Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington-Normal prepare to help asylum seekers
Posted in:
* Attorney General Raoul negotiated an agreement with local law enforcement to reform the police certification and de-certification process around the time of the SAFE-T Act’s passage and demanded that his legislation be kept separate from the broader SAFE-T Act bill. He’s a former county prosecutor and has supported several penalty enhancement bills in the past. So, this is not a huge surprise…
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul on Tuesday acknowledged he has concerns about potential ambiguities in a sweeping criminal justice law that has become a major election year issue, and also spoke of the need to discuss clarifying some provisions, including one that eliminates cash bail, before they take effect Jan. 1. […]
Speaking at a campaign event on Chicago’s South Side, Raoul spoke of the need to have an “ongoing conversation” on what the threshold should be for determining what defendants are a threat to public safety, “whether it’s a specific threat to an individual or a community.”
“There are a number of issues that I think deserve discussion. I’m not going to have the debate about them here at a podium, but I think again like most legislation, we often revisit because we pass legislation that requires a lot of debate,” said Raoul, a former state senator who represented parts of Chicago’s South Side. “We are often clarifying ambiguity or uncertainty in … countless laws. Is the SAFE-T Act worthy of that discussion? It is.”
While opening the door to tweaking the law, Raoul also said he’s confident it leaves enough judicial discretion for lower level crime suspects and that he doesn’t think the bill is too confusing or contradictory.
*** UPDATE *** Two more supporters address potential changes, but that’s buried at the bottom of a story published by the same media company which prints and mails those Proft papers…
State Sen. Elgie Sims, a Chicago Democrat who sponsored the SAFE-T Act, said those with concerns about the law should work with lawmakers to address them, rather than file lawsuits or start online petitions to repeal it. […]
Sims acknowledges there are some things — such as how some of the changes will be funded — that need to be addressed and is confident lawmakers will tackle those issues.
Lake County State’s Attorney Eric Rinehart said while he agrees there are some areas of the law that need to be tweaked, he is confident those concerns will be addressed and he continues to prepare for Jan. 1 and the implementation of cashless bail. He also believes the new law will accomplish the task of keeping violent defendants behind bars and protecting victims.
* Related…
* ‘Threat to public safety’: McHenry County state’s attorney sues Gov. JB Pritzker, Illinois attorney general over SAFE-T Act
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:12 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Open thread
Next Post: Champaign-Urbana, Bloomington-Normal prepare to help asylum seekers
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
More importantly what does the Governor believe needs to be fixed specifically and if he really believes the law has serious flaws where was his veto pen.
Why did he disregard the concerns of 100 State’s Attorneys in Illinois and side with Kim Foxx and the Lake County States Attorney?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:27 am
===AG Raoul says SAFE-T Act needs changes===
I don’t think he did? I know references to “discussion” and “conversation” leave him open to changes, there’s nothing in his quotes that I can paraphrase to include the word “need.” He’s obviously ok with changes, and this isn’t anywhere close to a full-throated defense, but he’s not specifically asking for anything either.
Comment by vern Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:30 am
While Raoul takes the reasonable approach, another States Attorney shows his lack of reason and commitment to justice by signing on to the baloney lawsuit.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:31 am
To paraphrase what I wrote when Pritzker thought a “second look” is likely needed;
To the post?
Welp, here’s the thing;
If *I* say I have questions or if I would go further and say changes are needed or necessary, it’s worth nothing, and even less to others.
I start there because governing can’t be something where perfect is the enemy of the good. The reason trailer bills exist or a clarification or clean up bill is run is… perfect can’t be the enemy of the good.
An Attorney General who supports a bill can be one to use that thinking to a broader discussion or expansion of policy, like..
“This bill today is just a first step towards a great policy end”
So, after walking this around the barn a bit… an Attorney General can’t say, after all the backlash *allowed*, and I mean allowed as the positive info on the bill seems to be missing in a greater message (but I digress)…
=== “There are a number of issues that I think deserve discussion. I’m not going to have the debate about them here at a podium, but I think again like most legislation, we often revisit because we pass legislation that requires a lot of debate,” said Raoul…===
… in the context and course of a political lens of microscopic analysis.
You make this EXACT statement upon this bill being signed. You make this statement in a release before signing, you can’t allow a breathing to occur when sweeping legislation passes and is signed.
I can make statements like that because the odds are I’m the only one reading it.
You can’t allow political narratives to be hijacked to allow the good that won out over the perfect be usurped for a deflection quote, a quote that had more meaning if spoken far earlier.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:41 am
Safe-T-Act is a good first step to making judges consider a defendant’s threat to others as primary factor in granting pre trial release rather than flight risk. I wouldn’t run away from that.
Comment by Original Rambler Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:44 am
This narrative, whether false or not, apparently has Illinois Dems in a bit of panic. Bit too close to November to change, bit I think it will make statewide elections a tad bit closer.
Comment by Blue Dog Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:46 am
===Why did he disregard the concerns of 100 State’s Attorneys in Illinois and side with Kim Foxx and the Lake County States Attorney?===
@LuckyPierre - You mean the same State’s Attorneys that are lying about the law? Maybe you mean the Association they belong to that is doing nothing to make sure the public is receiving accurate legal facts for the good of public safety? Are we talking about the same folks? I just want to make sure I’m on the same page as you…
Comment by Hermosa Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:49 am
Mark Maxwell has done, by far, more to the understanding and debunking of all the alleged “good or bad” to the Act.
Maxwell also did it on at least one additional platform outside his own reporting.
That’s more of an indictment on the Dems than being impressed with any pushback that continues.
That’s also a story to the “fallout” that has gone on.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:55 am
On that night of passage, there was an understanding among most involved that there was a deal to just pass the portion negotiated with the AG and work on the rest later. Then the big bill was dropped literally in the middle of the night. And boom. We have a law with good important parts and very troubling parts. Wiser heads should have prevailed and followed the AGs lead. There wouldn’t be all this uncertainty if Kwame’s view had been successful. Such a misstep.
Comment by Watching Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 9:58 am
==On that night of passage, there was an understanding among most involved that there was a deal to just pass the portion negotiated with the AG and work on the rest later. Then the big bill was dropped literally in the middle of the night.==
What are you talking about? This is bunk, there was no such “deal.”
Comment by charles in charge Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:10 am
This is a story. Raoul is a pretty reasonable guy, on top of being the AG.
Comment by Steve Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:11 am
Echoing Vern, I don’t see anywhere in Raoul’s statements or the article itself that supports your headline, Rich. To the contrary, from the article:
“While opening the door to tweaking the law, Raoul also said he’s confident it leaves enough judicial discretion for lower level crime suspects and that he doesn’t think the bill is too confusing or contradictory.”
I think you may want to open the door to tweaking the headline.
Comment by Skokie Man Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:18 am
Raoul: “also spoke of the need to discuss clarifying some provisions, including one that eliminates cash bail.”
Clarifying is not the same thing as changing, especially in a milieu in which opponents have spend months falsely defining the issue. Clarify implies “to make clear.” It does not mean creating a host of amendments to redetermine and operationalize the concepts of which cases must be denied bail, which should be granted bail, and how much bail should apply to each category of offense. If we precede down the road that the oppositions wishes us to proceed, we will end up with little to no discretion by judges, and likely lead to more people being jailed by aggressive policing tactics that include throwing as many criminal charges as necessary to avoid bail.
I pray Raoul is serious about clarifying (making clear), rather than bureaucratizing the criminal justice system further.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:30 am
@LP: because in America, poorer people are treated differently by the law. This is a good law but needs some improvements. No veto was needed.
Comment by Lurker Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:33 am
When the AG points at “ambiguity”, I think that’s a pretty good assessment.
No one loves a good “what if” like an attorney and judges aren’t as smart as we give them credit for.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:34 am
What will Jim Glasgow and other state’s attorneys do with the olive branch is the $20 question.
Illinois could pass language in November with regard to bail that clarifies that says “these amendatory changes in this section do not apply to acts that are charged prior to January 1, 2023.”
Comment by Thomas Paine Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:34 am
“We are often clarifying ambiguity or uncertainty in … countless laws”
Maybe if the legislators read the law before they vote on it?
Nah.
/S
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:42 am
Bruce, almost all bills in one way or another clarify, expand, contract or change existing laws.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:50 am
But, yeah, this should’ve been done in the spring.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 10:50 am
I wonder if the language, rollout and communication for this bill would have been better if Madigan was still around.
Comment by Quizzical Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 11:28 am
Nothing like a dose of Madigan regret in the morning.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 11:29 am
@Quizzical - Madigan was around for the language and the rollout. It passed only because he was hanging onto the gavel by his fingernails. If that drama isn’t unfolding in January of 2021, the bill dies on the vine or gets pared back substantially.
Comment by Stung Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 11:39 am
Who woulda thought forcing large bills like this at 5 AM during a lame duck session would result in this?
Comment by Madigan's Burner Phone Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 11:41 am
== But, yeah, this should’ve been done in the spring. ==
Agreed. It’s unfortunate that when attempting to ease someone’s mind/correct/whatever, even a flowchart like this, this close to implementation, still carries a disclaimer at the bottom sufficient for many to dismiss it.
Comment by XonXoff Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 11:44 am
=If that drama isn’t unfolding in January of 2021, the bill dies on the vine or gets pared back substantially.=
Your assessment is actually the opposite of what would have happened.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 12:07 pm
Despite the Governor’s talking points, anyone familiar with the state’s current bail laws would agree with the McHenry State’s Attorney’s Office’s statement that it is impossible for a single mother accused of stealing diapers to be held pretrial for six months under current laws. The current law takes a defendant’s financial status into consideration when setting bond (along with their employment history, dependents, mental and physical health, substance abuse and treatment needs, the likelihood of conviction, flight risk and criminal history) and for a large majority of non-violent offenses, the law (the words in the statute) presumes a defendant is entitled to a recognizance bond. See, all Category B Offenses. The misinformation is coming from both sides, neither of which is acceptable.
Comment by rtov Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 12:19 pm
The reason Illinois revisits so many bills and laws is that they are often written so badly that either the implementing agencies cannot, or they are so fundamentally flawed as to simply cause more problems than they were intended to solve. It’s Deja Vu all over again, such as the gambling bills which set impossible deadlines and dumped work on a then-heavily-understaffed Gaming board.
Comment by thisjustinagain Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 12:37 pm
Lucky Pierre,
Can you show me the source of the “100 States Attorney’s claim”? I see it tossed about, but zero proof.
Comment by Name Witheld By Request Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 12:58 pm
@JS Mill - I was there, on the floor, as it was all going down. Believe what you want, but I’m not wrong.
Comment by Stung Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 1:33 pm
Here is proof the search key on Google works
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/2022/september/100-il-states-attorneys-o
ppose-new-law-ending-cash-bail-system-more-than-half-of-the-inmates-to-go-free-on-jan-1
Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 2:04 pm
From Lucky Pierre’s Link: “But Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow said in a YouTube video it will be the “end of days” once the law kicks in. He says the hands of police, prosecutors, and judges will be tied.”
From the Christian Broadcasting Network of Pat Robertson (CBN.com), this quote would seem appropriate. From the rest of the world, the idea of “the end of days” seems a bit much.
I have never understood why the Book of Revelations, a dream as told by the dreamer John, would form the foundation of a new, American religion. Divorced from the rest of the 26 books found in the New Testament, Revelations is steeped in fear and hate - judgment and death. The other books tell the story of a nice Jesus, a good Jesus, who says “learn to love each other, forgive each other, sin no more.”
Dreamers gonna dream, I guess. Glasgow is preaching the end of days, if we do as Jesus says we should do, and treat the imprisoned well. Matt 25:35-41.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 2:46 pm
Interesting that the Bail Reform Act of 2017 hasn’t been discussed much. All Category B offenses for which there is a cash bail set reduce at the rate of $30 per day until defendant is released.
Might be interesting to compare the Bail Reform Act of 2017 with the PFA?
Also, there has been little mention of waiver of criminal court assessments, which also became law not so long ago. Anyone who qualifies financially for the PD should not pay criminal assessments if convicted. Should be waived in full. That’s a lot of money. The Felony Criminal Drug Assessment is $2,215.00.
There have already been statutes passed in Illinois to address financial issues in Illinois criminal courts.
Comment by BCOSEC Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 3:22 pm
The problem here is not that a bill was passed in the dark of night. So many dwell on such things but it was the product of a lot of work, and there was a reason it was passed with an implementation date of 1/1/23, which is that folks knew it was big and complicated, and would require changes. That doesn’t make it BAD - you have to start somewhere and they got 95 percent or more of the massive bill right. The error was not using 2021 to figure out the needed changes, passing them in Spring 2022, and having this issue off the table today.
Comment by Rich is right Wednesday, Sep 21, 22 @ 4:41 pm