Same topic, different state’s attorney
Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 - Posted by Rich Miller
* Press release…
Winnebago County State’s Attorney J. Hanley is the latest official publicly speaking out against the SAFE-T Act, the abominable Illinois law taking effect statewide on January 1st. Criticism against the law seems to be hitting critical mass as outrage intensifies. The People Who Play By The Rules PAC encourages more officials, States Attorney’s especially, to sound off.
According to his recent special column to the Rockford Register Star, the State’s Attorney for Illinois’ 7th largest county says that “On Jan. 1, 2023, it is estimated that more than half of the inmates in the Winnebago County Jail will walk out the door. Approximately 400 criminal defendants will be released back into our community because our Illinois legislators passed the SAFE-T Act back in 2020.”
Read the whole piece here: https://www.rrstar.com/story/opinion/columns/2022/09/09/states-attorney-illinois-safe-t-act-poses-serious-threat-to-public/67438927007/
PBR PAC President Dan Proft: “I suppose the Winnebago County State’s Attorney is just another fear-mongering racist (like me) according to Governor Pritzker.”
* I asked Jordan Abudayyeh at the governor’s office for a response and she pointed to her comments from a month ago when Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow made essentially the same claims…
To be very clear, the Pre-trial Fairness Act creates a system where detention is based on risk, rather than poverty: that’s why domestic violence groups and other victims’ rights groups support it. There is nothing in the law that requires those suspected of crimes be let out of prison when it goes into effect. There are too many people that have been held not because they’re a risk, but simply because they could not afford monetary bail, and not only does that affect that person in custody but also their family. At the same time, victim’s rights groups have long been concerned that dangerous individuals have been released simply because they could afford to pay bail. Public safety is best addressed by focusing on risk rather than money.
Background
• When the law goes into effect, the State’s Attorney would have the ability to go to court and present evidence as to why a person suspected of a crime should be held, and a judge could rule to hold them.
• The State’s Attorney has seemingly identified 60 people that he believes will pose a risk to public safety if released. That is the first step in preparing for a future bond hearings focusing on the risk factors rather than monetary bail request considerations. The state’s attorneys have time to plan ahead, assessing both the pending and future cases.
• The Illinois Supreme Court Pretrial Implementation Task Force has published draft conditions flowcharts and considerations for use by all law enforcement and criminal justice officials. They are currently accepting suggestions at pretrialtaskforce@illinoiscourts.gov
• Attached: Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices Final Report
The attachment is here.
* Meanwhile…
Heckuva job, news media.
- AnonymousFool - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 9:56 am:
-PBR PAC President Dan Proft: “I suppose the Winnebago County State’s Attorney is just another fear-mongering racist (like me) according to Governor Pritzker.”-
I mean, if the shoe fits Proft…
- Nick - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 9:59 am:
There really is just an unrelentless amount of scaremongering about this.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 9:59 am:
===PBR PAC President Dan Proft: “I suppose the Winnebago County State’s Attorney is just another fear-mongering racist (like me) according to Governor Pritzker.”===
The ads for Ives and the recent ad with a white female victim are placed in evidence.
- XonXoff - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:03 am:
Thanks for the push on this, Rich. Anything specific to the trespassing on personal property claims (inability to remove trespasser) seems like it would be time well spent.
- Google Is Your Friend - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:04 am:
Doesn’t the state bar have ethics, and truthfulness, rules?
- ArchPundit - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:08 am:
You’d think that since it’s going to be law they might sit down and read the bill to see what it actually does so they can be ready for the new law as Rinehart and a few others have.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:09 am:
===seems like it would be time well spent. ===
Subscribe.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:15 am:
At the end of the day, I guess I’m not so surprised that the Republican Party is so against a law that takes away a special privilege for the wealthy.
- Michelle Flaherty - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:17 am:
Think about it for a moment.
If the Winnebago SA’s claims were true, that would mean he’s been working to detain hundreds of non-violent poor people and costing local taxpayers thousands if not millions of dollars.
And it also apparently means he doesn’t trust the local judges, who will determine if people are a risk and need to be detained.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:17 am:
It would seem to me that it is up to the Governor and legislature wanted to build support for this massive change in the law.
Passing it in the middle of the night after 45 minutes of debate and then delaying implementation for 11 months is not how to build support.
Calling those that have serious concerns about this law racists is also not an effective way to build support.
Glad to see the criticism of the media but this one is 100% on the Governor and the legislators that passed it over the objections of the States Attorneys and other serious people.
- TheInvisibleMan - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:20 am:
As usual, I listen to what isn’t said. What isn’t being said by any of these panicking SAs is how many people are currently in jail because they can’t afford bail on their 3rd driving on a revoked license arrest, and will be released. Or any number of other non-violent situations.
The SAs are instead advancing situations that will only happen if these same SAs openly refuse to do their job. If someone is a danger and the SA refuses to do the paperwork to keep their own community safe out of nothing more than spite, then that’s a problem with the SAs, not the law.
Raoul might be about to pursue a whole bunch of consent decrees for various county SAs.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:20 am:
If only JB had the resources to get the word about about how great this new law is that will conveniently go into effect right after the election.
- rtov - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:23 am:
Doesn’t it seem backwards to be requesting an expert’s opinion on how the law should work after the law is already passed? This is one of the major flaws in the law. The changes to the bail system were rushed through and are actually inconsistent with the recommendations of the Illinois Supreme Court’s Commission on Pre-Trial Services. To the Governor’s response, as outlined in SA Hanley’s article, the current system requires a court to rely upon an evidence based risk assessment report, which recommends pre-trial release (recognizance - no payment required) with conditions when appropriate. Meaning, cashless bail is already an option under the current system. The Bail Reform Act of 2019 made significant and meaningful changes to Illinois’ bond system, but for whatever reason, no studies were completed on the effectiveness of that reform before this Act was pushed through. We should be relying on data and best practices when making such drastic changes to our criminal justice system, the bond changes made in the Safe-T Act are not based on either.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:25 am:
- Lucky Pierre -
Are you supporting Bailey then, as a candidate with crime as the reason and ignoring all things “Bailey”
Your concern on racism as a prism, supporting Bailey here, Tom this, it’s difficult to separate the two?
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:26 am:
Sure looks like the fair tax people are handling the SAFE -T Act PR rollout.
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:27 am:
OW are you and your prism supporting the SAFE -T act?
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:36 am:
Asked and answered. Often. The latest?
===- Oswego Willy - Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 11:48 am
===Has Glasgow even read the SAFE-T Act?===
There are real questions to the Act. There are. There are questions.===
I do feel the Act needs a revisit once implemented and actual functionality is seen. Trailer type of cleanup bills are probably going to pop up as things are seen in function
Are you ever just gonna say you support Bailey?
- low level - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:40 am:
==Passing it in the middle of the night after 45 minutes of debate and then delaying implementation for 11 months is not how to build support.==
As usual LP, your understanding is simplistic and faulty. The provisions had been debated for months beforehand via legislative committee hearings where testimony was heard from all sides. As for the 11 months, this gave ample opportunity to SA’s to prepare.
Had it had an immediate effective date, you would have been complaining it was taking effect too soon. Now you dont like that they made the effective date almost a year out.
- Mary Poppins - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:41 am:
When Alex Jones is using your talking points,I guess you’ve made it, if you’re Dan Proft.
Or is Dan Proft just a wannabe Alex Jones.
- Henry Francis - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:43 am:
Lucky, are you suggesting that it is the Governor’s fault that the States Attorneys don’t understand what the law says?
And then you refer to those SA’s as serious people?
Do I have this right?
- Nadigam - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:44 am:
I guess we will have to let the law get implemented to see what happens and see which side has a better understanding of the law. This whole debate may come down to judges’ interpretation of who they think is a threat to society and who is not.
- low level - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:53 am:
==This whole debate may come down to judges’ interpretation of who they think is a threat to society and who is not.==
Yes, as it should be, not your ability to pay.
- Chicagonk - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:56 am:
The law requires there to be a specific, real and present threat to the community in order for pre-trial release to be denied. “Specific” was added to the legislation. Just being a dangerous person with a criminal background is no longer enough. I’d listen to the states attorneys on this one.
- Norseman - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:59 am:
The States Attorneys Chicken Little routine is based on partisan politics, not good government policy. As OW wisely said, major reforms require follow-up measures to address unforeseen issues. Too bad the SA’s can’t work for the public rather than their parties and sit down with lawmakers to address real, not contrived, issues.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:00 am:
===see what happens and see which side has a better understanding of the law. This whole debate may come down to judges’ interpretation of who they think is a threat to society and who is not.===
Same, very much so.
There are questions. I am willing to see implementation and see the willingness to make better where better needs to be.
- vern - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:04 am:
LP-
Your complaint about how quickly it was passed is diluted pretty heavily by the implementation date. All of the “very serious people” have had months to read and understand the law.
Is it your position that these SAs are too stupid to understand the law through any means other than marketing? Or that Pritzker’s marketing choices somehow absolve Republicans who are making things up about the law?
We got into this yesterday a little bit, but it’s so weird to see Republicans insist that they’re incapable of making their own choices. Every word a Republican says is framed as a mandated reaction to what a Democrat chose to say. It’s bizarre to see an entire political party insist that nothing is their fault, even the words that come out of their own mouths.
- JS Mill - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:06 am:
=massive change in the law.=
Massive? Not really. I mean if you want to exaggerate then yes, you would say that.
The law boils down to having a reason to detain someone. Not so massive if you believe in the USSC.
- H-W - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:35 am:
“On Jan. 1, 2023, it is estimated that more than half of the inmates in the Winnebago County Jail will walk out the door. Approximately 400 criminal defendants will be released back into our community because our Illinois legislators passed the SAFE-T Act back in 2020.”
My first thought is, why does Winnebago County want these people to remain in jail? Obviously, some have been sentenced to jail. But these folks are not relevant to any discussion of the SAFE-T Act. Equally obvious, the more people in jail prior to trial, the higher the court costs you can generate during trails, and thus pay for the jail in the first place.
Unless those in jail pending trial are dangerous, let them go. Using pretrial arrestees to fund county jails is immoral and evil.
- rtov - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 11:45 am:
=== using pretrial arrestees to fund county jails ===
The money posted for bond is returned if the individual is found not guilty or the charges are dismissed. If the person is sentenced any money posted goes towards the fines and court costs. Regardless of whether bond is posted, a defendant that is sentenced still is assessed fines and court costs. What are you talking about?
- Dotnonymous - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:13 pm:
Wealthy arrestees walk…no matter the bail.
Poor arrestees stay… until their job/finances/life are negatively affected/destroyed.
The presumption of innocence is the rock upon which the history of American jurisprudence rests.
- MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 12:28 pm:
“The law requires there to be a specific, real and present threat to the community in order for pre-trial release to be denied. “Specific” was added to the legislation. Just being a dangerous person with a criminal background is no longer enough.”
Previously, being a dangerous person with a lot of money was enough to be released.
The new system is a marked improvement.
– MrJM
- RNUG - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 1:05 pm:
It’s going to come down to how the individual judges interpret the language and implement it. From what I’ve read from both sides, there probably are a few tweaks that will need to be made. Personally, I think the Legislature made a mistake adding the word specific to the criteria. If the judges take that literally, then someone who (to take a current local example) has been performing the armed home invasions in south Springfield and Southern View might end up released because the threat is to the general population, not a named specific person. Just going to depend on how that phrase is interpreted. I think the Legislature should have been clearer.
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 2:13 pm:
- Lucky Pierre - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 10:20 am:
If only JB had the resources to get the word about about how great this new law is that will conveniently go into effect right after the election.
===================================================
If only people that had the resources would stop deliberately putting out misleading information about what the SAFE-T Act is and what it does.
Fixed it for you
- Roman - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 2:24 pm:
== Heckuva job, news media. ==
Agree with that snark. I’m old enough to remember when the media, especially newspapers, thought a big part of their job was to explain complicated stuff in an unbiased way and not just regurgitate talking points.
Maybe someone has done this and I missed it, but a good story assignment for a reporter right now would be to call Kim Foxx’s office (or any state’s atty) and ask if they intend to motion-up new detention hearings on any jail inmates currently being held on cash bail who will be released on January 1. Presumably, the state found each inmate to be some kind of a threat and asked for bail at the initial bond hearing, otherwise they wouldn’t be locked up right now. Does the S.A. still find each to be a threat and if so, will they ask the judge to continue to detain each inmate, as is allowed under the new law?
- btowntruth from forgottonia - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 2:27 pm:
== Heckuva job, news media. ==
Also an outstanding job they’re doing calling out groups putting out misleading information about the new laws.
(Massssssssssive snark)
- charles in charge - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 2:35 pm:
==The money posted for bond is returned if the individual is found not guilty or the charges are dismissed. If the person is sentenced any money posted goes towards the fines and court costs. Regardless of whether bond is posted, a defendant that is sentenced still is assessed fines and court costs. What are you talking about?==
No, actually the court collects 10% off the top regardless of the outcome of the case. Plus, people who are presumed innocent and who may never be found guilty are essentially required to pay fines and fees up front. This is how our courts are funding themselves currently. Why shouldn’t they have to wait until someone is actually found guilty before the courts take their money? Especially when not paying means you’re trying to fight the case against you from a jail cell?
https://www.civicfed.org/EliminationofCashBailinIllinois
- H-W - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 3:20 pm:
@rtov - imagine two college students arrested on Saturday night for Jaywalking, and public intoxication. Imagine the next Monday both appear before a judge, and both are offered a bail bond of $1,000.
Imagine one can post bond, and the other cannot.
Imagine four week later, both appear and are convicted.
Which student will be punished more? How will the judge adjust for the time served? One student be sentenced with 30 days served, but not the other. Will the one who could not afford bail be required to pay addition costs for staying in jail because he could not afford bail? Yes.
Court costs will remain the same. But one will prepay, and one will serve time in jail and be required to pay more than the others. The costs of housing prisoners is highly inflated, and will be add on costs.
Two people convicted of the same minor offense. One pays more out of pocket than the other, because he is poor and cannot afford bail. He also is sentenced to jail time and made to pay for it, because he is poor.
- rtov - Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 4:39 pm:
H-W - I put together a point by point response, but for some reason it is not being shown on the blog. Instead of taking the time to retype it, I would encourage you to actually go to a courthouse and sit in on a bond call. You would certainly learn a lot.