Cashless bail debated in the suburbs
Friday, Aug 19, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Charles Keeshan and Susan Sarkauskas at the Daily Herald…
Supporters of the state’s plan to eliminate cash bail have started attending bond hearings in DuPage and Kane counties, gathering information about how cases are being handled before the new law takes effect Jan. 1.
On Tuesday, state Sen. Karina Villa of West Chicago and state Rep. Anna Stava-Murray of Naperville joined the group for a bond call at the DuPage County courthouse in Wheaton. Villa and Stava-Murray, both Democrats, voted in favor in 2020 of the SAFE-T Act, which is eliminating cash bail come Jan. 1. […]
Stava-Murray watched three cases: a man accused of stealing four books of lottery scratch-off tickets from his employer, a man accused of burglary and a woman accused of misdemeanor domestic battery.
The woman was released on personal recognizance. The burglary suspect was ordered held on $3,000 bail. The woman had no criminal history, but the burglary suspect had felony convictions, Stava-Murray said.
The man accused of stealing the lottery tickets had just started a job, and coming up with the $1,000 to be released will be a hardship, Stava-Murray said. She said statistics show that people who are held in jail on bail are at higher risk of being arrested again when they are out.
“What is going to happen Jan. 1 is simple. The people who don’t pose a risk will be out in the community” at their jobs and with their families, she said.
* Center Square…
State Rep. Anne Stava-Murray, D-Downers Grove, said the current cash bail system is unfair.
“No one should be able to buy their way out of jail for the same charge for someone who can afford to do the same,” Stava-Murray said. “That is not a system that keeps us safe.” […]
Kendall County State’s Attorney Eric Weiss said judges will have the option to hold people for certain serious crimes, but ending cash bail will lead to a lot of no-shows in court.
“The General Assembly has dictated only certain crimes that meet certain criteria and of certain severity, are even allowed to be considered to be held,” Weis said. “So you can fail to appear multiple times, as long as your crime doesn’t count, they have to release you.”
* Naperville Sun…
A resolution encouraging state legislators to work with law enforcement and judicial leaders to address what some say are problems in the Illinois SAFE-T Act was approved Tuesday by a divided Naperville City Council.
The measure, which passed with a 5-3 vote, cites public safety concerns caused by “unreasonably limiting the imposition of cash bail for violent offenders, unreasonably limiting police officer discretion to make arrests, imposing unreasonable police certification and decertification standards, and mandating unreasonable custodial accommodations.” […]
The city is not asking to eliminate or overturn the SAFE-T Act, which was designed to overhaul criminal justice practices, Bruzan Taylor stressed. “We’re just asking for a discussion of some changes,” she said.
During comments from the public, state Rep. Anne Stava-Murray, D-Naperville, told the council she voted for the original bill as well as trailer legislation.
“We have fine-tuned and continue to consider fine-tuning alongside all major stakeholders, including multiple groups with relevant experiences, such as the chiefs of police,” she said.
* Politico…
In its latest ad, the People Who Play By The Rules PAC initially included a video clip of Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow criticizing the end of the cash bail system. Then the link stopped working, and the PAC offered a new one with Glasgow’s words and no image. Playbook hears it’s because Glasgow complained, but PAC’s spokesman Michael Koolidge says “it was purely an aesthetic reason for the change.”
A Glasgow aide told me earlier this week that Glasgow did complain to the committee. But, Glasgow described the law this way: “It’s going to be literally the end of days.” He said it, he should either own it or retract it and not run away. You’ll recall the governor’s office pointed out some major errors in Glasgow’s reasoning.
- JoanP - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 1:22 pm:
= “So you can fail to appear multiple times, as long as your crime doesn’t count, they have to release you.” =
That’s nonsense. Pretrial release may be denied “when the defendant has a high likelihood
of willful flight”. If a defendant on pretrial release fails to appear, that release may be revoked.
Astonishing how many State’s Attorneys haven’t bothered to actually read the Act.
- A Well-Regulated Commenter - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 1:51 pm:
It seems like the suburban state’s attorneys are still in the pound the table and yell like hell phase of their arguments.
- Leslie K - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 2:11 pm:
Glasgow is being lazy and needs to either start making valid arguments or be quiet.
Judges were not keeping people in jail because they couldn’t afford to get out. They were setting bail high when they thought someone should be housed rather than released. The only thing this new law does is require the judges and prosecutors to provide some evidence that a person shouldn’t be released.
It’s not complicated, people.
- vern - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 2:14 pm:
I’d have more respect for the states attorneys if they were making a positive case for cash bail. I guess they don’t see the political viability in arguing “all poor people are dangerous” or “we like the budget help.”
- Sterling - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 2:19 pm:
The only argument for cash bail at this point is thinking that some people should be able to buy their way out of the justice system and some shouldn’t.
If they’re a danger to society or a flight risk, remand them. No one’s arguing against that.
If they aren’t a risk, they aren’t a risk, so why not let them go home until their trial?
- Ares - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 2:37 pm:
If a defendant fails to appear at a routine hearing in a criminal case, a Judge can issue a warrant for arrest, which (in Cook County) results in the defendant being held without bail until they go before the Judge who issued the warrant, the following day court is in session.
- Victor Kingston - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 2:47 pm:
Once again, if Jim Glasgow would kindly just pull the lever on his party switch that would be just lovely.
- Occasionally Moderated - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 2:52 pm:
===Pretrial release may be denied “when the defendant has a high likelihood of willful flight”. If a defendant on pretrial release fails to appear, that release may be revoked.===
How does a harried assistant states attorney who only saw the file (more likely the stack of files) a few minutes prior and has to make an objective case for detention do that? What facts are needed to demonstrate a high likelihood and where would they come from at this very early phase of the proceedings?
People in this day in age are very mobile. How far are counties willing to go to pick up the accused offenders when they decide to not show up because they have no skin in the game? In the current system, cash bail can be revoked and it at least covers some of the expense of sending a deputy to Iowa City/Indy/Minneapolis/Decatur or wherever. Or are we only going to execute warrants that are a few counties away?
- Guzzlepot - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 3:15 pm:
@Occasionally Moderated
** In the current system, cash bail can be revoked and it at least covers some of the expense of sending a deputy to Iowa City/Indy/Minneapolis/Decatur or wherever. Or are we only going to execute warrants that are a few counties away?***
That is what happens now. If you fail to appear for court in Cook or the Collar counties the Judge will generally issue a warrant that is executable in Cook or the Collar counties. If you have a misdemeanor warrant out of Cook County and you are picked up in Carbondale, they do not execute the warrant and transport you to Cook County. The only time warrants are executable State or nationwide is if the charged offense is a serious felony (murder, home invasion, drug offenses with a lot of drugs).
- Guzzlepot - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 3:17 pm:
And the facts that the ASA would use to make a showing that the defendant has a high likelihood of flight are the same facts and arguments that they would use under the current system to ask for a very high bond. Not as much is going to change as some of the detractors would suggest.
- TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 3:22 pm:
–Glasgow did complain to the committee–
What a coincidence, that’s also how news is reported, or not reported, in Will County.
- Paddyrollingstone - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 3:38 pm:
Under the federal system, the posting of cash or property is relatively rare. At the time of the initial appearance, if the Government believes that the defendant should not be released, either as a flight risk or a danger to the community or both, then the government can hold the defendant for three days before a detention hearing. Pretrial Services will also prepare a report and make a recommendation and the system, in my opinion, works really well. Obviously, the State has a much larger case load and the feds have a lot of resources as their disposal, but I think it is roughly akin to what those seeking an end to cash bail want.
- Anyone Remember - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 3:45 pm:
It will be interesting to see if the “new bail system” has any effect on situations like this (from Monday’s blog).
https://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/one-rock-island-county-defendant-goes-to-jail-other-goes-home/article_203dabf1-77d9-5d70-9199-cc78270920a1.html
- Levois J - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 4:00 pm:
So well intended the idea of insuring you shouldn’t have to stay in jail based upon ability to pay bail. It sounds good and then the reality sets in. Not so simple as we wish it was.
- Ares - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 4:12 pm:
The Northern District of Illinois has several hundred criminal cases (or more) a year (though some have multiple defendants). Cook County has many thousands. Magistrate Judges handle Federal search / seizure / arrest warrants and bail hearings, while a single Cook County Judge hears misdemeanor bail hearings 365 days / year, and a single Cook County Judge hears felony bail hearings 365 days / year. If the defendant is on bail / bond for a pending criminal case, ASAs (Asst States Attys) routinely file petitions to revoke bond. If the defendant is on parole or supervised release, IDOC can issue a “parole hold”. In both situations, the defendant is held without bond, pending hearing before the Judge on their prior case(s). Other Counties differ.
- Lincoln Lad - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 4:31 pm:
Just say what you think will scare people into agreeing with you. The actual plan and law is immaterial if no one understands it, and casts a vote. Frighten them into voting for you.
- Correcting - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 4:37 pm:
It’s in the abstraction phase right now. People will make up their minds after it goes into effect. If more people are brutalized following the law going into effect, people will not be supportive of the law. Your little squishy words may sound nice on paper, but if more people get murdered, mugged, and raped, people won’t like that. Pritzker and Democrats have decided to take a gamble on this. Nobody really knows what will happen though. Republicans claim they know. I am going to reserve judgement. Is it really true that they decriminalized trespassing? If that’s true, it sounds like a disaster.
- Aaron B - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 4:37 pm:
Can someone explain to me how the new system would work for the very high bonds that some judges set in order to keep the person in jail. I live in Kankakee County, our county sheriff Mike Downey has been pretty outspoken against the no cash bail law. He posted a 30 page document at the end of July on his facebook page that showed the inmates (no names) at the county detention center and the reason why they are in jail along with their bond amount. Most of the bonds were from $50k to $2 million. Many of them appear to be dangerous offenders who probably should be kept in jail until their trial for the safety of the community. Why do the offenders get a bond amount at all? It seems to me that if the judge wants to keep them in jail then they should just be denied bond and therefore they wouldn’t just be released after the new law goes into effect on January 1st.
- Just Another Anon - Friday, Aug 19, 22 @ 5:22 pm:
The governors “issues” are spin. They have no idea how this actually works and have little idea how the provisions changed by the bill actually intersect with each other. For example, the SAFE-T Act states that all defendants “shall be presumed eligible” for pretrial release unless prosecutors present “clear and convincing” evidence to deny the suspect pretrial release, such as proof that the suspect committed the crime and poses a threat to the physical safety of a “specific, identifiable” person. Read 725 ILCS 5/110-2(c). It makes it clear that “[d]etention only shall be imposed when it is determined that the defendant poses a specific, real and present threat to a person, or has a high likelihood of willful flight.” So, you get bail unless you pose a specific real and present threat to a specific person. No consideration for the community. So, if John Q Offender walks into bond court and says, if I did rob this person, I did it on a lark and don’t anticipate ever offending again, the state has to prove that the Defendant poses a real, specific and present threat to “a person”. Not any person, not the community, a person. Rule of lenity means it will probably be interpreted as a specific person. That’s the language, that’s the standard. Everything else is spin. Message to the Governor and democrats, own it and fix it. You did this by passing a giant hodge podge bill at 3am by a slim margin. Stop gaslighting the public and take accountability.