Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Says People Charged With Violent Crimes Are Guilty Because Prosecutors Say So
"When those charges are brought, these people are guilty," Lightfoot said.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot has repeatedly blamed bail reforms and local judges for exacerbating gun violence by releasing defendants back onto the streets, but on Monday she took her rhetoric a step further, saying that people charged with violent crime should be kept in jail because only guilty people get charged with violent crimes.
The comments, first reported by the Chicago Tribune, were part of a longer harangue against the Cook County courts and bail reform efforts.
"We shouldn't be locking up nonviolent individuals just because they can't afford to pay bail. But, given the exacting standards that the state's attorney has for charging a case, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, when those charges are brought, these people are guilty," Lightfoot said. "Of course they're entitled to a presumption of innocence. Of course they're entitled to their day in court. But residents in our community are also entitled to safety from dangerous people, so we need to keep pressing the criminal courts to lock up violent dangerous people and not put them out on bail or electronic monitoring back into the very same communities where brave souls are mustering the courage to come forward and say, 'this is the person who is responsible.'"
The comments outraged civil liberties advocates and public defenders in Chicago, and rightly so. They should offend anyone familiar with the American criminal justice system and why it places such an emphasis on the presumption of innocence: to force the government to prove its case and shield defendants from prejudice and demagoguery. Lightfoot's statements are particularly absurd, given the enormous amount of taxpayer money Chicago has spent settling wrongful conviction lawsuits.
"It is sad to see a highly-trained lawyer and former prosecutor so badly mangle the meaning of our Constitution," Alexandra Block, a senior attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Illinois, said in a statement to Chicago Tribune reporter Gregory Pratt. "A charge based solely on assertions of police often has proven unreliable in this city—as evidenced by the city's history of paying large settlements for CPD's role in wrongful convictions."
Last month, the Chicago City Council voted to approve a $14.25 million settlement to Daniel Taylor, who spent more than 20 years in prison after being wrongfully convicted of a 1992 double murder. Taylor alleged that police beat a false confession out of him and hid evidence that he was actually in police custody at the time of the murders. His conviction was overturned in 2013 after the Illinois attorney general revealed that the county prosecutors had failed to disclose exculpatory evidence to Taylor's defense counsel, including custody records and interviews with several officers showing that Taylor was indeed behind bars before, during, and after the murders. Two other co-defendants in Taylor's case also received a combined $10.5 million settlement.
In 2017, BuzzFeed News published an investigation into accusations that retired Chicago detective Reynaldo Guevara had framed more than 50 people for murders they did not commit. Since then, at least 20 people have already been exonerated in cases that Guevara led.
The most infamous and expensive series of wrongful conviction cases in Chicago have been tied to disgraced Chicago police commander Jon Burge. Burge led a group of detectives who were accused of torturing confessions out of more than 100 men between 1972 and 1991, using methods like suffocation, electrocution, and burning. Burge was fired in 1993 after a police board found he tortured a man suspected of killing a police officer. Overall, Chicago taxpayers have footed the bill for $130 million in lawsuit settlements and judgments related to Burge and his crew, including $5.5 million in reparations to torture survivors.
"Chicago is the false confession capital of the nation," Cook County Public Defender Sharone R. Mitchel Jr. said in a statement. "For decades, the city has shamefully disregarded the presumption of innocence—which applies to everyone, regardless of the charge against them. As an attorney, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot knows that the criminal justice system is not designed to decide guilt early in a case. In fact, in the past year the Cook County Public Defender's Office represented people in more than 11,000 cases that ended in dismissal or a finding of not guilty."
As the ACLU and public defender's office both noted, Lightfoot's attacks on bail reforms have been based on shoddy or nonexistent data. WBEZ reported last year that hacked emails from Lightfoot's office showed that city officials and CPD were aware that the link between gun violence and people bonding out of jail was weak and not supported by studies, but they continued to press the talking point anyway.
Lightfoot's office tried to clean up the mess in a statement later on Monday.
"Let's be clear, as a lawyer, former federal prosecutor, and former criminal defense attorney, the Mayor, of course, knows that individuals are entitled to the presumption of innocence, which is precisely what she said today," Lightfoot's office said. "The Mayor has been explicit that violent offenders should be held accountable for their actions that harm our communities."
Precisely, but not entirely. She also said that the bar for prosecutors to win cases is so high that prosecutors won't bring weak cases, but Chicago's recent history shows the exact opposite.
Lightfoot has a habit, when criticized or facing political pressure, of embracing authoritarian solutions and rhetoric. She recently tried to change the city's curfew for teens through an executive order, despite the fact that such statutory changes have to go through the City Council.
Lightfoot has also repeatedly called on the City Council to pass a new ordinance allowing the city to sue gang members and seize their property, despite pushback from civil liberties groups. Or how about when Lightfoot threatened to jail people who violated Chicago's stay-at-home orders during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic?
Lightfoot often says exactly what she thinks, and if it was a mistake, it was only for erring on the side of too much disclosure.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Finally someone admits that, from the government's point of view, we're all considered to be guilty. Period. Occasionally people hire good lawyers to escape punishment, but they're still guilty.
I'm not going to hold my breath waiting on the BLM and defund the police crowd to criticize and ultimately campaign to replace Lightfoot.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/lori-lightfoot-protest-blm-chicago
Interesting. Thanks for posting. I wonder if they'll respond to this one?
There needs to be a middle ground between "All people charged are guilty" and the other extreme of "Let's not really prosecute much of anybody".
aye
If only there were some procedure for sorting out the guilty from the innocent. Maybe if a group of say, 12 people with no personal interest in the matter were presented with the evidence, and decided whether it was convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or we can just let stupid cunts like Mayor Beetlejuice proclaim that the accused are guilty. No way that could go awry.
-jcr
Although I can’t stand this idiot mayor, perhaps there does need to be a different standard regarding allowing bail for people charged with non-violent offenses vs. those charged with heinous violent acts. There may already be such a distinction that I’m not aware of.
Somehow our nation successfully managed that middle ground for several hundred years previously to people such as Lightfoot and her ilk.
I enjoy how red flag laws stand innocent until guilty on its head.
A secret hearing where you don’t get to be present, confront accusers, or have counsel.
Judge rubber stamps confiscation order.
Then they confiscate your legally owned property by force.
Shoot you if you resist.
You get a hearing in the future, where you have to prove your innocence.
Which is almost impossible to prove a negative.
So Lightfoot is just taking it one step further.
civil punishment is no longer a matter of guilt or innocence, let's not pretend that matters after Sussman and Rittenhouse
it's now primarily about Putting On A Show For The People
it's involuntary reality TV, starring the defendant
Rittenhouse was not guilty. The video and testimony unambiguously showed he acted in self defense. Try again.
I don't think he was lumping them together as much as compare and contrast how facts and evidence no longer matter.
If that was the only question you might have a point, but it wasn't.
Rosenbaum was unarmed and physically smaller than Rittenhouse. Whether the use of deadly force was justified is also a factor. The jury decided it was reasonable, but they wouldn't have been wrong to go the other way.
Further, had the man with a pistol Rittenhouse wounded shot him instead, he would have had a strong argument for self-defense as well.
The Sussmann example was just stupid. Durham's case was pathetic.
Whatever. What color is the sky in your universe?
Your analysis is very good, with the exception of being in no way based on facts.
Rosenbaum chased Rittenhouse and tried to take Rittenhouse's gun. Clear self-defense.
You don't have to let yourself be shot before defending yourself.
Really, your arguments are idiotic.
Oy. How convoluted is your world to come up with this hot mess of non logic. You have to wait for someone to shoot at you before defending yourself? Your in the "police shouldn't shoot first" camp, right? Ever had a gun pointed at you? I have and it's not fun. Rittenhouse was chased down and attacked. He had every right to shoot that Antifa violent thug. Really, you should think before posting such garbage
"Ever had a gun pointed at you? I have and it's not fun."
I have as well. Twice. Decidedly not fun and if I had a gun with me, it would have occurred only once.
Rosenbaum was unarmed and physically smaller than Rittenhouse.
And he chased Rittenhouse down and attacked him. Asshole got what he had coming.
-jcr
"Further, had the man with a pistol Rittenhouse wounded shot him instead, he would have had a strong argument for self-defense as well."
Bullshit. You can't shoot someone in "self-defense" just because he HAS a firearm. That man chased Rittenhouse as part of a threatening mob and pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him. Rittenhouse did not threaten him with his rifle until after he had a pistol pointed at him by someone who had chased him down. Had he shot Rittenhouse before Rittenhouse shot him, that would have been murder.
"Rosenbaum was unarmed and physically smaller than Rittenhouse" AND BACKED UP BY OTHERS IN A VIOLENT MOB.
She probably misspoke, but complete confidence this was the case is not that easy to come by.
You are guilty if you are white. If you are any minority person of color, no matter how horrific your crime, you are not guilty but a victim.
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Says People Charged With Violent Crimes Are Guilty Because Prosecutors Say So
If you could read my mind...
they'd take away the biggest mayor fail.
oooh oooh ooooooooh go! Lori please please go.
Beetlejuice!
Beetlejuice!
Beetlejuice!
Is that a joke about her appearance? You need to unlearn those absurd Eurocentric standards of physical attractiveness.
Lightfoot is a strong beautiful Black woman. Like Stacey Abrams.
#BlackGirlMagic
Says the butt ugly bull-dyke who would be thrilled to play footsies with fugly Lori Lightfoot. They dont get uglier than Lori!
Like Caster Semenya.
I caren't a fig what she LOOKS like. Heer heart is a black and evil one. SHE forgot to read the Constutitin she swore to uphold and execute faithfully, else she'd remember that ALL are INNOCENt until PROVEN guilty before a jury of their PEERS (not hirelings of a very different social stratum)
Press, media, gumit bimbos, prosecutors, many lawyers, and it turns out quite a number of the jurors went into Rittenhouse's trial CONVINCED he would be convicted and sent to the hoosegow for a LONG time. The EVIDENCE presented in trial, even that from the dirtbag and lying prosecutor, convinced them he was innocent and only acted as strongly as minimallly necessary to defend his OWN life. Gun to his head, he fired. ONE round. gun not at his head, he held fire.
Lightfoot is a strong beautiful Black woman.
Biggest blackest dick in Chicago
I thought that was a picture of Admiral Ackbar.
never not funny.
At least it's not a trap?
It is. Confused Muslims scream his name to warn us about her when they attack.
The demonic policies preceed the demonic visage.
"It is sad to see a highly-trained lawyer and former prosecutor so badly mangle the meaning of our Constitution..."
LOL, really? It seems 'former prosecutor' should have been the clue on that one.
*cough* VPOTUS *cough*
She's a lawyer? Your frigging kidding me. Right?
Given the conviction rate, is she 'wrong'?
What you really mean is, regardless of their guilt, is it wrong to lock up people on a prosecutor's whim or cop's fraud?
Unfortunately it seems due process of trial by jury did not seem change the outcome. But conviction rate and fraud rates would add to the story.
I'm sure most people charged are guilty. But the presumption of innocence is pretty fundamental to our system and should be taken seriously by those who are supposed to implement it.
zeb, it is not "pretty fundamental". it is THE CORE of our prosecutorial system. you ARE innocent until proved guilty. no modifiers apply to this elemental tenet. a better term is "purely fundamental".
please do not take this the wrong way but if you are sure most people charged are guilty let's hope you never get empaneled onto a jury
Are you saying this with or without your ankles over your ears, Jack? Heartfelt--I really wanna know.
Came here for this. Her point is that the DA has proven very rigorous in selecting whom to charge.
Therefore it makes “sense” to deny bail to this defendants while awaiting prosecution.
She’s not wrong. So long as there is a speedy trial.
The 8th Amendment obviously comes into play. Holding someone indefinitely would qualify as “excessive bail” in my eyes.
Not in DC, if you’re a Trump supporter.
"Her point is that the DA has proven very rigorous in selecting whom to charge."
Except when the DA chooses not to be so rigorous.
wow. thank you for telling us what her point is. reading her words for ourselves was not clear enough. i mean, as long as the DA gave it a good hard think there's no need for a trial at all...right?
You let the dead vote in a city for long enough, and eventually you end up with a zombie mayor.
I think they perfer the term transviable.
Sir Terry Pratchett would be proud.
"when those charges are brought, these people are guilty," Lightfoot said. "Of course they're entitled to a presumption of innocence. "
The stupidity it takes to utter those words...
And you can bet the media will be all over it, just like they did when Trump got caught with his foot in his mount, right?
She'll be roasted on the late night 'comedy' shows for sure!
Cause for disbarment.
Yes, but the chance that the Illinois bar association will do its job in this case is zero.
Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out.
- David Horrowitz
And making it obvious every time one of them flaps their jaws.
"Lightfoot often says exactly what she thinks, and if it was a mistake, it was only for erring on the side of too much disclosure."
A lot like Killary, calling people deplorable and such. Every time her true beliefs escaped from her maw, a shit storm ensued.
And rightfully so.
And yet, she rattles on.
As much as I despise Clinton, she was right about a large chunk of the Trump base being deplorable.
The authoritarian scum have only gotten worse, too.
Says the guy who is authoritarian scum himself.
Go to hell.
Well of course she does.
I'd ask how this person was elected but there are no elections anymore so ...
chicago...making san francisco and portland look slightly less ridiculous, occasionally
I'd ask how this person was elected but there are no elections anymore so ...
The dead vote for their own.
Wow. I’m not even mad. I can’t believe that someone that stupid was elected to public office.
Have you seen our current president & VP?
Did you see the ones before them?
But enough about Obama and his vp.
"Afghanistan ... the *good* war."
Well, we won. Didn't we?
For certain definitions of "won".
But we were told this was going to be "the adults" back in charge. Woops.
Wrong within normal parameters.
The adults ARE back in charge. Voters just kind of expected them to bring along some brain cells.
Me: You can't expect elected officials to be competent or smart - here's a couple recent examples -
Brandy: Oh yeah? Here's EVEN MORE examples!
Ok . . .
This is what happens when people believe the problem is the people rather than the institutional pressures. Since the good people are now in place those bad outcomes can't possibly still be happening.
This is the same reason that said salon visit bans did not apply to her because she needs to "look good" as mayor.
If that's her after-beauty-treatment face, it was better for her make an exception for herself than to appear publicly in her natural look and panic the entire city.
she needs to ask for for her money back.
To all who said Title IX would not spread to the general population - - - -
TOLD YA SO!
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot Says People Charged With Violent Crimes Are Guilty Because Prosecutors Say So
Now do the Jan. 6 committee.
*Reasonistas running for the exits*
They'd rather take a bullet than admit the obvious. Their social life would be ruined.
The dirty little secret is that the street thug and the gangbanger use civil rights to facilitate their crimes.
They peaceably assemble to plan, plot, and prepare their robberies and drive-by shootings.
They peacefully bear arms to and from the scenes of robberies and drive-by shootings.
They use their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures to conceal evidence that they committed, or are about to commit, a robbery or a drive-by shooting.
They use their right to a fair trial, their right to an attorney, their right to due process of law, to escape judgment for committing robberies and drive-by shootings.
They use their freedom from cruel and unusual punishment to avoid the punishment that they deserve for committing a robbery or a drive-by shooting, even if they are judged guilty consistently with their other rights.
Without the Constitution protecting these rights, the cops can judge street thugs and gangbangers guilty and give them the punishment that they deserve.
Who among us will continue to support the Bill of Rights, knowing this?
The alternative is worse.
"Who among us will continue to support the Bill of Rights, knowing this?"
[Assuming this is sarcasm...I will respond in kind] You are right; all of our individual rights should be normed to common criminals. If they can get away with something that is worth giving up the whole enchilada for all of us, right?
Pick me up off the street, throw my ass in jail like the NKVD, and forget about it if it only saves one life!
i will. i see your point but the bill of rights is not a grant of rights but a reservation of them to us and a limitation on government. not really a fine distinction but one that gets lost too frequently
(1) Since when is Lori Lightfoot correctly described as "a highly trained attorney and former prosecutor", as opposed simply being referred to as another jake-legged lawyer after one too many hits of methanol (or embalming fluid - it's hard to tell)?
(2) Her long-winded statement could have been significantly abbreviated by a quote from Alice Carroll - "Verdict first, trial later."
So much for Constitutional protections, right!
With a one line quote taken out of context, it's hard to understand what she was talking about, but I think she finally said something sane.
What makes you come to that conclusion?
Ms. Lightfoot is suffering from hoof in mouth disease again. Trial first--verdict later--is the general rule.
ugh 70 fake convictions? that we know of? given Chicago's clearance rate it makes you wonder if they've ever actually solved a murder
certain neighborhoods are abbatoirs precisely because a violent plurality of the residents prefer it that way, and no amount of beating and forced confessions will improve matters
"Lightfoot has also repeatedly called on the City Council to pass a new ordinance allowing the city to sue gang members and seize their property"
it sounds sorta okay until you realize the "gangs responsible for gun violence" she want to seize property from are the NRA, the Republican Party, gun manufacturers...
it sounds sorta okay until you realize the "gangs responsible for gun violence" she want to seize property from are the NRA, the Republican Party, gun manufacturers.
Yeah, anybody who thinks the crack dealers living in Austin are multi-millionaires who just really enjoy the ambiance and lifestyle are woefully naive.
Austin
Er, 'the Austin neighborhood' for non-townies who might confuse it with Austin, TX.
I love the left's belief that it is the NRA et al who, for example, want zero prosecutions for people trying to buy guns illegally. I mean, if somebody is not legally permitted to buy a gun, should there not be repurcussions for trying to do so?
Beetlejuice has simply lost it.
Lori Lightfoot—proof that alien/human hybridization exists.
RIMSHOT!
I'm going to give her a pass because it's hard to make sense when you are legally retarded.
Biggest dick in Chicago.
Is this code talk for "every frickin' black male in Chicago between 12 and 42 is probably guilty of something"?
*OK sign*
In certain neighborhoods that would be true.
God's Word states clearly that when someone lies against another, the one lying (bearing false testimony) WILL suffer the punishment meted out on the innocent one, if thelie is believed and later discovered/admitted, or what he WOULD have suffered had the lie been believed, even when it was not.
EVERY ONE of these dirty prosecutors named in this piece who had lied or withheld truth (same thing) and innocents ended up going to prison for decades, these prosecutors need to get fitted for their new oreange onesies and begin serving the time they imposed on the innocent ones. consecutively. AND reimburse the city for the payouts being tendered now the lies have been exposed.
Until THIS starts happening, lying dirtbag criminal prosecutors will continue to dirtbag, lie, cheat, withhold exculpatory evidence. Start with that Lightfoot creature.
Nice of Mayor Lightfoot to give us a preview of the 2024 Democratic platform.
So... has mayor Lori ever heard of The Scottsboro Boys, from back in Herbert Hoover's enlightened Republican administration?
The problem is bail reform was and is needed but some took it way to far. Justice reform was and is needed, but some have taken it way to far and refuse even to do their job. Police reform and QI reform are needed (for all government officials not just cops) but the idiots have and are taking it way to far. Maybe not putting people in charge who use these needed reforms to achieve their political aspirations might be a good first step. Highlight bad prosecutors, the ones who refuse to do their job, instead of gaslighting and canonizing them. Document how bail reform has benefitted but also document how bad bail reform has hurt society. Admit that not everyone of your ideals works out and people will be better persuaded. Stop pretending that anyone upset by the repercussions of the past three years are extremists or unenlightened. If I wanted that shit I could read the WaPo or NYT. Lightfoot deserves criticism for her stupid remarks and even stupider policies, but something is wrong with our justice system that is hurting the very people most at risk. Not every DA who promised justice reform is deserving defense. Not every bail reform has been good. Stop denying what is obvious. What many commenters were predicting back in the summer of 2020. Admit the truth, it's the only way to actually achieve buy in and real change.
The last two or three years seem to be an exercise in destroying all reasonable and measured reforms by taking them to ridiculous extremes and fomenting an inevitable backlash.
Heck, I can barely support (real or defacto) “drug decriminalization” anymore if the reality is that murder gangs are left to fight it out over who gets distribution rights. I support legalization, but you know 5 minutes later someone will be pushing for opiate lifestyle grooming for children in schools or some shit…
Leave Groot's first wife alone!
It used to be "they walked among us". But now, they "govern" us. How far we have fallen.
In general I despise Lightfoot and her policies; but I think she does a bad job of making a valid point. We should NOT be releasing defendants with prior violent histories and long rap sheets back into the community to await trial. We've seen the result in every state. They get released and go square things up with their accusers or witnesses or they go on another crime spree or whatever. There has to be some degree of judgement in this process. (Judgement, like by judges - see what I did there?) Just because somebody with no criminal history is arrested and charged with murder doesn't necessarily mean that s/he is either guilty or an immediate threat to the community. It may have been a guy that smoked his brother in law for beating up his little sister or a woman who nicked the pimp who kept raping her as punishment for hiding her cash. It may have been lots of things. On the other hand a guy who has a long history of drug dealing, a history of arrests for assaults, attempted murder, witness tampering, etc., but no convictions for violence may well have been knocking off witnesses and competitors for years and present a real, immediate threat to the community. Hard and fast rules about how these cases will be dealt with have not worked very well; but we should try very hard to convince judges to judge wisely. (One way might be to remove the total immunity judges and prosecutors have and allow them to be sued for gross negligence resulting in bodily injury or death.)
People who think like Lori Lightfoot should never be allowed in positions of power.
This is a bit long, but it's worth reading.
The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is a very ancient one; traces of it appear in the Book of Deuteronomy, and some scholars have written that it can be found in both Athenian and Spartan legal codes. It is clearly stated many, many times in Roman law, and the U.S. Supreme Court decision Coffin vs. United States quotes this episode of a trial before the Emperor Julian:
Numerius, the governor of Narbonensis, was on trial [for embezzlement] before the Emperor, and, contrary to the usage in criminal cases, the trial was public. Numerius contented himself with denying his guilt, and there was not sufficient proof against him. His adversary, Delphidius, “a passionate man,” seeing that the failure of the accusation was inevitable, could not restrain himself, and exclaimed, “Oh, illustrious Caesar! If it is sufficient to deny, what hereafter will become of the guilty?” to which Julian replied, “If it suffices to accuse, what will become of the innocent?”
What about jussie?
"When those charges are brought, these people are guilty,"
Shithead thoughts from a shithead politician
her appearance is distracting...i find it hard to not to draw some sort of similar conclusion