Federal probe: What can be done to restore Chicago police credibility?

A federal probe launched into the Chicago police, the country's second-largest police force, will focus on reforms.

Chicago Police Department via AP
A dash-cam video from October 2014 provided by the Chicago Police Department, shows Laquan McDonald, right, walking down the street moments before being shot by officer Jason Van Dyke 16 times in Chicago.

The second-largest police force in the United States is under fire again, this time over accusations that its members routinely lie.

Federal prosecutors last month began an investigation in the Chicago Police Department following public uproar over a series of police shootings.

The probe came after a 2014 police video was released in November showing a Chicago police officer shooting a teenager armed with a knife 16 times, including nine times in the back, and following a drove of complaints lodged by city residents, particularly those in the black community.

Officer Jason Van Dyke now faces a first-degree murder charge for fatally shooting Laquan McDonald.

Five officers who witnessed Officer Van Dyke gun down Mr. McDonald indicated that they saw the teenager turn toward the officer before he was shot – video evidence shows that wasn’t true. The death of the 17-year-old McDonald has also brought increased scrutiny to other instances in which police officers made false reports.

In 2014, two officers were caught suppressing evidence that could have led to the release of a man arrested for robbing a liquor store and shooting one person in the leg.

Earlier this year, after another police video emerged, four other officers were charged with perjury for falsely corroborating a story under oath about a traffic stop that uncovered a driver carrying a pound of marijuana.

In October, the Guardian launched a lawsuit against the City of Chicago that exposed a Chicago police station essentially serving as a secret “interrogation warehouse” where police routinely denied legal representation to the mostly African American detainees.

“It is a systematic problem,” said Craig Futterman, an attorney and University of Chicago Law School professor, to Salon. “When there’s a police shooting, or when there’s an allegation of misconduct or brutality, the institutional response is to circle the wagons, denial, and cover up.”

But the federal inquiry could change that.

Federal investigators said in December they will scrutinize claims of pervasive civil rights violations in the department as a whole, rather than against individual officers.

US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the tactic would be used to improve the system through “training, policy guidance and equipment, to be more effective, to partner with civilians and to strengthen public safety."

More than 20 police departments have been investigated by federal authorities during the last 20 years, a venture that has often forced municipalities and police to move toward reforms.

In May, the city of Cleveland agreed to comprehensive changes to its police force after a US Department of Justice investigation that was launched when officers shot two unarmed black men 137 times in 2012.  

Under the agreement, the federal government will use an independent observer to oversee the Cleveland Police Department and install widespread amendments to how officers use force, according to the Chicago Tribune.

"As we move forward, it is my strong belief that as other cities across this country address and look at their police issues in their communities, they will be able to say, 'Let's look at Cleveland because Cleveland has done it right,' ” Frank Jackson, the city’s mayor, said. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.