Illinois Will No Longer Arrest Criminals

[jdege]

[Lumpy]

When they called it "The Safety Act" and said that it would eliminate cash bail for most offensives, I at first hoped they meant that they were mandating pretrial detention. No such luck.

ETA: yes, technically bail isn't supposed to be a pretrial assessment of probable guilt; it's supposed to ONLY judge the probability of a defendant showing up for their trial. But I would have thought people arrested for a prima facie heinous felony might be considered flight risks.

[INOR]

[quote="jdege"][/



Sorry, no specific comment. I can’t see the link on my phone and was trying to view it and accidentally clicked reply. Still can’t see the link but I’ll search for it on YT.

[INOR]

I found it. Normally I think Colion is pretty on point but not so sure here. Bail should be determined on the accused’s prior history and likelihood to be a safety risk to the public and potential flight risk. That is still going to be evaluated. It isn’t correct to say that they won’t be arrested and detained initially. Everything I’ve read suggests they will still have to face a bail hearing. And the court officer still has to evaluate and grant said bail. Or they can choose to detain them based on the above factors. There is just no longer a cash element. Which I agree with. I don’t think the ability to make bail should hinge solely on whether an accused person can afford to pay.

I think there is a lot of alarmist ******** going around suggesting incorrectly that people will not be arrested for violent crimes at all or detained at all. That’s not correct. They will be arrested, detained pending bail, bail evaluated, and bail granted or denied depending on the charges and factors without taking cash into consideration. People really have a problem with that?

Consider two accused. Both are accused of assaulting their spouses. Both are arrested and charged. Both have same criminal background history. Both are eligible for bail (it’s a bailable offense). One has financial means and bails out. The other is impoverished and can’t make cash bail. The latter sits in jail until trial. I don’t agree with that as it’s just flatly inequitable. Now you can argue that neither should make bail. And I would perhaps agree. But I don’t agree that, for the same crime, a person with means should bail out while a person who is poor should sit and rot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Holland&Holland]

I found it. Normally I think Colion is pretty on point but not so sure here. Bail should be determined on the accused’s prior history and likelihood to be a safety risk to the public and potential flight risk. That is still going to be evaluated. It isn’t correct to say that they won’t be arrested and detained initially. Everything I’ve read suggests they will still have to face a bail hearing. And the court officer still has to evaluate and grant said bail. Or they can choose to detain them based on the above factors. There is just no longer a cash element. Which I agree with. I don’t think the ability to make bail should hinge solely on whether an accused person can afford to pay.

I think there is a lot of alarmist ******** going around suggesting incorrectly that people will not be arrested for violent crimes at all or detained at all. That’s not correct. They will be arrested, detained pending bail, bail evaluated, and bail granted or denied depending on the charges and factors without taking cash into consideration. People really have a problem with that?

Consider two accused. Both are accused of assaulting their spouses. Both are arrested and charged. Both have same criminal background history. Both are eligible for bail (it’s a bailable offense). One has financial means and bails out. The other is impoverished and can’t make cash bail. The latter sits in jail until trial. I don’t agree with that as it’s just flatly inequitable. Now you can argue that neither should make bail. And I would perhaps agree. But I don’t agree that, for the same crime, a person with means should bail out while a person who is poor should sit and rot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is an option for you to go pay their bail for them. Just saying if you disagree so strongly…

[Jackpine Savage]

I think there is a lot of alarmist ******** going around suggesting incorrectly that people will not be arrested for violent crimes at all or detained at all. That’s not correct. They will be arrested, detained pending bail, bail evaluated, and bail granted or denied depending on the charges and factors without taking cash into consideration. People really have a problem with that?

You must be living in an alternate reality.

[xd ED]

You must be living in an alternate reality.

At the very least, not in the TC metro...which has become one, and the same.

[Sorcerer]

As the saying goes, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time. Or have the ability to bail/ bond out.

[Rip Van Winkle]

Guess what? Our justice system isn't fair.

Just like in the example above, the poor can't afford high priced legal counsel either.

I'm reminded of the quote from Winston Churchill. "Ours is the worst form or government, except for all the others".

We have the worst legal system, except for all the others.

[BigBlue]

Consider two accused. Both are accused of assaulting their spouses. Both are arrested and charged. Both have same criminal background history. Both are eligible for bail (it’s a bailable offense). One has financial means and bails out. The other is impoverished and can’t make cash bail. The latter sits in jail until trial. I don’t agree with that as it’s just flatly inequitable. Now you can argue that neither should make bail. And I would perhaps agree. But I don’t agree that, for the same crime, a person with means should bail out while a person who is poor should sit and rot.

If the poor person can't afford the bail it also means that he or she has less on the line to lose and, therefore, less reason to show up for trial. Someone with a bit of 'wealth' tends to be less likely to risk losing it and thus will show up for trial. You may not consider this 'fair', but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a rationale to exist as it does.

I was a juror in a criminal trail this summer where there were two witnesses to the crime that the state couldn't locate and track down to subpoena for trial. They were relatively poor kids in their 20's and they likely went into hiding because their testimony would have been detrimental to the ridiculous defense being presented by the defendant. And they were just witnesses, not actually facing any penalty of their own. They just dropped out of the picture and went dark. WIthout significant potential of loss what would keep an actual criminal defendant from doing the same to avoid punishment?

[samginko]

Snitches get Stitches.


We are transforming our criminal justice system to only focus on the criminals, instead of including victims and public safety.

[Jackpine Savage]

Snitches get Stitches.


We are transforming our criminal justice system to only focus on the criminals, instead of including victims and public safety.

We are transforming our criminal justice system to only focus on PROTECTING the criminals, instead of including victims and public safety.

You left out a word.

[yukonjasper]

Who would stay in that state after this takes effect.

[Holland&Holland]

Who would stay in that state after this takes effect.

People ask us the same question.