* WTVO…

An Illinois State’s Attorney is calling the state’s ban on cash bail an “abject failure,” saying the SAFE-T Act has created “the exact problems predicted by critics.”

* The news story was essentially just a rewrite of a press release without question from lame duck McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally. Fox32 Chicago did the same thing, but they at least acknowledged it…

McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally is calling the SAFE-T Act an “abject failure,” pointing to significant increases in crime, jail population and failures to appear in court since its implementation. […]

FOX 32 Chicago wrote this article based on a news release from McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally.

* The press release…

The SAFE-T Act in McHenry County has been an abject failure. Not only has it failed to deliver on what its proponents promised, the court system has experienced the exact problems predicted by critics.

Despite this, proponents continue to obfuscate behind “lack of data,” “reduced costs to criminal defendants” (no mention is made of the increased cost to non-criminal taxpayers), and “no major increase in crime generally” (a mostly irrelevant factor in evaluating the SAFE-T Act).

In McHenry County, however, the numbers are in. After the implementation of the SAFE-T Act, McHenry County has experienced:

• A 30% Increase in Crime by Those on Pre-Trial Release Compared With Those on Cash Bail.
• An Increase in the Jail Population.
• A 280% Increase in Failures to Appear (FTA).
• A 35% Reduction in Restitution Paid to Crime Victims.

How is it possible for the jail population to increase along with the number of crimes being committed by those on pretrial release? Simply put, we are incarcerating the wrong people.

The SAFE-T Act was passed based on the repetition of the lie that cash bail regularly resulted in the unjust incarceration of those without the means to pay.

That was never true in McHenry County. Rather, prior to the SAFE-T Act, 97% of those charged with crimes had been released pretrial. This incredibly high release rate occurred under the entirely reasonable cash bail system that required judges to take into consideration the ability of a defendant to pay when setting bail. Accordingly, different bail amounts were set for different defendants, all based on their financial means. Low-risk defendants who could not afford any bail, were routinely released on their own recognizance.

The problem with the SAFE-T Act, written by public defenders and advocates for criminals, is that it denies county judges, elected by the communities affected by the alleged crimes, the discretion to detain defendants charged with most crimes, no matter how high-risk. Rather, in most cases, a judge has no discretion and must release the defendant.

One need not be a professor of criminology to understand that mandating judges in all circumstances to release high-risk defendants pretrial is a misguided and unreasonable policy. A policy that proceeded from the ideology of a privileged group of advocates who dictate criminal justice legislation in Illinois overcoming common sense.

* I asked the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice for a response…

On October 22, McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally issued a misleading press release claiming that the Pretrial Fairness Act is an “abject failure.” As a staunch opponent of pretrial justice reform, his claims are, unfortunately, unsurprising. Nonetheless, these inaccuracies must be corrected.

• The press release states that McHenry County has seen “a 30% increase in crime [committed by individuals] on pretrial release compared [to] those on cash bail.” This statistic is misleading. The actual difference between the number of people who were accused of new offenses under pretrial release vs. people released after paying money bond is 17. It is only because the total number of people accused of new offenses is small that the percentage increase seems large, in the same way an increase from one person to three could be called a 200% increase. Kenneally knows that, which is why he used the percentage and only included the numbers in a footnote.

• Kenneally’s claim that the jail population has increased suffers from the same defect, because the rise is minimal– just 12 people, representing an increase of 5.5%.

• He further claims there has been a 280% increase in Failures to Appear, which sounds alarming—if it were true. In reality, Failure to Appear Warrants have actually decreased by 42% in McHenry County, dropping from 1,055 to 616. Warrants can be issued when the judge decides it is necessary to bring someone into court because they will not return voluntarily. Instead of acknowledging this significant reduction in FTA warrants, Kenneally attempts to conflate two different things: warrants and summonses.

o Regarding the increased use of FTA summons, there is no context provided to allow the reader to understand whether multiple summons were issued in the same case or how many people returned to court after receiving a summons. Most people who miss court return voluntarily when given the chance, so the increased use of summons is likely driving the decreased use of warrants. Furthermore, judges are never required to issue a summons instead of a warrant. Judges are thus choosing to give people the chance to return to court voluntarily, reducing unnecessary issuance of warrants and wasted court and law enforcement resources.
o Given the substantial drop in Failure to Appear Warrants, combining warrants and summons and labeling both as “Failures to Appear” without additional information is misleading.

• Kenneally further claims that the Pretrial Fairness Act was “written by public defenders and advocates for criminals,” conveniently ignoring the fact that a broad coalition of stakeholders crafted the law over the course of years. Supporters of the Pretrial Fairness Act include victims and victim advocates, other state’s attorneys, and community members—all of whom agreed it was time to end a wealth-based pretrial system that prioritized money over safety. Finally, the Pretrial Fairness Act is a cornerstone of the SAFE-T Act, one of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus’s pillars to increase racial equity in the state. To reduce the work of Black Caucus leaders—many of whom represent the communities most harmed by money bond and other instruments of mass incarceration—is an appallingly racist dismissal of sincere efforts by public officials working to create a safer and more just Illinois for everyone.

The reality is that under the current pretrial system, individuals are no longer jailed simply because they are poor. Illinois’ pretrial system now allows people who do not pose a safety risk to continue to work, care for their families, and improve themselves while their cases proceed. People alleged to pose a danger to others or a risk of flight can be detained after robust, individualized hearings. Judges preside over those hearings and get to decide who is detained pretrial and who is released.

The Pretrial Fairness Act represents a shift towards a more just and equitable pretrial system, one that no longer ties freedom to financial status. Despite opponents like Kenneally spreading misleading narratives, the data from the first year of implementation shows that Illinois’s new system of basing pretrial release decisions on public safety rather than wealth is working.