50 Comments - vern - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:42 am: We’re now past year 2 of this debate, and I’ve yet to hear an affirmative defense of cash bail. Opponents of the SAFE-T Act continually decry “putting dangerous people back on the streets,” but refuse to explain why available cash is the best measure of danger. Are any cash bail supporters willing to say that quiet part out loud? - James - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:43 am: This law is so good, that it takes never ending explanations to make sure everyone understands just how good it is. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:47 am: Flannery’s barely been gone a week and the bottom falls out of Fox32. - Excitable Boy - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:47 am: Wow, things are really getting rough in Lewiston. I guess the next time I drive through I’m going to have to roll through the stop signs. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:48 am: James, do you think we are idiots? Law enforcement has deliberately spread lies about this law, whether out of ignorance (which they have no excuse for) or outright venality. That’s why it has to be explained. It’s like whack-a-mole because of a morass of misinformation and disinformation. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:53 am: A very large overall problem is this idea of two different facts that opponents want to put on the bill, and actually what the bill (now law) is and does. So, what do these folks do? * police will resign en mass * bad folks are being released, dangerous people * no real account for victims, families, and their rights And now we hear of the truthful “out loud” problem that bail is needed for jails in budgets, and “will the state cover” type thinking. It’s just a “big enough” issue to gin up voter angst to flip thoughts when the same folks likely against this law are against abortion rights, voting rights, and racial and social equality… so when comes to trying to sway public opinion, ok, this can work to a fringe “undecided” until you speak to those against this law are opposed to so many other things too… and there’s no real uncoupling from where and what is more important, because… again… the “alternative facts” to the law only enrage a base of voters that also see real facts as “problems” - Larry Bowa Jr. - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:54 am: “Of that $1.27 billion, just $11.5 million was paid to crime victims statewide. Sheriffs offices, however, received $15.2 million for process serving and court security.” This is the real concern. LE budgets are never supposed to go down, regardless of external realities or public need. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:56 am: ===It’s like whack-a-mole=== Alternative Facts stylings are also designed to tire the actual truth telling to allow a “giving up” to talk back the untruth. The wearing out of the truth to allow false thinking is a feature, the “whack-a-mole” necessity to keep truth is more important than ever. - levivotedforjudy - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:57 am: So calling cash bail a needed budget revenue source is the argument? When questioned on this by folks I just tell them to Google Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart. He lays outa really good assessment. - Rabid - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 10:59 am: Not going to arrest if there’s no money? End of the quotas - wow - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:02 am: I stubbed my toe this morning on my desk and thanks to the end of cash bail my desk is still allowed to be free. When will the madness end - Skeptic - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:13 am: So why is cash bail a revenue source, but not funds transmitted electronically? Seems like they’re just making stuff up. - Give Us Barabbas - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:17 am: Let’s fix civil asset forfeiture abuse next, please. Because without the sweet bail income, that’s where the crooked ones will make up the shortfall. - Lucky Pierre - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:25 am: What a radical concept Making those that use the court system actually pay for it - Annonin' - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:31 am: Doesn’t released on his own recognizance mean the mutt did not post a cash bail to begin with? The ex sheriff is correct that the end to cash bail will cut into the skim counties got from bail regardless if the arrestee was found guilty or not. Now counties will need to budget for programs they decide to keep. - Nagidam - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:41 am: Another way to look at this is more dangerous people will stay in prison as compared to the old law. Before, two people charged with murder, one has money and gets out of jail one doesn’t and stays in jail. Now both stay in jail. Time will tell if people that commit crime on the margins of dangerous or not stay in jail. In the mean time quite a few people will be set free that are not dangerous. They will be less of a burden on government which in the end is a cost savings if the Sheriffs want to keep stressing money. - Dupage Dem - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:41 am: Biggest argument to support no bail is.. why should one person be released on bail and another detain when committing the same crime just because one has money… if the crime is bad enough BOTH need to be detained. - I Love Decatur - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:43 am: It is time to move on to the discussion of how to fill the budget void. Are tax payers ready to support the cost of jails or will it go the route of juvenile detention where counties close their jails because it is cheaper to pay someone else to house their detainees. Because no matter your opinion there will still be the need to detain people and someone will need to pay for this service. - Grandson of Man - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:45 am: Who is freaking about this law but supports TFG no matter how many indictments and charges he has? Such hypocrisy. It’s purely exposed now, how fake the right wing law and order position is, and how racist these people are. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:47 am: ===counties=== Counties can choose many things, as a budget is a weight and measure of policies by the heft of dollars towards them… and if the counties don’t want to fund or refuse to raise taxes to pay, then those counties need to address their real fiscal issues towards policy and governing, and in this instance judicial system policy to detainment. I wish these counties well, since many downstate counties, and even central Illinois counties, are tax takers from the state… what, does She-Caw-Go need to bail out its biggest critics, again? - Candy Dogood - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:48 am: ===“This is what cashless bail will bring,” Hackett said.=== Only rich kids deserve to get released from jail before trial, right? - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:50 am: ===Making those that use the court system actually pay for it === I vote that we put a toll booth on every road around LP’s home. - Oswego Willy - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 11:57 am: ===Making those that use the court system actually pay for it === Losing state’s attorneys could reimburse any and all not guilty defendants? The cost of attorneys, all court costs, I mean, making those using the court system that can’t convict will likely stop overreacting prosecutors that are forced to reimburse for using the system poorly, amirite? It’s about cost. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:03 pm: ===It is time to move on to the discussion of how to fill the budget void=== How is anyone supposed to have a reasonable funding discussion with leaders who are constantly spreading these lies? Maybe they should think about that. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:03 pm: “took a recent failure by his own county and projected it onto a law that hasn’t yet taken effect.” The legacy of the Jim Glasgow approach. There have been similar failures here locally by the SA office, and I imagine in many other counties in the state as well. Aside from the obvious money issues. The secondary, and sometimes I think primary worry, is that the SAFE-T act will put the responsibility directly on the local SAs and judges. Nobody knows their own record better than themselves, and that’s what has led many of them to start to panic and spread these falsehoods in the hopes of deflecting from their already existing records of failure. Bail gave the SAs and judges an out. A way to remove themselves from accountability. Now, they will be held accountable for releasing people who would otherwise be allowed to be held until trial **based on the evidence for the arrest**. –as officers ask why they should even bother arresting people– Because it’s the job description. This is a perfect example of how far we’ve slid into law enforcement deciding for themselves it also has judicial power, that they are now confused in what to do when that unintended ability is removed from them. We should pay attention to this false argument. It’s very telling. - Dotnonymous x - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:05 pm: Pirates are mad when you take away their loot…too. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:06 pm: ===law enforcement deciding for themselves it also has judicial power=== And should have legislative power. - PublicServant - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:09 pm: Lying is now policy for the right wing nuts, although individual practitioners have been at it for a long time. - H-W - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:14 pm: From the story: “We can’t look into a crystal ball and tell how this is going to play out,” Hackett said. And yet, he gazed at a crystal ball and came up with domesday. Look. If some proportion of law enforcement officers choose to quit because they cannot as officers sentence suspects to pretrial detainment, they are doing us all a favor. Police are not judges. They “serve and protect” in a limited capacity, as part of a larger system. Should there be a mass exodus, as Hackett and others are concluding based on their readings of their crystal balls, I am sure they will be replaced by better stewards of the law, and the police profession. The SAFE-T Act guarantees that future police will be better trained, as in better trained than those who think they are the law. - supplied_demand - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:23 pm: ==Making those that use the court system actually pay for it == All US citizens use the court system, whether directly or indirectly. Constitutionality of laws are decided by courts (Roe v Wade). Those decisions impact our everyday lives. It’s the same logic you use to justify the costs of road maintenance paid by people who don’t drive, “Everyone benefits from goods moving faster.” - Jerry - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:26 pm: Fox, isn’t that the same tv channel that said if same sex marriage became legal that people would marry their dogs. Sounds like a Woke station to me! - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:33 pm: –fix civil asset forfeiture abuse next, please.– Are you trying to give Jim Glasgow a heart attack? - Suburban Mom - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:40 pm: I was surprised that my parents, who are generally well-educated voters, were against this law. My mom repeated the well-worn story of “dangerous criminals getting released.” My brother and I, both surprised by this, explained to my parents which offenses were detainable and which were not. My parents were like, “Oh, never mind, that actually sounds better than how we do it now.” They were particularly interested in the implications for middle-class and wealthy domestic abusers who have always just been able to bail themselves out, go home, and intimidate their victims into refusing to testify. - Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:47 pm: I for one think it’s great that right-wing news entities are now treating public-sector pensioners like Mr. Hackett as trusted experts rather than the embodiment of every financial and political problem in Illinois. This is progress. This is also snark. - Honeybear - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 12:52 pm: End Asset Forfeiture next is exactly right. Years ago I had work done on my house. The workers were actually cops in a small metro east town which is almost 100 minority populated. I’ll never forget them talking openly about asset forfeiture. I just couldn’t believe that they did this in a production line manner. They were bragging about seizing a residents new car as if they were pirates of the Caribbean. - unafraid - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 1:30 pm: Cash bail funds should never be used to generate income but only to ensure that defendants show up for trial. Increase court costs and fines for those who are convicted to help taxpayers fund all of this. How will this new system work out I do not know. It needs to be carefully and honestly reviewed each year - From DaZoo - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 1:53 pm: Since fewer people will be detained, they can cut back on jail space, OT for security (because they lack adequate staff), food, etc. The savings there should be able to cover the shortfall alluded to in operating the courts. /s - Politix - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 1:53 pm: “Making those that use the court system actually pay for it.” Except Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately impacted by law enforcement contact, leading to increased arrest and jail time. The system is built on their backs. - Payback - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 1:55 pm: “Bail gave the SAs and judges an out. A way to remove themselves from accountability. Now, they will be held accountable for releasing people who would otherwise be allowed to be held until trial…” Not really. Judges and prosecutors in Illinois have immunity. You as an individual cannot sue them, or hold them legally accountable in any way, if they fail to carry out their duties in a responsible manner and you get stalked/attacked/murdered. And if Illinois is so progressive/hip/trendy/cutting edge in criminal justice matters, then why hasn’t the Democrat majority in the legislature removed immunity for police? - Demoralized - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 1:59 pm: @LP Your comment is yet another example of your dishonesty. You don’t address the ridiculousness of what’s said, which isn’t surprising given your track record of not directly addressing the actual issue. - TheInvisibleMan - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 2:40 pm: “Not really. Judges and prosecutors in Illinois have immunity. ” I’m referring to elections. Not lawsuits. I’m not a republican. “then why hasn’t the Democrat majority in the legislature” They do not have immunity. They have qualified immunity. That’s a big difference. There are conditions where they are not immune to the consequences of their actions. But who is going to prosecute those cops… the SAs? Who is going to arrest the SAs? The cops? If you want an egregious and very recent example of SAs not prosecuting cops, search “Samantha Harer Will County”. Jim Glasgow didn’t even convene a grand jury. He made the choice all by himself to not prosecute the cop. The civil trial against that cop concluded last month, with him not only being found civilly responsible for her death - but the judge in the trial made the unusual statement that even under the stricter levels of proof needed in a criminal trial, his judgement would have been the same. If anything the past 15 months or so have seen the various SAs give plenty of discussion for the democratic majority to make additional modifications to our criminal justice system - more specifically those who work within it. - Stormsw7706 - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 3:04 pm: So Fox suggests why even bother arresting people if cops don’t get there way. I guess it’s reasonable to ask why pay for law enforcement if cops won’t arrest people. Ironically people in Chicago have been asking cops to arrest people for a long time rather than sitting around incessantly whining about not being able to do their job. What organization with a 40 percent rate of success ( clearance rate) wouldn’t be called to the carpet. The citizens of Chicago are not your enemy. How about helping them - Skeptic - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 3:05 pm: “the Democrat majority..” “the democratic majority” One of these things is not like the others. - Proud - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 4:07 pm: Am I missing something, but isn’t the only way this is a revenue stream is if defendants don’t show up for court/trial? This bolsters the argument that people with money can escape justice and just posting bail does not guarantee “criminals” will show up. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 4:09 pm: ===isn’t the only way this is a revenue stream is if defendants don’t show up for court/trial? === No. Upon conviction, it’s very common to forfeit bail as part of the punishment. - Big Dipper - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 5:16 pm: Um criminal defendants aren’t using the courts voluntarily. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 5:18 pm: ===Um criminal defendants aren’t using the courts voluntarily=== And? - Big Dipper - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 5:26 pm: Responding to LP’s comment that users should pay for the privilege. - Occasionally Moderated - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 6:16 pm: === it’s very common to forfeit bail as part of the punishment.=== And pay private counsel. - JoanP - Wednesday, Aug 2, 23 @ 8:30 pm: = isn’t the only way this is a revenue stream is if defendants don’t show up for court/trial? = No. The Circuit Clerk keeps 10% of the amount posted, whatever the outcome of the case. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.