Ignoring Community Voices: Firearm Possession Charges Excluded from Restorative Justice Community Courts

Criminal Justice , , , , ,

Written by Maya Simkin, Appleseed Network Fellow, Austin Segal, Research Manager & Jill Dupont Memorial Fellow, and Naomi Johnson, Co-Executive Director.

It’s recently been announced that the Cook County State’s Attorney will no longer divert gun possession cases to the Restorative Justice Community Courts (RJCCs). In our recent report, Restorative Justice, Community, & the Courts, we conducted mixed-methods research on the RJCCs and provided recommendations for improvement. We noted that the RJCCs started taking gun possession cases in the last few years, radically changing the charge profile in the courts from primarily drug possession to gun possession. In 2024, gun possession cases made up about 83% of all cases diverted to the RJCCs, though still less than 2% of all gun possession cases in the county. The decision to no longer divert gun possession cases to the RJCCs directly violates the expressed interests of community members in the neighborhoods they serve.

This change is further evidence that the RJCCs do not take community input into consideration. Our report found that community members are rarely involved in RJCC proceedings and have very little power in decision-making. There is no mechanism in place for court actors to consult with community members about any proposed changes, and this absence is heard in decisions like the recent one to no longer accept gun possession cases in the RJCCs. We want to reiterate: Our main recommendation that the organizers of the RJCCs establish a community oversight model to reach more creative, relevant, and effective solutions for these neighborhoods and align more closely with their stated mission to empower “the community to create solutions to repair the harm caused by crime and conflict.” 

The decision to no longer divert gun possession cases to the RJCCs directly violates the expressed interests of community members in the neighborhoods they serve.

The recent development is deeply concerning because the State’s Attorney’s Office has announced no clear plan for whether and how gun possession cases will be diverted from the criminal legal system. Nonviolent gun charges are a large driver of pretrial incarceration, which saw a 62% detention rate in the year following the abolition of money bond, with only 38% being released until their trial. We know that “even a single day of pretrial incarceration harms a person’s health, destabilizes their life, and increases their likelihood of future arrest.” Furthermore, gun possession cases are rarely dismissed when they are not diverted from the traditional court process and very often result in a felony conviction and a multi-year sentence. Without a clear plan for how gun possession cases will be diverted from the criminal legal system, we fear that pretrial incarceration and felony convictions will increase.

We should acknowledge that the RJCCs are not the most appropriate setting to respond to gun possession. Restorative justice is most effective—maybe only meaningful at all—in situations where someone experienced real harm as a result of one’s actions. Gun possession cases, like almost all other cases in the RJCCs, do not involve a direct victim, and public safety could be better achieved by investing in under-resourced communities and deflecting gun possession cases to community providers rather than diversion courts. Further, the RJCCs would often require that participants enroll in work or education to have their charges dismissed, even though illegal gun possession is ultimately a licensure issue. To illustrate this, consider an RJCC participant we spoke to who had a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card but could not afford a concealed carry license (CCL) and thus was charged for unlawful possession of a weapon. Still, our report explained that these cases, like drug possession cases, are especially inappropriate for the traditional court process, so diverting them to the RJCCs was a productive first step toward reducing the harm in interactions with the criminal legal system.

Without a clear plan for how gun possession cases will be diverted from the criminal legal system, we fear that pretrial incarceration and felony convictions will increase.

However, with the removal of gun possession charges from the RJCCs, we see an opportunity to create a diversion program that is tailored to the needs of people who possess guns. We know that many young Black people in Chicago carry guns because of real safety concerns and will continue to carry them after they successfully complete a diversion program, so an effective solution would be to support them in obtaining the proper licensure to do so legally—a FOID card and CCL—without direct oversight by court personnel or excessively burdensome requirements. If Cook County wants to reduce the number of people who possess guns illegally, the most reasonable strategy is to support under-licensed people in obtaining licensure. Importantly, and in contrast to the RJCCs, such a diversion program should not disrupt a participant’s work, school, or family life. Participants should be offered connection to community-based programs and resources, and their cases should be handled by trusted people in the community instead of legal actors.

With the removal of gun possession charges from the RJCCs, we see an opportunity to create a diversion program that is tailored to the needs of people who possess guns.

We know that Cook County’s current strategy to combat gun violence by ramping up prosecution of gun possession is ineffective and harmful, ignores the root causes of violence, and gets us further from community investment and healing. Though we condemn the removal of gun possession cases from the RJCCs without any consultation of the communities they purport to serve and represent, we hope this change will present an opportunity for diversion of firearm possession charges that supports people in getting proper licensure and access supportive services.