Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge will continue receiving his pension despite being convicted of lying about alleged torture of criminal suspects, the police pension board ruled today.
Four of the eight board members voted to allow Burge to keep his pension of $3,039.03 per month, saying his conviction was not directly related to his job as a police officer. Five votes were needed to eliminate Burge's pension.
Under the state pension code, police officers convicted of a felony "relating to or arising out of or in connection with" their service as an officer are not eligible to collect their pensions.
Burge was long suspected of torturing men into false confessions and was fired from the Police Department in 1993 over the alleged torture of convicted cop killer Andrew Wilson. He began collecting his pension about four years later, when he turned 50.
However, Burge was never charged with torturing or abusing anyone. An investigation by a special Cook County prosecutor concluded in 2006 that Burge and his officers obtained dozens of confessions through torture but that the statute of limitations had long passed.
But in 2008, the U.S. attorney's office brought perjury and obstruction charges against Burge for denying the abuse in a 2003 civil lawsuit. A federal jury convicted him in June of lying under oath about the abuse.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow sentenced Burge on Friday to 4½ years in prison in the perjury case, saying she did not believe Burge when he denied any knowledge of torture during his trial last summer.
Burge, 63, is scheduled to begin his sentence March 16.
Oh, I get it...You're trying to get guys like me to be even more jaded, aren't ya?Former Chicago police Cmdr. Jon Burge will continue receiving his pension despite being convicted of lying about alleged torture of criminal suspects, the police pension board ruled today.
Four of the eight board members voted to allow Burge to keep his pension of $3,039.03 per month, saying his conviction was not directly related to his job as a police officer. Five votes were needed to eliminate Burge's pension.
Under the state pension code, police officers convicted of a felony "relating to or arising out of or in connection with" their service as an officer are not eligible to collect their pensions.
Burge was long suspected of torturing men into false confessions and was fired from the Police Department in 1993 over the alleged torture of convicted cop killer Andrew Wilson. He began collecting his pension about four years later, when he turned 50.
However, Burge was never charged with torturing or abusing anyone. An investigation by a special Cook County prosecutor concluded in 2006 that Burge and his officers obtained dozens of confessions through torture but that the statute of limitations had long passed.
But in 2008, the U.S. attorney's office brought perjury and obstruction charges against Burge for denying the abuse in a 2003 civil lawsuit. A federal jury convicted him in June of lying under oath about the abuse.
U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow sentenced Burge on Friday to 4½ years in prison in the perjury case, saying she did not believe Burge when he denied any knowledge of torture during his trial last summer.
Burge, 63, is scheduled to begin his sentence March 16.
Board narrowly rules Burge can keep pension - chicagotribune.com
We have this same problem in Ohio. A public official who is convicted of malfeasance in office is permitted to keep his pension. I think it's abhorrent -- we should be suing to recover the salaries we paid these people. Private pensions usually have "bad boy" provisions -- why don't public pensions?
What say you?
I dun give a shit what party this freak belongs to. The people who have been caught here in Ohio are all Democrats, and that dun matter either. I dun see why a state or any other government should pay a pension to someone whose conduct in office is so bad it got him sent to prison.
I dun give a shit what party this freak belongs to. The people who have been caught here in Ohio are all Democrats, and that dun matter either. I dun see why a state or any other government should pay a pension to someone whose conduct in office is so bad it got him sent to prison.
I dun give a shit what party this freak belongs to. The people who have been caught here in Ohio are all Democrats, and that dun matter either. I dun see why a state or any other government should pay a pension to someone whose conduct in office is so bad it got him sent to prison.
Madeline,
Aren't you a lawyer?
He was convicted of perjury, 10 years after he left the force.
His "conduct in office" is not what put him in jail, it was his conduct in a courtroom 10 years later.
There is no legal ground to deny him his pension. In fact, he may now have a suit for defamation.
That's what I love about lawyers......they argue the word of the law when it suits them, and the practicality of laws when it doesn't.
Other than politics, law is the only profession I know of where you actually get paid to be a hypocrite.
I dun give a shit what party this freak belongs to. The people who have been caught here in Ohio are all Democrats, and that dun matter either. I dun see why a state or any other government should pay a pension to someone whose conduct in office is so bad it got him sent to prison.
Madeline,
Aren't you a lawyer?
He was convicted of perjury, 10 years after he left the force.
His "conduct in office" is not what put him in jail, it was his conduct in a courtroom 10 years later.
There is no legal ground to deny him his pension. In fact, he may now have a suit for defamation.
That's what I love about lawyers......they argue the word of the law when it suits them, and the practicality of laws when it doesn't.
Other than politics, law is the only profession I know of where you actually get paid to be a hypocrite.
I have not studied on his case, Mini....you may be right. Meanwhile, if he had been a private employee, he almost certainly would have lost his pension.
Why should we reward evildoers in public service?
I dun give a shit what party this freak belongs to. The people who have been caught here in Ohio are all Democrats, and that dun matter either. I dun see why a state or any other government should pay a pension to someone whose conduct in office is so bad it got him sent to prison.
Madeline,
Aren't you a lawyer?
He was convicted of perjury, 10 years after he left the force.
His "conduct in office" is not what put him in jail, it was his conduct in a courtroom 10 years later.
There is no legal ground to deny him his pension. In fact, he may now have a suit for defamation.
That's what I love about lawyers......they argue the word of the law when it suits them, and the practicality of laws when it doesn't.
Other than politics, law is the only profession I know of where you actually get paid to be a hypocrite.
I dun give a shit what party this freak belongs to. The people who have been caught here in Ohio are all Democrats, and that dun matter either. I dun see why a state or any other government should pay a pension to someone whose conduct in office is so bad it got him sent to prison.
Madeline,
Aren't you a lawyer?
He was convicted of perjury, 10 years after he left the force.
His "conduct in office" is not what put him in jail, it was his conduct in a courtroom 10 years later.
There is no legal ground to deny him his pension. In fact, he may now have a suit for defamation.
That's what I love about lawyers......they argue the word of the law when it suits them, and the practicality of laws when it doesn't.
Other than politics, law is the only profession I know of where you actually get paid to be a hypocrite.
The pension board is not a court, and while without the actual, full language of the contract to know for 100% sure a public employee can normally lose a pension for conduct unbecoming even if they have not been convicted of a crime.
The fact that the State is time-barred from prosecuting him for torturing confessions out of suspects, or that his "only" criminal conviction related to it was for lying to a court concerning it, does not in any way bar the Board from removing his pension due to those very much job-related actions. They are two separate things.
Defamation? For what? What false statement of fact has been made here?
Madeline,
Aren't you a lawyer?
He was convicted of perjury, 10 years after he left the force.
His "conduct in office" is not what put him in jail, it was his conduct in a courtroom 10 years later.
There is no legal ground to deny him his pension. In fact, he may now have a suit for defamation.
That's what I love about lawyers......they argue the word of the law when it suits them, and the practicality of laws when it doesn't.
Other than politics, law is the only profession I know of where you actually get paid to be a hypocrite.
The pension board is not a court, and while without the actual, full language of the contract to know for 100% sure a public employee can normally lose a pension for conduct unbecoming even if they have not been convicted of a crime.
The fact that the State is time-barred from prosecuting him for torturing confessions out of suspects, or that his "only" criminal conviction related to it was for lying to a court concerning it, does not in any way bar the Board from removing his pension due to those very much job-related actions. They are two separate things.
Defamation? For what? What false statement of fact has been made here?
Was he ever convicted, TRIED or even FORMALLY ACCUSED of the accusations the Board Members (apparently) leveled at him. According to the article, his pension was granted 18 years ago, when he LEFT THE EMPLOYMENT of the force. He was never accused, tried, or convicted of any of the crimes for which the writer of the article (apparently) wants us to believe was the basis for considering revocation of his pension.
His appearance as a witness, and perjury during a trial 18 years after he left employment, simply is not "relating to or arising out of or in connection with" his service as an officer, His service as an officer ended 18 years ago.
I'm not saying his pension shouldn't have been denied from a practical, common-sense, or ethical position.
None of those have any bearing on the legality of the situation.
The pension board is not a court, and while without the actual, full language of the contract to know for 100% sure a public employee can normally lose a pension for conduct unbecoming even if they have not been convicted of a crime.
The fact that the State is time-barred from prosecuting him for torturing confessions out of suspects, or that his "only" criminal conviction related to it was for lying to a court concerning it, does not in any way bar the Board from removing his pension due to those very much job-related actions. They are two separate things.
Defamation? For what? What false statement of fact has been made here?
Was he ever convicted, TRIED or even FORMALLY ACCUSED of the accusations the Board Members (apparently) leveled at him. According to the article, his pension was granted 18 years ago, when he LEFT THE EMPLOYMENT of the force. He was never accused, tried, or convicted of any of the crimes for which the writer of the article (apparently) wants us to believe was the basis for considering revocation of his pension.
His appearance as a witness, and perjury during a trial 18 years after he left employment, simply is not "relating to or arising out of or in connection with" his service as an officer, His service as an officer ended 18 years ago.
I'm not saying his pension shouldn't have been denied from a practical, common-sense, or ethical position.
None of those have any bearing on the legality of the situation.
The moment a special investigator determined there was ample evidence for a formal finding that he used torture to extract confessions from multiple suspects, he should have been brought to a hearing before the pension board.
The moment he was convicted of perjury for testimony in connection with incidents that occurred during his employment as an officer, he should have been brought for a hearing before the pension board.
Every finding, conviction and allegation in this story was directly connected to his alleged criminal actions during his time on the force, or the criminal actions he engaged in as a cover up for that activity and for which he was convicted.
Ever hear of the discovery rule? It doesn't apply to criminal statutes of limitation, but again.....the Board is not a court of law, and accordingly has a different and lower standard of process to meet. It's the State's problem if they waited too long to investigate him and can't prosecute, but the technicality of a time bar does not necessarily apply to his pension.
He finally had his hearing, and the Board split. I'd love to know why.
Without a transcript of the hearing and a copy of the pension contract, we'll never know for sure - but I smell protection.
And again, what false statement of fact was made that would be any basis for a defamation suit?
Wrong, Mini.
What "criminal actions" was he charged with (other than the perjury, which resulted from his testimony in a civil trial)?
Again, you're trying to apply common-sense and logic in an environment where it is irrelevant.
The man was never even accused of criminal behavior associated with his employment as a police officer. He was accused of civilly liable damages, and apparently in that trial, he committed perjury. The article does not indicate the outcome of that trial (if and what damages were awarded).
He was sued, and committed a crime during a civil trial. That crime (perjury) had absolutely nothing to do with his employment as an officer.
Do I think he's a slimeball?
Yep.
Do I think he probably "did it."
Yep.
And even in light of all that, the Board made the only legally appropriate decision they could.
And mark it down.....he's going to sue for defamation......the writer, maybe a board member or two (depending on what they said in the hearings, but more importantly, HOW they said it), and anyone else a creative lawyer can think to throw on the pile.
