Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in Illinois

June 18, 2018

Chicago Sun-Times

Lessons of the Jackie Wilson murder trial saga

We are disgusted, too.

A judge on Thursday ordered a new trial for a convicted cop killer, Jackie Wilson, ruling that his two previous trials were unfair because a key piece of evidence against him was extracted through police torture.

We, like so many Chicagoans, are disgusted that almost 40 years after two honorable police officers were killed, their families have not been granted the small peace that might come with an end to this judicial farce.

But we also know the judge was doing his job - and doing it right.

The blame for this endless travesty lies not with the judge, or with Wilson's defense attorneys. The blame lies with a crew of rogue officers who once had so little respect for our criminal justice system that they beat confessions out of suspects. Now those bad confessions, transparently worthless, continue to haunt.

The simple hard truth is that Jackie Wilson, whatever the character of the man, has yet to receive a fully fair trial. And our disgust is with the original sin of police torture.

As Cook County Circuit Court Judge William Hooks thoroughly documented in a 119-page opinion, former Chicago Police Cmdr. Jon Burge and his associates at the time of the slayings routinely tortured African-American men to get confessions, including Wilson.

One after another since then, cases from the Burge era have been put under the microscope, and men who were put behind bars on the basis of statements extracted through torture have been freed. A parade of wrongful convictions have been made right, and cops have been put on notice to play by the rules.

On Feb. 9, 1982, Jackie Wilson's brother, Andrew, shot two officers, Richard O'Brien and William Fahey, after the officers pulled him over. The slayings dominated the news, especially coming less than a week after another police officer was shot and killed as he escorted a robbery suspect.

Prosecutors have claimed for years that Jackie Wilson shared responsibility for the murders, though he did not pull the trigger, because he alerted his brother that one of the officers was still alive after Andrew Wilson shot him, which led Andrew Wilson to fire again.

But in tossing out Wilson's so-called confession, Judge Hooks on Thursday vaporized that piece of evidence. He ruled that the police had obtained Wilson's confession through torture. Wilson claimed the police had put a gun in his mouth, hit him over the head with a phone book, struck and kicked him and used electric shocks.

In 2015, the Illinois Torture Inquiry and Relief Commission concluded after an extensive investigation there was credible evidence Jackie Wilson had been tortured by police officers working for Burge. While noting Wilson's extensive criminal history and the discrepancies in his description of the torture that took place, the commission sent the case to the Circuit Court for review.

Upon reviewing, Hooks agreed Wilson had been tortured.

Michael O'Rourke, the special prosecutor in the Wilson case, has said he will appeal Judge Hooks' ruling and, if that is unsuccessful, proceed to a new trial. He will seek a new trial, he said, even though - as Hooks noted - the main witness to the slayings testified that Jackie Wilson appeared only to be standing in shock as his brother shot the cops.

As the sordid history of police torture in Chicago has come light - in many ways beginning with the Wilson brothers' case - more men have come forward with claims. The Torture Inquiry Commission, whose funding was expanded in the new state budget, still is investigating 476 cases.

What is Jackie Wilson guilty of? We wouldn't dare to say. Not until a judge or jury has looked, for really the first time, at the true and honest evidence.

As Judge Hooks said, every defendant deserves a fair day in court.

"All rights matter," he wrote. "The rights of the good, bad and ugly all count."

___

June 15, 2018

(Peoria) Journal Star

Illogical trade policy

We can never have it too good, can we?

With the economy humming along, with unemployment low, with wages inching up here and there, with federal tax burdens declining, we also get rising gas prices, interest rates going up and, thanks to China's announcement on Friday, a looming trade war that may inflate what we pay at the grocery store and the car dealership.

It's too bad the latter is largely self-inflicted.

It may come as a surprise to some, but Beijing does not take orders from Washington. It is responding to 25 percent tariffs slapped on many of its goods by our White House with a 25 percent tariff of its own on made-in-America products that include soybeans, pork, seafood, crude oil and parts that go into our automobiles - nearly 800 items in all. And China is targeting those U.S. regions that were strongest in their electoral support of our president.

Now, a case can certainly be made that China has this coming, that it doesn't play fair on trade, that it steals U.S. technology, that we need to stick up for ourselves and our own workers and industries. It's one of those rare times Democrats - specifically Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer - are on board with the Trump administration.

But if we're going to find ourselves in a trade war with a muscular China, we need all the other economic friends and markets we can get. That's why the tariffs imposed by our president on allies Canada, Mexico, Japan and the European Union - whose trade sins are minor compared to China's - make as little sense today as they did a week ago, as they always have, as they always will.

When we need them, will they be there? Does anybody in charge have the sinking feeling this doesn't end well?

___

June 15, 2018

The (Decatur) Herald & Review

Supporters send mixed signals about vaping

When implementing policy and plans, more now than ever, appearances are important and considering them is vital.

As Chicago Tribune's Hailey Mensik reported last week, a "bill on its way to Gov. Bruce Rauner's desk would raise the legal age for purchasing tobacco and nicotine products from 18 to 21 statewide, a move praised by public health advocates and opposed by convenience stores and other Illinois retailers."

Opposed? As in wanting to continue to sell tobacco and nicotine products to what the law now - but perhaps no longer - considers adults?

That makes sense from the point of view of defending a retailer's ability to make money. But how did that discussion go down behind closed doors? A cynic would imagine that conversation would begin by saying, "We have these products that are among the most lethal we are allowed to sell, products that science argues are poison in many ways. How can we sell more of this to more people?"

"Nicotine products" is another way of saying "vaping," and that's an industry with its own optical issues. Also last week, The Associated Press reported, "a growing number of e-cigarette and vaporizer sellers have started offering college scholarships as a way to get their brands listed on university websites and to get students to write essays about the potential benefits of vaping."

The scholarships, the AP continues, range in value from $250 to $5,000. They're essay contests asking students to write about the dangers of tobacco or whether vaping could be a safer alternative.

There's always an advantage when you're able to convince your propaganda victims to write copy targeting themselves.

There's no suggestion of nefarious operations in either case. Lawmakers embrace the idea of backing legislation with tangible benefits, be they financial, comforting or protective. Retailers are fighting for their share of a market, and don't want to see that market reduced in size. If a company can get its customers to write ad copy or prepare pro-company arguments, more power to them. If any potential victim or target can't see between the lines, that's the problem of the target.

But that can't be your first move, or the one you go to in a highly visible fashion. It's a dangerous step to take, and just inviting a social media takedown of some sort.