In the days after the horrific burning of a woman on a CTA train, allegedly by a clearly deranged habitual criminal suspect last month, some in the news media immediately focused on their go-to issue: The Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today, or SAFE-T Act.
“Illinois leaders blast SAFE-T Act after repeat offender charged with lighting woman on fire on CTA Blue Line,” reported WGN, as just one example. Former Cook County and federal prosecutor Bob Milan told the station: “The SAFE-T Act forces state attorneys to file petitions instead of just giving judges the discretion [to detain arrested suspects]”
Kankakee County Sheriff Mike Downey demanded that judges be given “100 percent discretion” to detain anyone they viewed as a danger to society. Several other sheriffs have since weighed in with the same demand, although some also want to increase the number of what are known as “detainable offenses,” which are the alleged crimes that allow judges to keep suspects locked up before trial.
The state law was mentioned repeatedly because the prime suspect Lawrence Reed was not held in custody in August after he attacked a social worker at a psychiatric center, knocking her unconscious, giving her a concussion and damaging her eye.
However, Reed was charged in August with aggravated battery resulting in great bodily harm, which is a detainable offense under the SAFE-T Act. Considering his long criminal history and lots of other factors, he was a prime candidate for pretrial detention.
Cook County Judge Teresa Molina-Gonzalez instead sided against prosecutors, who argued for detention, and with the public defender in the case, who said that Reed was back on his medication and doing better. During the hearing, Molina-Gonzalez publicly acknowledged Reed’s long list of 70-plus arrests and convictions, and, according to CWBChicago.com, took a report from a court officer claiming that Reed’s chances of committing another crime was “four out of six” if released, with a likelihood of violence. After saying she couldn’t lock up everyone that prosecutors wanted detained, the judge ended up placing Reed on monitored home confinement, then another judge subsequently loosened that restriction.
So much for the idea of giving judges complete discretion without prosecutor involvement.
It’s worth noting that pretty much all of Reed’s previous offenses and releases happened under the cash bail system, before the SAFE-T Act’s Pre-Trial Fairness provisions took effect in September of 2023 — a fact ignored by the detractors.
Also, the Cook County Jail has experienced a 16 percentage point increase in inmates between the end of last year through the end of this year’s third quarter, according to a Loyola tracking dashboard. The county jail’s population was about 8% higher at the end of the third quarter than it was just before the SAFE-T Act was fully enacted.
And a chart recently posted by CWBChicago.com, which focuses exclusively on crime and is not exactly known as a liberal site, shows that a wide array of violent offenses committed by people awaiting trial in Cook County dropped from 116 victims in 2021 (before the SAFE-T Act) to 52 last year and 37 so far this year. Attempted murder victims dropped from 50 victims in 2022 to eight so far this year.
Point being, too many reporters, pundits and others are far too quick to bring up everybody’s favorite bogeyman before any facts are known or even acknowledged.
Is the SAFE-T Act perfect? Of course not. No law designed by human beings can ever be perfect. Could it be improved? Again, humans should always try to improve on their work. But the people at the table should not be the ones who are angrily and ignorantly preening for the TV cameras.
Also, one of those downstate sheriffs advocating for changes in the SAFE-T Act kinda let the cat out of the bag last week.
In addition to granting judges more discretion and increasing the number of detainable offense, Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Bullard talked about the loss of local revenue with the abolition of cash bail.
The old bail system helped fund an array of things like jail staffing, victim services and law enforcement, Bullard said.
“The elimination of cash bail has created financial gaps for counties statewide,” the sheriff claimed.
Oddly, though, Bullard also griped that “some arrestees are now being held longer while awaiting a judge, where previously they could bond out quickly.”
So, the sheriff is upset that people deemed dangerous by judges are being held too long behind bars?
That kinda makes me think this is a lot about the money.
- Demoralized - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 10:33 am:
Bullard: Give me my money and get the heck out of my jail.
- Original Rambler - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 10:40 am:
So the Safe-T-Act is actually reducing violent crimes by those awaiting trial. That’s a very interesting statistic/consequence I had not considered that shows the Act is making us safer. Continuous tweaking of the Act will result in a fairer criminal justice system. And I agree that for downstate, it is very much about the money. Very good article.
- Lincoln Lad - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 10:59 am:
Thanks for the article and continuing to shine a light on this Rich. Detractors continue to attack it, but the more you can educate us all, the better.
- City Zen - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 11:03 am:
==Reed’s previous offenses and releases happened under the cash bail system==
They saw a significant defect in the old system and didn’t fix it?
- The Dude Abides - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 11:06 am:
For the detractors, they never let facts get in the way of the story they want to push.
- R.F. - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 11:11 am:
The judge could’ve ordered Reed held. She didn’t. That’s on her, not the SAFE-T Act. However, the SAFE-T Act did include reforms to electronic monitoring (allowing EM participants to leave their homes periodically for “essential movement,”) that may be relevant to the Reed case.
What’s more, the SAFE-T Act’s eased electronic monitoring rules took effect at the same time Cook County’s EM program was going through a pretty significant transition. What was historically a pre-trial release program for non-violent inmates (mostly drug offenders) who were picked by the sheriff to reduce jail crowding, became a detention-alternative program for which the judges picked the participants. But unlike the sheriff, the judges routinely assign defendants charged with violent crimes to EM (like Reed.)
Thanks to the combination of that policy change and the SAFE-T Act reforms, electronic monitoring in Cook County has gone from being what was a relatively restrictive program for low-risk offenders to a more lax program for higher-risk offenders. That’s a dichotomy that probably needs to be examined.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 11:15 am:
===and didn’t fix it? ===
lol
Nice try.
- Amalia - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 11:23 am:
the act needs some tweaks. that’s it.
- Annonin' - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 11:42 am:
Speakin’ of detractors … former Sangamo Sheriff Jack Campbell did a radio interview recently in which he attempted to law blame for Sean Grayson’s hiring on a state board under JB’s domain. As if that made it ok this misfit got a badge and gun, etc. Not sure his line of BS worked, but ya never know.
- Homebody - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 12:04 pm:
It is always about the money. Cash bail never made sense. If someone is a known, obvious threat (either to flee or reoffend), then keep them locked up. If they aren’t, then don’t. Ability to pay should never have mattered.
Detainment decisions absolutely should be made by judges, within the discretion allowed by the law. But that means the problem in a given case is the judge (or prosecutor for not making the request), not the law that gives them the discretion to act.
- H-W - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 12:12 pm:
I have read the law a couple times already. It is a good law, and a well intended law.
When a “constitutional” sheriff demands that judges be given demanded that judges be given “100 percent discretion,” that is a call for the dissolution of our Constitution. When you create “constitutional sheriffs and judges” with complete discretion, there is no relevance for laws, period.
The SAFE-T Act has yielded a lot of good outcomes. Resistance toward it is largely political in the absence of analysis. Anecdotes never reflect reality beyond one’s own navel.
- DuPage Saint - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 12:21 pm:
Anyone with 5 or more prior convictions should automatically be held to trial. Or at very least have some higher more restrictive type of EM.
- TNR - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 12:25 pm:
== Cook County Jail has experienced a 16 percentage point increase in inmates between the end of last year through the end of this year’s third quarter ==
That’s likely a result of assistant states’ attorneys moving to jail suspects at detention hearings much more frequently under Eileen O’Neill Burke than they did under Kim Foxx. And I’m guessing the Reed case is going to cause the inmate population to climb some more. Judges are going to be reluctant to assign folks to electronic monitoring given the scrutiny that is deservedly being paid to their colleague Judge Molina-Gonzalez.
BTW, O’Neill Burke is a supporter of the SAFE-T Act, which is proof you can be a “tough” prosecutor without cash bail.
- Norseman - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 12:44 pm:
Another great column. It identifies hypocrisy, ignorance and the problem with clickbait journalism. The concentrated hyperbolic attack on Obamacare failed because the public began to see the benefits for them. Sadly for understanding the law, most people don’t experience the problems this law solves.
- RamblerFan - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 1:02 pm:
TNR, Loyola University’s Center for Criminal Justice put out some detailed analyses of the degree to which increased detention being sought by State’s Attorney explains the increase in the jail population. As with most things, there are alot of factors at play that explain this: see
https://loyolaccj.org/blog/whats-driving-increases-in-the-cook-county-jail-population
- TNR - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 1:05 pm:
== the problem in a given case is the judge (or prosecutor for not making the request), not the law that gives them the discretion ==
That’s exactly right. And the voters can hold them accountable, as Judge Molina-Gonzalez might find out when she’s up for retention.
- Grandson of Man - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 1:06 pm:
The law is working, crime has dropped substantially. Chicago leads the way in falling crime rates.
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/violent-crime-data-chicago-november-2025
All that fear-stoking, for naught. Good that people are talking about improving the law instead of outright repealing it.
- GoneFishing - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 1:24 pm:
Magna Carta #39 clearly states: No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
In other words you can’t put someone in jail except after trial. Even with this IL law one of these days someone will sue regarding this.
- Amalia - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 1:28 pm:
sure, voters can hold a judge accountable for bad decisions. meanwhile a young woman is in the hospital suffering. amend the Act. Certain misdemeanor crimes are quite violent. why is there a release period for those on EM? listen to Sheriff Dart’s recent complaints about the act and how it affected the EM system. change the SAFET Act.
- 47th Ward - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 1:44 pm:
===Magna Carta #39 clearly states:===
Except public officials in Illinois, including judges, swear an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution, not the Magna Carta.
Also, 1215 called. It wants its “modern” legal rights document back.
- Norseman - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 1:48 pm:
=== Magna Carta #39 clearly states ===
I don’t know whether to say, “is someone going to tell him”, or “good snark”?
- The Opinions Bureau - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 2:00 pm:
Instead of kvetching about gutting the SAFE-T Act, I’d submit that a more productive use of time would be focusing on things that would actually reduce recidivism. E.g., mounting a real effort to address housing stability amongst people coming home from prison.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/public-safety/2025/12/04/thousands-leaving-illinois-prisons-face-high-risk-of-housing-instability-new-study
- Details - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 2:35 pm:
Thanks DuPage and Amalia — some actual specific suggestions.
- TNR - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 2:35 pm:
@Rambler Fan, thanks for the link. Good stuff. Shows ASAs were requesting detention in 30 percent of cases during Kim Foxx’s last quarter in office and that number shot up to 44 percent of cases under O’Neill Burke, leading to the increased jail population.
- Incandenza - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 2:51 pm:
Thank you for trying to bring some clarity to the myopia that many journalists get lost in.
- charles in charge - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 2:56 pm:
==meanwhile a young woman is in the hospital suffering. amend the Act.==
The charge in the Reed case was eligible for detention. What amendments to the Act do you think are warranted because of that case? Mandatory detention, with no judicial discretion to order release? That particular approach would be patently unconstitutional, but perhaps you have other ideas about how to change the law that you think would have prevented that horrible incident?
==Certain misdemeanor crimes are quite violent.==
Like what? Domestic battery is detention-eligible. What other misdemeanor accusations do you think should potentially land someone in jail? Be specific.
==why is there a release period for those on EM?==
People on EM are allowed movement to complete essential tasks like grocery shopping, medical appointments, picking up kids at school, etc. What would be the point of even having EM as an option if people are prisoners in their homes and not even allowed to do things like BUY FOOD?! Actually, you should ask your buddy Sheriff Dart who thought that was an acceptable way to run the program.
==listen to Sheriff Dart’s recent complaints about the act and how it affected the EM system==
Sheriff Dart has been shamelessly lying to the public for years, repeatedly claiming that the SAFE-T Act forces him to stop monitoring people while they have been granted movement, although in reality it does no such thing. So maybe DON’T listen to him on this issue.
- thechampaignlife - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 3:33 pm:
===Anyone with 5 or more prior convictions should automatically be held to trial. Or at very least have some higher more restrictive type of EM.===
Something like that could be a reasonable change. If someone has been convicted of a detainable offense, the burden of proof should shift to the defendant on why they should be released for any future indictments for detainable offenses, at least at that Class or worse offense and at least for some period of time (e.g., 10 years after completing sentence).
- Judges - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 3:53 pm:
Because judges are held accountable….
- Friendly Bob Adams - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 4:07 pm:
I doubt that Judge Molina-Gonzalez will be retained.
- Amalia - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 4:16 pm:
instead of a critique of suggestions from those of us who want to tweak the SAFE-T act, how about supporters of the act as passed tell us what they would propose for changes to address: the Loop punchers, the mentally ill who commit violence who were written about months ago in the Sun Times, repeat violent misdemeanor offenders, and, yes, the get out of the house free time that is difficult to monitor and for which there have been too many violators with violence. Stats in the face of anecdotal information on violence do not impress.
- Demoralized - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 4:53 pm:
==Stats in the face of anecdotal information==
Lol. Did you just diss stats in favor of your anecdotes? Because I would certainly want to make policy changes based on an anecdote.
- Occasionally Moderated - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 5:25 pm:
I think what the act does not take into account is the additional time spent in the states attorneys offices and docket time. (I cannot comment on the burden on public defenders as I have not seen that side first hand but I assume it to be similar.)
If you want to increase the level of justice (fairness) we need more prosecutors, judges and probably public defenders. It seems counter intuitive but adding prosecutors is a first step. They are the gatekeepers. If they could spend more time learning what cases are about that ar presented to them, many cases that end in an unjust outcome wouldn’t even be filed. It is the prosecutors that have to decide which cases a detention hearing will be requested and then they need to prepare for the hearing. It is not as simple as saying “judge, detain this guy”, they actually have to make an argument the judge can depend on because detention hearings are being appealed. It is easier for a judge to deny detention and not have to deal with reversal in the appellate court. Again- more decisions to make better decisions by the gatekeepers, more just result.
In addition, Most felony cases are taking a couple years to ooze through the process. Too long to hold an accused defendant. Really need to make cases move along quicker. Not enough prosecutors, not enough judges, not enough public defenders.
One of my early predictions has come true nicely. This has been tough on the poor poor private practice defense attorneys. When cases with bond money posted with the court concluded in the past, defense attorneys asked to be first in line to be paid from that bond money. That pool of cash is no longer there for them to dip their beaks into. I must admit that makes me smile.
- Occaisionally Moderated - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 5:27 pm:
== Because judges are held accountable….==
Tell us you have never been in a courtroom without telling us you’ve never been in a courtroom.
- Amalia - Monday, Dec 8, 25 @ 5:57 pm:
“Domestic battery also becomes a Class 4 felony if the accused has one or two prior convictions for domestic battery.” I heard about this law already on the books when I asked a lawyer if there was a way multiple misdemeanors could turn into a felony. He gave me this example. maybe there are other violent misdemeanors which if they are committed multiple times it would be an automatic felony.
- charles in charge - Tuesday, Dec 9, 25 @ 9:11 am:
==other violent misdemeanors==
Please educate us all about these “other violent misdemeanors.” What charges are you even talking about?