Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Has Glasgow even read the SAFE-T Act?

Posted in:

Illinois

* From a Proft paper quoting Will County State’s Jim Glasgow…

If the SAFE-T Act were in place a violent criminal like Drew Peterson – who is being held on murder charges and was caught on tape planning the murder of Glasgow himself – would have been on the street.

“If you go back to his murder trial, he was in jail for three years on a $20 million bond,” Glasgow said. “That’s the most difficult prosecution I’ve ever handled. And there’s no way in the world that I would have weathered that storm had he been out of jail. In fact, on the overhear when he was captured by the FBI, when they were discussing my murder, he said if he was out on the street, he’d take care of it himself. And then he referenced back to ‘07 when it all started that he was going to take care of it then but he couldn’t slip the media and the police. So there’s real danger at all levels here when violent offenders cannot be held.”

Um, the new law says this about denial of pre-trial release…

Upon verified petition by the State, the court shall hold a hearing and may deny a defendant pretrial release only if:

(1) the defendant is charged with a forcible felony offense for which a sentence of imprisonment, without probation, periodic imprisonment or conditional discharge, is required by law upon conviction, and it is alleged that the defendant’s pretrial release poses a specific, real and present threat to any person or the community.

Since Peterson was caught on tape saying he wanted to murder Glasgow, that would be a pretty darned specific, real and present threat to a person.

* By the way, here’s the rest of that statute for future reference about when people can be held in jail without pre-trial release…

(2) the defendant is charged with stalking or aggravated stalking and it is alleged that the defendant’s pre-trial release poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of a victim of the alleged offense, and denial of release is necessary to prevent fulfillment of the threat upon which the charge is based;

(3) the victim of abuse was a family or household member as defined by paragraph (6) of Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986, and the person charged, at the time of the alleged offense, was subject to the terms of an order of protection issued under Section 112A-14 of this Code, or Section 214 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 or previously was convicted of a violation of an order of protection under Section 12-3.4 or 12-30 of the Criminal Code of 1961 or the Criminal Code of 2012 or a violent crime if the victim was a family or household member as defined by paragraph (6) of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 at the time of the offense or a violation of a substantially similar municipal ordinance or law of this or any other state or the United States if the victim was a family or household member as defined by paragraph (6) of Section 103 of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 at the time of the offense, and it is alleged that the defendant’s pre-trial release poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person or persons;

(4) the defendant is charged with domestic battery or aggravated domestic battery under Section 12-3.2 or 12-3.3 of the Criminal Code of 2012 and it is alleged that the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person or persons;

(5) the defendant is charged with any offense under Article 11 of the Criminal Code of 2012, except for Sections 11-30, 11-35, 11-40, and 11-45 of the Criminal Code of 2012, or similar provisions of the Criminal Code of 1961 and it is alleged that the defendant’s pretrial release poses a real and present threat to the physical safety of any person or persons;

* Some more alleged crimes that can get people held pre-trial…

(A)ggravated discharge of a firearm; aggravated discharge of a machine gun or a firearm equipped with a device designed or use for silencing the report of a firearm; reckless discharge of a firearm; armed habitual criminal; manufacture, sale or transfer of bullets or shells represented to be armor piercing bullets, dragon’s breath shotgun shells, bolo shells or flechette shells; unlawful sale or delivery of firearms; unlawful sale or delivery of firearms on the premises of any school; unlawful sale of firearms by liquor license; unlawful purchase of a firearm; gunrunning; irearms trafficking; involuntary servitude; involuntary sexual servitude of a minor; trafficking in persons; unlawful use or possession of weapons by felons or persons in the Custody of the Department of Corrections facilities; aggravated unlawful use of a weapon; aggravated possession of a stolen firearm.

More here.

posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 11:38 am

Comments

=== he was in jail for three years on a $20 million bond,” Glasgow said. “That’s the most difficult prosecution I’ve ever handled. And there’s no way in the world that I would have weathered that storm had he been out of jail.===

So Glasgow is against a system where everyone who threatens him is held, but in favor of a system where anyone with $20 million can threaten him without being held. Interesting position, to say the least.

Comment by vern Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 11:46 am
Look, we’re not in the business of facts here. We’re in the business of fear.

Comment by Roadrager Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 11:46 am
===Has Glasgow even read the SAFE-T Act?===

For me, this has been what I’ve muttered to myself to this.

My honest question to Glasgow I’ve asked of people I respect and with knowledge has been that very question.

Glasgow seemingly uses his elected elevation to these matters to be one where confused interpretations can find a cite.

There are real questions to the Act. There are. There are questions.

Glasgow has been a bad actor to the honest discussion to those questions.

Why Glasgow is choosing this course in a political discussion and trying to make it pure law and order, that’s another question I’d follow up to Glasgow.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 11:48 am
Hopefully this post will encourage Glasgow to read it more thoroughly.

Comment by walker Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:00 pm
I don’t have one percent of the insight many on this blog have and offer on a regular basis.

But I do believe that almost no one ever reads a piece of legislation. They form their opinions from headlines and press releases from politicians and from organizations (Chiefs of Police, Illinois Sheriffs).

Nuance is rarely if ever a part of these opinions and Glasgow and his ilk count on this as they are willingly dishonest in their comments.

Comment by don the legend Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:03 pm
Kind of funny that Glasgow would pick out Drew Peterson to talk about when Glasgow is one of the people who let him get away with murder for so long. Let’s not forget that Glasgow and company only got serious about investigating, prosecuting, and convicting Peterson because of the intense media heat after the fourth wife went missing. Glasgow still has nothing to show for Stacy. So much for lawman Jim.

Comment by Precinct Captain Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:12 pm
At a public event in Algonquin this weekend hosted by state Representative Suzanne Ness, it was confirmed Kane County State’s Attorney Jamie Mosser working with sources in Springfield on the SAFE-T Act on a variety of fronts, including the public accusations made by James Glasgow since the July 4 rally with DuPage State’s Attorney Bob Berlin in Naperville.

Glasgow also made similar statements on News Nation July 13.

Mosser under pressure in addition to Glasgow concerns, but funding, and the Kane County Board voted last month to NOT go to referendum to help fund changes Kane County needs to make due to the SAFE-T Act.

Listening, watching, and more importantly, talking to elected officials.

Comment by John Lopez Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:14 pm
When “Law and Order” folks do not know the law, they diminish their credibility.

Comment by H-W Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:18 pm
“Hopefully this post will encourage Glasgow to read it more thoroughly.”

Why should he read a statute that he is supposed to enforce? /s

Comment by Huh? Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:23 pm
–Glasgow has been a bad actor–

A serious argument can be made that he is an actual bad actor, in not enforcing the *current* laws.

There was a woman who was arrested a few months ago for leaving her kids in the car while she was in a bar drinking. She was arrested and released on bail, with the condition of not being arrested again.

She was arrested again for the same charge a few months later, but before her hearing for the first arrest, for leaving the same kids in a car while she was drinking in violation of her previous bond. Nothing happened, she was not held in custody for violation of her previous bond despite being an obvious danger to the kids.

But he is asking for half a million of county cannabis tax revenue for his ‘Childrens Advocacy Center’ at the county board meeting this week, because appearing to care about children is more important that caring about children in Will County government.

Glasgow is going to burn down Will County instead of changing how he does things. He long ago lost sight that he is a mere custodian of his position, not a gatekeeper of it.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:30 pm
Democrats have to come up with a better spin on this act. As we all know, voters aren’t going to spend time reading through statutes. If you’re explaining and on defense you’re losing. Period,

Comment by here we go Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:31 pm
“Why Glasgow is choosing this course in a political discussion and trying to make it pure law and order, that’s another question I’d follow up to Glasgow”

The Safe-T Act established Illinois as the first state to abolish cash bail - it passed without GOP support - so what did you expect - of course, it is a political discussion.

Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:38 pm
=== Democrats have to===

Because, as we all know, Democrats are the only political actors with free will. Republicans should never be criticized for lying, they’re wild animals with no moral agency to speak of. If a Republican SA who graduated from law school can’t read a law, or will just invent parts of the law that don’t exist, it’s obviously the Democrats’ responsibility to fix that. /s

Comment by vern Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:43 pm
–Democrats have to come up with a better spin on this act.–

Believe it or not(because I have a hard time myself), Glasgow is a D.

But do they really have to come up with some spin here? It’s a repeat of the fear mongering we all just lived through with the legalization of cannabis, just with some noun and verb substitutions. Drug cartels have not taken over neighborhoods, and kids are not overdosing on cannabis in schools, as the Baileys of the world were trying to make everyone afraid of.

At some point, you just let the paranoid scream over in the corner, and go on with your day.

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:48 pm
Lawyers are notoriously resistant to change. The new law is demonstrable better regarding pre-adjudication detention/release - but it’s different, so therefore it’s bad.

Comment by James R. Anderson Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:52 pm
===it passed without GOP support===

Bipartisanship is a want, not a requirement of passage.

Glasgow as a Dem and choosing to be a bad actor and frankly being one who appears hasn’t read the Act makes the political calculus baffling.

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:53 pm
Glasgow has read the MAGA GOP talking points. Isn’t that good enough?

IMHO, it’s got to be one of three things regarding Glasgow: 1) He hasn’t read the full Act; 2) He’s read it but is too obtuse to understand it; or 3) He’s staying consistent with MAGA GOP SOP and simply lying for political benefit.

Comment by Norseman Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:57 pm
- John Lopez -

Interesting stuff.

I didn’t see that information on your Twitter

Why is your Twitter gone?

Comment by Oswego Willy Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 12:59 pm
==Democrats have to come up with a better spin==

How about “Bail was never intended to be a fine, so why do Glasgow (and prosecutors like him) still treat it as such?”

Comment by Jocko Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 1:03 pm
==Democrats have to come up with a better spin==

“Do we really want to preserve a system that allows the JB Pritzkers of the world to buy their way out of prison?”

Make their head explode by pointing out the current system benefits their mortal enemy.

Comment by Former Downstater Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 1:24 pm
The law simply seems too extreme. Some good ideas in there. But eliminating cash bail? Erecting additional bureaucratic steps to keeping certain people in jail? No thanks, at a time of spiking crime. Criminals are emboldened by the relentless attacks by media and academics and activists on the police. There’s also the not insignificant problem of the breakdown of families, a topic which appears to be the third rail these days.

Comment by Chitruth Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 3:52 pm
===”Do we really want to preserve a system that allows the JB Pritzkers of the world to buy their way out of prison?”===

Then hit them with “The GOP want to let gangbangers buy their way out of jail with drug money.”

Comment by thechampaignlife Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 4:28 pm
Glasgow only cares about “law and order” when it suits him. Has anyone actually ever looked into the man? He didn’t go after Drew until the media and public forced him to, his whole save the women and children initiatives are just a schtick and a way to have re-election campaign sound bites. He could care less about victims, especially when the perpetrator is a police officer. If anyone wants some fun evening reading I suggest you Google “Samantha Harer”. He’s a sorry excuse for a prosecutor.

Comment by Neighborhood Raccoon Monday, Sep 12, 22 @ 6:26 pm
The fact that the Safe -T Act was over 700 pages and was thrown before our elected officials (GOP & Dem) in the middle of the night on the last day caused it to lose credibility as to it being a righteous law with the citizens of the state of Illinois. It was handled like so many other legislative strategies as if Mike Madigan was in charge of “ruling the state as his private fiefdom”. People want “transparency” and they want legislation “out in the open” for at least several weeks so they can read and study it before they are forced to vote on it. That doesn’t seem, on the surface, to be an unreasonable request.

Comment by Inquisitive Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 7:40 am
===if Mike Madigan was in charge of “ruling the state as his private fiefdom”===

Mike Madigan. Living rent-free in your head, lol

He’s been gone for a bit.

Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 7:43 am
What does this bill do for people who are serving time for drugs.

Comment by buterfly Tuesday, Sep 13, 22 @ 2:31 pm