* Last September…
However, many Illinois Republican lawmakers disagree. Some are calling to repeal the law or tweak it to give judges more discretion.
“We’re seeing individuals who are charged with serious violent crimes being allowed to walk out of county jails with no cash bail, sometimes they same day they are arrested and reoffending while they are on pre-trial release,” said Illinois State Rep. Patrick Windhorst, (R) House Minority Floor Leader.
That “more discretion” phrase became quite a buzzword.
* Last December…
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
* 16 days ago from the House GOP…
Partial transcript…
I have HB4104. All that does, it gives judges the discretion. We elect them to have that discretion and so many other things, to trust them to make the right decision and to make sure that families don’t get to have these horrific stories.
* Yesterday, House Republican Leader Tony McCombie introduced HB5757, with Reps. Windhorst and Weber as co-sponsors...
Provides that when a defendant has previously been granted pretrial release for a felony or Class A misdemeanor and has been placed on electronic monitoring as a condition of release, that pretrial release shall be revoked upon a finding of probable cause that the defendant has committed a felony that is alleged to have occurred during the defendant’s pretrial release after a hearing on the court’s own motion or upon the filing of a verified petition by the State. Provides that pretrial detention shall continue pending resolution of the defendant’s charges. Provides that the language that states at each subsequent appearance of the defendant before the court, the judge must find that continued detention is necessary to reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant for later hearings or to prevent the defendant from being charged with a subsequent felony or Class A misdemeanor does not apply to a defendant whose pretrial release has been revoked pursuant to the new provision.
Press release…
In response to the recent murder and critical injury of two Chicago Police Officers, the Republican leaders filed Senate Bill 4195 and House Bill 5757. This legislation makes a commonsense amendment to the Pre Trial Fairness Act that requires that anyone arrested for a felony while on pretrial release and ankle monitoring to be detained until the charges are resolved.
They can’t talk about “more discretion” now because the judge in that case made such an egregious error in judgement. So, they want to just tell judges what they must do regardless of the circumstances.
…Adding… Leader McCombie…
The point about judicial discretion is that the advocates for ending cash bail said it was about giving judges more discretion, but our pre-trial release scheme does not give the judge discretion to detain in all cases.
My bill allows judges to have discretion to detain in more cases on the initial charge. It applies after a person is already on pre-trial release. If someone commits a crime while on pre-trial release that shows they are a danger and should be held if probable cause exists for the charge.
- Garfield Ridge Guy - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 12:47 pm:
Right. The judge did a bad job, and so the lawmakers came up with another idea to counter the new information that judges will use their discretion extremely poorly. Why would lawmakers not update their priors in response to new information? It’s not hypocritical to say that the capital of Illinois is Springfield, even if it was once Vandalia.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 12:49 pm:
===to counter the new information that judges will use their discretion extremely poorly===
LOLOL
That’s new information only for people who have zero clue about the judicial system. C’mon. Who do you think you’re talking to here? Don’t insult our intelligence.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 12:54 pm:
Shorter ILGOP- “We want judges to have total discretion, not discretion per se, but mandatory discretion, mandatory meaning they have to lock’em up at their discretion mandatorily”.
Whew. Pick a stinkin lane.
The fact is that judges have pretty much always had discretion to do as they see fit regardless of prosecutorial recommendations. This is pure politics because a judge made a poor decision.
A judge could still find, even if the proposed bill was passed as written, that probable cause or some of the other conditions were not met. There is no fix to poor judicial decisions except appeal or voting them out.
- Pundent - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 12:55 pm:
This is what happens when you deliberately misrepresent the law and it comes back to bite you. The old line of judges being forced to let criminals free because of the SAFETY-Act is now demonstrably false. And that’s a real problem for those that were making the argument to score cheap political points.
- H-W - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 1:00 pm:
Thanks for providing the relevant language in the bills, Rich.
This make it clear is at the least, a bunch of hyper-partisanship. It suggests the bill’s sponsors and proponents do not actually care about the judicial system. The party seems to trust judges and not trust judges, depending on the news cycle. It also suggests the advocates of these bills do not care whether they cause real harm through their actions, given that they are fighting on both sides of the issue, depending on which way the wind blows.
- Occasionally Moderated - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 1:20 pm:
If only there was an effective republican party in Illinois.
- Juvenal - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 1:30 pm:
As I said on the other thread, the Illinois Constituion mandates the “Separation of Powers” and the judicial branch has consistently rebuked all encroachments from the Legislature.
Judges are the “trier of fact” not the legislature.
From the IL Constitution:
“SECTION 1. SEPARATION OF POWERS
The legislative, executive and judicial branches are
separate. No branch shall exercise powers properly belonging
to another.”
What is being proposed is, I believe, unconstitutional on its face.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 1:37 pm:
The GOP operates on content creation that stokes outrage. Something bad happens and the immediate response seems to be; how can I lie to make this Barack Obama’s fault; how can I lie to make this Joe Biden’s fault; how can I lie to make this JB Pritzker’s fault?
Why are so many of the GOP’s policies about ending the rights of other people? It is because they’re feeding a content machine that doesn’t care about policies or rights.
So here they are, once again, angry at people for having rights and wanting to create a judicial system that destroys lives before there is ever a trial.
- Candy Dogood - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 1:39 pm:
Why don’t any of these GOP Reps talk about ending drunk driving by requiring breathalyzers be installed on all vehicles?
- Shalashaska - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 1:59 pm:
Part of the problem is the perception (especially from critics of the SAFE-T Act) that detention hearings are somehow trials and sentencing hearings all wrapped in one. No desire to understand how these hearings actually work and how in this case, the judge made the wrong call. Blaming the law that gave him clear power to detain is absolutely cynical. Also, prosecutors can appeal these decisions, too.
- Bob - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 2:01 pm:
The judge’s own comments said the law wouldn’t allow him to keep the guy in county jail, so the judge, at least, felt he didn’t have discretion.
- Juvenal - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 2:13 pm:
To the Update:
=== If someone commits a crime while on pre-trial release that shows they are a danger and should be held if probable cause exists for the charge. ===
1) “Commits” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. We have a thing called “presumption of innocence” in America. Atleast for now.
2) “Danger” is also doing yeoman’s work. Nothing in her bill requires either the initial crime or the subsequent charge to be violent, and she eliminates the requirement that a judge find the person to be a “danger” if released.
3) “Probable cause” is the standard you need for a warrant or for an arrest. Everyone arrested has, de facto and de jure, met the “probable cause” threshold. The purpose of the bail hearing is to establish whether the Constitutionally required “clear and convincing evidence” threshold has been met to detain someone until trial.
If there’s a lawyer among us who disagrees, let me know.
- Chicagonk - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 2:15 pm:
Reading the bill, I think it makes a lot of sense. If you are out on electronic monitoring and are then charged with a felony, you should be held without bail.
- H-W - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 2:26 pm:
Leader McCombie’s addendum doesn’t pass the smell test.
She writes, “If someone commits a crime while on pre-trial release that shows they are a danger and should be held if probable cause exists for the charge.”
No it does not demonstrate that they are a danger. The nature of the crime does, not the fact that they have been accused of a second potential criminal act.
As to Speaker McCombie’s misrepresentation that “My bill allows judges to have discretion to detain in more cases,” she must first show which cases judges lack discretion currently, and she must articulate which additional felony offenses would justify detention that are not currently allowing judicial discretion under the original law.
Currently, the SAFE-T Act is clear and unambiguous. It is not confusing in the least. It states violent crimes and those which pose future threat to citizens are detainable offenses. Many such crimes are listed explicitly. The Act allows judges to use discretion in such cases.
To say anyone in the process of being adjudicated can have their liberties stripped if they are found to violate another law while under court supervision is too broad an assertion. Speaker McCombie is not offering enhancements to discretion. She is offering new means to detain beyond violent criminal acts.
- JS Mill - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 2:39 pm:
=but our pre-trial release scheme does not give the judge discretion to detain in all cases.=
It is a law not a “scheme”, grow up Tony and it sounds like you want someone possibly held for not paying a fine? Because the judges discretion might go that way? Sheesh.
= so the judge, at least, felt he didn’t have discretion.=
SO we aren’t following the law? Just feelings? That is a total crock. The prosecutor recommended detention, and I am hoping the judge can read even though it seems like he didn’t bother to read the statute.
- Anon E Moose - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 2:57 pm:
==Everyone arrested has, de facto and de jure, met the “probable cause” threshold==
Weird that they have probable cause hearings then…
- Pundent - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 3:04 pm:
=so the judge, at least, felt he didn’t have discretion.=
As the kids like to say, “sounds like a skill issue.”
- JoanP - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 3:58 pm:
= Everyone arrested has, de facto and de jure, met the “probable cause” threshold. =
Nope. In felony cases, there is a separate probable cause hearing, either before a grand jury (where neither the defendant nor his attorney is present) or before a judge at a preliminary hearing.
So unless the person was indicted prior to the bond hearing, there’s been no such finding.
- Stephanie Kollmann - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 4:17 pm:
==
Bob - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 2:01 pm:
The judge’s own comments said the law wouldn’t allow him to keep the guy in county jail, so the judge, at least, felt he didn’t have discretion.
==
That’s how people interested in attacking either the law or the judge have framed his comments.
I don’t think it’s a fair reading.
- Leslie K - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 4:20 pm:
JSMill @ 12:54 +1
- Stephanie Kollmann - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 4:21 pm:
Further, generally: a lot of people who don’t have all of the information the judge had in front of him at the time seem very certain that the judge erred.
Just as it is possible to eat five vegetables a day and exercise regularly and still end up with heart disease, it is possible for judges to do their jobs properly and for terrible things to happen anyway.
- Homer - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 4:54 pm:
It is notable that the only scornful and rude comment on this chain so far has come from Miller, who is constantly admonishing others to be civil.
- RNUG - Thursday, Apr 30, 26 @ 5:53 pm:
As I said the other day, by either Statute or Constitutional Amendment, remove Absolute Judicial Immunity and replace it with Qualified Immunity like Law Enforcement has.