This is the letter Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser sent to legislators in opposition to the legislation recently passed.
The language State’s Attorney Mosser uses is misleading, paternalistic, and offensive. For example, she says:
It was introduced with no opportunity for those of us, who have made the pursuit of justice our profession, to be a part of the discussion.
State’s Attorney Mosser goes on to use scare tactics by saying:
What follows is a list of examples of the dangers of what has been created as part of this House Bill. (emphasis added)
And then she also writes that the legislation was introduced
…with the hopes that it could be forced through with little to no debate.
The Black legislators representing predominantly Black communities that have been over-policed for decades and have suffered the greatest as a consequence of systemic racism, coupled with community organizers and attorneys who have been on the frontlines of criminal justice reform for upwards of 5 decades, were involved in this debate. This debate did not start last month or even last year. It’s been raging for centuries.
I want to believe that she is a reformer. This letter says something very different about her. At best she is one of those that Dr. King decried nearly 60 years ago in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” when he described those who counseled Black people to WAIT. And this is the tactic she takes right after being elected. What happened to the political capital of the victor? If you ran on a reform agenda, how can you explain this back-tracking just weeks into office?
The goal here is to galvanize public pressure to convince State’s Attorney Mosser that she has to walk the walk of criminal justice reform. The next election is 4 years away and a lot of lives will be impacted between now and then.
We need State’s Attorney Mosser to succeed as a reformer.
Feel free to share you own opinions on the positions staked out in this letter. It is full of misinformation, in some instances it uses extreme examples without considering the context of historical facts that precipitated the reform provisions, and in some instances it simply (and appallingly) fails to make sense.