Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* Edwardsville Intelligencer from September 8th…
A Troy man accused of shooting a woman to death early Tuesday posted $100,000 bail Friday and was released from the Madison County Jail, a spokesperson at the facility confirmed late Friday afternoon.
* Scott Holland referenced that story in his latest column…
Without cash bail as an option, the suspect would’ve spent the last two weeks in county lockup, and he’d generally be there outside of court appearances as the criminal trial proceeds. Instead, he found the money to buy time at home. That’s the system proponents fought to preserve, including the Madison County state’s attorney who helped the ultimately unsuccessful legal challenge seeking to block the reform.
“Accused killer pays $100,000 to leave county jail” isn’t the whole story, but it’s enough information to question how the old system stacks the legal deck – and in whose favor.
* And now, the Madison County state’s attorney is using the SAFE-T Act to try and put that Troy man back in jail…
The Madison County State’s Attorney’s Office filed a petition Monday to deny pretrial release for a Troy man accused of murder, even though the defendant has been free on $100,000 bail since Sept. 8.
Cash bail, however, no longer exists in Illinois as of Monday via the state’s SAFE-T Act.
Now, a judge in Madison County court is required to hold an “immediate” detention hearing, according to the new law.
Michael S. Perham, 52, of Troy, faces two counts of first-degree murder in the shooting of his girlfriend, Maha Tiimob, in a Troy townhouse on Sept. 5. […]
That petition brings to light more details in the fatal shooting of Tiimob, who allegedly was shot multiple times, including at least twice in the back, court records show.
* Related…
* Some downstate counties struggled as bail reform took hold this week; one didn’t even try applying the new law: In the McLean County courthouse in Bloomington, three people had pretrial hearings on Monday. The hearings happened in a packed courtroom, with four judges and State’s Attorney Erika Reynolds watching from the gallery. Reynolds was one of several state’s attorneys who joined a failed legal bid to stop the abolition of bail. In an example of Monday’s confusion over the new law’s implementation, the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney debated whether a man arrested Saturday on gun charges was eligible for cash bail under the old system or if he should be processed under the new system. Unlike what played out in Sangamon County, the man’s attorney argued he should be eligible for the old cash bail system, hoping to get his client out of jail. Ultimately, the judge sided with prosecutors, and McLean County had its first hearing on a petition to detain under the new system. Prosecutors successfully argued that the defendant — a 24-year-old accused of possessing a gun as a felon — posed a risk to public safety.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:24 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
State’s Attorney Haine said the SAFE T Act would lead to the largest jail break in Illinois history. Turns out Haine’s preferred system of cash bail allowed a murderer to roam free while awaiting trial but the new law gives him a tool to detain the accused murderer. It bears asking whether Haine is ignorant of how to do his job or whether he was lying in his previous statements. Too bad nobody will bother to ask.
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:29 am
The law abiding citizens of Illinois didn’t deserve to be put through this legislative experiment. Democratic extremism, bad process, will result in bad outcomes.
Comment by James Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:30 am
I’m guessing James didn’t read the story…or maybe he’s cool with alleged girlfriend-shooters roaming the streets?
Comment by The Truth Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:32 am
Wait, wait, wait.
Stop.
So this is telling me that the Safe-T Act is incarcerating pre-trial?
That can’t be right. Is it?
So all those who voted against the Safe-T Act woulda wanted this person out free?
It’s that ridiculous, looking at this Act in such absolutes instead of understanding the goals, objectives, and the law… and coming to one’s own terms of “innocent until proven guilty”… and “justifiable pre-trial incarceration”
It would BEHOOVE all these SAs and Sheriffs to study the tools available to them instead of complaining they have no way to do a job, and showing a gross ineptitude… by their own choice.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:34 am
==Democratic extremism, bad process, will result in bad outcomes. ==
This post provides evidence of bad outcomes due to the old process. Does that make you an extremist?
Comment by supplied_demand Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:37 am
==Democratic extremism, bad process, will result in bad outcomes. ==
This is what trolling looks like.
The troll either 1) did not read the articles or 2) thinks folks with money should be allowed to roam free no matter what they did and that poor folks who shoplift should stay locked up, lose their jobs, lose their kids, etc.
To the post: The new system (keep people who pose a threat behind bars until their trial and let those who don’t pose a threat lead their lives - earning money, taking care of their kids, etc) makes me feel safer.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:49 am
I’m not sure what the complaint is about elimination of cash bail, where prosecutors still have the option of asking a judge to order dangerous people or flight risks to be held.
The complaints appear to be a mish mash of people who never understood how cash bail worked in the first place, to people who are sad they can’t extort the accused for funds, to people who just want to lock up everyone as soon as they are accused with no trial, to lastly the people who just think anything is bad because Dems voted for it.
It is fun trying to figure out which category a given complainer falls into. But basically none of them actually meaningfully discuss the actual pros and cons of the old system and the new.
Comment by Homebody Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:52 am
==The law abiding citizens of Illinois didn’t deserve to be put through this legislative experiment.==
You say “legislative experiment” like your preferred state of affairs was some natural state of affairs. But I’m sorry, while you may prefer to jail people based on how poor they are, that, too, was a policy that only existed because legislators wanted it to.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:52 am
But I was told it only cash bail which kept dangerous criminals off the street
Comment by Nick Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:53 am
===legislative experiment===
Signed legislation that isn’t an experiment in this case.
You lack the actual intellectual maturity to understand that what you think is merely a partisan policy, it’s now state law, and likely you couldn’t explain the difference in policy objectively.
If it makes you feel better, then…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 9:59 am
Incredible.
Comment by DuPage Dad Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:02 am
“the suspect was no longer in detention, having paid 10% of his $1 million bond…Now, a judge in Madison County court is required to hold an “immediate” detention hearing, according to the new law”
The transition from the cash bail system - which has been in place for many decades and is still the standard practice in 40-plus states - to the 100% partisan Safe-T Act which passed w/o a single GOP vote, will be bumpy. The Troy man’s story is but the first of many, and with human nature being what is it there will unfortunately be other crimes that will highlight the Safe-T Act in a negative light.
https://www.mdrc.org/news/mdrc-news/other-states-bail-reform
Comment by Donnie Elgin Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:07 am
===that will highlight the Safe-T Act in a negative light.===
Explain in the context of Rich’s post.
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:11 am
No one is asking why a judge would set a $100,000 bond on a murder case?
I have never heard of a murder bond that low.
Judges made terrible decisions prior to Safe-T Act. That will continue.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:12 am
Stand by, now being told he posted $100,000 of a one million dollar bond. My bad.
I guess $100k isn’t what it used to be.
But is it fair to hold him? After all, he has not been convicted. ///Snark///
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:15 am
===I have never heard of a murder bond that low.===
It was a million dollar requirement. He paid ten percent.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:15 am
@ James
As a newbie myself, I have learned that if I want to comment on this blog, I need to make comments that in some way contribute to the dialogue. I have learned I can take any perspective on the issues discussed, but I need to contribute to the discussion in meaningful ways.
So if I read your post, it suggests this legislation, which was sponsored by democrats and rejected by republicans, is going to cause great harms to our state.
Do you have any evidence to date of great harms? Clearly, to story posted here suggests even States Attorneys who initially opposed the law, are now attempting to use the new law to perform great goods. There are several similar stories already this week.
What great harms do you actually see, that are missing from this story?
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:17 am
” bad process, will result in bad outcomes” The SA and courts have control of the process. The good news is it always easier to tweak a process locally so areas that plan to work to enforce the law will constantly look for ways to make this work locally.
Comment by illinifan Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:24 am
The Troy man’s story is but the first of many, and with human nature being what is it there will unfortunately be other crimes that will highlight the Safe-T Act in a negative light.
My dude, this example makes the Safe-T Act look incredibly important and necessary
Comment by The Truth Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:26 am
=The law abiding citizens of Illinois=
Did I miss a vote? I do not remember selecting you as the spokesperson for the law abiding citizens of Illinois (of which I am).
The “harm” that has been perpetrated on people in Illinois (my opinion only, I do not pretend top speak for anyone but myself) is allowing people to bond out of jail and then hurt someone. That really is harmful.
If all of the tough on criminals/law and order SA’s out there really meant that, they would make the argument for detention. If they were really concerned they might have tried to work to get additions to the detainable offenses. Same goes for the party of “no”, they could have made the attempt to get additions to the list. That does not appear to have happened.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:30 am
===The Troy man’s story is but the first of many===
Either learn how to read, or don’t come back.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:34 am
===Prosecutors successfully argued that the defendant — a 24-year-old accused of possessing a gun as a felon — posed a risk to public safety.===
This is exactly what is needed in Cook County.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:35 am
The guy who says the SAFE-T Act would bring about the end of days now wants to make it retroactive?
Okay, noted.
But I have to wonder whether that would mean that everyone out on cash bail currently can just ask for their money back.
Not sure Haine thought this one through, but this murder case is indeed a poster child for the SAFE-T act and an admission that opponents got it 100% backward.
For those of you wondering how you could be accused of shooting your girlfriend in the back, murder, and get bail under the old
System, the answer is quite simple. Just go look at his mug shot. Middle-aged white guy in a 95% white town, probably makes enough money to own his own home and mortgage it if necessary.
The old system was inherently biased in favor of white people, and that was a feature not a bug as Rich would say. No one likes to talk about it, but the old system inherently considered white people less of a flight risk and more worthy and deserving of their pre-trial freedom.
Comment by Thomas Paine Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:37 am
DuPage, the problem is in Cook County, in some neighborhoods, some people carry weapons even if they shouldn’t for their own safety. I doubt that’s as much of a problem in a lot of other communities.
Many of those ex-offenders served their time, are now out of parole, and have paid their debt to society and probably just need to be informed how to get the right to legally own a weapon back.
Comment by cermak_rd Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 10:52 am
==No one is asking why a judge would set a $100,000 bond on a murder case?==
What if the judge set a $5M bond? A person with $500k could walk but someone without could not. Do you see the inequity?
Comment by Anon E Moose Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 11:20 am
It might be interesting in the next elections for states’ attorneys, sheriffs, and judges, how this issue comes up. Seems like sa’s and sheriffs not vigorously petitioning courts to hold alleged murderers and other serious offenders in custody until trial would make good campaign fodder for challengers to those incumbents.
Comment by Siualum Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 11:25 am
@10:52 == some people carry weapons even if they shouldn’t for their own safety. I doubt that’s as much of a problem in a lot of other communities.===
===have paid their debt to society===
In other communities in other counties (DuPage for example) felons caught with guns are actually prosecuted and sent to jail.
Part of their “debt to society” is they are no longer allowed to possess a firearm. They should think about these things before committing felonies to begin with.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 11:35 am
===Part of their “debt to society” is they are no longer allowed to possess a firearm===
That may be coming to an end soon.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 11:37 am
==to the 100% partisan Safe-T Act==
This is such an odd complaint when the voters gave one party overwhelming control over the political apparatus in the state. Maybe the voters need to be less partisan?
==The Troy man’s story is but the first of many, and with human nature being what is it there will unfortunately be other crimes that will highlight the Safe-T Act in a negative light.==
Am I missing something? This story makes the SAFE-T Act look like an improvement on the status quo ante.
Comment by Arsenal Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 11:37 am
=The old system was inherently biased in favor of white people=
The issue is more about wealth/poverty than race.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:12 pm
If any cash bail supporters want to say “it’s good that this guy was able to buy his way out of jail,” now’s the perfect opportunity. If anyone wants to say “he should only be jailed if he had less than $100k,” please say it. I haven’t heard any cash bail supporters make that case, despite the years of discourse on this issue.
Comment by vern Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:15 pm
No surprise there’s some issues in actually “going live”; too many people involved in a new process makes it inevitable, even with training. When it’s for real it’s different. And certain legal-technical issues/arguments such as the person arrested just before the Act took effect trying to be released might not be clearly spelled out in the Act. But in Cook County our so-called prosecutor has let so many felons roam freely it will likely be little different.
Comment by thisjustinagain Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:21 pm
Remember, if certain SAs hadn’t sued to try to block the new system, it would have already been in place months ago.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:25 pm
=If any cash bail supporters want to say “it’s good that this guy was able to buy his way out of jail,” now’s the perfect opportunity.=
That is a fair challenge, if they have any integrity they will put their foolishness on full display.
The craziest part of this whole thing is that the right wing should love the Safe-T act. The can incarcerate people all they want, all they have to do is some work. They can look super tough on rapists and wife beaters and robbers and killers. Instead the response is milquetoast. Sad.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:28 pm
“ The issue is more about wealth/poverty than race.”
Black defendants are more likely to be held pretrial than white defendants and Illinois’ jail population is 49% black despite the fact that only 15% of the population at large is black
Comment by SWIL_Voter Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:31 pm
They all thought the sky was falling back in 1991 when US Supreme Ct decided the Riverside Co case requiring bond to be set within 36 hours (I think I remember it correctly) it did not and everyone adjusted, yes some Saturday and Sunday court calls, but everyone managed.
Comment by Annon3 Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:32 pm
===The transition from the cash bail system - which has been in place for many decades and is still the standard practice in 40-plus state
No, it’s not. In most states they still have bail bondsmen. Illinois was ahead of the curve on that one too.
Bail/bonding is a holdover from a very different time and I’m still baffled as to why anyone defends it. It doesn’t help with appearance from all available evidence so what was the point? We should have moved to a safety based system for pretrial conditions long ago.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:32 pm
DuPage wrote: They should think about these things before committing felonies to begin with.
The assumption that all actors are rational actors is problematic, right? Indeed, the assumption that some actors are always rational, or that actors have access to perfect knowledge is problematic.
But the assertion that people who commit felony offices would not do so if they would first consider the rational outcomes that often (but not always) follows criminal acts suggests a lack of knowledge about why crimes occur in the first place.
I will give you a real, Illinois example (albeit anecdote).
If a teenage child in Illinois does something stupid like egging a monument out of boredom, the prosecutors have the option of checking a series of boxes on a charging form that say among other things, the defendant shall not possess a weapon.
My guess is, most prosecutors and judges automatically sign off on these list of numerous prescriptions and proscriptions that regulate future agency on the part of the teenager.
I have seen this done, and I have seen families acting on behalf of the teenager agreeing to anything so as to avoid jail terms.
Remembering that we are talking about teenagers, suggesting that if a child had the forethought to know that egging a monument might have removed their ability to possess a gun going forward, assumes a lot about why kids do dumb things, and assumes a lot about how laws are supposed to prohibit crime.
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:40 pm
===If a teenage child in Illinois does something stupid like egging a monument out of boredom===
Generally that would be a misdemeanor. Robbing people at gunpoint would be a felony.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 12:59 pm
===What if the judge set a $5M bond? A person with $500k could walk but someone without could not. Do you see the inequity?===
I get it. I also have never seen anyone post that much, even very high level drug traffickers. Usually either of those bonds keep suspects in jail.
Some judges believed that bond should be “affordable”. Not too high, not too low, just right was what they were shooting for. The “possibility” of bonding out.
I prefer “no bond” for anything that sniffs of violence or even the unsuccessful use of a deadly weapon. I hope we are in agreement on that.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 1:48 pm
===I prefer “no bond” for anything that sniffs of violence
I’m really not trying to be contrarian here, but let’s take the example of two guys who mouth off to each other in a bar and one hits the other. Is it really necessary to keep the guy who did the hitting in jail until trial? My point being there are a lot of gradations even to violent behavior.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 1:57 pm
=== Some judges believed that bond should be “affordable”. Not too high, not too low, just right was what they were shooting for. The “possibility” of bonding out.===
Gotta be honest, if this were overwhelmingly true, the Safe-T Act wouldn’t be around.
Also, the honesty to the monies raised by bonds, the goal there is to acquire cash. A left-handed revenue stream.
So…
Comment by Oswego Willy Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 1:58 pm
@ DuPage
And yet, this misdemeanor offense (a) was treated as a felony because federal funds were used to construct the monument, and (b) the teenager gave up his right to own a weapon because the prosecutor and judge “checked the box.”
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 2:11 pm
From this story and a few other I’ve read, it seems like one of the unintended consequences of the SAFE-T Act is over-crowded jails because way more people will be detained before trial. This is the exact opposite problem than the one the opponents warned us about.
Comment by duck duck goose Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 2:15 pm
O.W., I’m only telling you what I have seen and heard in 30 years of bond hearings.
I want the new system to work and I am not defending the old one. It is here now, whether we thought it was a good idea or not. I hope it accomplishes a fair system for the accused and enhanced safety for the public. It is hard to be against that.
Comment by Occasionally Moderated Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 2:18 pm
= Black defendants are more likely to be held pretrial than white defendants =
This. I frequently saw situations in which a white defendant got a recognizance bond and a black defendant a cash bond, when they were similarly situated (in terms of prior record, ties to the community, nature of the offense charged, etc.)
Comment by JoanP Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 2:20 pm
@- H-W - Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 2:11 pm:
@ DuPage
And yet, this misdemeanor offense (a) was treated as a felony because federal funds were used to construct the monument, and (b) the teenager gave up his right to own a weapon because the prosecutor and judge “checked the box.”
They would know because their FOID card would not be approve.
Comment by DuPage Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 3:06 pm
@ DuPage
Exactly. After turning 18, the former teenager found out he could not get a FOID Card, because he egged a monument at 14.
Your original assertion that “Part of their “debt to society” is they are no longer allowed to possess a firearm. They should think about these things before committing felonies to begin with,” assumes too much about (a) human behavior, (b) the role of laws in preventing crimes, and (c) the process of administering the law (e.g., equality before the law is the thesis, not a proof).
Comment by H-W Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 3:21 pm
We heard every bar and restaurant was going to close after the indoor smoking ban was implemented too.
Comment by Big Dipper Wednesday, Sep 20, 23 @ 5:32 pm