We're not gonna take it

You might remember the name Darryl Fulton from an earlier blog post about his return to his grounds keeping job for the Chicago White Sox after being exonerated of a murder for which he spent over two decades behind bars.

Adding insult to injury, on two separate occasions, Chase Bank in Chicago refused to accept his deposit of a check for $169,876.00 paid to him by the State of Illinois for taking 23 years of his life.

The first time he tried to deposit the check, the bank refused to accept it because it hadn't been endorsed by his attorney -- even though the only payee on the check was Mr. Fulton. The second time he tried to deposit the check the bank refused to accept it because Mr. Fulton had signed the check over the attorney's name. The bank did say it could deposit the check into the lawyer's account, however.

While acknowledging that the check should have been accepted and deposited the first time Mr. Fulton presented it, bank officials refused to say whether or not the color of Mr. Fulton's skin had anything to do with the bank's reluctance to accept the check.

According to Mr. Fulton's attorney, the bank never offered to accept the check for deposit.

So it's not enough that Mr. Fulton was held in custody during the pendency of his case because he couldn't bond out. It's not enough that prosecutors obtained a conviction after not conducting DNA testing on an item because it didn't fit in the police narrative. It's not enough that the state fought tooth and nail to prevent the evidence from being tested, all in the name of honoring the jury's (wrong) verdict. Now he can't even deposit the meager check he received from the state to compensate him for his lost life.

One can only wonder whether Chase makes white executives go through such hoops in order to deposit a large check. Or is that experience reserved for black men with large checks to deposit?

DWI is big business

According to this article in the Illinois News-Tribune, the fines paid by motorists convicted of driving while intoxicated are used to purchase new breath test machines and patrol cars. In other words, if you are convicted of DWI in Illinois, you will be paying the state for the equipment they need to prosecute you.

In LaSalle County, for instance, the fine for a first-time DWI is $1,255, $500 of which goes to the state to purchase new breath test machines. Through November of this year, more than $300,000 in equipment fees have been collected.

So, just as the Texas Department of Public Safety has a vested interest in suspending motorists' drivers licenses and in obtaining DWI convictions (reinstatement fees and surcharges), so too do law enforcement agencies in Illinois.

What do you suppose is the tipping point on a marginal case? The presumption that the driver is innocent or the need to fill the state's coffers?