph over the limit. Or perhaps robbery, rape and murder should be up to each officer as well. What happens when there are 6 officers, do they vote at each crime scene whether they “want” to enforce this violation.
The trouble with youth is you don’t realize EVERYONE has already traveled your path, we were ALL young once. With age comes wisdom, I suspect you will look back at this YouTube vid and say they same thing most of us are thinking or saying, what a stupid punk.
You suffer from the inability to make a rational arguement. You clearly smoke weed too much, your level of thinking is at an elementary school level and I am serious about that.
Grow up Adam!
Steve,
Thanks for your thoughts, though you failed to really list any meaningful ones. If you had listened to the video you would of realized that I was discussing victimless crimes, those are ‘crimes’ that have no victim fyi, and not ones that consist of rape, murder and/or robbery. As those clearly have victims and those victims should seek those out who have done them wrong by whatever means.
I wish you could explain what exactly you didn’t understand about the video? Was it the fact that cops (SWAT members) should be storming into houses and shooting dog over drugs? Or was it that you couldn’t understand my point how police aren’t responsible for controlling what others put in their bodies. Especially things they choose to put in their bodies?
I also didn’t ask a police officer to choose which laws to enforce. I ask them to enforce laws that have victims and not ones that generate revenue for the state. Or others that only harm peaceful, hard working folks like the war on drugs.
I appreciate your comments but next time you call someone out for failing to make ‘a rational argument’ make sure you make one of your own. Not once did you state why I was wrong, how I was wrong or any reasoning or logic on how you came to this conclusion. If you’d like to carry this on further please feel free to email me at CopBlock.
Steve, are you suggesting that protesting senseless killing of pets and violent raids over non-violent crimes is youthful and foolish? Or are you suggesting that once you are old and have attained that enlightened level of wisdom, you start to realize that shooting other people’s dogs and tearing down their doors in the middle of the night becomes acceptable? I am not sure I understand YOUR argument.
Please, let me know when that magical time comes, when I will be bestowed with the great wisdom of age (as you have been) and decide that oppression and violence by people in uniform is moral and just. I await that day with great anticipation.
If you think that asking those in uniform, who claim to protect and serve, to refrain from gross abuses and to use a little discretion in committing violence is youthful and foolish, I’d say that you are not wise, but senile.
This particular article about gov’t protecting their own is right on time, well written and says a lot about how this system works, or doesn’t work. This is the exact reason that most cops do as they please and openly exihibit power abuse is because what will happen to them? Nothing. The Chief backs them, the Sheriff, the Jurors, the Grand Jury, the Judge. They just rave about how good a job they do out there. Well, the problem with that is, they don’t see how they act out there. All they see are jails and court rooms full of the people that these cops bulldozed while no one was there to see the bulldozing taking place.
I don’t care what nobody says, a person who can’t find fault with this system and how it is ran couldn’t see the light if their eyeballs were making it. My hat is off to everyone that is involved in exposing these guys and the efforts to bring accountability to the ones that need it. Good job and you have my full support.