Chicago Judge Advocates for Home Security Two Years after Personal Tragedy

A Chicago Judge's Mother and Husband were shot by angry litigant, and she has become an advocate for judges having home security systems installed. "We just didn't do it," she said. She said judges must make up their minds that "for the sake of my family, for the sake of myself, I just have to do it."

"I've gone over in my mind so many times what could have been done differently," U.S. District Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow said. She was surprised to discover that a home security system can cost as little as $100. "We were told it would cost several thousand dollars,īī she said. "We had a three-story house, we had four kids and didnīt have any dollar to put anywhere.(sic)"

In reality, it is very unlikely that her home would have had the necessary coverage to stop the tragic murders with just a $100 security system. This is because the discounted ADT security system could barely secure a studio apartment. It is an old sales tactic that no one holds ADT accountable for. If Lefkow had paid the $99 for the discount alarm, it is entirely likely that the catastrophe would not have been averted.

Since the tragedy, Lefkow has been on a crusade to explain the necessity of a home security system for judges. "If there had been a home security system, that would have been the best thing," she recently told judges gathered at The Drake hotel for the American Bar Associationīs annual convention.

Who then, should flip the bill for a judge's home security system? Lefkow testified before Congress with then-U.S. Sen. Barack Obama to secure funding for a program that offered free home security systems for judges. This campaign was successful but some judges donīt want it, only about 70% of federal judges have taken advantage of this program. Their reasoning is that they are in harms way so often, that if someone really wants to get them, they won't stop at anything.

It was proven, in a 2008 Rutgers study on security systems in New Jersey, that security systems do statistically prevent theft. However, this is a very different situation because the intruders do not want to burglarize the home, they are there for revenge. So, it cannot be successfully argued that a home security system would prevent a tragedy, like Lefkow's, from occurring, but there is a good argument that the killer would be brought to justice much sooner. In Lefkows case, the murderer was free until three days later, when he took his own life and confessed in a suicide letter.

The overall lesson of this story is how important a home security system can be. Generally, the larger your house the more expensive the security system, but it is still a measure that can prevent a lifetime of regret. Judges, who have taken great monetary sacrifices, are entitled to federally funded protection because they are in harms way by the nature of their job. I just hope that the other 30% take Lefkow's advice and get a home security system really soon.