[Peace-discuss] RE: State's Attorney Rietz Participates In Cover-up Of Police Brutality

[John W.]

Laurie speaks the truth here.  Regardless of how it's portrayed in public 
speeches and so on, police officers and prosecutors, and even judges, 
perceive that they're all on the same "team" with essentially the same 
goal, that of keeping society safe from "criminals".  They perceive 
criminal defense attorneys as the "enemy", to the point where if a criminal 
defense attorney really takes his/her job seriously and identifies too 
closely with the defendants, s/he is perceived as also being a "criminal", 
or only a small step above the "criminals" whom s/he represents.  It's 
pretty systemic; it derives from the way in which the system is set 
up.  The "state", which is the cops and prosecutors, has basically all of 
the collective resources of the taxpayers at its disposal.  And it wasn't 
until the late 1960s that criminal defendants even had the right to a 
public defender.  Now they have the right to one, but nothing in the law 
says that the resources have to be even remotely equal.  And they're not.

John Wason



At 04:34 PM 2/3/2008, you wrote:

>Out of curiosity, why are you satisfied in limiting the prohibition to 
>spousal relationships only; how about brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, 
>children, cousins, nephews & nieces, and in-laws?  History has shown that 
>even close friends and business associates can influence the decisions 
>that law enforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys and judges; I do not 
>think that one can preclude such influences or even minimize them if they 
>are going to exist.  Why can’t states attorneys recuse themselves from 
>each and every such case?  As a practical matter, the states attorney does 
>not actually do the prosecutions in trails in most cases but passes it on 
>to their assistants and deputies.  While it is true that they can 
>influence the decisions and actions of their assistants and deputies, it 
>is also true that they can do the same if and when they recuse 
>themselves.  Independent prosecutors do not really exist except in name 
>only, as documented over and over, unless the attorney acting as 
>prosecuting attorney has the fortitude to fight for their independence and 
>are willing to put their careers at jeopardy.
>
>Most states attorneys are administrators and managers of their 
>bureaucracies; they frequently seek to travel the paths of least 
>resistance and disruption to the routine daily operations of their 
>agencies which might cause them to lose cooperation of those whom they 
>pragmatically or politically are dependent on if their agencies are to be 
>efficient and effective. Fairness and justice are secondary to 
>administrative and managerial priorities and bureaucratic 
>culture.  Indeed, they typically are even dependent on police and 
>ex-police to do their investigations and furnish them with information and 
>data, which makes them inclined to not make trouble vis-à-vis law 
>enforcement; similarly, they are also dependent on judges and are not 
>inclined to do anything that would alienate the judges.
>
>Unfortunately, it is only human propensity for individuals who become 
>prosecuting attorneys as well as police officers to self select such 
>positions based on their values and beliefs, attitudes, psychological 
>needs among other factors; if they were not inclined to believe that their 
>side is right and give the benefit of the doubt to those who are aligned 
>with their values and beliefs, they would not have become prosecutors and 
>cops.  There often is a tendency for judges to presume that the 
>prosecutors and cops are correct and give them the benefit of the doubt 
>whenever a question arises until proven otherwise.  It is rare for judges, 
>prosecutors, or police officers to question the word of prosecutors and 
>law enforcement personnel.
>
>
>From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net 
>[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Belden Fields
>Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:02 PM
>To: Marti Wilkinson
>Cc: peace-discuss at anti-war.net
>Subject: Re: [Discuss] [Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] State's Attorney Rietz 
>Participates In Cover-up Of Police Brutality
>
>
>I have to take issue with my friend Marti's position on Julia's being 
>married to a police officer.  While it is a delicate issue, I do not think 
>that it is sexist to argue that someone who is very lenient with police 
>and corrections officers when they commit crimes, and is very willing to 
>take officers' sides of a story when there is an arrest with force and the 
>arrestee claims that he/she has been unjustifiably roughed up by police, 
>can be more inclined to side with the officers because of such a 
>relationship.  I think that would likely be the case if a policewoman were 
>married to a civilian male or if the officers were engaged in a gay or 
>lesbian relationship.  States attorneys make judgments  about how cases of 
>arrest should be handled.  In that sense they are judges of first 
>instance.  Since states attorneys cannot recuse themselves from each and 
>every case, I think it is best that there not be a spousal relationship 
>between states attorneys and police officers, corrections officers,  or 
>trial judges.  I don't think that this has anything to do with sexism 
>Marti, just a natural human propensity to be sympathetic with the 
>perspectives of a spouse of whatever gender or sexual preference.
>
>Belden
>
>
>On Feb 3, 2008, at 1:21 AM, Marti Wilkinson wrote:
>
>
>Actually Julia Rietz is married to a police officer (they have two 
>children) and she has never made that aspect of her personal life a 
>secret. She has even pointed out that to judge her for who she is married 
>to is sexist and that is something I do agree with her on. As an 
>individual Rietz is capable of standing or falling on her record as States 
>Attorney.
>
>One of the reasons why Piland lost to Rietz back in 2004 was for his 
>lenient handling of the Brady Smith case. He allowed Smith to plea bargain 
>on charges that he molested African American boys in his capacity as Dean 
>at Franklin Middle School. Smith was able to get probation while facing 
>these serious charges. Pilands office was also accused of overcharging 
>African Americans in this county. Rietz ran for office with the promises 
>that she would change things.
>
>Now lets look at the record of Rietz. When Sgt. Meyers received a felony 
>conviction for his part in torturing inmates at the Champaign County Jail 
>- Rietz allowed him to plea bargain his way into probation. Her 
>justification was that losing his job and pension was sufficient 
>punishment for his actions. This is somewhat reminiscent of what went down 
>with the Brady Smith case.
>
>Someone else recently pointed out that her office was willing to allow 
>Robert Arnette the opportunity to plea bargain his way into probation when 
>he faced charges of molesting his stepchildren. He is now facing murder 
>charges in the death of his ex-wife Naomi.
>
>The issues with overcharging that Pilands office faced has not been 
>resolved under Rietz's watch. For this and for other reasons Rietz is now 
>facing some competition in the primary.
>
>My suggestion at this point is to leave her personal life out of the 
>equation.
>
>Peace, Marti
>
>
>
>On Feb 2, 2008 5:57 PM, 
><<mailto:cboland at insightbb.com>cboland at insightbb.com> wrote:
>Reitz...must go. She has been using both sides of the coin for the 
>longest. First to begin with her long time boyfriend is a police officer 
>and a republican. She has been using the Democratic party as a way of 
>power, many of us in AWARE found that out during campaigning for Obama as 
>Senator a few years back. She is really a wolf in sheeps' clothing! Let's 
>get rid of her as fast as possible!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080204/b45213e7/attachment.htm