Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser list
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
A little-known provision of the SAFE-T Act — the criminal justice reform law Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed last year —now requires that criminal defendants who are on home confinement while awaiting trial must be given a minimum of two days a week to move freely, without being actively monitored.
During that time, they’re supposed to be working or looking for a job, undergoing treatment for mental illness or drug addiction, attending school or buying groceries, according to the law. […]
Since Jan. 1, about two dozen people have been arrested in Cook County while on essential movement time —about 1% of the people in the sheriff’s electronic-monitoring program, according to Cook County sheriff’s reports. […]
Sharone Mitchell, Cook County’s public defender, says it’s important to offer the two eight-hour periods free from monitoring and that the “vast majority” of people awaiting trial on electronic monitoring comply with the terms of their release, show up for court dates and don’t commit new crimes.
“Communities are safer when people who have not been convicted of a crime are able to take care of essential life activities, such as shopping for food, going to the laundromat and doctor appointments and picking up children from school,” he says.
Remember, these are people who are still waiting on a trial.
* ILGOP…
Last Friday, the Sun-Times reported on more outrageous, pro-criminal consequences of Governor JB Pritzker’s anti-police bill (SAFE-T Act). Criminal defendants on home confinement while awaiting trial are now required to be set free at least two days a week with no monitoring.
“During that time, they’re supposed to be working or looking for a job, undergoing treatment for mental illness or drug addiction, attending school or buying groceries, according to the law.”
They’re “supposed” to be doing those things. But, unsurprisingly, criminals are using time off monitoring to commit more crimes.
From the Chicago Sun-Times…
“Since Jan. 1, about two dozen people have been arrested in Cook County while on essential movement time —about 1% of the people in the sheriff’s electronic-monitoring program, according to Cook County sheriff’s reports.
One man was accused of committing an armed robbery.
Others were charged with illegal gun possession and drug dealing.
Three went on shoplifting sprees, police say.
Two others were shot to death.”
Even fellow Democrat and Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart finds this provision of the SAFE-T Act not particularly safe, saying, “At a bare minimum, they should say, ‘If you’re charged with a violent offense, and you’re given home monitoring, you don’t get to wander around free for two days a week.” Dart also said that the 1% figure might be understating the issue because violent crimes like shootings do not always result in an arrest being made.
Yet again, as Illinois and Chicago experience a rising wave of violent crime, the Governor’s pro-criminal policies get exposed as wildly out of touch and downright dangerous to the public.
Look, if you were the armed robbery victim, you probably and understandably feel like you never should’ve gone through that. And Dart is right that not everyone who commits a crime is caught.
But programs with calculable 1 percent failure rates are generally considered pretty darned good.
* Related…
* Shootings, homicides down so far this year compared with 2021, but experts and violence-reduction workers are wary
* Editorial: Digging into the details on Chicago’s murder clearance rate: Padded clearance stats and stalled court cases do little to boost either public confidence or police morale, as one expert says.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Update to today’s edition
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Fundraiser list
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I predict crime will be a top issue in this year’s election.
Comment by Carol Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:10 am
Wow, Carol, don’t get yourself way out on a limb there.
lol
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:12 am
Funny how no one bothered to ask Dart if he was bothered about how the Mohawk Johnson situation is going.
Comment by Benniefly2 Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:14 am
Suburban Dems are already backpedaling from the SAFE-T Act.
Any further nuances that can be reasonably added into the short sighted column are problematic for them.
Comment by Say What? Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:21 am
Presumed innocent. These guys haven’t been convicted yet. I suppose they should not be allowed a defense attorney either. I mean some crimes are bad so no right thinking person would defend them. Especially if they want to run for office or be a judge. And while we’re at it lots of criminals reoffend so why not just give everyone life without parole. No reoffending then. /S
Comment by DuPage Saint Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:23 am
Compared to the +/- 17% overall 1-year recidivism rate (3-year is 43%) for released prisoners, this provision is a resounding success. Of course, politics isn’t about context, to be sure.
Comment by say when Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:26 am
Crime as a political issue is always powered by statistical outliers. It’s no way to run a railroad.
Comment by Arsenal Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:38 am
More detail about Safe-T act here:
https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/the-2021-safe-t-act-icjia-roles-and-responsibilities
Comment by Mr T Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:47 am
If 1% failure means a program should be abandoned or modified then I am declaring stoplights in Springfield as an abject failure and demanding that the legislature do something about it. /snark
Comment by Out Here In The Middle Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:54 am
Reading is fundamental. The SAFE-T Act does not provide to free days without monitoring. It provides for at least two days of movement outside of the home to participate in specified basic activities like grocery shopping and seeking employment. All of this while monitiored. It’s clear as day in 730 ILCS 5-8a-4 (A) and (A-1). Not that anyone will read it because the fact don’t matter, only the talking points…
/rant
Comment by Extremely Annoyed Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:55 am
The two days a week without monitoring is going to create some very provocative political dialogue over the coming months.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 10:57 am
Why is it essential to not monitor people accused of serious crimes two days a week to make sure they are actually working or looking for work, buying groceries, picking up kids from schools, going to the doctor’s office etc?
Comment by Lucky Pierre Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:04 am
By the GOP’s own logic they should stop existing. They have a failure rate that makes a D student look stellar.
And thank goodness that they do. Never has Illinois suffered more from a group of self important out of touch empty and hateful legislators than they have suffered from the GOP over the last decade and our democracy depends on their near continuous rate of failure, so perhaps they should just stop and safe us all the heartache and heart burn of the fact they still represent part of the reflection of this state.
How’s Chris Miller’s war going? Good thing he failed at that. I can go on, anyone can go on, but cataloging the efforts by the Illinois GOP and it’s individual legislators that must fail in order to preserve our democracy and to preserve the rights of the People of Illinois is exhausting.
Comment by Candy Dogood Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:04 am
So as soon as you’re charged of a crime, you just lose your freedom, is that what the GOP is saying?
The GOP apparently cares about freedom as long as it’s politically expedient.
Comment by Techie Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:17 am
It will be fun watching Irvin turn himself into a pretzel defending his record as a defense atty (innocent until proven guilty, deserve a fair trial, etc) while also arguing that those accused should be treated as if they have been convicted.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:18 am
Waiting but not holding my breath for the article and politician willing to say that provision resulting in 99% safety rate and saving X dollars in county jail and sheriff monitoring costs is hugely successful.
Folks should check out the Jim Reilly obit in the Sun-Times as it mentions how Reilly lamented the shift to “reflexive anti-tax” and people having less faith in government even thought tax money was going towards the things we all need - schools, parks, healthcare. It seems we only trust big government now on criminal enforcement.
Comment by Urban Girl Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:21 am
===The two days a week without monitoring is going to create some very provocative political dialogue over the coming months.===
People are already on edge and this is a perfect issue for demagoguery. Rational arguments and nuance have no place in a modern political campaign.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:24 am
Huh?!? They want to change the rules for monitoring because of 1%? Yet they are against mandating COVID vaccines when the US death rate for unvaccinated is 15 versus
Comment by From DaZoo Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:26 am
“So as soon as you’re charged of a crime, you just lose your freedom, is that what the GOP is saying?”
You do realize that we have the places called “jails” that we use to hold people who are waiting for trial in many cases, right? There is this whole process involving things like “arraigment” and “probable cause” as well as concepts like “bail” and “conditions of bond.” So, yeah, Techie, when you are charged with a serious crime, you are not just free to be on your way. That said, a 1% failure rate is actually pretty good.
Comment by The Ford Lawyer Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:39 am
= So as soon as you’re charged of a crime, you just lose your freedom, is that what the GOP is saying?=
So 5 days a week of electronic monitoring is completely fine with you, but 7 days a week of electronic monitoring equates to a total loss of freedom? Pick a lane.
To the story, I agree with the concept wholeheartedly. I’m not a lawmaker though, and I don’t have to worry about that vote coming back to haunt me the first time someone commits a murder during their 2 days. Defending it based on the 1% failure rate seems a bit week as well. If we use consistent logic, we would need to note that large swaths of the SAFE-T act were based on police use of force, particularly shootings. Even counting “justified” shootings and use of force, those don’t occur in anything remotely approaching 1% of police interactions. So if that was enough to warrant wholesale reforms, then it is certainly affair to critique this aspect.
TL;DR Good policy, bad politics.
Comment by phenom_Anon Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:44 am
I am curious to know the reasoning or justification for the unmonitored nature of the essential movement times. What about allowing these times and movements, under monitoring, would be unreasonable? I am interested in hearing different perspectives on this topic.
Comment by rtov Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:44 am
I am curious to know why the essential movement times are unmonitored. Why would monitoring these times be unreasonable? As pointed out, these individuals are accused of felony offenses wherein the state has established probable cause exists to support the allegations.
Comment by Eric Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:53 am
Why can’t their movement still be tracked but not monitored for those two days? Then if there is suspicion of crime (at a low standard), the tracking from the two days can be reviewed?
Comment by Bothanspied Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:57 am
I’m not an expert on the criminal justice system in Illinois. So I’m not sure I totally understand the issue here. It’s not solely about releases from electronic monitoring as much as it is about being allowed to leave your home (which is generally how electronic monitoring is done if I’m not mistaken), correct? It seems like it would make more sense to talk about that aspect. But at the same time, why can’t they be monitored during their two days of moving around? Is there some sort of issue with a device tracking you to pick up groceries or kids from school? So why not just give them two days of movement while be monitored? That seems reasonable to me.
Comment by Wonky Kong Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:59 am
I wonder if the two who were murdered would rather have been in jail? The problem here is that we are trusting people who have demonstrated they are untrustworthy to follow the law. I would be reassured by the 1% figure if I thought it was accurate. But that 1% represents only those who were dumb enough to get caught. Again. I guess we should be happy they only have 16 hours a week to potentially commit crimes, but that is more risk than I am willing to tolerate. Home confinement should be 24/7. I don’t feel at all sorry for the Democrats who will take heat when one of these offenders commits a truly heinous crime.
Comment by Captain Obvious Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 11:59 am
“Criminals” - I thought everybody was presumed innocent, GOP?
Comment by Tony DeKalb Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:01 pm
@The Ford Lawyer
Of course, but there has to be a balance between the public good (in this case, public safety) and the rights of those charged to maintain their status as innocent until proven guilty. We can debate whether those charged with violent crimes should get essential movement days, but the GOP hysteria is unwarranted. If that specific provision is bad, perhaps talk about that instead of trashing an entire bill which seeks to better balance public safety with individual rights. But I wouldn’t expect that kind of nuance from the GOP, because they usually don’t want better public policy, just to win and implement their culture war ideas.
Comment by Techie Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:03 pm
Never… let the perfect be the enemy… of the good.
How this is measured… in this instance… will be why… crime is as large of an issue that might not find a political equilibrium… this cycle.
Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:05 pm
Usually, you are considered legitimately hammered above .08 percent
Comment by Ok Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:28 pm
Can the GOP or any group complaining on this program point to any program they have supported that has a 1% or less failure rate?
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:30 pm
If a 1% failure rate means this program should be eliminated, then the entire prison system with its much, much worse recidivism rate needs to be eliminated first, rite?
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:41 pm
“ we use consistent logic, we would need to note that large swaths of the SAFE-T act were based on police use of force, particularly shootings. Even counting “justified” shootings and use of force, those don’t occur in anything remotely approaching 1% of police interactions.”
This is neither consistent nor logical. Of course we should hold deaths at the hands of agents of the state to a different standard than people accused of, but not convicted of a crime.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:48 pm
“ who have demonstrated they are untrustworthy to follow the law.”
Accused but not convicted. Hard to say they’ve demonstrated anything
Comment by SWIL_Voter Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 12:49 pm
Since everyone seems confused:
The folks getting two days of movement *are still on GPS the whole time*. There is no lack of “active monitoring” unless you choose to define “active monitoring” as “house arrest”. Anyone moving around during the two days of *movement* per week is *still being monitored the whole time* by the anklet on their leg; they never stop being monitored.
Comment by Chambananon Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 1:05 pm
3 C’s going on here. News story focused on controversy, conflict and criticism. Seeking an in-depth programmatic analysis of an initiative’s effectiveness would delay the instant gratification of getting a juicy story.
Comment by Norseman Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 1:06 pm
-Reading is fundamental. The SAFE-T Act does not provide to free days without monitoring. It provides for at least two days of movement outside of the home to participate in specified basic activities like grocery shopping and seeking employment. All of this while monitiored. It’s clear as day in 730 ILCS 5-8a-4 (A) and (A-1). Not that anyone will read it because the fact don’t matter, only the talking points…-
So the Unconvicted, presumed innocent until…guilty being demonized by the GOP and some commenters here are being monitored as they go about their time away from home. One percent of them committed crimes or were crime victims. The GOP solution is make regular life impossible for the 99% to placate the liars and con artists engaging in this campaign? The Dems need to pull a Trump and double down. Think how Trump manages attacks, rinse & repeat.
Comment by froganon Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 1:30 pm
= The folks getting two days of movement *are still on GPS the whole time*. There is no lack of “active monitoring” unless you choose to define “active monitoring” as “house arrest”. =
Thank you for the clarification, this is what I was asking earlier. After reading the article a second time I noticed they talked about GPS data. Referring to it as “unmonitored” lends people to a different conclusion.
Comment by Wonky Kong Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 1:41 pm
Kudos to Main for providing much needed context very early in the article.
The headline and subheader lack that context, however. some might say people should be expected to read the article, but understanding that’s not how most news is consumed, I’d appreciate a more matter of fact headline.
Comment by JJJJJJJJJJ Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 1:56 pm
If these people are the type to literally commit additional crimes while awaiting trial, isn’t them getting caught like… the system working?
Comment by Nick Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 3:20 pm
Sun Times Editorial page has weighed in. they think the people on the bracelets should be monitored, all the time.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Apr 4, 22 @ 8:59 pm