Tom Clark: Cook County state's attorney has backtracked on felony data transparency
In the five years since the tragic death of George Floyd, Americans have wrestled with deep debates about criminal justice reform. A central part of that debate has been efforts by politicians, journalists, activists and researchers to shine a spotlight on police and prosecutors. I am one of those researchers, and I know how much resistance law enforcement officials often have to transparency into their workings.
For all of the critiques that are sometimes raised about law enforcement in Chicago, one of the things it has had to be proud of in recent years was its openness to the public. Unfortunately, since coming to office, State's Attorney Eileen O'Neill Burke has taken a significant step backward.
Former State's Attorney Kim Foxx became a leader nationally in transparency among prosecutors in collecting and publishing information about her office's work. The Cook County state's attorney's office began publishing regularly detailed datasets about all of its felony cases on its website. The state's attorney released detailed information about every felony arrest made and referred for prosecution. That information included not just when and where an arrest was made, but for what offense, exactly what charges were filed and demographic information about the defendant. They also included rich information about the outcomes of all of those charges — which charges were dropped, which ones ultimately led to convictions, the judges hearing the cases and what sentences were imposed.
Those datasets allowed the public, policymakers, activists and researchers to study, audit and understand the decisions the state's attorney was making. The data allowed concerned citizens and others to know how prosecutorial power was being used and to conduct cutting-edge research about law enforcement.
Unfortunately, O'Neill Burke removed that data from the website without any explanation, virtually as soon as she came into office. The website that used to host the data and invite the public to contact the state's attorney's office for more information has for the last four months simply lead to an 'access denied' website. We are now nearly six months into O'Neill Burke's term, and the public records remain missing, with no explanation offered for why they have been removed or evidence that her office intends to continue updating those data or publishing new data. Emails I sent to the State's Attorney's office about the data never received a response. Additionally, several Freedom of Information Act requests for additional data, which had been previously released to others, were rejected.
Not only is the Cook County state's attorney's decision unfortunate because we now know less about how her office works, but it also reinforces a problematic reputation that law enforcement agencies, both locally and nationally, are working to overcome.
Here in Chicago, we have an excellent example of transparency in law enforcement. The Civilian Office of Police Accountability, for example, has the authority and responsibility to oversee and investigate police activity, including police shootings. Part of its mission involves transparency — giving the public access to information about how police officers use their power. At the same time, the Chicago Police Department has been subject to a consent decree since 2019. The consent decree has forced changes in how the Police Department operates and shares information with the public. Together, COPA and the consent decree have reinforced each other to open a window into policing in Chicago.
I know from my own research that they are working. In a book that will be published in the coming weeks, 'Deadly Force: Police Shootings in Urban America,' I filed more than 300 FOIA requests at police departments around the country for records about every police shooting this century. We learned a lot about how law enforcement agencies resist transparency and how much work goes into finding out basic facts such as, 'how many people do the police shoot?'
Some police departments are very transparent and happy to share their records, and some departments absolutely refuse. Even among those that are transparent, some have records that are very disorganized, whereas others have very organized and understandable records. CPD was among the most transparent departments in the country, sharing a lot of information with us, in a fast, clean and complete way. That may seem surprising, though it is very likely due to the consent decree. Indeed, CPD's openness to researchers has enabled researchers to do powerful work that helps them understand important problems in law enforcement as well as evaluate programs and train leaders from police departments around the country.
Comparing Chicago with the Cook County state's attorney is alarming. The records that Foxx shared were transparent, complete, coherent and accessible. By contrast, O'Neill Burke has taken the opposite approach. Whereas this time last year, anyone could know exactly how many felony charges of what kind were being filed, where, when, against whom, and what the outcomes were, and so forth, today none of that is public. As CPD has become more transparent and stayed that way, the Cook County state's attorney is moving in the opposite direction, away from transparency.
These decisions — how a prosecutor uses the authority to file criminal charges — are among the most important and powerful that any government official has. Cook County stood out as a model for its transparency in allowing the public to see how that power was being used. We should demand an explanation for why that decision has been reversed and to know when the Cook County state's attorney will allow the public to have access to its own records again.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
23 minutes ago
- CNBC
Palantir CEO Karp says AI is dangerous and 'either we win or China will win'
Palantir CEO Alex Karp said the artificial intelligence arms race between the U.S. and China will culminate in one country coming out on top. "My general bias on AI is it is dangerous," Karp told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" on Thursday. "There are positive and negative consequences, and either we win or China will win." Karp has been a vocal advocate for U.S AI dominance. He told CNBC in January that the country needs to "run harder, run faster" in an "all-country effort" to develop more advanced AI models. In a recent letter to shareholders, he also touted Palantir's commitment to equipping and enhancing U.S. defense interests. The billionaire tech CEO said Thursday that the U.S. currently has a leg up in the AI race and Palantir is leading the way in making companies more secure and efficient with its tools. "There is no economy in the world with this kind of corporate leadership which is willing to pivot, which understands technologies, which is willing to look at new things, but also has deep domain expertise," he said. "Our allies in the West, in Europe, are going to have to learn from us." Shares of the Denver-based data analytics and AI software firm outperformed in 2024 and have continued their ascent in 2025 as investors bet on their software and work with key government contractors and agencies. The stock is up 74% this year, but investors have to shell out on a higher earnings multiple than its tech peers. "You don't like the price, exit," Karp said on Thursday in response. Karp also asserted that the company is "not surveilling Americans" in response to recent New York Times report that Palantir is helping the Trump administration gather data on Americans.
Axios
24 minutes ago
- Axios
Democrats more likely than Republicans to boycott brands, new survey
Why it matters: These murky expectations highlight the complicated environment businesses are currently operating in. What they're saying: "Businesses need to understand how their brand aligns to current issues and the values that matter to their customer base," says Mallory Newall, vice president at Ipsos. "Brands cannot please everyone, and wading into the political fray does not come without risk. It needs to be done in a strategic way. However, there are potential upsides if companies have a clear understanding of who they're talking to and who their customers are. Those who act inauthentically will lose ground in this environment," she added. State of play: There's a disconnect in what consumers say and what they do. 53% of Americans say they are less likely to buy from a company that takes a stance they don't agree with, but only 30% actually do. Between the lines: A company's political or social stances influence Democrats more than Republicans, per the survey. Democrats are more likely to boycott (40%) than Republicans (24%), but they are also 2x more likely to go out of their way to support a brand that aligns with their values. Target is the latest American corporation to grapple with these boycotts, following its retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Of note: Boycotting is a luxury afforded to those with disposable income, per the survey. Households with incomes of $100k and above are 50% more likely to stop buying from a company they disagree with than those households making $50k and below. What to watch: 67% of Democrats say they are closely tracking how companies respond to pending Supreme Court decisions, compared to 52% of Republicans. There is more appetite across party lines for business commentary on economic issues — like inflation and trade policies — than other policy issues. The bottom line: "The data suggest that Democratic consumers are much more likely to actually follow through on the threat to withhold or reduce spending when they disagree with brands during this era of complete GOP control," says Matt House, managing partner at CLYDE.
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court sides with straight woman in decision that makes it easier to file ‘reverse discrimination' suits
The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a straight woman in Ohio who filed a 'reverse discrimination' lawsuit against her employer when her gay boss declined to promote her. The ruling will make it easier to file such suits in some parts of the country. Despite the politically divisive debate playing out over workplace diversity efforts – a fight that has been fueled by President Donald Trump – a unanimous coalition of conservative and liberal justices were in the majority. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the opinion for the court. 'Our case law thus makes clear that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group,' Jackson wrote. Marlean Ames started working for Ohio's state government in 2004 and steadily rose through the ranks at the Department of Youth Services. She claims that in 2017, she started reporting to a gay boss and was passed over for a promotion that was offered to another gay woman. Ames is challenging a requirement applied in five appeals courts across the nation that 'majority' Americans raising discrimination claims must demonstrate 'background circumstances' in order to pursue their suit. A plaintiff might meet that requirement, for instance, by providing statistical evidence documenting a pattern of discrimination against members of a majority. Ames couldn't do that and so she lost in the lower courts. An employee who is a member of a minority group does not face that same initial hurdle. The requirement was rooted in the notion that it is unusual for an employer to discriminate against a member of a majority group. But neither federal anti-discrimination law nor Supreme Court precedent speak to creating one set of requirements for a majority employee to file a discrimination suit and a different set for a minority employee. During oral arguments in the case in late February, it was clear Ames had widespread support from the justices. Citing the 'background circumstances' requirement, the Cincinnati-based 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for Ohio. Federal appeals courts based in Denver, St. Louis, Chicago and Washington, DC, applied that same standard, according to court records. At a moment when Trump has politicized workplace diversity efforts, both the court's conservative and liberal justices – as well as the attorneys arguing the case – appeared to agree that the 6th Circuit's analysis was wrong. The case landed on the Supreme Court's docket last fall, about a month before Trump was elected on a pledge to clamp down diversity and inclusion efforts in both the government and the private sector. The administration has taken a number of steps in that direction, including but attempting to cut funding to entities federal officials allege have supported DEI efforts. Many of those actions are being reviewed by courts. But Ames' case was more procedural. Notably, both the Trump and Biden administrations agreed that the 6th Circuit should reconsider its approach. CNN's Hannah Rabinowitz contributed to this report. This story has been updated with additional developments.
