Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Proft crops Beverly Miles firing allegation out of revised ad
Next Post: Rick Pearson tees off on the Daily Herald: “Beyond the pale”
Posted in:
* Press release…
To help ensure the State of Illinois achieves the goals of the SAFE-T Act, State Senator Scott Bennett filed legislation to clarify language and improve how officials can enforce the law.
“As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of presuming innocence for individuals before being proven guilty, supporting police and keeping violent criminals out of our neighborhoods,” said Bennett (D-Champaign). “Senate Bill 4228 is an effort to improve consistency in the SAFE-T Act and allow law enforcement officials to continue to effectively perform their duties and protect our communities.”
The intent of the law aims to do away with cash bail in an effort to end systemic racism in the criminal justice system. Senate Bill 4228 updates many provisions in the SAFE-T Act by clarifying language to address concerns raised by local law enforcement officials.
Sen. Bennett’s legislation states pretrial release will apply to individuals arrested on or after Jan. 1, 2023. The measure also permits judges to deny pretrial release for any alleged crime if the person arrested poses a threat to the safety of any person or the community.
Sen. Bennett is going to continue to work with all stakeholders, advocates, and his colleagues in hopes of a resolution on these issues during the fall Veto Session.
More here.
* Press release…
The following is a statement from the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice (INPJ) responding to the Safe-T Act trailer bill introduced yesterday to modify the Pretrial Fairness provisions of the law. INPJ is a coalition of 42 organizations whose advocacy and policy work helped shape the Pretrial Fairness Act, a piece of the Safe-T Act:
“The Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice strongly opposes SB4228, the Safe-T Act trailer bill introduced yesterday to modify the Pretrial Fairness provisions of the law. If passed, this bill would cause the number of people jailed while awaiting trial to skyrocket and exacerbate racial disparities in Illinois’ jails.
“The Pretrial Fairness Act was passed after the police murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor galvanized millions of people to demand action to address the racism that permeates the criminal legal system. The changes being proposed are in complete opposition to the spirit of those calls for racial justice and criminal legal system reform.
“The Pretrial Fairness Act was designed to ensure that everyone has access to the presumption of innocence, and the changes included in SB4228 would deny all Illinoisians that right. If passed, these measures would create a pretrial system that is far worse than the one in place today.
“It is absolutely essential that any changes to the Pretrial Fairness Act be made in the same spirit in which it was written. Using this historic legislation as a vehicle for incarcerating more Black and brown people would be a slap in the face to the communities that have suffered under the injustices of the money bond system for decades.”
A couple of their talking points…
* Restricts application of the law to charges committed after January 1, 2023, stranding tens of thousands of people in jail on unpaid money bonds.
* Allows prosecutors to ask that anyone be jailed indefinitely without bail, beyond the authority they had prior to the passage of the SAFE-T Act.
Others may not be too persuasive…
Creates a presumption of detention for people charged with crimes that would require them to serve life in prison if convicted. The Illinois Constitution requires that the state have the burden to prove that an individual should be detained. The individual cannot be given the burden to prove they deserve release. […]
Removes the Pretrial Fairness Act’s provisions requiring tickets instead of arrests for very minor, non-violent crimes, allowing police to arrest in nearly every circumstance.
* Meanwhile, DuPage County State’s Attorney Bob Berlin has a reputation for being a voice of moderation on this topic…
With so many questions about bond provisions in Illinois’ SAFE-T Act, we invited DuPage County state’s attorney Bob Berlin to the studio to outline his concerns as well as changes he would support. Here’s our conversation on @WGNNews https://t.co/IX7wJwzldJ
— Ben Bradley (@BenBradleyTV) September 23, 2022
But…
* Related…
* SAFE-T Act takes center stage at candidate debate: [Sen. Patrick Joyce, D-Essex] voted against the bill. “The bill has a lot of good merits [including use of body cams] and it also has some real problems,” Joyce said, noting that he has having conversations with sheriff’s offices and state’s attorneys’ offices to continue understanding what’s needed in the bill before it’s to be signed on Jan. 1.
* SAFE-T slander: Misinformation surrounds Illinois’ new criminal justice reform law
* Here’s what a Republican-led ‘Contract with Illinois’ would look like: 1) Make Illinois a safer and better place to live. This starts with an immediate repeal of the “SAFE-T Act,” which ends the practice of “cash bail” and removes an important roadblock preventing hardened criminals from simply reoffending without much consequence. In other areas, such as funding for mental health professionals, we can work to make sure our local police departments have the resources they need to keep our communities safe.
* Texas Bail Reform Reduced Jail Time and Crime, New Study Says: Ending cash payments for most low-level offenses is working for Greater Houston, research shows.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 10:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Proft crops Beverly Miles firing allegation out of revised ad
Next Post: Rick Pearson tees off on the Daily Herald: “Beyond the pale”
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“As a former prosecutor, I understand the importance of presuming innocence for individuals before being proven guilty,…”
Are you sure?…is there no possibility of acquittal?
Comment by Dotnonymous Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:00 am
==It is absolutely essential that any changes to the Pretrial Fairness Act be made in the same spirit in which it was written==
In other words, no changes.
Comment by City Zen Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:05 am
=== Bob Berlin has a reputation for being a voice of moderation on this topic… ===
Moderation is a seldom known characteristic for MAGA GOP politicians.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:10 am
sheriff won’t have all that cash to deal with anymore
Comment by Rabid Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:16 am
Bob Berlin is only a “voice of moderation” compared to Glasgow and those filing lawsuits and screaming hysterically about the “end of days.” There’s a definite “good cop-bad cop” thing going on with the State’s Attorneys, but let’s not pretend they are good faith actors, they’re just trying to play every angle. Berlin and others have very recently started claiming to be proponents of ending money bond, but they have a long record of opposing reforms and defending the current broken and racist system. Meanwhile Berlin is out there making appearances with Jeanne Ives and Dan Proft . . .
Comment by charles in charge Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:20 am
I’m amazed that anyone from the Will County system is still publicly demanding the reinstatement of money bail. Their own inmates were committing fraud from jail to pay for release. Find a tiny bit of shame in your hearts, people.
Comment by vern Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:21 am
““As a former prosecutor”
I just had flashbacks…
Comment by NIU Grad Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:28 am
How sad that you all can’t see the trouble this bill may create. Smart people, on both sides of the aisle, want to make reasonable changes to protect the public and you wrap that up by screaming at republicans. How about dropping your political rants and look whats good for the general public??
Comment by Mr. Big Trouble Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:39 am
===may===
… andyet both Pritzker and Raoul stated, publicly, that the Act will likely face some changing or something different.
Meanwhile, it’s not even implemented yet.
===by screaming at republicans.===
Are you more concerned about the partisan discussion or the discussion already engaged at making the Act better?
Comment by Oswego Willy Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:42 am
I agree with Rabid’s implicit message. Detaining suspects raises money for jails. In the absence of jail time, jails become more expensive to maintain. I think the issue is significant in that there will be less funding of jails if suspects are not compelled to pay “room and board” and excessive phone bills, commissary prices, etc.
It could also be about fear. But money surely is a part of the formula.
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:55 am
Im not seeing SB 4228 on ilga? Am i doing something wrong?
Comment by low level Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 11:58 am
Bennett voted for the SAFE-T Act — and he’s running unopposed, so it’s not like he’s trying to score cheap points because his re-election is threatened. This seems like a modest effort that clears up some of the ambiguity in the law on trespassing, what happens January 1st to people who are already being held, etc. It will takeaway some of the opponents most effective talking points and still eliminate cash bail.
Comment by TNR Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 12:00 pm
===Am i doing something wrong? ===
Yes. lol
You have to wait until the Senate reads it into the record. But click that “more” link and you’ll see some excerpts
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 12:03 pm
“It is absolutely essential that any changes to the Pretrial Fairness Act be made in the same spirit in which it was written. “
Couldn’t think of a worse talking point for the proponents to use.
Comment by Yeah no Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 12:08 pm
When is the next time the Senate meets so it can be read into the record?
Comment by low level Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 12:19 pm
* the only reason Im asking is I want to send it to people who will want to see the exact language.
Comment by low level Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 12:26 pm
low level, try contacting the Senator’s Springfield Office and see if they will email you a PDF copy.
Senator 52nd District
121A Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-2507
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 1:11 pm
This site is tailored to Illinois government policy wonks who would actually read a bill or a law to learn the exact wording and analyze this. Can you imagine just being some hard working white or blue collar person trying to make sense of the competing noise on the impact of this? And the racket over the proposed Workers Rights Amendment question might be even more confusing. Maybe a SAFE-T amendment will help to clarify it. This is where those old fashioned things called local newspapers used to really help.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 1:28 pm
==As a former prosecutor==
“I did not know that. Did you know that? That is weird wild stuff.” Dana Carvey as Johnny Carson (SNL)
Comment by AcademicUnionStateEmployee Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 1:34 pm
How sad that you don’t care about the injustice of people accused of lessor crimes and who are innocent until proven guilty by trial being held in jail because they don’t have money.
How sad that you can’t see the perfidy in the lies that are being spread for partisan purposes. The partisans are not talking about clarifications or substantive changes to improve this justice reform measure for the benefit of the public. They are demanding repeal while misrepresenting the law for political benefit.
Comment by Norseman Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 1:34 pm
=== Maybe a SAFE-T amendment will help to clarify it.===
Can’t say I’m in favor of changing a law simply because opponents told confusing lies about it. But congrats on another novel entry in the genre of “Republican lying is a natural phenomenon that Democrats are responsible for preventing.”
Comment by vern Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 2:52 pm
Seems like someone always thinks the world is going to end when certain laws are passed. Gay marriage? World ending. Marijuana legalized? World ending. Maybe we ought to just let the law actually take effect and see what needs to be tweaked, if anything, after that happens.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 3:07 pm
It sounds to me like Bob and the State’s Attorney’s are upset that they actually have to work to prove whether people are a flight risk or now instead of the presumption being that they are.
Comment by The Diplomat Tuesday, Sep 27, 22 @ 4:13 pm