Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Kenneally goes down swinging

Posted in:

Illinois

An Illinois State’s Attorney is calling the state’s ban on cash bail an “abject failure,” saying the SAFE-T Act has created “the exact problems predicted by critics.”

* The news story was essentially just a rewrite of a press release without question from lame duck McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally. Fox32 Chicago did the same thing, but they at least acknowledged it…

McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally is calling the SAFE-T Act an “abject failure,” pointing to significant increases in crime, jail population and failures to appear in court since its implementation. […]

FOX 32 Chicago wrote this article based on a news release from McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally.

* The press release…

The SAFE-T Act in McHenry County has been an abject failure. Not only has it failed to deliver on what its proponents promised, the court system has experienced the exact problems predicted by critics.

Despite this, proponents continue to obfuscate behind “lack of data,” “reduced costs to criminal defendants” (no mention is made of the increased cost to non-criminal taxpayers), and “no major increase in crime generally” (a mostly irrelevant factor in evaluating the SAFE-T Act).

In McHenry County, however, the numbers are in. After the implementation of the SAFE-T Act, McHenry County has experienced:

• A 30% Increase in Crime by Those on Pre-Trial Release Compared With Those on Cash Bail.
• An Increase in the Jail Population.
• A 280% Increase in Failures to Appear (FTA).
• A 35% Reduction in Restitution Paid to Crime Victims.

How is it possible for the jail population to increase along with the number of crimes being committed by those on pretrial release? Simply put, we are incarcerating the wrong people.

The SAFE-T Act was passed based on the repetition of the lie that cash bail regularly resulted in the unjust incarceration of those without the means to pay.

That was never true in McHenry County. Rather, prior to the SAFE-T Act, 97% of those charged with crimes had been released pretrial. This incredibly high release rate occurred under the entirely reasonable cash bail system that required judges to take into consideration the ability of a defendant to pay when setting bail. Accordingly, different bail amounts were set for different defendants, all based on their financial means. Low-risk defendants who could not afford any bail, were routinely released on their own recognizance.

The problem with the SAFE-T Act, written by public defenders and advocates for criminals, is that it denies county judges, elected by the communities affected by the alleged crimes, the discretion to detain defendants charged with most crimes, no matter how high-risk. Rather, in most cases, a judge has no discretion and must release the defendant.

One need not be a professor of criminology to understand that mandating judges in all circumstances to release high-risk defendants pretrial is a misguided and unreasonable policy. A policy that proceeded from the ideology of a privileged group of advocates who dictate criminal justice legislation in Illinois overcoming common sense.

* I asked the Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice for a response…

On October 22, McHenry County State’s Attorney Patrick Kenneally issued a misleading press release claiming that the Pretrial Fairness Act is an “abject failure.” As a staunch opponent of pretrial justice reform, his claims are, unfortunately, unsurprising. Nonetheless, these inaccuracies must be corrected.

• The press release states that McHenry County has seen “a 30% increase in crime [committed by individuals] on pretrial release compared [to] those on cash bail.” This statistic is misleading. The actual difference between the number of people who were accused of new offenses under pretrial release vs. people released after paying money bond is 17. It is only because the total number of people accused of new offenses is small that the percentage increase seems large, in the same way an increase from one person to three could be called a 200% increase. Kenneally knows that, which is why he used the percentage and only included the numbers in a footnote.

• Kenneally’s claim that the jail population has increased suffers from the same defect, because the rise is minimal– just 12 people, representing an increase of 5.5%.

• He further claims there has been a 280% increase in Failures to Appear, which sounds alarming—if it were true. In reality, Failure to Appear Warrants have actually decreased by 42% in McHenry County, dropping from 1,055 to 616. Warrants can be issued when the judge decides it is necessary to bring someone into court because they will not return voluntarily. Instead of acknowledging this significant reduction in FTA warrants, Kenneally attempts to conflate two different things: warrants and summonses.

o Regarding the increased use of FTA summons, there is no context provided to allow the reader to understand whether multiple summons were issued in the same case or how many people returned to court after receiving a summons. Most people who miss court return voluntarily when given the chance, so the increased use of summons is likely driving the decreased use of warrants. Furthermore, judges are never required to issue a summons instead of a warrant. Judges are thus choosing to give people the chance to return to court voluntarily, reducing unnecessary issuance of warrants and wasted court and law enforcement resources.
o Given the substantial drop in Failure to Appear Warrants, combining warrants and summons and labeling both as “Failures to Appear” without additional information is misleading.

• Kenneally further claims that the Pretrial Fairness Act was “written by public defenders and advocates for criminals,” conveniently ignoring the fact that a broad coalition of stakeholders crafted the law over the course of years. Supporters of the Pretrial Fairness Act include victims and victim advocates, other state’s attorneys, and community members—all of whom agreed it was time to end a wealth-based pretrial system that prioritized money over safety. Finally, the Pretrial Fairness Act is a cornerstone of the SAFE-T Act, one of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus’s pillars to increase racial equity in the state. To reduce the work of Black Caucus leaders—many of whom represent the communities most harmed by money bond and other instruments of mass incarceration—is an appallingly racist dismissal of sincere efforts by public officials working to create a safer and more just Illinois for everyone.

The reality is that under the current pretrial system, individuals are no longer jailed simply because they are poor. Illinois’ pretrial system now allows people who do not pose a safety risk to continue to work, care for their families, and improve themselves while their cases proceed. People alleged to pose a danger to others or a risk of flight can be detained after robust, individualized hearings. Judges preside over those hearings and get to decide who is detained pretrial and who is released.

The Pretrial Fairness Act represents a shift towards a more just and equitable pretrial system, one that no longer ties freedom to financial status. Despite opponents like Kenneally spreading misleading narratives, the data from the first year of implementation shows that Illinois’s new system of basing pretrial release decisions on public safety rather than wealth is working.

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 8:22 am

Comments

Kenneally writes, “we are incarcerating the wrong people.”

Just let that sink in for a minute. Perhaps the problem is with the State’s Attorney office.

Comment by H-W Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 8:40 am
I can’t help but wonder what Kenneally’s definition of “high-risk” actually is. Last time I checked, the SAFE-T act was designed to keep violent offenders who are a danger to the community behind bars until their trial. Those would be “high risk defendants” to me but I’m not a lame duck state’s attorney. *shrugs*

Comment by Aaron B Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 8:49 am
I guess when you go after the poor and minorities for a living in order to protect the wealthy and privileged you get kinda jaded about maintaining a cash bail cottage industry that puts money into a lot of pockets and government/law enforcement agencies.
It seems they’ll say anything to protect the gravy train.

Comment by Honeybear Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 8:56 am
This is coming from a guy who apparently has been educated about marijuana use through viewings of Reefer Madness.

Comment by Proud Papa Bear Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 9:14 am
All the anti-SAFE-T act people like to pretend that judges don’t have the ability to detain people pretrial. As though the SAFE-T mandated dangerous folks be returned to the streets. I am no expert on the law, so maybe there need to be some tweaks on judicial authority, but the lack of cash bail is not the issue.

Comment by Montrose Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 9:32 am
We need more of Jamie Mosser, and fewer of Patrick Kenneally.

And then there’s this thing out of the Will County SA office, which I’m still trying to figure out exactly what happened this week, based on what was reported.

–his staff learned from the jail personnel that someone at the state’s attorney’s office instructed them “not to follow a valid court order.”–

Why should the SAs just pretend to be part of the judicial branch, when they can now seemingly escalate that entitlement and take actions within the justice system as if they really are.

https://www.shawlocal.com/the-herald-news/2024/10/24/defense-in-joliet-murder-case-wants-answers-on-denial-of-pretrial-release-order/

Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 9:33 am
So, so, so tired of this nonsense. Can serious and honest people please again report for duty?

Comment by Lincoln Lad Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 9:41 am
==“no major increase in crime generally” (a mostly irrelevant factor in evaluating the SAFE-T Act).==

From the people who brought you “blood in the streets” comes “actually crime doesn’t matter when we’re wrong.” A sequel worse than Joker 2.

Comment by Google Is Your Friend Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 10:07 am
“Kenneally goes down s̶w̶i̶n̶g̶i̶n̶g̶ flailing.”

If he had any sense he’d be embarrassed. (He won’t be embarrassed.)

– MrJM

Comment by @misterjayem Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 11:00 am
• A 30% Increase in Crime by Those on Pre-Trial Release Compared With Those on Cash Bail.
• An Increase in the Jail Population.

So are we locking too many people up? Or are we not locking enough people up?

Comment by Bob Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 11:33 am
Please correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t Circuit Court Judges initially appointed to their positions by their peers? And then there is a vote by the electorate after an amount of time to retain them?

Comment by In_The_Middle Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 11:51 am
===So are we===

Read the post.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 12:21 pm
This failure to appear stat—Iris Martinez also referred to that … the Network’s rebuttal to that criticism is confusing. If defendants charged with crimes aren’t showing up for court, that’s a big problem. Would be good to hear from the Judicial branch on that one.

Comment by ANON Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 12:21 pm
The State must file a Petition to Detain before the Court may order detention. This even applies to First Degree Murder.

There is just one exception to this in the statute. The Court can detain on its own motion a Defendant who is arrested for a felony or class A misdemeanor while on release for another felony or class A misdemeanor.

Comment by BCOSEC Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 2:39 pm
Money bail was often used as a proxy for a judge’s perception of the subject’s ‘dangerousness.’ Seems dangerous, so set a high bond amount, and maybe don’t allow an I or D bond. Now that subjective feeling or ‘perception’ needs actual proof. The sky hasn’t fallen.

Comment by Leslie K Friday, Oct 25, 24 @ 4:22 pm
• Claim: The McHenry County State’s Attorney’s Position Is “Appallingly Racist
Response - The hair-trigger “racism” charge of advocates has lost its rhetorical force after having been hastily and baselessly made one too many times as an alternative to engaging in good faith with those who disagree with them. I understand and respect their passion. I am open to and welcome legitimate criticism, even strident criticism, of my statistics or views. I just wish dissent on these topics in this state wasn’t treated by the party of unchecked power as heresy punishable by reputational death.

• Claim: that “A Broad Coalition of Stakeholders Crafted [the SAFE-T Act] Over the Course of Years.”
Response - No. It was passed during lame duck session after the Black Caucus made a deal with Madigan, facing an indictment and eroding support for his speakership, that its collective membership would deny any other House member the speakership if Madigan would unexpectedly call their mostly unwritten SAFE-T Act bill during the five-day lame duck session in January.
The Judiciary-Criminal committee had not met once in the last six months prior to the 2021 lame-duck session to discuss bail elimination, purportedly because the risk of COVID-19 was too great. Just prior to lame duck session beginning, the bill’s proponents sprung the 600-page bill on the “stakeholders”; cold-shouldered the 99% of law enforcement who were not about to praise them for their bold vision out of the all-important closed-door meetings; continued to add consequential language to the bill after it was filed; and infamously elbowed the bill into enactment at around 5 a.m., one hour after it was filed in the Senate, on the morning lame-duck session was set to end. The process was far from “sincere.” Rather it was an entirely deformed effort, ruthlessly calculated to mute to the maximum extent procedurally possible basic features of a functioning democracy – transparency, compromise, and debate.

• Claim: Failure to Appears Are Down in McHenry Because “Failure to Appear Warrants Have Decreased by 42%.
Response - When someone fails to appear, one of two things happens. First, a failure to appear warrant is issued, commanding any peace officer who has contact with the defendant to arrest him and bring him before a judge. Second, a summons can be issued commanding a defendants’ appearance and that must be served on a defendant personally. Under the SAFE-T Act, the law requires a judge to favor using summonses over warrants in response to FTAs. As such, to get an accurate figure of the FTA rate, one must add up FTA summonses and warrants. McHenry County’s FTA numbers are of course consistent with Cook County Circuit Clerk Iris Martinez’s findings (the Network for Pretrial Justice got really mad at her numbers too).

• Claim: the 30% Increase in Crime By Those on Pretrial Release Amounts to Only 17 Crimes.
Response - While, statically, this “17” number is not quite accurate, it’s close enough. So ok, 17 totally unnecessary Class A misdemeanor and felony crimes over a period of 9 months, which is likely in the 20s over the course of the year, and well into the hundreds over the course of five years. If McHenry statistics hold true statewide, it may be that under the SAFE-T Act, thousands of new and innocent victims per year will suffer entirely preventable injustices, injuries, and/or tragedies. I am not inclined to simply dismiss these crimes as an acceptable cost of passing a bill that, despite promises, has done nothing to address the “mass incarceration” problem in McHenry County that never existed in the first place.

Comment by Patrick Kenneally Monday, Oct 28, 24 @ 10:37 pm