... even go home first.
Two jailers (err, correctional officers) at the McHenry County Jail (errr, Corrections Center or Facility, whatever the $10,000,000 word is) are in hot water over an alleged crime that occurred inside the jail over the week-end.
Word is that one has already been arrested and action is being considered against a second. As passed along to me, the crime involved some alleged physical attention to a female inmate of the jail.
The talk already is that one jailer will be fired; suspended could be the better word at this time, since the Sheriff's Department Merit Commission may be the public body that approves all firings, unless employment of jailers, as non-sworn employees of the Sheriff's Department, is not governed by the Merit Commission. It may be that jailers, if they are not governed by the Merit Commission, are at-will employees of the Sheriff's Department, meaning they can be directly fired.
Now, inmates are supposed to be safe in jail; right? Safe from harm by other inmates, and definitely safe from harm by employees of the jail.
Of course, the other side of the story could be that a female inmate complained of being touched inappropriately and maybe it didn't really happen. All such accusations must be investigated. It's not unknown that those in jail complain to get their keepers in trouble.
Jailers could be particularly vulnerable to such charges, because of their continual interactions with inmates. Inmates should be treated firmly, but with respect. And there should be strict rules governing cell checks or other interactions between jailers of one gender and inmates of the other.
[9:00PM Late this afternoon the Northwest Herald reported that Corrections Officer Elias Dario Fortoso, 29, was charged after an investigation started about July 13.]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Wow no comments on this one? I'm surprised...
And Gus once again you are wrong, this did not happen over the weekend. Maybe you should check where you are getting your information from before posting it.
NWH has the story
Again here in this article you only have one side of the story before you publish. No wonder you never made it as a police officer. You don't get all the facts before you write your "stories"....I wish I could call them articles or news reports but we all know that would give your words too much credit.
Frank I agree, there are always two sides. And Gus never hears them both.
Will this be another civil suit against the county? How many is that now, I'm losing count.
Want the name of the other correction officer?
Sure. Let's play Wheel of Fortune. Let me buy a letter. I'll buy a B.
Gus, How did you know there was another officer involved? It wasn't in the papers was it? Are you talking to someone from corrections? If so why don't you share with us the second officers name.
There is a another correction officer that is being internally investigated. This officer who's last name starts with a "B" is accused of having a inappropriate relationship with a female inmate. From what I hear this officer was involved in an internal a while back as a witness against another employee. He probably got some brownie points for that and won't be jammed up too hard.
Hmm, yes I already know who the officer is and what the situation is. I was just wanted to know how Gus knows? Rumor is that someone from inside not only the Sheriff's Department but also the Corrections division is giving him inside information, which should not be happening. Wonder who is giving him the info???
So, basically, what you are saying is that the public should be kept in the dark (I could phrase it differently) and not be told what's going on?
And so, tell us once again, how it is that you know (unless you are in the department)?
How did an investigation take two weeks and, then, they didn't go get the first guy? Did they really just wait for him to come back to work and arrest him there? Of course, that does save mileage and wear-and-tear on handcuffs.
Post a Comment