Keepin’ it Kleen: A weak link in the chain of justice
Michael Kleen
By Michael Kleen
Previously, I have written about Rockford’s out-of-control crime rate, what can be done about it, and who deserves the blame. My columns have, so far, focused on one aspect of law enforcement: the police, who currently serve as our first line of defense. I have written about how inept politicians have chosen to deprioritize local law enforcement in their budgets, and how bureaucrats have tied the hands of police when it comes to combating street crime. This, however, is only one side of the story.
There is only so much the police can do to keep dangerous criminals off the streets. They can arrest criminals as many times as they want, but without the support of tough, competent prosecutors and an efficient court system, their efforts will have a limited effect. In Winnebago County, the chief prosecutor is State’s Attorney Joe Bruscato (D). Bruscato’s office has a less than stellar record when it comes to keeping repeat offenders behind bars.
The case of accused murderer Melvin J. Perkins is a good illustration of how, despite adequate police work, the bungling of the state’s attorney’s office can put a repeat offender back on the streets and endanger the public. For Sandra Golden, whom Perkins has been charged with stabbing to death, too many second chances ended in tragedy.
Perkins had a long history of domestic violence convictions. He was charged four different times over a span of four years and three months, first in March 2006, then in January 2007, again in May 2007, and finally in May 2010. After the third conviction, they should have thrown the book at him. Instead, he was allowed to walk free to re-offend. Two years later, a woman is dead. Here is how it happened.
Perkins pled guilty to his first domestic battery June 8, 2006, and was placed on probation for one year. While on probation, he was charged with a second domestic battery. He pled guilty Jan. 16, 2007, and was sentenced to two years of probation. Less than four months later, he was charged with domestic battery again. This time, he was sentenced to 18 months of probation, despite being a repeat offender who had violated probation twice before.
Perkins violated his probation again and was given 90 days in jail. May 10, 2010, he was charged with his fourth domestic battery. This is where State’s Attorney Bruscato’s office dropped the ball. According to Illinois law, Perkins’ third and fourth domestic battery charges should have been felonies. For some reason, Bruscato only charged him with a misdemeanor for the fourth offense. Perkins was sentenced to just 18 days in jail and two years of probation. If properly charged, he would have been eligible for a maximum of six years in prison.
Sandra Golden was 16 when she moved from Chicago to Rockford. Five years later, in July 2012 at the age of 21, she was stabbed multiple times with a knife in a home in the 500 block of Horsman Street. She died at the hospital the next day. Police said the stabbing was “domestic related,” and Perkins was arrested and charged with the crime. Perkins allegedly committed this crime while he was out on probation.
As the chief prosecutor for the county, it is the state’s attorney’s responsibility to see criminal cases are handled properly. This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly, since as we have seen, the proper prosecution of a crime can mean the difference between life and death for some unsuspecting future victim. We should be a just society, and a forgiving society. At a certain point, however, it should be clear that an individual inclined to certain behavior — particularly violent behavior — needs to be punished and separated from society for the purpose of preventing any further harm.
Far too often in this city, repeat offenders are let back onto the streets with a slap on the wrist. All the police can do is continue to arrest them for the same offense, time and time again. A judge and jury can only act on the information presented to them. It is up to the state’s attorney to see that offenders are charged properly, and if incarceration is warranted, make a compelling case for that sentence.
For the justice system to work properly, it must be a solid chain, from the cop on the street corner, to the judges and juries in the court room, to the county’s chief prosecutor. There cannot be any weak links. It is clear that we have a long way to go before Rockford’s streets are safe again, but electing a competent prosecutor in November would be a good start.
Michael Kleen is a local author, historian, and owner of Black Oak Media. He holds a master’s degree in history and master’s degree in education. Read his previous columns online at makleen.com.
From the Aug. 8-14, 2012, issue
Print This Article
3 Comments
Mr. Kleen,
Once again I must challenge your “facts.” Domestic Battery, first offense is a Class A Misdemeanor. Second offense is a Class 4 Felony. Third and subsequent offenses may be considered either Class 4 or Class 2 Felonies (Aggravated Domestic Battery) depending on the severity of the case. So why didn’t the previous State’s Attorney pursue longer jail time in January 2007 and May 2007? Seems to me that’s when the ball was dropped.
Or the State’s Attorney then, as quite possibly in 2010, was aiming for a certain conviction on a lesser charge, rather than trying to convict on a more serious charge and lose the case.
If the previous State’s Attorney would have been able to prosecute and win a Class 2 Felony in May 2007, the sentence would have been three to seven years, not six as you had stated. But then again, that was the previous State’s Attorney and he may have aimed for a guaranteed conviction on a lesser charge.
You and I do not know all the facts for all the cases involved, so I don’t think it is fair for us to re-try cases we don’t have all the facts for.
I know it is election time, and that means grandstanding, but it doesn’t mean putting out misinformation as fact.
Paul Gorski
Paul, how good of you to run interference for your fellow Democrats. However, your effort to confuse my readers will not work. This was a pretty cut and dried case – this guy was a serial offender and every effort should have been made to get him off the streets, whether it was for 6 years or 7 years. I find it difficult to believe that you really think charging him for a misdemeanor on his fourth offense was the right thing to do.
Here are the facts:
On May 10, 2010 a domestic battery occurred. There was an independent eyewitness who watched Melvin Perkins punch the victim in the face twice. The victim gave a detailed written statement outlining how Melvin Perkins punched her in the face. Because Melvin had committed this same crime against this same victim twice before, Perkins two convictions for domestic battery were admissible against him in any potential trial. Because this was a very provable case, on 5/19/10 a supervisor in the State’s Attorneys Office authorized a warrant for Melvin Perkins arrest. Here is where the incompetence begins. That supervisor did not bother to check Perkins’ record and simply issued a warrant for a misdemeanor, instead of a felony warrant. The judge set the bond at $150,000. He recognized that this was a bad guy, but the supervisor didn’t bother to charge a felony. Perkins was arrested on 6/29/10. His case was up on July 7th, 2010. The Assistant State’s attorney apparently did not check his record either and simply pled him on the misdemeanor for 9 days in jail, and released Perkins on conditional discharge for a two year period (a nonreporting form of probation).
You and Mr. Bruscato want to talk about the previous convictions. The previous conviction was enhanced to a felony by the previous State’s Attorney and a conviction was obtained. The same supervisor, who screwed up the 2010 case released Perkins from probation so that he could commit the fourth one – this occurred under Bruscato’s watch also. Mr. Bruscato stated publicly that they did their job and that the victim was uncooperative. Even if the victim was uncooperative, this case was totally triable, with an independent eyewitness, a written statement and the two prior convictions. The point is the case was not set for trial. No witnesses were subpoenaed and there was no attempt to obtain cooperation from anybody through the proper domestic violence protocol. Instead, the case was plead to 9 days in jail when Perkins was eligible for 6 years in prison.
Because of Mr. Bruscato’s lack of experience, he is under the mistaken impression that it matters in this case whether the victim is cooperative or not. If she was totally uncooperative, the case could still be proven. He apparently doesn’t know, because he has never done it before, that when a domestic violence victim does not cooperate on the stand, her written statement is admissible as evidence. This, along with the eyewitness and the priors makes the case very provable. It is the incompetence on this case, not the others, that allowed Melvin Perkins to (allegedly) kill Sandra Golden while Perkins was on Conditional Discharge instead of being in prison.