Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Don’t even think about it
Next Post: The Democrats’ year of the woman
Posted in:
* Greg Hinz…
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle appears to have some facts on her side when she suggested too many low-level offenders sit in expensive jail cells because they’re too poor to make bail. […]
Of the 8,222 people behind bars on Oct. 24, Dart’s office says, 298 were being held for failure to post $1,000 or less bond. Included are 62 that need $500, 17 that need $100 and one poor sap who needs just 50 bucks.
That last person is being held for allegedly shoplifting $118.26 worth of shrimp from a Mariano’s grocery store. He’s been in jail since Oct. 18, charged with retail theft under $300. His incarceration is costing taxpayers $162 a day. In other words, in terms of money, taxpayers would be better off to have reimbursed Mariano’s and let the guy go on the first day. […]
In 2015, again according to Dart, the county had 1,024 “turnarounds.” Those are cases in which a person was held so long awaiting trial that their eventual sentence was shorter than the time already served. Collectively, the excess “dead time” was a stunning 222 years in jail.
* Sun-Times editorial…
It’s time more judges got serious about lowering bonds. We understand no one on the bench wants to be the person who allows a suspect to return to the street — only to commit a serious crime. But we are not talking about major infractions here. In one case we’ve written about in the past, a 33-year-old man was ordered held on $50,000 cash bail for possession of two Viagra pills. Should taxpayers foot the $143-a-day cost of jailing someone for such an offense?
Judges set bonds to ensure people show up for trial. If people don’t show up, they forfeit what they have paid. But judges have to be careful that some people without the means to pay aren’t kept in jail while others with more money and charged with the same types of crimes are released. […]
In July, the Sun-Times reported that Cook County judges routinely set bail for crime suspects at levels contrary to what the new risk-assessment system calls for. Last week, two men, one of whom is represented by the MacArthur Justice Center, filed a class action lawsuit arguing “excessive” bail set by Cook County judges is unconstitutional.
In a statement Monday, Cook County Chief Judge Timothy Evans said the courts have made significant progress. More I-bonds and electronic monitoring orders have been issued and the average population at the jail has declined, he said. In the first half of 2016, 94 percent of the lowest risk defendants were released pre-trial, he said.
That’s good. But Dart, Preckwinkle and others are correct that we can’t stop pushing until we have a system that treats all poor people fairly.
Your thoughts?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Don’t even think about it
Next Post: The Democrats’ year of the woman
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Would the bail bonds industry be offended by this very rea$onable and practical reform?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:11 am
Mostly a bogus issue. Can some fair reforms be made. Always. Do I want John Fritchey deciding how much bail is for some “poor” “non-violent” career criminals who stole “out of necessity” according to Fritchey. Unless he’s willing to open his home to these “non-violent” thieves, I don’t really want to hear from him about it. Potential crime victims have rights too, even if Fritchey doesn’t think they do.
Comment by Michael Westen Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:14 am
There are no private bail bondsmen in Illinois.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:15 am
The real problem is delay in getting cases to trial in Cook County. When a defendants in jail, a prompt trial must be a priority. Also, releasing someone on a I Bond is done when the defendant has proven he or she is not likely to commit other crimes and is likely to make court appearances. What if the defendant has a history of crime or failure to appear. That is the case with most of these I think.
Comment by blogman Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:22 am
Anything under a thousand dollars should be heard with in 48 hours and either pled or ror. The court system needs to be brought into the 21st century. If they screw up while on bond then lock them up and spend the money to keep them there.
Comment by Nieva Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:24 am
I agree with the premise of reform for bail. I don’t subscribe to the accounting. It may cost a little more, but not so much it’s bleeding the coffers.
Comment by New Slang Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:24 am
But wait. Can’t the judge deny bail altogether. But if bail is granted, why should anyone sit in jail pre-trial, including those “career criminals.” Few would, if all had the incomes of the five percent.
I have wondered why some charity hasn’t taken up the cause of those stuck in jail because they lack minor sums. There could be an expectation of repayment, some wouldn’t, I suppose, but many probably would.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:25 am
Chief Judge Evans can pipe up anytime now.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:37 am
judges, do your job. but that includes background. the Mariano’s case sounds like the guy could be out. but it’s not just about the case at hand for whatever case. record of defendant is also an issue. victim is also an issue. safety is an issue. consider all these factors, and make a judgment. judges can probably let more people out in i bonds. but please inform the public about all factors considered. that is on Preckwinkle and the media too.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:39 am
This entire bond court issue has picked up steam in Cook County because of the failure of the judiciary.
Sit through any bond call at any courthouse and you will be appalled by the arbitrary nature of decisions. I once saw a judge in Bridgeview yell out to a defendant’s brother in the back of the courtroom and ask how much cash he had on him and then set bail at that exact number. How’s that for sober risk assessment?
Tim Evans, who could do something about this, is only accountable to his fellow judges. As such, the judiciary is a giant make-no-waves Cover Your A** society. The legislature should make the chief judge’s office an elected position. Make Evans answer to the voters and Dart and Preckwinkle won’t have to do his job for him.
Comment by Sal the turtle Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:41 am
This is and has been an absolute no brainer for years. They need to adjust the bonding system.
And the savings can be put towards other resources in the justice/corrections departments.
Comment by allknowingmasterofracoondom Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:48 am
What is the judge supposed to consider?
The defendant’s record, the victim, and safety would be relevant in sentencing, but pre-trial the defendant hasn’t been proven to have done anything yet.
Or should we change the system and just skip trial and send those career criminals on to Stateville or wherever. Yeah, that’s it.
Comment by Cassandra Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:49 am
Wow, Illinois is struggling to take baby steps out of the middle ages in 2016! Well it’s a start at least.
What’s missing in this discussion is the fact that police recommend high bonds to the prosecutors for people that they wish to pressure. I know of more than one case involving persons who were accused of a petty crime, and simply observed their right to remain silent and not speak to police about the case, then were hit with ridiculously high bonds. It’s another unconstitutional tool of coercion used by cops, now that phone books and typewriter covers are out of style since Jon Burge was convicted.
Many cops think that they are judges too, and that citizens must “cooperate” with them. Prosecutors and judges go along with this and set high bonds to pressure accused people to incriminate themselves. So much for “the rights of Englishmen” 800 years after the Magna Carta was signed.
Comment by Payback Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:51 am
We should completely do away with posting bond, it’s a relic of a class system that has no place in a democracy. You are either safe to let out or you are not and that is how decisions should be made, not financial ability.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:51 am
Is this the modern version of a debtor’s prison?
Comment by Watcher Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:55 am
“Unless he’s willing to open his home to these ‘non-violent’ thieves, I don’t really want to hear from him about it.”
And here I was all worried that the discussion might descend into rhetorical childishness…
– MrJM
Comment by @MisterJayEm Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 10:59 am
Not to worry the Cook County Dems will push through a minimum wag hike today - then more folk will be able to make bail
Comment by Lech W Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:02 am
Again we have a systemic problem that requires a system solution. The stated purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant appears for trial. Yet we do not dedicate the resources necessary to ensure a prompt trial. Some of these cases could be handled quickly if we designed a system to handle them.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:10 am
Judges in fear are at the root of the bail problem that in turn leads to costly jail overcrowding.
Judges avoiding the mentality of locking people up for minor offenses is the solution.
Comment by IRLJ Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:14 am
Change is coming.
There are no valid reasons for a cash bail system. Is someone less dangerous or more likely to come to court because they have posted a $250 bond than another person charged with the same offense and same background that cannot post the $250?
The District of Columbia did away with cash bonds several years ago and they detain roughly 15% of defendants prior to trial, the rest are released without posting any cash. Other states, including Illinois are moving in that direction in recognition that the ability or inability to post money to be released from jail bears little relationship to appearing at subsequent court dates or your risk to reoffending while your case is pending.
The mandated use of a evidenced based pre-trial risk assessment tool to assist judges in making a determination if a person should be released and, if so, with what conditions and restrictions including electronic monitoring, is coming to Illinois. Its long over due and like any changes to our criminal justice system, it should be vetted and considered on its merits and not on emotion.
Comment by Tommydanger Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:25 am
==I have wondered why some charity hasn’t taken up the cause of those stuck in jail because they lack minor sums. There could be an expectation of repayment, some wouldn’t, I suppose, but many probably would.==
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/23/bail-reformers-aren-t-waiting-for-bail-reform#.LLaVoOP4a
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 11:35 am
“held on $50,000 cash bail for possession of two Viagra pills”
What in the world is the maximum penalty for that? That just screams ‘pre-textual arrest’ to me. Why’d the cops actually want that guy locked up?
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:07 pm
While there are some valid points, that $162 dollar per day number is fictional. That’s based on the budget for the entire sheriff’s office, not just the jail. The sheriff has a police force, maintenance of all county buildings, etc. so the real cost is probably half of that. People continue to perpetuate that number when they know it is fictional
Comment by Anon Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:20 pm
“Unless he’s willing to open his home to these ‘non-violent’ thieves, I don’t really want to hear from him about it.”
‘And here I was all worried that the discussion might descend into rhetorical childishness…’
So a career shop-lifter whose 26th arrest is for stealing “only” a snickers bar, according to Fritchey, and apparently you, should be ROR so they can prey on unsuspecting small business owners whose only crime was opening their doors for business? Why is the stuff in Fritchey’s house more important than that of the local small businessman who owns a convenience store? Why is your stuff more important? If you think it is so unimportant that career “non-violent” thieves remain on the loose to steal more stuff, then by all means, let him steal your stuff. These store owners have rights too, even if you don’t acknowledge them. I’ll take the judgment of a judge, someone who purportedly cares about the victims, than yours or Fritchey’s. I’m ok with that.
Comment by Michael Westen Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:20 pm
I hope we continue to make progress in criminal justice reform, slow as it is. We know that poor people are disadvantaged and should invest more in helping them become self-sufficient rather than locking them up for certain nonviolent offenses and putting financial strains on them that they already can’t handle.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 12:58 pm
Maybe just not allow a defendant to be held longer than 50% (or some percentage) of the max (or min) sentence for what they are charged with? You either pay the bail or you wait it out but do eventually get out. For lower level crimes, that will be sooner.
Comment by thechampaignlife Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 1:39 pm
==Potential crime victims have rights too==
==These store owners have rights too, even if you don’t acknowledge them.==
What rights are those? “Potential” crime victims and retail merchants don’t appear in the state or federal constitutions.
I do see where a person with 99 priors retains the presumption of innocence and presumption of pretrial release for that 100th arrest, though.
Comment by crazybleedingheart Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:21 pm
The bail question is becoming intertwined with the question of “What should we do with the habitual/professional non-violent criminal?” These are the pickpockets, shoplifters, identity thieves who are skilled at their illegal trade.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 3:43 pm
Hmmm…we don’t like all these people being locked up for little stuff.
Hmmm…we hate when re-peat offenders continuously harass our community.
Hmmm…we don’t want to pay for pretrial confinement.
Hmmm…let’s blame the judges, prosecutors, police, public defenders because we don’t know how to square the above problems.
Maybe we should start by asking what’s an appropriate felony. Almost all crimes can become felonies when somebody does them more than once.
But then when that guy with a bad record goes out and doesn’t something else bad, you also want to blame the system.
Maybe jobs and a less punishment prone system would help. Too bad so many of us want to vote for politicians who aren’t “soft on crime”.
See…there’s more than meets the eye on this stuff.
Comment by 32nd Ward Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 4:32 pm
“What rights are those? “Potential” crime victims and retail merchants don’t appear in the state or federal constitutions.”
I do see where a person with 99 priors retains the presumption of innocence and presumption of pretrial release for that 100th arrest, though.
Actually victims’ rights are firmly ensconced in the Illinois Constitution. Article 1, section 8 provides for laws made for the “general welfare” of the people. Keeping potential crime victims safe certainly falls under “general welfare.” To suggest that no consideration be given to the public from a career criminal is absurd. And, as I’m certain you know, being held on bail because you are a career criminal until trial does not mean being presumed guilty. Surely you know that. It actually means the opposite.
Comment by Michael Westen Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 5:03 pm
FWIW, Cook County voters can say “No” to retaining Tim Evans as a judge this year.
As the inimitable Oswego Willy repeatedly reminds us, “vote accordingly.”
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 5:18 pm
We need to lock up repeat criminals an institute the death penalty on violent criminals.
Comment by Ron Wednesday, Oct 26, 16 @ 9:45 pm
How many have a vehicle they want to seize?
Comment by Rabid Thursday, Oct 27, 16 @ 7:17 am