Sometimes a crime is just a crime – identified, investigated, accused, prosecuted and convicted – but on occasion, a criminal act becomes the start of something larger, an impetus for reform that both points backward at the enabling conditions and forward in hopes of preventing recurrence.
Whether the federal indictment of a former Illinois police chief is the former or the latter remains to be seen, but the facts on the table are worth examination.
On Thursday, Capitol News Illinois’ Beth Hundsdorfer reported on a federal indictment against Anson Fenton, the former Wayne City police chief (tinyurl.com/WayneCityPolice). People accused of crimes agreed to surrender vehicles to the city as part of plea deals, but prosecutors allege at least three motorcycles never became public assets because they were sold in private transactions.
According to CNI, judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys all signed off on the transfer of the bikes, meaning the only allegedly illegal conduct happened after that ink dried. Eventual buyers likely face little or no legal exposure based on a presumption the seller had legal rights to make a transaction. The losses fall on the city, which did not receive the proceeds of the sale, as well as the criminal justice system, as the benefits of the plea deal evaporated.
Pausing the analysis here, there isn’t much fodder for legislative intervention. It’s impossible to believe any police chief would unintentionally confuse any sort of seized goods as personal property rather than belonging to the department, or forget that municipalities can’t sell things without passing an authorization ordinance.
Lawmakers commonly respond to crimes they don’t like by calling for harsher penalties. It’s important to note two things: one, the standard caveat that punishment doesn’t stop crime, the best hope is indirect deterrence; and two: the federal government is involved here because Wayne City got more than $10,000 in federal funding and it’s hard to see Congress taking the time to amend Title 18 of U.S. Code Section 2314 based solely on these allegations.
However, focusing only on Fenton’s conduct is akin to looking at allegations against someone like former House Speaker Michael Madigan, who is accused of abusing the power of his office for personal gain, without considering the building blocks of corruption. In Madigan’s case, the issue is why one politician has so much influence to peddle. With Fenton, the question is the ability to trade property for leniency.
These aren’t forfeitures of items used in alleged crimes – an issue with its own tangled past – which means state police aren’t informed. Lawyers and judges presume the deals are on the level.
The question worth asking: Whose interests are served when felonies become misdemeanors as long as the government gets assets in the deal?
• Scott T. Holland writes about state government issues for Shaw Local News Network. Follow him on X @sth749. He can be reached at sholland@shawmedia.com.
:quality(70)/s3.amazonaws.com/arc-authors/shawmedia/55aeee77-0609-4323-931a-c6686fff01e6.png)