Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Preckwinkle waves off issue of accused gun felons being released without bond

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

* Last year, the GA passed a new law to increase the sentencing range for repeat gun offenders. But Cook County’s bond court is taking an odd turn on accused gun felons.

Tribune…

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle on Monday disputed Sheriff Tom Dart’s recent assertion that public safety could be compromised because hundreds more gun suspects have been released from custody on electronic monitoring since bond overhaul measures took effect last fall. […]

“The types of cases addressed by Sheriff Dart (in his letter) are gun cases — but they are gun cases in which nobody was shot or killed,” [Pat Milhizer, a spokesman for Chief Judge Timothy Evans] said. “That means the charge is not an inherently violent charge,” he said. […]

In a letter to Cook County authorities last week, Dart expressed concern that bond changes had led to a dramatic increase in the number of gun offenders released from Cook County Jail on electronic monitors. In response, he said, his office has begun to make changes: shifting staff, conducting a more thorough vetting process and, if necessary, declaring detainees too risky for the anklets altogether.

But Preckwinkle’s letter, citing Dart’s own data, pointed out that out of 195 alleged gun offenders released pretrial since bond changes took effect, just five had picked up a new gun charge as of Feb. 1. And felony gun charges have remained constant, Preckwinkle said, indicating that no increased safety threat can be attributed to bond decisions about gun offenses.

The sheriff’s original letter is here.

Look, most everybody wants bond reform to work. But the reform was specifically designed for non-violent accused offenders, not alleged gun-carrying felons. Dart’s spokesperson says it’s way too early to make a judgement on recidivism of those offenders. If she’s right, there’s gonna be heck to pay.

* From Sheriff’s Dart report…

Before 9/18/17, D-Bonds [defendant has to post 10 percent] for felony gun charges were administered at a higher rate with higher bond amounts than after 9/18/17. Before 9/18/17, No Bonds, IEM [no cash, but electronic monitoring], and I-Bonds [released on own recognizance] were rarely administered for felony gun charges. After 9/18/17, the use of No Bonds, IEM, and I-Bonds increased dramatically.

* The accompanying charts…

And that’s not all. According to the sheriff, the median D-Bond before the change was $75,000. After the change, the median D-Bond dropped to just $10,000.

Sheriff Dart also says he simply doesn’t have the resources to electronically monitor all these alleged gun felons because they require so much extra attention.

…Adding… OneMan is exactly right…

Also concerned that it will have a negative impact on the bond changes overall. If there is an issue with someone, it will be used as a reason to push back on all the changes.

The changes Dart trumpeted made sure that accused non-violent offenders aren’t in jail just because they couldn’t afford to post bond. The pendulum has swung too far and could swing back if something bad happens.

posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 1:44 pm

Comments

This will likely come back to haunt her …

Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 1:51 pm
===come back to haunt her===

Forget her, what about people who live in gun-plagued neighborhoods?

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 1:53 pm
I’m all for criminal justice reform and not keeping people locked up simply because they are poor. However, and this is a big one, in Chicago, gun violence is the single biggest issue facing policy makers. How tone deaf must Preckwinkle be to dismiss the fact that gun offenders are simply going through a revolving door at the jail?

Dart is right about this. Preckwinkle would be wise to heed his advice.

Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 1:54 pm
I’m confused… wasn’t Dart in favor of bond reform? Didn’t he support that bill last year? Anyway, he makes a great point about needing to have the resources to make the electronic monitoring work. The best-laid plans oft go awry without sufficient funding. Ultimately, though, bond reform should be leading us to a conversation - and it should be a purely data-driven conversation - about risk. If it’s too risky to let an indigent person go on his own recognizance, might it also be too risky to let a better-off arrestee go free after having made bond? If electronic monitoring isn’t enough of a deterrent, is paying bond an effective deterrent for someone who can easily afford it? Etc. The bond system has allowed us to talk about money instead of talking about risk (and hence, to make assumptions about the risk of letting out higher-income versus lower-income arrestees awaiting trial), and I hope the recent progress on bond reform will keep leading us in a smarter direction.

Comment by Commander Norton Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:03 pm
Also concerned that it will have a negative impact on the bond changes overall. If there is an issue with someone, it will be used as a reason to push back on all the changes.

Comment by OneMan Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:04 pm
===I’m confused… wasn’t Dart in favor of bond reform?===

He led the charge for it. Remember the cases he was highlighting every month of non-violent people languishing in jail because they couldn’t afford bail?

This, however, is different. Argue like an adult, please.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:05 pm
Voted against Prekwinkle. And Fioretti is terrible. That’s how bad she is.

Comment by Ron Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:05 pm
Absurd. Bond reform was about not locking up poor people on inherently non-violent charges.

If you’re accused of pulling a gun in the commission of a crime, I’m presuming you might have used it. You’re a threat to the community.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:06 pm
===If there is an issue with someone, it will be used as a reason to push back on all the changes. ===

That is exactly right. This is a very short-sighted move.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:07 pm
It looks to me, without going too far into the weeds, like this reform has allowed judges to more carefully tailor the release conditions for people accused of gun related felonies. I would presume that the judges still have to make a balancing decision as to which ones go in which bucket. I find it difficult to believe that it is not cheaper for the community as well as for the Sheriff’s office to house more arrestees in their own home than it is to house them at 26th and California.

Comment by Chicago Resident Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:09 pm
Doesn’t have the resources? Can’t he take “resources” away from the county jail that is no longer over flowing? I gotta’ think a weekly check-in over the phone, or some new servers to keep track of all the data, are cheaper than food, clothing, medical care, and shelter 24/7.

Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:11 pm
I didn’t vote for Cook County sheriff. Too bad Dart has no opponent.

Comment by Ron Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:13 pm
Gun cases in which nobody was shot or killed are not inherently violent?

Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:23 pm
I am not a fan of Dart.

That being said, one point where I do find agreement with him is that too many mentally ill people are winding up in jail because the state is doing a poor job of providing adequate mental health care including facilities for those who ought not be on the streets.

Comment by Practical Politics Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:27 pm
I am all for not making poor people sit in jail waiting for trial but not if they pulled a gun. Even if the gun wasn’t used.

Comment by Cheryl44 Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:32 pm
===Can’t he take “resources” away from the county jail that is no longer over flowing?===

You still gotta have guards.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:34 pm
Tom Dart is the best thing Cook County government has going for it, and it isn’t even close. IMHO

Comment by McGuppin Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:35 pm
===I am all for not making poor people sit in jail waiting for trial but not if they pulled a gun. Even if the gun wasn’t used..===

I would hazard a guess that in these cases, no one “pulled a gun.” There was a stop or arrest for some other charge, a gun was found and a gun charge was added.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:37 pm
Most of these people are not first timers. Many have 7 or 8 or more previous offenses. Check out blog Crime in Wrigleyville Boystown. They also did a FOIA to Dart wanting to know the number of people on electronic monitoring that are missing evidently a lot
Finally sine it is a Federal Offense for a felon to have a weapon with a 5 year MINIMUM sentence I don’t know why the Feds don’t step in

Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:42 pm
It’s all too easy to make a quick judgement that this is all bad just by the name of the problem. However, we don’t really know what the cases look like. I think you aren’t allowed to have a gun even if you were convicted of a felony 30 years ago. If you are caught with a gun now, that’s a gun crime. Is this the kind of thing we’re talking about? I really don’t know, but I hesitate to jump to conclusions.

Comment by NoGifts Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:42 pm
People are not reporting on this correctly.

The bond reform bill was also meant to give judges the ability to decide who should be and who shouldn’t be incarcerated. The use of cash bond, or D-Bonds takes this out of the judges hands and leaves things to chance.

So check out the first graph that reports on what happened before the Act. Basically that tells you that 95.8% of people charged with a gun offense, got a D bond, which means 95.8% had the ability to bond out with no tracking.

The 2nd graph tells us that now, 30% (up from literally 2.2%) are either completely denied bond OR guaranteed to be tracked. The reality is the current system does a better job of ensuring that those that charged with gun offenses and deemed to be dangerous are getting no bonds or being tracked.

Moreover, the Sheriff’s data is tricky because it doesn’t differentiate between those charged with illegal possession of a gun which can be a felony (called unlawful use of a weapon) and those that are actually using or threating to use a firearm.

Dart IS skirting the line here. He knows what up. His ask is fine, “I want more money for EM”, ….

…..but to make that argument he’s tricking people into thinking the new bond reform practices are making us significantly less safe. There’s little evidence for that, especially noting that the status quo before the bill and new order gave basically anyone the ability to bond out.

Comment by Dee4Three Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:46 pm
===which means 95.8% had the ability to bond out with no tracking===

No. It means that 95.8 percent had bond imposed. It doesn’t mean they all paid it.

Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:49 pm
I thought Dart had two primary challengers, per Ron’s statement. Is that no longer the case?

Comment by Soothsayer Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:56 pm
Looks like Chicago could use a little more revenue for guards, expeditiuos trials and jails. C’mon Chicago, show the rest of us the way and get a city earnings tax on the ballet

Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:57 pm
See CWBChicago.com/2018/02/ in-dispute-over-cranberry-juice-mans.html?m=1

Comment by Chicagosaid Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:58 pm
..ballot.

Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 2:58 pm
No, it doesn’t mean they all paid it. But it does mean that they had the potential to pay it and this was Dart and Superintendant Johnson’s central beef with the previous overuse cash bond system. In fact they argued that the “shooters” had more access to capital.

Less D-Bonds, More EM and No Bonds are significantly more efficient system than pre-Act/order system,

……that could potentially result in tax savings (that we could shovel into things that actually reduce violence) if we had the stomach to make that happen

Comment by Dee4Three Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:00 pm
–Looks like Chicago could use a little more revenue for guards, expeditiuos trials and jails. C’mon Chicago, show the rest of us the way and get a city earnings tax on the ballet–

It’s Cook County. And you obviously haven’t read the thread and the issues that are being discussed.

Just riding one of your two or three hobby horses.

Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:01 pm
===You still gotta have guards.===.

But I would suspect he is saving money on food and overtime, money that could be spent on an increased bond program.

Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:06 pm
It’s even worse in juvenile court, where offenders who are charged with using guns (not just possessing them) are almost never held:

Comment by FTR Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:13 pm
Sorry here’s the link

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/juveniles-armed-carjackings-released-within-24-hours/

Comment by FTR Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:14 pm
== It’s all too easy to make a quick judgement that this is all bad just by the name of the problem. However, we don’t really know what the cases look like. I think you aren’t allowed to have a gun even if you were convicted of a felony 30 years ago. If you are caught with a gun now, that’s a gun crime. Is this the kind of thing we’re talking about? ==

Yes

Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:20 pm
I wonder if any of these folks had valid FOID cards.

Comment by Blue dog dem Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 3:24 pm
Wow. This is appalling. Is she not paying attention to what’s happening on the streets of Chicago? Call me crazy, but letting gun suspects out on bond so easily doesn’t seem like the wisest of moves.

Comment by Shytown Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 4:04 pm
i saw a link earlier to this tiffy that Dart, Preckwinkle, and Evans had on Chicago Tonight back in 2013. Zorn posted the transcript in one of his columns. Goes a little something like this -

PRECKWINKLE: RIGHT. THE SHERIFF IS RIGHT, THERE WAS A PRECIPITOUS DROP THE END OF LAST YEAR IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ORDERED TO ELECTRONIC MONITORING BY THE JUDGES. NEITHER HE NOR I CAN UNDERSTANDING THAT. THE SHERIFF, ACCORDING TO A FEDERAL COURT ORDER IN MARCH OF 2011 MAY RELEASE ON ELECTRONIC MONITORING, THAT’S ANKLE BRACELETS, PRETRIAL DETAINEES, THAT’S PEOPLE WAITING TRIAL, TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATES STEMMING FROM OVERCROWDING IN THE COOK COUNTY JAIL, NO MORE THAN 1500 PRETRIAL DETAINEES. PEOPLE AWAITING TRIAL. SO THE SHERIFF CAN ORDER PEOPLE HIMSELF ON ELECTRONIC MONITORING. AND THE JUDGES WERE ORDERING, LOTS OF FOLKS TO ELECTRONIC MONITORING. AND AT THE END OF LAST YEAR FOR REASONS THAT ARE INEXPLICABLE TO ME OR THE SHERIFF THAT NUMBER FELL OFF A CLIFF.

PONCE: SO YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS FAULT ON BOTH SIDES REGARDING THE TWO PEOPLE –

PRECKWINKLE: I’M SAYING THERE ARE THINGS THAT EVERYBODY IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN DO TO REDUCE THE POPULATION IN THE JAIL AND WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

PONCE: LET’S START WITH THE SHERIFF. BACK TO THE ISSUE OF 1500 PEOPLE THAT YOU IN THEORY COULD RELEASE ON ELECTRONIC MONITORING.

DART: THE ORDER LIMITS ME. THEY HAVE TO IF IT INTO A BOX. THEY CAN’T BE CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT CRIME OR HAVE A VIOLENT CRIME IN THEIR BACKGROUND. THAT IMMEDIATELY CONTRACTS THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN PERSONALLY RELEASE.
PONCE: SO YOU DON’T HAVE 1500?
DART: I DON’T.
PRECKWINKLE: I DISAGREE WITH HIS INTERPRETATION.

Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 5:57 pm
To me, it sounds like there needs to be a reliable, consistent assessment tool that measures the defendant’s risk to the public. If they fail that assessment though, keep them in jail. That really is not relevant to money bond.

However, the Illinois Constitution has a right to bond. I think it could be complicated if the courts start keeping people in jail without any bond. The bond reform bill was a little rushed and haphazard, it seemed to me, and maybe did not think the issues all the way through.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Tuesday, Feb 27, 18 @ 7:49 pm