Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Governor’s office says Will County state’s attorney spreading “misinformation” about SAFE-T Act

Posted in:

Illinois

* Center Square…

At a recent event, Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow pushed for a repeal of the SAFE-T Act.

“It will destroy the state of Illinois,” Glasgow said. “I have 640 people in the Will County jail. All their bonds will be extinguished on Jan. 1, and 60 are charged with murder.” “

* I asked Jordan Abudayyeh for a response…

To be very clear, the Pre-trial Fairness Act creates a system where detention is based on risk, rather than poverty: that’s why domestic violence groups and other victims’ rights groups support it. There is nothing in the law that requires those suspected of crimes be let out of prison when it goes into effect. There are too many people that have been held not because they’re a risk, but simply because they could not afford monetary bail, and not only does that affect that person in custody but also their family. At the same time, victim’s rights groups have long been concerned that dangerous individuals have been released simply because they could afford to pay bail. Public safety is best addressed by focusing on risk rather than money.

Background
• When the law goes into effect, the State’s Attorney would have the ability to go to court and present evidence as to why a person suspected of a crime should be held, and a judge could rule to hold them.
• The State’s Attorney has seemingly identified 60 people that he believes will pose a risk to public safety if released. That is the first step in preparing for a future bond hearings focusing on the risk factors rather than monetary bail request considerations. The state’s attorneys have time to plan ahead, assessing both the pending and future cases.
• The Illinois Supreme Court Pretrial Implementation Task Force has published draft conditions flowcharts and considerations for use by all law enforcement and criminal justice officials. They are currently accepting suggestions at pretrialtaskforce@illinoiscourts.gov

o It’s clear from the State’s Attorney’s misinformation about the Act that he might not be fully aware of how the law works and we would urge him to visit the website to learn more and provide his feedback.
o https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/additional-resources/pretrial-implementation-task-force/

• Attached: Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices Final Report

The attachment is here.

posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 8:52 am

Comments

I appreciate that Pritzker’s team responded with reasons why a claim was not true, rather than just dismiss it as not true. This is how you drive out noise.

Comment by DuPage Dad Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 8:59 am
-= he might not be fully aware of how the law works =-

He’s fully aware how the law works. He’s just lying for his personal interests.

If the AG ever doubts he understands how the law works, do an investigation on the amount of asset forfeiture cases he leads. Seriously. Look into that. Please.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:02 am
I would ask if the good people of Will county are really gullible enough to believe the legislature would pass a law that requires murder suspects to be let loose, but they did elect Glasgow in the first place, so….probably yeah?

Comment by Lester Holt’s Mustache Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:03 am
-= are really gullible enough =-

When glasgow says these things, the local Shaw newspaper(Joliet Herald) never covers it. They never cover anything he says or does, unless he’s giving himself an award from one of his charities. The actions out of his office are rarely if ever reported in the local news. He made this claim weeks ago. It has never shown up in local news coverage.

Most of the good people of Will County haven’t heard any of this this yet. Or when he made that other claim that “when someone is arrested, they are guilty” a few months back.

An investigative reporter could make a lifetime career in Will County.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:11 am
The big question is if Glasgow is going to let these 60 people out based on spite and “proving” his point, rather than going to a judge…

Comment by NIU Grad Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:17 am
Purposeful misinformation is how ignorance is spread.

I guess the merits of the act are too difficult to argue against?

Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:17 am
== There are too many people that have been held not because they’re a risk, but simply because they could not afford monetary bail, and not only does that affect that person in custody but also their family. ==

It also affects the likely trial outcomes of non-violent offenders, when because they are poor, the cannot afford to leave jail until the trial.

For example, let’s say a young college student is arrested for possession, and is taken to jail. Let’s assume then that the student cannot afford to post bail. Let’s assume then that the student’s case is not heard until after the student has spent three weeks in jail.

The outcome of any trial, regardless of whose drugs were found (they may not belong to the student), will declare that the student who was arrested be awarded credit for “time served,” and billed court costs and jail costs for “time served.”

As a professor, I have seen this situation play out so many, many times in this small county. Kids get caught doing stupid. Courts adjust sentencing to reflect time served, rather than actually adjudicating each case separately.

Comment by H-W Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:18 am
The law explicitly prevents the results of a risk assessment from being the sole basis for a detention decision. Abudayyeh’s statement appears to gloss right over this fact. Again, risk alone cannot be the basis of the decision for an indefinite pretrial detention. 725 ILCS 195/2

Comment by Ainsley Hayes Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:29 am
Happy to see more attention on this. Still waiting for the short version directly addressing the criminal trespass (backyard camper) misdemeanor example FOP throws around. Seems they’re perfectly happy throwing their hands up if it makes the left look bad for a minute.

Comment by XonXoff Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:30 am
===The law explicitly prevents===

The statute you cited doesn’t contain the words risk or assessment. It’s just the mechanics of how pre-trial release and conditions work, nothing at all about basis. Are you sure that’s the right citation?

Comment by vern Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:45 am
Jordan does a good job of pushing back on this and is being kind in her characterization that Glasgow is somehow unware of what the change law requires. It is after all his job to know that.

Glasgow has a strong preference for incarceration regardless of the crime, circumstances, or impact. He assumes guilt from the onset and sees due process as a hinderance. He sees the SAFE-T Act as an attempt by the legislature to try and tell him how to do his job.

Comment by Pundent Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 9:49 am
@Ainsley Hayes: Section 110-5(d) is the correct cite re: risk assessments:

“The Court may use a regularly validated risk assessment tool to aid its determination of appropriate conditions of release as provided for in Section 110-6.4. Risk assessment tools may not be used as the sole basis to deny pretrial release. If a risk assessment tool is used, the defendant’s counsel shall be provided with the information and scoring system of the risk assessment tool used to arrive at the determination. The defendant retains the right to challenge the validity of a risk assessment tool used by the court and to present evidence relevant to the defendant’s challenge.”

If the “sole” rationale for detaining someone is the result of a risk assessment rather than the nature of the current charge, past offenses, mental illness that poses a risk to the community, etc. etc. etc. then you’re getting into Minority Report territory. That basically never happens because for someone to score at high risk on such an evaluation that means there are underlying factors that a prosecutor can argue.

Here’s a good article from back in 2019 (pre-SAFE T Act) on the use and abuse of these assessment tools:

https://theappeal.org/how-a-tool-to-help-judges-may-be-leading-them-astray/

Comment by Skokie Man Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:05 am
When you have Kim Foxx as your neighboring attorney, and alot of people in Will County affiliating themselves with Cook… you need to sound an alarm to break through the Chicago media cycle.

That alarm is fake news though, but I understand why he did it.

Comment by Almost the Weekend Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:07 am
@vern

(d) The Court may use a regularly validated risk assessment tool to aid it determination of appropriate conditions of release as provided for in Section 110-6.4. Risk assessment tools may not be used as the sole basis to deny pretrial
release. If a risk assessment tool is used, the defendant’s counsel shall be provided with the information and scoring system of the risk assessment tool used to arrive at the determination. The defendant retains the right to challenge the validity of a risk assessment tool used by the court and to present evidence relevant to the defendant’s challenge.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/101/PDF/101-0652.pdf

Citation at Page 354

Comment by Ainsley Hayes Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:12 am
Not sure why my post was taken down.

Second try- Will County is not the only county this is happening in. These soundbites are from a recent county board meeting in DeWitt County. There was no questioning or pushback during that meeting on the accuracy of the State’s Attorney or the Sheriff. The information that the Governor’s office is posting here, would be good research for a lot of county board officials to make sure they are actually getting correct information on the potential impacts of SAFE-T on their counties.

https://dewittdailynews.com/local-news/644935?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

Comment by Anon221 Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:23 am
As vern pointed out, 725 ILCS 195 is not the correct cite–thay is the Quasi-criminal and misdemeanor code.

The correct cite for the criminal code bail provisions is 725 ILCS 5/110. And risk alone can be a basis for detention, depending on the charged offense, but the burden is on the state to show that such risk exists. Denial of pre-trial release is at 725 ILCS 5/110-6.1

Comment by Anon324 Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:27 am
@Ainsley Hayes — that refers to the use of a risk-assessment tool as the sole factor, not risk itself. The statute allows a judge to hold based on risk, depending on the charged crime, but that decision must be based on more than just “well, the risk-assessment tool says so….so you’re being held.”

Comment by Anon324 Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:33 am
no, the law is not in effect yet but we’ve seen so many released easily in Cook County lately that it is worrisome. the risk assessment tool issue could become very thorny.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:52 am
@Amalia The bulk of people in Ciok have been released on bail because that’s what the current law requires. With the new changes, the standard is whether the person should be released based on risk, crime, etc., not because they can afford to pay the bail.

Comment by WC Smith Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 10:59 am
==Again, risk alone cannot be the basis of the decision for an indefinite pretrial detention.==

That’s not what the statute says. “Risk” is not the same thing as “a validated risk assessment tool”.

Comment by Arsenal Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 11:12 am
I am honestly baffled by the amount of dislike of Kim Foxx I see. She ran on a platform of I won’t upcharge crimes 7 ways to Sunday so that everyone gets a fair shake. And that’s what she’s done. She won reelection on that basis.
Does she sometimes make decisions I wonder about? Yes. Do I agree with her all the time? No. Do I agree with her philosophy? Yes. Am I appalled by opponents calling trespass a precursor crime because people who start with trespassing escalate to murder? Yes, even more so.

Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 11:21 am
@WCSmith, the release comes often because the Cook County SA is lenient.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 11:23 am
==When glasgow says these things, the local Shaw newspaper(Joliet Herald) never covers it.==
Maybe because they realize he’s talking out of his [deleted] and don’t feel the need to give it the light of day?

Comment by Nuke The Whales Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 11:25 am
@Skokie Man, that’s very helpful both for the cite and the analysis. I agree with your read that the nature of the charge, criminal history etc are statutorily distinct from the risk assessment tool. Sorry @Ainsley, I think you’re reading a mountain out of a legislative molehill there.

Comment by vern Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 11:31 am
Jim Glasgow is a Democrat and is the longest serving States Attorney in Will County history with a conviction record 15 points higher than the state’s average.

He obviously knows a lot more about the SAFE-T act than the legislators who passed it in the middle of the night or the commenters.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 11:36 am
“and don’t feel the need to give it the light of day?”

Yes, why would a local paper report on what a local elected official says about a local policy that will directly impact the local residents.

People might do something dumb, like demand accountability - or vote for someone else.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 12:10 pm
Obviously Glasgow didn’t get dealt in on the body cam grift. s/

Comment by Frosty Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 12:21 pm
===He obviously knows a lot more about the SAFE-T act than the legislators who passed it===

The legislators wrote it, and the Governor signed it in the middle of the day a month later. But we don’t need to argue from authority because we have all the info. Glasgow’s words, Pritzker’s words, and the text of the law. If you have a first-order case to make, you can make it. Nobody has to trust anybody to figure out who’s right on this one.

Comment by vern Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 12:22 pm
=I am honestly baffled by the amount of dislike of Kim Foxx I see.=

She’s really disliked - outside of Cook County. But a lot of that is nothing more than a dog whistle. And I’m neither defending or supporting Kim Foxx, nor saying that’s everyone critiquing her is somehow racist, but it is part of the equation particularly the farther you get from Cook County.

Comment by Pundent Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 12:35 pm
I’m so old I remember when “purposeful misinformation” was called “lying through one’s teeth”.

Comment by Dotnonymous Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 12:46 pm
=He obviously knows a lot more about the SAFE-T act than the legislators who passed it in the middle of the night or the commenters.=

All evidence to the contrary. Which is important when dealing with the law.

Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 12:55 pm
for those who wonder why the Cook County SA cannot be trusted, read Dan Webb’s report about p. 26. Referred to the ARDC but they aren’t doing anything with it. And so the mistrust continues.

Comment by Amalia Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 2:59 pm
“for those who wonder why the Cook County SA cannot be trusted, read Dan Webb’s report about p. 26.”

For those who wonder why this Cook County SA was elected, google “Dante Servin” or “Jason Van Dyke” or “Deandre Washington”

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 4:09 pm
Foxx was elected because of Laquan McDonald. She was reelected because her primary opponent was a billionaire Carlyle Group man.

Comment by Correcting Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 5:35 pm
Glasgow is wrong on the law and the ethics. Judges should decide if someone charged with a crime awaits trial at home or in jail - not the almighty dollar.

Comment by Rufus T. Firefly Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 8:05 pm
Read pages 339-381 of Public Act 101-652, and its”trailer bills “first.

Comment by Ares Thursday, Aug 11, 22 @ 11:37 pm