Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T14:19:41.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Problems of Criminal Judicature in Chicago and How They Have Been Met by the Municipal Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2013

Get access

Extract

Prior to the establishment of the municipal court in the fall of 1906, criminal justice was administered in the city of Chicago by the courts of the justices of the peace and by the criminal court of Cook county.

The courts of the justices of the peace were a remnant of the town system of New England, which was adopted and established throughout the State by the early settlers of Illinois. Satisfactory in rural districts, where the sparsely populated community is composed of generally honest and law-abiding citizens, in a crowded city it soon became an engine of graft, dishonesty and corruption dominated by unscrupulous politicians.

The justices of the peace in the city of Chicago were appointed by the governor of the State of Illinois on the recommendation of the judges of the circuit and superior courts of Cook county. Those justices who tried criminal cases were known as police magistrates and sat in courts attached to the various police stations of the city. They were appointed to their posts by the mayor and their appointments were confirmed by the city council. The mayor usually recommended for appointment to the various courts such candidates as were designated by the political leaders of his party in the wards in which such courts were located, and the clerks and bailiffs were appointed by the mayor on recommendation of their aldermen. When Chicago became a great city, this system outgrew its usefulness and bred evil practices under which judges in some cases became the servile creatures of politicians. The guilty friend of an alderman might go his evil way, while an enemy, no matter how upright, was liable to false arrest and continuous persecution, if he refused to comply with the bidding of the reigning politician of his ward. In other cases, the court bailiff would be the boss' lieutenant, and receive his orders direct, and be ready with professional bailsmen either to rescue the guilty or abuse the innocent. Were his patrons' plans likely to be frustrated by a jury trial, the bailiff was prepared to secure the desired verdict by calling jurors whom he had instructed beforehand. The clerk on his side would attend to the orders; if the bailiff made a slip, the clerk might be relied upon to correct it in the record. It was current rumor that every day a list of cases to be tried was submitted to the boss and that he checked up on this list results which he desired, returning it to some trusted attache of the court to be acted upon. The justice who was there to assess heavy fines or light, to find guilty or acquit, to have arrested or liberated, found his judgment too often swayed by political considerations. The justice court was a cancer gnawing at the heart of the community. A great wave of public opinion directed against such a condition of affairs led to the establishment of the municipal court in 1906.

Type
Papers and Discussions
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1908

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)