Illinois Becomes First State to Commit to Eliminating Cash Bail

[Au165]

This is pretty awesome to see. The judge should be able, as is the case here, to detain people who are actually threats, but the reality is people should not be held before their trial unless it is absolutely paramount to the community's safety.

Quote:Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Monday signed a number of sweeping criminal justice and police reforms into law, which includes eliminating cash bail for pretrial detainees.

Under the Pretrial Fairness Act, which was spearheaded by the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, a judge can still detain an individual if they're charged with felonies such as murder or domestic battery. However, those who aren't deemed a threat to the community won't be required to obtain cash to be released from jail prior to trial.

The change won't take effect until Jan. 2023, but criminal justice reform advocates say the bill's passage is nothing short of historic.

"The end of cash bond -- one of the most important reforms -- will put meaning into our criminal justice system's 'presumption of innocence,'" the Illinois Justice Project said in a statement.

While Illinois is the first state to get rid of cash bail, New Jersey has largely reduced its use in recent years, and similar proposals have been made in other states.

The Illinois Supreme Court Commission in Pretrial Practices, which strongly urged bail reform in its report last spring, found that a defendant who can't afford bail sees his or her life unravel within days -- loss of a job, loss of child custody, health problems without access to medication.

What's more, it tends to generate spurious plea deals. Someone charged with a crime, although innocent, can plead guilty to a lesser charge to get out of jail, having completed the sentence for the less-serious offense.

"I hope the rest of the country, if they're looking at this, they can see a model that says that we can get rid of a tiered system of public safety so that…especially if you're a poor person of color, you're not saddled with a really, really horrible form of public safety," Pritzker said at a press conference.

Illinois Sen. Robert Peters, Black Caucus Senate chair, called Monday a "historic first step toward winning real safety and justice in our communities."

"It's a bit surreal to be standing here today to see that the fight paid off and money bond will soon be abolished at a state level, and it inspires me to keep up advocating for our communities," he said. "At the end of the day this isn't about me, but all of us, working toward making everyone in this state whole."

On the other hand, House Republican Leader Jim Durkin, a former prosecutor, previously said, "The elimination of cash bail basically says that we respect the honor system for violent criminals and gang members."

In a news release Monday, he said Illinois won't become safer because of the bill.

"This past year, Chicago has been traumatized with epic acts of violence through murders and car-jackings with no apparent end in sight," Durkin said. "At a crucial time when we should coalesce around the good men and women of law enforcement, Governor Pritzker has turned his back on them with his signature on House Bill 3653."

[fredtoast]

Kentucky actually has a very lenient policy on bond.  I will look up the exact details, but I know they don't require cash bond for a lot of charges.


BTW technology will eventually have a huge impact on pre-trail release.  Once the cost of monitoring defendants with ankle bracelets or chips becomes more affordable that will become the new normal.  It would be MUCH more effective than any cash bond system.  Courts would rather know where the defendant is than just get his money when he fails to appear for trial.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-23-2021, 09:58 AM)Au165 Wrote: This is pretty awesome to see. The judge should be able, as is the case here, to detain people who are actually threats, but the reality is people should not be held before their trial unless it is absolutely paramount to the community's safety.

I have zero issue with this as long as the number of people remanded is raised significantly.

[Mickeypoo]

Sounds good, as long as the Judges are held accountable for the persons actions if said Judge decides the detainee is "not a threat".

[Au165]

(02-24-2021, 01:11 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Sounds good, as long as the Judges are held accountable for the persons actions if said Judge decides the detainee is "not a threat".

Are they held accountable now if the person is released on bail and they harm someone? The only change here now is the amount of money a person has does not determine if they are let out or not. If we believe people are innocent until proven guilty then the barrier to keep people in jail until their trial should be a VERY high standard to hit. If they don't present a clear physical danger to the community they should maintain their right to freedom until it's proven in court they are guilty of a crime.

[Goalpost]

I sort of have problem with this because a lot of people that face a judge are repeat offenders. I'd be more inclined to be in approval for a first time offense. If you are a repeat offender what have you disproven about yourself.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-24-2021, 01:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Are they held accountable now if the person is released on bail and they harm someone? The only change here now is the amount of money a person has does not determine if they are let out or not. If we believe people are innocent until proven guilty then the barrier to keep people in jail until their trial should be a VERY high standard to hit. If they don't present a clear physical danger to the community they should maintain their right to freedom until it's proven in court they are guilty of a crime.

Ya, good point.  Wasn't thinking on that one.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2021, 01:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: Are they held accountable now if the person is released on bail and they harm someone? The only change here now is the amount of money a person has does not determine if they are let out or not. If we believe people are innocent until proven guilty then the barrier to keep people in jail until their trial should be a VERY high standard to hit. If they don't present a clear physical danger to the community they should maintain their right to freedom until it's proven in court they are guilty of a crime.

Sounds good in theory, but that's not what's happening in practice.  Violent criminals are being let go on a regular basis in places like Chicago and NYC, all while violent crime rates rise dramatically.  What could possibly go wrong?


A prohibitively high bail is essentially the same as remanding someone, so if you replaced cash bail with a higher instance of remanding then I'm fine with it.  Especially for repeat offenders.  I had a case in which a guy mugged a pregnant woman, literally punched her in the face and kicked her to the ground.  The guy was out less than five hours later.  Imagine being the husband of that woman and seeing that guy (they both lived in the same area) on the street after what he did to your wife.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-24-2021, 01:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sounds good in theory, but that's not what's happening in practice.  Violent criminals are being let go on a regular basis in places like Chicago and NYC, all while violent crime rates rise dramatically.  What could possibly go wrong?


A prohibitively high bail is essentially the same as remanding someone, so if you replaced cash bail with a higher instance of remanding then I'm fine with it.  Especially for repeat offenders.  I had a case in which a guy mugged a pregnant woman, literally punched her in the face and kicked her to the ground.  The guy was out less than five hours later.  Imagine being the husband of that woman and seeing that guy (they both lived in the same area) on the street after what he did to your wife.

And in that instance you are setting up a law abiding citizen to commit assault and become a criminal.  I don't think I have a single guy friend who wouldn't act on that in a second if he saw that dude and that is if they didn't seek him out.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2021, 03:00 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: And in that instance you are setting up a law abiding citizen to commit assault and become a criminal.  I don't think I have a single guy friend who wouldn't act on that in a second if he saw that dude and that is if they didn't seek him out.

You literally took the words out of the husband's mouth.  I congratulated him on his restraint, not sure I could have reigned myself in in that situation.  Hopefully I'll never have to find out.

[fredtoast]

(02-24-2021, 03:00 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I don't think I have a single guy friend who wouldn't act on that in a second if he saw that dude.

(02-24-2021, 03:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: not sure I could have reigned myself in in that situation. 

Wait, what?

I thought all gunowners were "law abiding" and "harmless" except in cases of self-defense.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-24-2021, 04:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wait, what?

I thought all gunowners were "law abiding" and "harmless" except in cases of self-defense.

Where in the !@#$ did you see anything about a weapon???????

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-24-2021, 05:09 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Where in the !@#$ did you see anything about a weapon???????

Fred is dishonest and will always try and make it seem like you said something you did not.  Save yourself the angst and don't bother ever responding to him.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-24-2021, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fred is dishonest and will always try and make it seem like you said something you did not.  Save yourself the angst and don't bother ever responding to him.

Tru dat.

[*michaelsean*]

Seems good in theory at least. I’ve always had a problem with innocent until proven guilty but still in jail, but I couldn’t think of the alternative. The judge having the authority to jail serious threats seems a good way to go. I guess we will have to see how it works out.

[Au165]

(02-25-2021, 11:38 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Seems good in theory at least. I’ve always had a problem with innocent until proven guilty but still in jail, but I couldn’t think of the alternative. The judge having the authority to jail serious threats seems a good way to go. I guess we will have to see how it works out.

Fred kind of mentioned it earlier but advancements in tracking will be the real answer here. The cost of the tech is coming down rapidly as the proliferation of more robust cellular networks comes along. I think in the next few years you will see the majority of places move to release most of those charged with crimes with smaller less cumbersome ankle monitors. The tech is getting to a point where you can almost use them as single-use devices and if guilty the criminal has to pay for it in court fees.

The problem now though is that the fees they are charging are insane and not reflective of the actual cost to use. That is something that will need to be addressed before widespread adoption can take hold.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-25-2021, 11:46 AM)Au165 Wrote: Fred kind of mentioned it earlier but advancements in tracking will be the real answer here. The cost of the tech is coming down rapidly as the proliferation of more robust cellular networks comes along. I think in the next few years you will see the majority of places move to release most of those charged with crimes with smaller less cumbersome ankle monitors. The tech is getting to a point where you can almost use them as single-use devices and if guilty the criminal has to pay for it in court fees.

The problem now though is that the fees they are charging are insane and not reflective of the actual cost to use. That is something that will need to be addressed before widespread adoption can take hold.

Do these monitoring devices keep the person from re-offending while they are out on the street?

Will the monitoring device keep the guy who was let out after 5 hours for beating and robbing a pregnant woman from doing it again?

[Au165]

(02-25-2021, 11:54 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Do these monitoring devices keep the person from re-offending while they are out on the street?

Will the monitoring device keep the guy who was let out after 5 hours for beating and robbing a pregnant woman from doing it again?

No, but neither does bail. Hence why if someone should qualify to be released on bail they should qualify to be released without it. The idea of bail is to ensure they return to stand trial not prevent someone from committing another crime. If they are believed to be high risk then they should not be released period, bail or not.

[Mickeypoo]

(02-25-2021, 11:57 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, but neither does bail. Hence why if someone should qualify to be released on bail they should qualify to be released without it. The idea of bail is to ensure they return to stand trial not prevent someone from committing another crime. If they are believed to be high risk then they should not be released period, bail or not.

Fair enough point.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2021, 11:57 AM)Au165 Wrote: No, but neither does bail. Hence why if someone should qualify to be released on bail they should qualify to be released without it. The idea of bail is to ensure they return to stand trial not prevent someone from committing another crime. If they are believed to be high risk then they should not be released period, bail or not.

A remanding order is very difficult to obtain under the current system.  This is why I'd support this type of measure if it saw a commensurate rise in remands, but we won't.