CLAIM: Anyone charged with a “non-detainable offense” will be released immediately after arrest. See graphic below, which is making the rounds on social media.
FACT: The SAFE-T Act does not create any “non-detainable offenses.” Illinois law has no such thing.
Certain crimes, including forcible felonies, stalking, and domestic abuse, guarantee the revocation of pretrial release; meaning, they will not be released after arrest. This is outlined in the act’s section 110-6.1.a.
Some of the crimes listed in the graphic will lead to revocation pretrial release, such as arson and kidnapping. These are defined as forcible felonies by Illinois law.
However, that does not mean perpetrators of other crimes are guaranteed to be let out of jail free. A judge may revoke pretrial release from ANY perpetrator who “poses a specific, real and present threat to any person or the community.” That can include perpetrators of any of the crimes listed in the image above.
Keep in mind: pretrial release is just that–release before a person’s trial. An alleged criminal is not free forever. Once they are tried, they are either found guilty and sentenced or found innocent and released.
===none of the proponents have wanted to admit this in public.===
I guess they would rather let the other side lead the discussion with misleading memes.
Yeah, that’s a winning strategy. /S
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:37 am
Has Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow been talking lately?
Ever since the July 4 Naperville rally and his July 13 appearance on News Nation, his quotes propelled all of the memes about the SAFE-T Act.
But since late August, crickets from Glasgow (I’m sure I missed something) especially since Governor Pritzker’s campaign started weighing in on SAFE-T Act.
Comment by John Lopez Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:37 am
=== Republicans in particular are using certain legislation–House BIll 3653, or the SAFE-T Act–to motivate voters. But there are many claims floating around about what the bill actually does or does not do.===
This drives me nuts. Both Maxwell and Strahan do a great job explaining the facts and guiding readers through basic media literacy. The one thing neither of them do, though, is tell readers who is spreading the lies they identify. Claims do not “float” or move at all without somebody moving them. Republicans aren’t “using” the SAFE-T Act, they’ve created a fictional bill and given it the same name. Why is everyone bending over backwards to blame lies on everyone but the liars?
Comment by vern Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:40 am
The proponents of the SAFE-T act have dropped the ball on messaging. As Rich has pointed on numerous occasions, if you are explaining your are losing.
They have let the Act be defined by the opponents and are now playing from behind in the fourth qaurter. Harmon and Welch need to figure this out before it cost them a seat, or two, or three.
Comment by Give Me A Break Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:43 am
Just responding to Rich’s response to my comment in the other thread about messaging and funding:
1. I agree that Democrats have been historically terrible at messaging nationwide for a long time. It is like they have been afraid to own their own policies. At a national level, I’m hoping all the ‘Dark Brandon’ memes show a willingness to actually be proactive now, and at a local level I’m generally happy with Pritzker and his team (or at least happier than I have been with other Democrats).
However…
2. I think you missed my point in the other comment. It is not just about actual publicly recorded donations. It is about all the money being thrown around in ways like funding startup propaganda outlets like OAN and Newsmax. It is about funding to generate heaps of social media misinformation. There are tons of individuals and organizations involved in right-wring propaganda that will never have their balance sheets show up on a fundraising disclosure.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:44 am
- Bruce( no not him) - Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:37 am:
If you think anything proponents could have said would stop this, you should see a doctor.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:46 am
Not a fan of the memes and misinformation but this article is part of the reason why people don’t trust the legacy news anymore. It’s biased. Republicans are attacking a flawed law, I’m here to defend the Democrats? She feels the need to qualify herself in the 3rd person? “Found innocent”? No mention of the presumption of pretrial release for all offenders and the burden of proof laid upon overworked SAs to keep any of them in required within 48hours? The last bit about Democrats? Cmon
Comment by This aint great either Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:47 am
=== you should see a doctor===
For basic anatomy lessons if nothing else. Mouths speak and fingers type at the direction of the brain they’re attached to, not the brain of whoever the speaker is mad at.
Comment by vern Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:52 am
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” — Voltaire
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:54 am
So, of the Will Counties, ILFOP, Cops, and other control freaks currently promoting prisoner release en masse and lawlessness Jan 1; who puts them back in line before Jan 1? It seems they have some work to do prior to that date. Will they do it or just throw their hands up for effect? I’m convinced now at least some of them quietly want the chaos.
BTW, Rich, I’m not personally concerned about the trespasser/backyard camper claims in the least bit. But it’s red meat on social media and is gaining traction. I’ll give it a rest here. Thanks
Comment by XonXoff Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:56 am
Mark Maxwell loves him some criminal justice reforms and he absolutely loves replying to his own tweets. But more than anything, he loves virtue signaling. It’s the only way he might make it on CNN or MSNBC one day. Gotta keep the ink on his Liberal in Good Standing stamp fresh at all times.
Comment by The Abyss Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:56 am
What’s so frustrating is that so-called officers of the court have chosen to gaslight the issue rather than work with policymakers on improving a needed criminal justice reform. This effort on the part of many states’ attorneys damages the perception of justice in their communities.
Comment by Norseman Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:57 am
It’s OK to be biased against lies.
Comment by Heat of Summer Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:57 am
What is Gov Pritzker’s public safety message? It’s pretty clear - and has been for over a year - that the Republican strategy is to make crime trump other social issues like Choice and Guns. Misinformation and over the top ads will not stop until it stops moving poll numbers.
Comment by Abby Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 9:59 am
Yea guys if only democrats had explained better, Republicans wouldn’t have spread a ton of easily disproved lies about it. Lol
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:05 am
“Republicans are attacking a flawed law”
They’re lying publicly about a law that has yet to go in to effect
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:06 am
The reporter does a good job of looking into the claims – but can she offer the source of the claims? I mean without citing the source she is sort of framing the narrative based on her subjective view. Particularly the last few claims
The government wants to spy on us by putting cameras everywhere.
Democrats will make the state less safe if elected because they want to implement the SAFE-T Act.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:07 am
==Mark Maxwell==
Can you prove him wrong on anything, or we just gonna speculate about his future career moves?
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:08 am
Mark Maxwell’s tweets clearly explain SO MUCH.
I agree with - Norseman - on this very important point made:
===…so-called officers of the court have chosen to gaslight the issue rather than work with policymakers on improving a needed criminal justice reform.===
That’s called being a responsible actor to policy.
It’s the reminder that bad actors have decided a dishonest look is the best way to also, include, apply, a racist thought to it all too.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:13 am
==If you think anything proponents could have said would stop this, you should see a doctor.==
May not be able to stop it, but ignoring it is never a good plan, especially when it seems to be acknowledged to have problems.
And, yes I should probably see a Dr.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:15 am
Explain it. Explain what you are going to do to fix it. the void is being filled with lies but not all angst is fake.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:15 am
=== this article is part of the reason why people don’t trust the legacy news anymore ===
I don’t know if I agree with that entirely, but I do agree this article does less to help than it does to muddy the water a bit. The premise of dispelling information is great, but the references to the reporter and the reporter’s masters degree are strange, as is the fact that there are NO sources except… the reporter?
Comment by ColgateComedyHourSpecial Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:23 am
It’s also classic “alternative facts” kind of disinformation too.
Disingenuous to the core, but sold *exactly*, almost verbatim…
“… what they aren’t telling you…”
It’s not going after facts, arguing facts, or even a discussion to policy. No. It’s a discussion to a misinformation designed to make the misinformation the whole story, even if it’s untrue.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:26 am
It’s gonna be super awkward when 2023 comes and goes without a major surge in violent crime. I’m sure all the liars will come back and apologize for their sincere misunderstandings.
Comment by A Bust Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:28 am
===The government wants to spy on us by putting cameras everywhere.===
.. and yet the ad Proft is showing is from a camera, from a home
Are you worried about your neighbors too?
I kid, I kid.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:31 am
==No mention of the presumption of pretrial release for all offenders and the burden of proof laid upon overworked SAs to keep any of them in required within 48hours?
So put the presumption on people that are supposed to be presumed innocent? Think about what you are saying. We are going to keep people in jail before conviction because a county doesn’t have sufficient staff to demonstrate a need for them to be in pre-trial detention.
What few are paying attention to is that you have a lot of people in pre-trial detention who are not a danger to others, but are just poor.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:34 am
–It seems they have some work to do prior to that date. Will they do it or just throw their hands up for effect?–
I’m not a mind reader, so I can only go off of what I’ve seen Glasgow doing publicly in his position up to this point.
He hasn’t consistently enforced current bail standards, in openly allowing people who publicly violate their current bail/I-bond by being arrested again for the same crime, to remain free.
Based on his current actions in office, my opinion is that Glasgow will not do the work required of his office after Jan 1st just to make things worse, to then be able to point at how much worse things are under the new law.
He seems to not care about the community, he only seems to care about being the one who is in control. No matter how much damage it may cause.
For another example, I believe it was the DuPage Sheriff who went off the rails a few days ago with his threats. Saying he’s just going to release everybody into downtown Wheaton, no matter what.
Basically, law enforcement has decided to use its office and powers as a weapon against its own residents.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:34 am
One area that needs clarifying is the issue of trespassing–I don’t think the law as written means an officer cannot remove a trespasser from someone’s property, but I can see how that can be interpreted that way. Cleaning up such language is probably a good idea.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:37 am
=== as is the fact that there are NO sources except… the reporter
Besides the link to law and other relevant information. If you are discussing what a law says it seems like the ultimate source is the law.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:39 am
“But more than anything, he loves virtue signaling”. - The Abyss
You should be envious of Maxwell’s sentence structure, content and writing style…you write poorly.
Comment by Dotnonymous Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:41 am
===I can see how that can be interpreted that way.===
Yes, by people who oppose the law. If someone won’t leave somebody’s property, that can easily be considered a clear danger.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:42 am
===Besides the link to law===
Whew. Wow.
Isn’t that the point?
These memes want the discussion to center around anything but the text of the Act and the actuality of the Act.
So its, again, out there…. (Sigh)
I have real questions to the Act. Real questions.
What I know to the Act, which hasn’t been implemented, no measure to its “good” or “bad”… I do know and look forward to the re-examining that WILL take place by proponents, along with opponents, to make the Act better, stronger, even both.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:44 am
Those Dem Legislators that voted for the Safety Act I think will have a problem. In the DuPage area I live in…..I don’t see them talking about abortion….but many folks here are scared…and are talking about the Safety Act.
I think there will be a significant impact.
Comment by Ryder Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:47 am
===Those Dem Legislators that voted for the Safety Act I think will have a problem. In the DuPage area I live in…..I don’t see them talking about abortion…===
If you’re “betting” that crime will Trump abortion after Lindsey Graham is proposing a national ban…
… yeah… go with that crime idea.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:50 am
— If someone won’t leave somebody’s property, that can easily be considered a clear danger.
Exactly. I wouldn’t mind some clarification though so it cannot be questioned.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 10:55 am
As a downstate Democrat, I’ve witnessed Democrats who back the SAFE-T act sort of curl up and pretend the bill doesn’t exist instead of figuring out how to go on offense and going on offense. That’s sort of a microcosm of Democrats, nationally, and their inability to push messages to red, purple and blue counties. Politics 101 - if you’re on defense you’re losing.
Thanks to Maggie Strahan for her reporting that clarifies the bill.
Comment by Here we go Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 11:00 am
Both before and after, I’ve railed here about the unfortunate, silly, cutesy misnaming of “Fair Tax” as one of the reasons for its failure with the public. I think “Safe-T Act” is in the same category. It is also a bad, ill considered name for a law about needed bail reform when make no mistake many people (on both sides of the aisle) firmly and genuinely believe it will make them less “safe” from criminals. Was there no attempt at market research before rolling this out? Just using the word “safe” to title this bill was an unforced error because it is like squeaky chalk on a blackboard to those who are worried about balancing public safety and bail reform.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 11:01 am
The established patterns (inductive reasoning) are not in the Democrats favor with this.
If judges are showing good judgement about detaining violent defendants, why have there been so many murders and additional violent crimes by dozens of no-bail/no-hold defendants?
I think CWB tracks this.
Too many people don’t feel safe, don’t feel like violence in deescalating, don’t feel like judges are detaining violent aggressors, don’t feel like prosecutors prosecuting violent crimes,
and there is nothing in the SafeT Act that is going to change that perception.
Comment by 40,000 ft Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 11:13 am
–there is nothing in the SafeT Act that is going to change that perception.–
Then the judges and prosecutors better get to work doing their jobs.
What this does is remove a layer of ambiguity that has existed before, and now puts the onus directly on the SAs and judges to be responsible for their own decisions.
It is going to be a lot easier to track this going forward, and it is my belief this is what the real pushback against all of this is ultimately rooted in - the accountability and the anger at the change from those in these positions of authority who have been more easily able to avoid such scrutiny previously.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 11:21 am
@Archpundit- is bail reform and criminal justice reform sorely needed? Yes. But this bill ain’t it. It’s poorly drafted and has a bunch of inconsistencies, which is a big part of the reason why misinformation is spreading so easily.
If you look at pages 375-376 for instance, under that section (unless I am reading it wrong, which I am open to), in order to keep someone in jail an SA has to prove there’s enough evidence they likely did the detainable crime, and that they are a threat to a specific person (not the general community as is stated elsewhere), AND they’re a flight risk- all at a hearing within 48 hours of the filing of a petition to keep them in jail.
Comment by This aint great either Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 11:32 am
- The Abyss -
Good to know you went after Mark Maxwell on … virtue signaling… and couldn’t really go after anything else.
- A Bust -
If you have the lottery numbers in 2023 too, please share.
I’m highlighting these two in my comment because…
… like the meme(s)… these hollow and silly thoughts are what “alternative facts” hope to derail in discussing actual… “things”
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 12:11 pm
===If you look at pages 375-376 for instance, under that section (unless I am reading it wrong, which I am open to), in order to keep someone in jail an SA has to prove there’s enough evidence they likely did the detainable crime, and that they are a threat to a specific person (not the general community as is stated elsewhere), AND they’re a flight risk- all at a hearing within 48 hours of the filing of a petition to keep them in jail. .
You are wrong here. Flight risk isn’t a condition. Read what you just cited. Willful flight is an or condition so it can be another reason to hold someone, but it is not required to hold someone assuming the first two conditions are met.
If an SA cannot demonstrate the first, the person shouldn’t be charged. The second is all they have to demonstrate and if you are going to take away someone’s liberty that is not an unreasonable standard.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 12:42 pm
“It’s bad because the state’s attorneys won’t be able to keep people imprisoned in cages before trial when the state’s attorneys can’t show that they need to be imprisoned in cages before trial.”
An argument that says a lot more about the people making it than it does the bill.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 1:54 pm
In my opinion,regardless of detainable or not, with all the other timeframes and rules, they must follow, law enforcement won’t be arresting very many people in a shift.
Comment by Lowdrag Wednesday, Sep 14, 22 @ 3:26 pm