Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Dems, Pritzker fending off crime and immigration-related attacks
Next Post: Early poll has Lightfoot with very slight lead over Garcia
Posted in:
* “Clearing the air amid confusion about the Illinois Safe-T Act,” read the CBS2 headline, so I clicked it. And then I laughed out loud because it was another “both sides” piece featuring Tom DeVore.
Still, there was some useful information in the piece. And, frankly, it was infinitely better than the stuff that’s been published and broadcast for the past several months, which have allowed critics of the law to go unchallenged.
* But, man, some of these stories are really long. The Tribune’s piece, albeit well-written, is 2,500 words. It’s tough to combat a simple meme with a novella, but it is what it is…
[House Republican Leader Jim Durkin] warned at the Zoom-based news conference that “for the first time, a defendant will be able to compel a victim to appear at a detention hearing,” a proceeding that will replace a traditional bond hearing.
“I have no idea what, other than intimidation … that would be able to accomplish but to drag a victim, a woman who has been beaten close to death or a child who has been sexually assaulted … (into being) compelled through the defendant to appear at a detention hearing,” Durkin said.
After Durkin’s news conference, the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation alleged over Twitter that the Republicans used “gender-based violence victims to make false and repeated claims” about the law. CAASE cited an excerpt of the statute to argue that the Pretrial Fairness Act actually makes it more difficult for defense attorneys to call victims to the witness stand in court.
According to the statute, the defense “shall petition the court for permission” to call a “complaining witness,” or victim, in its favor. The defense’s request to compel a victim to testify would be granted only if the judge finds “by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant will be materially prejudiced” without the victim’s testimony.
The law also is supposed to make it easier for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking to file protective orders against suspects.
* Capitol News Illinois’ story is about 3,000 words and is also a must-read for the very interesting nuggets like this one…
A nonpartisan task force formed under the Supreme Court, meanwhile, is working to assist with implementation in the justice system ahead of Jan. 1 and has identified unclear or contradictory sections of the bill that lawmakers should reconsider before Jan. 1.
“It is frustrating because many aspects of the statute are not clear,” retired Judge Robbin Stuckert, who chairs the Pretrial Implementation Task Force, said at a July town hall meeting. “They may be vague, gray areas. And again, we are charged by the Supreme Court to assist with implementation.”
The law’s sponsors in the General Assembly said they are working with the task force on legislation clarifying some of those matters – particularly when it comes to detainable offenses – for potential passage this fall. […]
Another problem, the task force and others have noted, is that the statute does not address what happens to those already held in lieu of bail when the calendar hits Jan. 1.
“There is nothing in the law that requires those suspected of crimes be let out of prison when it goes into effect,” Pritzker’s spokesperson, Jordan Abudayyeh, said in a statement, suggesting that jurisdictions begin considering what happens to those individuals and scheduling hearings.
Stuckert, however, said the law’s silence on the matter leaves it to interpretation in court.
“Every meeting that I go to… the first thing they say to me, ‘What happens January 1?’ and I say, ‘I don’t know,’” she said.
The General Assembly and proponents should’ve fixed this stuff in the spring session rather than wait until just weeks before implementation day to do something about it.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:58 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Dems, Pritzker fending off crime and immigration-related attacks
Next Post: Early poll has Lightfoot with very slight lead over Garcia
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The mostly silent response (except for tacitly agreeing with the premise) from JBP is disappointing. Especially after he allowed the Fair Tax to get buried.
It honestly looks even worse when compared to the all out blitz to prop up Bailey in the primary.
Comment by SWSider Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:08 am
=The mostly silent response (except for tacitly agreeing with the premise) from JBP is disappointing. Especially after he allowed the Fair Tax to get buried.=
This all goes back to hiring primarily from Hillary’s staff. HRC Campaign were measuring the drapes for the Oval Office Labor Day Weekend of 2016. His staff thought they won after they got the Fair Tax Amendment on the ballot. And they thought they crossed the finish line after passing the SAFE-T Act in a legislature that is dominated by Democrats.
They want the headlines and bravado, but don’t want to do the heavy lifting. It’s a pattern that’s been apparent for six years with the leadership at the top.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:12 am
I wonder how much of a behind-the-scenes struggle has been happening between Pritzker’s notoriously arrogant governing staff and his proactive, aggressive campaign staff.
Their response to the SAFE-T Act criticism has been giving off Governor’s Office vibes (”There is no problem and everyone criticizing us is wrong”).
Comment by NIU Grad Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:15 am
most rightwing attacks follow Brandolini’s law
same for border dispute
why address issues head-on when you can make your opposition looks like buffoons for free
and the public eats it up
Comment by halving_fun Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:16 am
-most rightwing attacks follow Brandolini’s law-
Those right wingers sure have a lot of power in Illinois and Chicago. Jedi mind tricks?
Comment by Steve Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:19 am
“‘What happens January 1?’ and I say, ‘I don’t know,’” she said”
Like many things, I’m sure the Safe-T act looked good on paper to its proponents. Massively upending the criminal justice system is very complex and now it is the hottest of hot political footballs, making last-minute changes looks desperate. Good luck with this mess.
Comment by Donnie Elgin Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:20 am
The Capitol News Illinois piece is the best one I have read, and points out some very significant problems with the new process. What it failed to touch on is that there will be a revenue loss associated with phase out of cash bond that the General Assembly has not addressed.
Comment by Anonymous 103 Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:20 am
prime example Steve
u couldn’t have demonstrated the concept any better
Comment by halving_fun Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:23 am
==The General Assembly and proponents should’ve fixed this stuff in the spring session rather than wait until just weeks before implementation day to do something about it.==
This. None of this is a shocking revelation to members of the general assembly. The issues of vagueness with parts of this law were apparent a year ago, and they had all Spring to clear at least some of it up. It wouldn’t have satisfied everyone, obviously; but it would’ve given them a stronger argument now, had they done it right. Instead, they let it sit and become an election issue, which is mind boggling.
Comment by fs Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:24 am
“…2,500 words
“…3,000 words”
The folks that believe the memes aren’t going to read thousands of words. Period.
The Dems have to do better to get the word out succinctly.
Comment by Bruce( no not him) Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:33 am
Pritzker’s notoriously arrogant governing staff
Tell me you are not a serious person without telling me you are not a serious person. Pritzker’s staff is effective. Just bc that’s not something this state has seen out of a Governor’s office in almost 20 years doesn’t make them “notoriously arrogant.”
The law does need to be clarified but I’m tired of this idea that if Democrats could just come up with a quippy enough response to people lying about a law then all messaging problems will go away. In the wake of George Floyd the black caucus underwent a serious, months long process to bring more fairness to the criminal justice system. It was nuanced difficult work that is not going to fit neatly into a 30 second ad. Especially when the other side is yelling “PURGE!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!”
Dems are in an impossible situation. If they fight fire with fire (see Governor’s efforts to deal with Griffin and Irvin) there is a whole segment of the news media that clutch their pearls and say the Dems are abandoning their principles.. If they spend time responsibly explaining - well then everyone says they are spending too much time explaining.
I’d suggest maybe everyone remember where we were in the summer of 2020 - saying something had to be done. Illinois did something and something that overall is very good. We all need to fight back against the lies and stop pretending that battling the right wing Willie Horton racism machine is something simple or easy.
Comment by DePaul Grad Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 10:42 am
when you start from a place of there are too many people in jail or prison and not from a place of who belongs in jail or prison, you get legislation that is confusing and needs cleanup.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 11:14 am
Democrats had better…K.I.S.S.
Comment by Dotnonymous Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 11:36 am
Thank you for linking the Capitol News Illinois piece. I’ve just forwarded it to a number of people who I think will take the time to read it.
Comment by Responsa Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:25 pm
==when you start from a place of there are too many people in jail or prison and not from a place of who belongs in jail or prison, you get legislation that is confusing and needs cleanup.==
When you start from a place of refusing to accept the premise that it is important to reduce the number of people in jail or prison (which should hardly be controversial considering the degree to which the U.S. leads the world in incarceration), you get fake solutions and no actual progress on addressing that issue.
Comment by charles in charge Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 12:40 pm
Strongly agree with Rich’s last sentence. Especially given the Supreme Court’s non-partisan implementation task force began pointing out issues with the Act over one year ago.
Also, the Supreme Court of Illinois established non-partisan committees to study and make recommendations prior to passage of the PFA. Most of those recommendations were ignored.
At least the Illinois Supreme Court (and a lot of stakeholders) tried.
Comment by BCOSEC Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 1:21 pm
The court system is going to completely bog down starting January 1.
Comment by Chicagonk Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 1:57 pm
–(”There is no problem and everyone criticizing us is wrong”)–
That is quite often the stance once takes when responding to lies and misinformation.
Comment by Politix Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 4:00 pm
@Charles in charge, all the studies, right and left, of how to reduce prison population indicated that release of non violent offenders would not substantially reduce the imprisoned. this has surprised many. which means that those going in are generally violent offenders. the Federal system is not the big issue, it is the States. and the imprisoned population is not generally what the left portrays it to be.
Comment by Amalia Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 4:32 pm
Sorry, the Anon at 5:58 pm was me. Forgot to fill out the name.
Also here is data showing that only 40% of prisoners are behind bars for violent crimes.
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2022.html#:~:text=But%20over%2040%25%20of%20people,of%20otherwise%20well%2Dcrafted%20policies.
So…. where is your data coming from, exactly?
Comment by Commissar Gritty Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 5:59 pm
Prison populations are very different from jail populations, so citing prison stats is not really relevant to Pretrial jail population discussions.
Comment by Rambler fan Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 9:26 pm
Here’s just one bit to make your head spin. “Kevin Wozniak, director of the criminal justice and criminology major at the University of Massachusetts Boston, said releasing only those convicted of non-violent offenses may be a mistake. He said violent offenders have some of the lowest recidivism rates, meaning they are less likely to commit crimes after release.”
“The majority of the overall incarcerated population is convicted of a violent offense,” Wozniak said. “If we kind of put them completely off the table, we’re very quickly going to hit the ceiling of what we can achieve.”
Comment by Amalia Monday, Sep 19, 22 @ 11:25 pm
Wozniak said “convicted.”
I thought the thread was about people who hadn’t been convicted.
Comment by Da big bad wolf Tuesday, Sep 20, 22 @ 8:23 am
- Da big bad wolf, I was responding to an ask about prison population.
Comment by Amalia Tuesday, Sep 20, 22 @ 8:41 am
OK, let’s get back to the topic. Quoting Boston egg-heads about off-topic matters is a 5-yard penalty with no loss of down. Thanks.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 20, 22 @ 8:56 am
Immediately after chopping off his feet, they also remove
his whole arm and continue to make exciting of him.
Comment by Marcelo Thursday, Sep 22, 22 @ 1:50 pm