When we talk about making Chicago’s streets safer, clearance rates are often left out of the conversation. As my organization Live Free Illinois explored in 2023 and 2024 reports, improving clearance rates is one of the most tangible ways we can disrupt cycles of crime, build trust between Chicagoans and the people charged with keeping us safe, and deliver justice for crime victims and their families, especially in Black communities, which tend to see lower clearance rates. But that’s only possible if we have transparent data on what law enforcement is and is not accomplishing in our communities. 

The Jan. 30 article about the city’s improved clearance rates (“Homicide clearance rate hits 71%”) brings up an important point, that the rates being touted by law enforcement aren’t necessarily just cases solved but also include cases closed due to “exceptional means” — meaning, no one is actually held accountable for the crime. These types of cases account for more than one third of “solved” cases in Chicago. And of the “exceptional means” cases, a significant number are decades-old. 

What does that mean for Chicagoans? Ultimately, it’s unclear whether the increase in clearance rates actually means people in the city feel safer or if it’s just misleading math. That’s not justice for victims and their families; it’s public relations for the Chicago Police Department. 

Greater data transparency around clearance rates isn’t only about justice, though that’s incredibly important. It’s also about public safety and disrupting cycles of violence. When people don’t believe cases will actually be solved in a timely manner, they’re more likely to disengage from law enforcement or seek their own forms of accountability, perpetuating a cycle of retributive violence. 

Luckily, thanks to a recently passed transparency bill, clearance rate data moving forward will have to spell out exactly how many cases are being closed due to exceptional means. Once we have a better understanding of what’s really happening in our communities, we can institute policies that ensure crimes are actually being solved in a timely manner and that Chicagoans actually feel safe. 

— Artiense Myrick, deputy director of Live Free Illinois, Chicago

Sonya Massey case matters

The sentencing of former Sangamon County sheriff’s Deputy Sean Grayson to 20 years in prison for the killing of Sonya Massey is a crucial moment for justice and community trust in law enforcement.

Massey, a 36-year-old Black woman, was shot and killed in her Springfield-area home after she called 911 to report a suspected prowler. A jury convicted Grayson of second-degree murder, and the judge imposed the maximum sentence allowed under that charge.

This case resonates far beyond Springfield. It speaks directly to questions about police training, use of force and how law enforcement responds when someone is in crisis or simply trying to get help. Body camera footage, which showed Massey unarmed and pleading, raised deep concern among civil rights advocates and families who have experienced similar losses. The fact that the jury did not convict on first-degree murder leaves many feeling that accountability was limited.

Law enforcement must be held to high standards of conduct and trained on de-escalation and clarity about when and how force is used. Communities deserve transparency and policies that protect everyone, especially those who call for help in a moment of fear or confusion. More consistent reforms at both local and state levels are needed to prevent tragedies like this and to build trust between officers and the people they serve.

— Arav Mestry, Fremont, California

Opt into federal tax credits

Regarding the article “Public school supporters urge Pritzker to opt out of vouchers” (Jan. 28): Despite the claims of opponents such as Illinois Families for Public Schools and the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the federal scholarship tax credit program is not intended to pull students into private schools. 

Scholarship-granting organizations can exist to fund public or private schools. Public school districts’ educational foundations should jump at becoming scholarship organizations to take advantage of the funds and secure tax credits for their donors.

Those funds could then be used for tutoring, tuition, supplemental classes, books, online educational materials, standardized testing fees, dual enrollment courses, special-education services and more. 

According to the Tribune, “critics argue that the program pulls money away from public schools, and undermines the tradition of American public education.” This is false. The scholarship program uses no state or federal funds. But Illinois taxpayers would be able to claim the federal tax credit under any scenario. 

If Gov. JB Pritzker has the best interests of Illinois students and families at heart, he’ll opt into the program and ensure Illinoisans get their fair share of the federal program. By doing so, he’ll be giving Illinois’ students a much-needed boost.

— Mailee Smith, vice president of policy and litigation, Illinois Policy Institute

Age limits at federal level

Regarding the editorial “No need for a mandatory retirement age in Washington. The voters can do what’s needed” (Jan. 28): Rahm Emanuel has never been short of innovative ideas during his long career, so I read with interest his proposal for creating a mandatory retirement age for the president, federal lawmakers and judges. His proposal for lawmakers has merit if for no other reason than legislative races throughout the country have become dominated by a single party in many House and Senate races. Invariably, voters do not have choices when incumbents with significant financial resources face limited or no competition.

If voters had true choices, the Tribune Editorial Board’s stance would have more validity. But all too frequently, congressional elections are impacted by family succession, not true competition. So a mandatory retirement age at 75 or 80 would have legitimate basis for consideration.

The editorial board’s position on the presidency has merit.

As it relates to judges, I have been less concerned about the need for a mandatory retirement age because federal judges historically have demonstrated their wisdom in choosing to retire or go on senior status when declining health or faculties indicated this to be the right choice. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg may have had significant physical limitations in her final months, but her judgment, temperament and wit did not demonstrate the need for her to be constrained by a mandatory retirement age. So unless that changes, a mandatory judicial retirement age would have the impact of prematurely forcing out highly qualified members of the bench prematurely.

While I respect the editorial board’s conclusion, I think a more thoughtful reply might be more appropriate.

— Christopher Hartrich, Lake Bluff

Age limits are practical

Regarding Emmanuel’s proposal for age limits on federal elected officials, previously I took the position the Tribune Editorial Board does, to let the voters decide. I also felt there should be no term limits. I no longer see it this way. 

Even though people are living longer and are healthier, life is changing at a rapid pace. Advances in technology and social changes move fast and are better understood by younger and middle-aged people, who will be living with the legislative consequences of decisions on these matters for decades to come. 

Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court justices should end, also. This is not to make those who are older than 75 (I’m one) or those in office for a long time step aside just for younger people.

There are plenty of other ways to make further contributions without serving in office.

— Jim Tufano, Aurora

Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/02/03/letters-020326-cpd-homicide-clearance-rate/