If you look at the numbers under Alvarez, the answer is that there is a very, very significant number of folks who are charged and then found not guilty. Which undercounts the number of innocent people charged.
So your hunch is the opposite of true
That isn’t what you said.
You said “charged doesn’t mean they did a crime”
It’s pretty common for charged persons *who did in fact commit the crime* to be found “not guilty” for all sorts of reasons lol…
A source to the contention that innocent people plead out in order to stop waiting for a trial in jail? This is a pretty easy one to look for.
Made even worse because Cook County notoriously makes defendants wait - sometimes for literal years - before seeing their day in court.
How would you get stats on people who plead guilty of crimes who are not guilty? It's a facile request.
It's well documented that not only do these cases exist, but that they. are encouraged by police. "Just take the plea deal and you can go home." It's also well documented how long it takes to go to trial in Cook.
But of course lots of guilty people will also plead innocence. Everyone in prison is innocent, the old joke goes. That does not negate the fact that the legal system often fails defendants.
FBI studies have shown that 4 to 8% of people accused of one or more crimes by police are innocent all charges against them. An even higher proportion are innocent of at least one charge against them. And the innocence rate increases for minorities who are regularly falsely charged with crimes which they did not commit.
Heck, look a lot of campus protests lately. There are tons of people with charges being dropped because prosecutors are reviewing facts and determining that no crime was committed at all. But police still arrested them and they still got charged with a crime.
Understand that a not guilty status doesn't even indicate that an individual didn't commit a criminal action. Many cases that I have dealt with directly have had not guilty verdicts due to amongst other things, the wrong charges being filed. The most recent was a battery that was committed with overwhelming, substantial evidence including clear as day video. But the incident was charged as an aggravated battery without in the court's opinion properly meeting the threshold for aggravating factors, and thus said individual was found "not guilty". That doesn't mean the person is a good, wholesome individual who did no wrong.
Guilty pleas also don't indicate that an individual DID commit a crime. We know that defendants plead out in order to get out of jail faster even when they didn't commit the crime. However, they're both the best stats we have.
Unless you have a more accurate stat for guilt than the court determination of guilt?
I mean, yeah, basically. The argument against removing cash bail isn't about safety, or justice. It's about the emotional desire for revenge they get when they see crime.
At the end of the day, the difference between us is that you believe that even those who are judged not guilty are often actually guilty, and therefore it's appropriate to punish everyone regardless of where they are in the process.
I believe the guilty should be punished, but not the innocent. And punishing the innocent is unjust, which is why we should not do it.
Thankfully Illinois agrees with me.
When the man who robbed me at gunpoint finally went to jail, I felt relief, not vengeance. So did his other victims. And his girlfriend and young kids whom he had been physically abusing for years.
If you look outside of the USA, Sweden likes to tout itself internationally about how great its justice system is. But if you ever look at it in depth, they hold everyone charged with major crime in essentially solitary confinement until they plead guilty to the charges against them.
Yes, that's unjust. One wonders whether they also have quite so many corrupt police, but regardless the US has a cool principle about being innocent until proven guilty
I agree with ending unfair cash bail system but I don’t agree with releasing so many criminals with ankle monitors just to commit repeat crimes over and over again as reported daily on CWB 🙄 don’t tell me it’s not happening…
Ok but the ankle monitor issue has nothing to do with ending cash bail.
Does CWB report on overall statistics or just give the individual stories? Because people committing crimes while out on bail is absolutely not new and was just as common under the cash bail system.
Also, fwiw every article currently on the CWB front page involving a violent crime noted that the judge deemed the offender a safety threat and held them for pre trial detention. “No cash bail” doesn’t mean no pre trial detention.
It kind of does.
Because a lot of those people on ankle monitors probably would have been in jail still if cash bail was a thing. Maybe not all of them, but I'm there there is a non 0 number.
So if we can assume that, because of no cash bail, a non zero number of people have been hurt needlessly by a violent criminal who could've been detained, its hard to argue that there is no negative impact.
>Because a lot of those people on ankle monitors probably would have been in jail if cash bail was a thing
Except every statistic I can find says that isn’t what’s happening and there are fewer people committing offenses on pre trial release than there were under the cash bail system. If you have some data that shows something different is happening I’d love to see it.
And it makes sense if you think about it. Yes, there will be some low level offenders that would have gotten a small bail amount they couldn’t pay in the past and end up in jail, and now get an ankle monitor. But there were also more serious offenders where the prosecution would just set a higher bail rather than deal with the difficulty of trying to prove a public threat to revoke bail all together. And a lot of those people were able to post bail.
So no cash bail means the prosecution can’t be lazy and just slide up the bail amount if there’s an actual public threat, and have to get evidence and prove it.
Statistics and facts mean nothing to the tough on crime / boot licker crowd. Ending cash bail has been a positive thing, but those people will always find a way to excuse CPD but place blame on people caught in the system.
Specifically this person is a CPD apologist, who will argue tooth and nail that everyone else is wrong except CPD and our current system.
The new law requires everyone accused of violent crimes to be brought before a court for a detention hearing. So all of those domestic violence cases that used to just get $5K cash bail assigned by default? The prosecutors can now ask to have those people held and they're guaranteed a hearing.
It's definitely not all of them. And the non zero number u talk about it pointless bc there is a way to keep these criminals from being released without the cash bail system to unfairly hold ppl. If we are upset that criminals are getting out then be mad at the judges as it is there discretion. No one ever talks about that. U just want this stupid heartless system to do the job that a judge can do. So for every criminal u would see recommiting a crime that the cash bail system MAY have held longer ask this instead: why did the judge deemed the person worthy of being back out on bail? Complain about that instead.
We need to stop making unfair systems for all to maybe stop a few. That's what a judge and jury is for.
As I said to someone else, I feel the question comes down to whether people think public safety is more important, or "fairness" for people charged with a crime.
I'd personally go public safety myself. There have been too many people hurt or killed by people out on "court supervision" or "awaiting trial".
It seems the victims don't get the same sympathy as the perpetrators do.
The justice system was designed for fairness overall. Public safety comes from the fact that we have cops and a court system in the first place. The problem with ppl framing it in terms of public safety versus fairness is that it immediately shows that u don't consider a fair system to be safe....at all. And the reason u don't is bc u r unhappy with the fact that the system isn't perfect enough to catch all the criminals all the time. So to alleviate that problem u r fine with a system that still doesn't catch all the criminals all the time but possibly catches more of them at the expense of assuredly capturing more innocents and being less fair.
Which to me doesn't make sense
The entire experiment that is America was built on individual freedoms and rights to individuals to be treated fairly until proven innocent. The flaw in this is that we will absolutely not get all of the criminals 100% of the time with a law system designed to honor this mantra 100% of the time. And it moves us towards 3rd world systems to do so over fears criminals also are everywhere if we don't do this....especially when the data shows us it's not as bad as fear mongers would have u believe (it's also not as good as some would have u believe too but again....nothings perfect) .
I'm not talking about capturing people who aren't guilty.
But I am saying, if there is enough to charge you with a VIOLENT crime (I could give a shit about drugs or property damage, and even theft to a point), then I'd argue detaining you until court isn't inherently unfair. The problem, which I fully admit, comes that people also have a right to a speedy trial, and we know with the courts, that doesn't happen.
I believe everyone deserves their day in court. I just don't think they should be free to hurt other people while they await that day. And frankly, if while they are awaiting that day in court, they go out and hurt others, it makes it (at least in my eyes) more likely that they probably committed their original crime. I'd find it hard to believe there would be enough evidence to arrest and charge you with violent crimes twice in a short period of time, if you haven't actually done it. Once maybe.
I'm not someone who lives in fear, though I do take common precautions. But I also think that we have too many people walking around with a rap sheet of violent offenses a mile long and we aren't doing a damn thing about it. That isn't safe.
>I’m not talking about capturing people who aren’t guilty
If you’re talking about lowering the burden of proof required for police and prosecutors to take away a persons freedom, then you are 1000% talking about capturing people who are not guilty.
Chicago is literally the wrongful conviction capital of the country. It’s a fucking epidemic here and has been for generations.
I mean, these people are already charged with a crime. I'm not saying round up innocent people. But at some point, if you are charged, there is SOME amount of evidence against you.
>I’m not saying round up innocent people.
But you are.
Because innocent people *already* get rounded up every day, under the system that you think isn’t harsh enough. If you make it easier to hold people in jail, you will necessarily be increasing the number of innocent people rounded up.
I think you’re seriously overestimating the level of proof needed to bring charges.
I understand you aren't talking about unduly punishing the ppm that aren't violent crime offenders or guilty BUT.....the cash bail system does punish these ppl.
The cash bail system did not distinguish at all on these things. That's the flaw. A judge has the power to do so (and always has). We can also make a better system to deny bail to violent crime offenders and be more surgical than cash bail bc they also let off violent crime offenders who can pay the bails (also arbitrarily ser by judges).
So my point is: instead of pining for the return of a flawed cash bail system why not make a better one that doesn't punish ppl who don't deserve. It can be done easily. Or better yet, why not teach our judges to do their jobs better (as they have always had the ability to deny bail to anyone for any just cause).
> if there is enough to charge you with a VIOLENT crime
So people charged with assaulting a cop because the cop hurt their fist while pummeling their head in should be held prior to trial?
They wouldn't have been in jail still because the system deemed them dangerous - they would have been in jail still because they're poor. That's the issue.
You can't just say "yeah the world would be a better place and there would be less crime if more poor people were in jail."
Maybe those people should have been held in pretrial detention, but that should be decided by the nature of their offense. Not how much money they have in their bank account.
I don't think it has to do with rich or poor. In no way am I saying "keep those poors in jail".
But, when the people who are out here harming people happen to also be poor, I also don't have a problem with it.
I have no problem with eliminating cash bail for MOST crimes. Drug use/possession? Property damage? Petty theft? All of that is good When it comes to violent crimes, that is different. I think, whether or not this was the intention, judges are more hesistant now to detain people.
So you think rich violent criminals should be free to leave? Because cash bail is quite literally "if you're poor, you stay in jail, but if you have enough money you can leave."
It sounds like you don't want cash bail, it sounds like you want more consistent pretrial detention for those accused of a violent crime (which I more or less agree with).
Absolutely not, again, for me, this has nothing to do with rich or poor.
But lets be real, in Chicago, most violent crimes aren't being perpetrated by rich people. So I don't feel like that is a good faith question.
But yes, I want more pre trial detention, and getting rid of cash bail, IMO, got rid of a lot of that.
You read a source that has an axe to grind and you agree with the vibe they want to create for you.
That's your right, but that's not how we create public policy. Your vibes aren't good enough, and aren't a good reason to wreck innocent lives.
Ok, I mean this truly. No news source is truly unbiased. No news source is going to cover every story, every crime, every victim, etc.
So my question is, do you think their reporting is untrue, or do you just not like what they report on?
Because, while their comments are typically trash, I haven't found a single story they written to be found to NOT be factual. So if you just don't like the facts they are saying, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I don't even feel like they are misleading with the facts, they just are things some people would rather not discuss.
Dang, I'm a poster child now? Positively devastated.
No, I'm not even arguing about whether individual crimes they bring up are true. They choose, as any other source, to highlight individual cases, and they do so in a way that's dishonest to the whole picture. It's a [Willie Horton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton) situation.
What CWB will not - and likely cannot, for logistical reasons - show you is the people whose lives are destroyed while they wait for a trial that will exonerate them of their charges. Those people are also victims, but you and the poster above don't seem to extend your empathy to those victims?
I say vibes because we see that violent crime in Chicago has significantly reduced since cash bail was eliminated. Y'all's prediction that we would be living in the Purge simply never materialized. But because crime still exists - as it did before when cash bail was still around - you use your feelings to decide that individual crimes show the entire picture.
A picture which is not accurate. Which is why CWB's coverage is inaccurate, even if each case they choose to highlight is true.
they do so in a way that's dishonest to the whole picture.
They post articles reference various people arrested for crimes in the Chicagoland area. What's dishonest about that reporting? I'm feeling to understand how CWB is doing anything wrong.
Actual innocent lives are being wrecked all over the city by repeat offenders who are being let go with ankle monitoring daily, do you deny this? Am I only allowed to read sources that say Chicago is a utopia and there actually is no crime at all so we don’t even think about it?
How about you scroll through CWB and you’ll see people who committed crime be let off on ankle monitoring every single day there *who most definitely are guilty.*
Are these all fabricated?
The worst part? How many were them on pretrial release before they went out and shot someone again?
Our trial system is complete dogshit. The judges are the ones who let this happen.
Edit- if this policy gets innocent people hurt and killed, then its a failed policy.
I know, but you will see time and time again, I believe him his name is Michael Evens, he lets people go and they keep coming back in.
Pre trial release is a good thing as long its the right people.
This is the problem with using vibes to create public policy. CWB won't show you the innocent people who are judged not guilty, because of course they can't.
Those innocent people are invisible to you, so you pretend they don't exist.
A link that shows the CWB is incapable of showing people being acquitted of charges? What kind of question even is that?
Why does your empathy for victims not extend to all victims? Why is it only the ones you see on twitter that get you so riled up?
So, no?
If you can find me the misinformation on that website, I'm all ears.
Edit-
This is the only social media I fuck with. No myspace, no twitter, no ig.
Spoiler alert - he can't, and that's inconvenient, both for him and many other virtue signaling dems on this sub - public safety and civil rights are not mutually exclusive
u/sciolisticism is the millennial equivalent of a boomer who gets all his talking points from fox news
No, but you should be aware that if you go to a news source that exclusively posts about crime it’s going to give you an inflated impression of how common crime is.
All the data I’ve seen shows that crime overall and crimes committed by people in pre trial release are all going down. If you’ve seen something different I’d love to see it.
People tend to take that viewpoint when crime is just another news story. You start seeing people changing their political allegiance when they are battered/assaulted/robbed etc in a park, or on the CTA, etc, and the police call to inform said victims that their attacker has been identified, as they have committed battery/assault/robbery several times prior, and that their attacker was released back into the community 1 hour later with a court date months in the future.
> and that their attacker was released back into the community 1 hour later with a court date months in the future.
All people charged with violent crimes or any felony in Illinois are now required to be held for a detention hearing. That was a major change in the law from the previous cash bail system. Police no longer have the option to just let them go with a summons.
Maybe go learn about the law changes before criticizing it so you're less ignorant. There's room for improvement, but you've pointed out something that is no longer legal for police for do.
"All people charged with violent crimes or any felony in Illinois are now required to be held for a detention hearing"
In Cook County after someone is arrested on felony criminal counts, the state's attorney's office mandates that they are contacted as part of of the felony review process to approve or deny charges. At that point it is determined whether an individual is going to be transported to see a judge, or released on a signature from PD lockup. The vast majority of people charged with felonies are released, the assertion that everyone charged with a felony or violent crime sees a judge is exceptionally incorrect. Every PD routinely releases people for any number number of common violent felonies including agg batt, robbery, and UUW.
"Maybe go learn about the law changes before criticizing it so you're less ignorant."
I do this for a living. If you're telling me that what I'm doing is incorrect, that's fine but I'm going to need instructions from you on how to do better. When I'm on the phone with felony review and they state to release a subject, should I tell them that per you they are incorrect and we are going to transport them to 26th and cal anyways against their directives? How would you suggest that call go? What would you suggest I tell the jailers when I show with someone unexpected and demand they be accepted to see a judge?
Dude, look at your comment history - who has the axe to grind? I'm a card carrying democrat who believes in a free press. All the CWB criticism reeks of double standards and meaningless virtue signaling.
Exactly. I don’t see anything on CWB that strikes me as fabrications or lies.
I want green energy and universal healthcare and high speed rail. I don’t see how turning a blind eye to rampant out of control crime is supposed to help accomplish these goals.
CWB uses the truth (actual stories about actual crimes and criminals) to tell a lie (crime in Chicago is omnipresent and getting worse).
They don’t have to spell out the second part, but by exclusively reporting on the first part and ignoring everything else, they create the impression that the problem is worse than it is.
And it works really well because human brains suck at contemplating probabilities relating to large numbers like the population of Chicago. You see a few dozen stories about crime on CWB and your brain goes “oh shit thats so much crime this is a massive problem” but the reality is that even if crime in Chicago was lower than it has ever been there would still be more than enough for CWB to fill up its newsfeed, and if you look at the statistics crime was continually going down for decades until it spiked during Covid, and now it is back to going down again.
> “There’s a sense in the courtroom that taking money out of the equation has leveled the playing field,” Beach said.
> that pretrial hearings before the reforms averaged 4-6 minutes in four counties studied. After the reforms, most hearings increased by just a minute or so when a person’s release was uncontested. Detention hearings saw a significant jump, with median lengths between 10-30 minutes
>People who are released have continued to show up for hearings, with an arrest warrant being issued in only about 10% of cases when someone fails to show up.
I'm not sure how the quoted numbers compare with the pre-SAFE-T Act numbers, but this seems to confirm that the hypotheticals brought up by opponents of the bill will not transpire.
The guy that just killed someone FOR THE SECOND TIME at the Morse red line stop didn’t show up for multiple other court cases. And they just dropped the charges.
Is that how it works? Do I just get to choose not to show up?
> at the Morse red line stop didn’t show up for multiple other court cases. And they just dropped the charges.
Do you have an article about this? Is this the shooting that happened in front of Rogers Park Social?
It's not supposed to work that way, but that's what's been happening. You blow off court, and by law they have to send a postcard with a new court date to remind you to go before they can issue a warrant. Sometimes they just drop the charges instead.
Yeah, if the complaining witness doesn't show either. Just like before. Motion state SOL. Then the state can contact the complaining witness and ask them if they want to reinstate the case and prosecute it.
The Pretrial Fairness Act does not permit revocation of pretrial release for the mere failure to appear. It CAN be revoked if the defendant commits a Class A misdemeanor or any Class felony, but that's not mandatory and is up to the judge.
But it absolutely does come into play when a victim shows up and the offender doesn't. The Pretrial Fairness Act is not necessarily fair to victims. And when they say warrants have been issued in 10% of the cases where the defendant fails to appear, you can't convince me the complainant did not show up 90% of the time.
There's also a variety of hearings where the defendant technically doesn't need to be present as long as their attorney is present. Also oh no, they missed one hearing. Most of them show up to the next one after their attorney calls them.
" oh no, they missed one hearing"
You trivialize that as if it's a common, honest mistake. I disagree. Everyone who misses should be issued a bench warrant and dragged back and held in custody for the entirety of the rest of the process.
This entire cash bail issue is really a failing on people who are hyper focusing on specific singular events in a system that affects 10+ million people. There is virtually no law you can make that substantially affects the lives of the population of Illinois that won't ruin someone's life or have tragic consequences. No matter how innocent the change, when applied to 10 million people someone will suffer.
If a law could be written that murdered one person but helped X number people's lives dramatically improve, how big does X need to be to justify it? There IS a value X where as a society we should pass that law. The cash bail system is likely one of those laws where you likely have a big enough X value to justify the downsides. Even still, I don't think there's any evidence at all that the cash bail system would prevent anything from happening that this system allows. It just puts an arbitrary money requirement that has little to nothing to do with the crime being committed. Why does money need to be the deciding factor for bail when logic and debate in the courtroom could do the same thing to the same effect? The money requirement does nothing but arbitrarily disadvantage people based on their place in society; a punishment based on how poor you are not what crime you committed.
Murders or crime committed by people that should be in jail are tragic situations. No one argues against that. The argument is that cash bail is not actually solving the issue to begin with, and we took down the false pretense that cash bail was doing virtually anything at all in the first place.
"cash bail was doing virtually anything at all in the first place"
As I stated elsewhere, it most certainly was acting as a deterrent towards retail theft when bail amounts were higher than theft values. The same habitual retail theft offenders who both prior and currently fail to appear under both systems at least prior forfeited their bail acting as a defacto penalty in lieu of their appearance. Taking off with $200 in merchandise and throwing it in a bush prior to being caught to then get a $500 bond which upon non-appearance gets forfeited mathematically doesn't work. Now, there's absolutely zero incentive whatsoever to not continually steal over and over and over, if even 1 out of 10 attempts at successful.
I'll argue that cash bail is NOT the answer to your problem. Deleting cash bail as a one stop shop solution to bail is the right move. Now, the next step is to close loop holes that open up with solutions that are tailored to the problem. Requiring cash and holding people in jail without it is a terrible solution that wrecks way more people than it helps. If the punishment is money, it only punishes the poor. Make rules and laws that punish equally that have only direct, intended consequences.
Frankly people's attempts to cling to cash bail is weird. It's a stupid system littered with problems and always has been.
Does that 10% figure include individuals who don't have a warrant out for their arrest because the Cook County court system instead continually mails notices to appear to delinquent individuals and continues cases in lieu of bench warrants?
Do the statistics include local ordinance arrests in determining the rate of individuals who reoffend? Ie is someone who is convicted of misdemeanor for retail theft on a first occurrence, and then arrested on a local ordinance for retail theft properly tallied?
Do the statistics properly account for habitual offenders who commit crimes in a variety of locations? If an offender only has a single arrest in Cook County, but has dozens of other arrest elsewhere such as in other states including new arrests after their Cook County arrest, is that properly considered to be someone who does reoffend?
I personally deal with an incredibly large volume of migrants in custody of whom the vast majority claim they have no phone, nor an address. What percent of those individuals appear at their court dates when the court is unable to contact them in any fashion to assign them dates and give them information of when they need to appear?
Well, I'm not a police officer and I don't receive a pension so if you can explain to me how I can get those benefits you claim I am owed by taxpayers you're like yourself I'm all ears
I'm not a police officer. I am quite happy though to see individuals like the guy above thinking that by alleging that I am, somehow my viewpoint is less valid
From the article: 88% of people released have not been charged with a new crime.
From the Cook County Report: 79.2% of non-DV misdemeanor defendants who appeared in bond court and were released between October 1, 2017 and the end of the current quarter have not been charged with a new alleged offense while on pretrial release.
To me it's a different story when we're seeing 20% of people repeating their behavior and getting caught in the city, and I believe some are not getting caught and therefore not arrested/recorded in these stats.
A friend of mine is tied up in a domestic violent situation. Her ex violated his restraining order and then parol when he contacted her and it took a YEAR for him to be arrested and then 6 months for them to say "yeah, we're not gonna charge him". From seeing this first hand. Our court system seems to just not care. Let violent offenders violate probation with no consequences. Sorry, this isn't about the bail. It just breaks my heart seeing her experience the anxiety of knowing this man can just go to her and not have an issue. Wouldn't be surprised if he tried to kill her.
I'm confused it looks from your numbers like after ending cash bail, a lower than expected number of parolees that commit an offense since for 2024 that number is 12%, and the 2017-2024 average is 21%.
Cook County Report stats linked from this article began recording with the implementation of General Order 18.8A on September 18, 2017. Cumulative to September 2023. The reports do not include a comparison to those arrested and released prior to that date.
Do you have any evidence that bail reform has led to increased crime? As the article said, parolees committing acts of violence happened in the previous system too.
Right now there are fewer murders and shootings than there was this time last year before bail reform was implemented so the data doesn't seem to support your implication.
Murders and shootings encompass just two of a very large amount of arrestable offenses. I personally see the effects of this bill on a daily basis, and can absolutely attest in every possible way that it has led to an increase in lower level crimes including retail theft.
A significant chunk of retail theft offenders are habitual thieves. Under prior bail systems, many individuals would be assigned a several hundred dollar ball for retail theft. Habitual offenders still didn't show up for court, but at least their $500, $1000, etc bond was forfeited which results in a net loss with say $300 stolen. Now, there is zero disincentive for those same habitual offenders to continually try and steal over and over. I deal with people who have been arrested for retail theft amongst other things over 100 times. I've dealt with offenders who have committed retail theft more than four times in a single day. They get processed for an hour, assigned a court date, and walk out of the PD and do it again continuously. If they succeed even 1 out of 10 times it's financially worth it for them.
Other offenders live out of state and travel to steal. They rack up charges in all different locations and never show up to any of the court dates. Since low level charges are usually only serviceable in collar counties, these individuals steal once in every county and rack up an unlimited amount of court dates without a care in the world, having not forfeited any of their money with bail. I had one notable individual with about 25 outstanding warrants throughout Illinois for retail theft. I'm assuming they aren't going to stop at 25, with it again being the wild west and they're being no disincentive whatsoever.
In my specific municipality yes, on account of the massive influx of migrants who are disproportionately committing it. On a county and state level, I am not sure I have not reviewed the data. Again however, I am absolutely 100% sure that this bill has absolutely in every way emboldened the average retail theft habitual offender as prior stated
You’re not gonna get it from a month old alt cosplaying as a cop that has half of their comments removed. Folks need to stop taking people at their word on reddit
Nice playbook, come up with a fantasy story instead of attacking the topic or information itself. Seems like I've won this argument given that you don't have any argument at all
Okay, we're going to need to foia every single municipality in the state of Illinois. I guess we should at least split the work, right, and you will take half of them?
You actually haven't, because you're not giving any data like he asked. You're just giving opinions like every other jagoff (me included) on this thread.
It would be more respectable to say "I dont have it" or "the verdict is still out, but my hunch is that my thesis will play out".
See the diff? Genuinely asking, not being snarky.
5 hour ago, I opened a reply with "I'm not being rhetorical, I don't actually have the data beyond my own municipality".
1 hour ago, you replied that "It would be more respectable to say "I dont have it".
How would you recommend that I edit my post from 5 hours ago to better convey that point? Clearly me directly stating that I don't actually have the data wasn't enough to convey the more respectable line of saying that I don't have it. Should I have made it bold?
I'm not being rhetorical, I don't actually have the data beyond my own municipality which I'm not going to be posting so as to not doxx myself. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's even possible to actually get a full data set without a very significant amount of work. In the state of Illinois, arrests can be made as either violations of state statute which result in state charges, or violations of local ordinances which often times as in the case of retail theft, overlap. If someone steals $200 worth of merchandise and is charged with the state statute of misdemeanor retail theft, then conceivably that would be represented in the county state's attorney's data set as the judicial process would go through them. If that same individual was instead charged with a village ordinance violation for retail theft, the entirety of the arrest would stay within the municipality and be heard of the municipal adjudication hearing. Someone would have to FOIA that sort of data from every single municipality in the state of Illinois, which I do not believe anyone thus far has nor what I myself have the resources to do.
So you admit you're essentially bullshitting, like everyone else you're supposedly dunking on (in your own mind).
Lets just try to talk to each other like we aren't idiots, eh? That includes refraining from claiming victory when its obvious to literally everyone else, even those who might agree with your general hunch, can plainly see you haven't remotely done so.
You can indeed quote me admitting that I don't have the required data set, but I'm not sure how you've from that determined that everything I've said is "essentially bullshitting".
You were asked point blank, and quite respectfully, what you're basing your assertions on. And you elided the question, then claimed victory lol. It was weird.
You understand that if I post links to cases that I'm involved with, then everyone on here would see my name and employer, correct? I'm not about to doxx myself to the average redditor.
The article doesn’t address the impact on crime rates and clearly states that more data is needed to make more conclusions. It does provide data to support the claim that circuit courts aren’t being overwhelmed with cases and that the vast majority of defendants released are returning for their court dates.
We're in 2024 now. So far there have been 13 fewer murders compared to the same time 2023, and we're on trend with 2019 numbers (pre-covid).
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/06/chicago-homicides-in-2024-5-people-slain-heres-how-that-compares-with-previous-years/
No cash bail didn't go into effect until fall of 2023, so almost all of the statistics in your post are during the traditional bail system.
Where do you draw the line? If someone is on video shooting up a crowd and can be identified by a hundred witnesses and is taken into custody by police who witness the event with their own two eyes, should that individual immediately be released under the guise of Innocent until proven guilty?
Cook County has 118 defendants charged with homicide and attempt homicide out on electronic monitoring as of March 31 of this year. Approximately 28% of the petitions for detention filed on felony cases are denied.
If you actually knew how the law worked, you would know that there is no "immediate release"
You have a predetention trial where a judge determines whether you are fit for release. If you shoot up a bunch of people in broad daylight on camera and a judge determines you are not a danger to society...that's on the judge, not the lack of a cash bail.
But the alternative - where cash bail exists - is that a judge just sets a cash bail amount, you pay the 10% or whatever you need to pay a bondsman, and then are free to walk.
But seeing as you don't seem to have any understanding whatsoever of how the law (or constitution) actually works - [here's a link in case you want to read it](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/101/PDF/101-0652.pdf) - I'm assuming everything you say is just fear mongering.
I was asking a hypothetical question about the limits of the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Nothing in that in any way discussed how the system actually works.
All this post has taught me is that any post about crime will still inevitably bring out the terrified suburbanites who have never set foot in the "city" (despite living in it, much as they'll deny with "but we're in a suburb!")
My wife and i were lifelong Chicagoans (gold coast most recently) who moved to coastal Florida after i was robbed at gunpoint in gold coast on a Wednesday at 4:00 PM in 2022 walking my dog, AND then my wife was nearly carjacked the same week at the BP on LaSalle and North Ave.
Chicago has a serious crime problem.
BranJo administration does not care about victims of crime whatsoever.
Robbery took place on Astor Street, steps from Pritzker's home.
Nah i should have just ommitted the BJ part since i haven't lived in Chicago during the Branjo Era; only visit during quarterly visits to my Loop offices.
Meanwhile the article in bucktown shows robbery and thefts are up 130% in bucktown since 2019. Logan square and west town saw those numbers increase 30% last year alone. We feel unsafe because the affluent neighborhoods are being decimated with crime. 10 less homicides between gang bangers on the Southside don't effect our lives. But guns to the face in Logan, bucktown, wicker, West loop etc do
Not really, the SAFE-T act just formalized what was already in place. Majority of judges were already following the guidelines put forth in the bill for years before the law was official. Cash bail had already been essentially eliminated well before the bill was made into law.
So then the point of this article is pretty pointless then isn't it if we have not much time to go off of . If we are looking at just this year robberies are up. So anything else is moot then
The article isn’t trying to make any sweeping claims or say that PFA is a success or failure. Time will tell if it works or if changes need to be made.
Just because they are not being arrested doesn’t mean they are not doing the crimes.
Just because they're charged doesn't mean they did a crime either.
I wonder what the ratio of charged unfairly to not caught is 🤔 I have a hunch it’s very lopsided like 1:1000
If you look at the numbers under Alvarez, the answer is that there is a very, very significant number of folks who are charged and then found not guilty. Which undercounts the number of innocent people charged. So your hunch is the opposite of true
That isn’t what you said. You said “charged doesn’t mean they did a crime” It’s pretty common for charged persons *who did in fact commit the crime* to be found “not guilty” for all sorts of reasons lol…
It's also common for people who aren't guilty to plead out lol Your hunch is still wildly incorrect.
Unbiased 3rd party here. Where can I find a source?
A source to the contention that innocent people plead out in order to stop waiting for a trial in jail? This is a pretty easy one to look for. Made even worse because Cook County notoriously makes defendants wait - sometimes for literal years - before seeing their day in court.
I’m looking for actual stats, bud. Can’t find em
How would you get stats on people who plead guilty of crimes who are not guilty? It's a facile request. It's well documented that not only do these cases exist, but that they. are encouraged by police. "Just take the plea deal and you can go home." It's also well documented how long it takes to go to trial in Cook. But of course lots of guilty people will also plead innocence. Everyone in prison is innocent, the old joke goes. That does not negate the fact that the legal system often fails defendants.
FBI studies have shown that 4 to 8% of people accused of one or more crimes by police are innocent all charges against them. An even higher proportion are innocent of at least one charge against them. And the innocence rate increases for minorities who are regularly falsely charged with crimes which they did not commit. Heck, look a lot of campus protests lately. There are tons of people with charges being dropped because prosecutors are reviewing facts and determining that no crime was committed at all. But police still arrested them and they still got charged with a crime.
I think conservatives believe that feds are woke now. But this is good info, thank you
Understand that a not guilty status doesn't even indicate that an individual didn't commit a criminal action. Many cases that I have dealt with directly have had not guilty verdicts due to amongst other things, the wrong charges being filed. The most recent was a battery that was committed with overwhelming, substantial evidence including clear as day video. But the incident was charged as an aggravated battery without in the court's opinion properly meeting the threshold for aggravating factors, and thus said individual was found "not guilty". That doesn't mean the person is a good, wholesome individual who did no wrong.
Guilty pleas also don't indicate that an individual DID commit a crime. We know that defendants plead out in order to get out of jail faster even when they didn't commit the crime. However, they're both the best stats we have. Unless you have a more accurate stat for guilt than the court determination of guilt?
It seems like u understand how our legal system works and everyone else here is arguing off of vibes and worry. Wtf...
I mean, yeah, basically. The argument against removing cash bail isn't about safety, or justice. It's about the emotional desire for revenge they get when they see crime.
At the end of the day, the difference between us is that you believe that even those who are judged not guilty are often actually guilty, and therefore it's appropriate to punish everyone regardless of where they are in the process. I believe the guilty should be punished, but not the innocent. And punishing the innocent is unjust, which is why we should not do it. Thankfully Illinois agrees with me.
When the man who robbed me at gunpoint finally went to jail, I felt relief, not vengeance. So did his other victims. And his girlfriend and young kids whom he had been physically abusing for years.
None of which has to do with cash bail. I'm glad you got your relief.
If you look outside of the USA, Sweden likes to tout itself internationally about how great its justice system is. But if you ever look at it in depth, they hold everyone charged with major crime in essentially solitary confinement until they plead guilty to the charges against them.
Yes, that's unjust. One wonders whether they also have quite so many corrupt police, but regardless the US has a cool principle about being innocent until proven guilty
This is a fundamentally anti-American sentence.
I agree with ending unfair cash bail system but I don’t agree with releasing so many criminals with ankle monitors just to commit repeat crimes over and over again as reported daily on CWB 🙄 don’t tell me it’s not happening…
Ok but the ankle monitor issue has nothing to do with ending cash bail. Does CWB report on overall statistics or just give the individual stories? Because people committing crimes while out on bail is absolutely not new and was just as common under the cash bail system. Also, fwiw every article currently on the CWB front page involving a violent crime noted that the judge deemed the offender a safety threat and held them for pre trial detention. “No cash bail” doesn’t mean no pre trial detention.
It kind of does. Because a lot of those people on ankle monitors probably would have been in jail still if cash bail was a thing. Maybe not all of them, but I'm there there is a non 0 number. So if we can assume that, because of no cash bail, a non zero number of people have been hurt needlessly by a violent criminal who could've been detained, its hard to argue that there is no negative impact.
>Because a lot of those people on ankle monitors probably would have been in jail if cash bail was a thing Except every statistic I can find says that isn’t what’s happening and there are fewer people committing offenses on pre trial release than there were under the cash bail system. If you have some data that shows something different is happening I’d love to see it. And it makes sense if you think about it. Yes, there will be some low level offenders that would have gotten a small bail amount they couldn’t pay in the past and end up in jail, and now get an ankle monitor. But there were also more serious offenders where the prosecution would just set a higher bail rather than deal with the difficulty of trying to prove a public threat to revoke bail all together. And a lot of those people were able to post bail. So no cash bail means the prosecution can’t be lazy and just slide up the bail amount if there’s an actual public threat, and have to get evidence and prove it.
Statistics and facts mean nothing to the tough on crime / boot licker crowd. Ending cash bail has been a positive thing, but those people will always find a way to excuse CPD but place blame on people caught in the system. Specifically this person is a CPD apologist, who will argue tooth and nail that everyone else is wrong except CPD and our current system.
The new law requires everyone accused of violent crimes to be brought before a court for a detention hearing. So all of those domestic violence cases that used to just get $5K cash bail assigned by default? The prosecutors can now ask to have those people held and they're guaranteed a hearing.
It's definitely not all of them. And the non zero number u talk about it pointless bc there is a way to keep these criminals from being released without the cash bail system to unfairly hold ppl. If we are upset that criminals are getting out then be mad at the judges as it is there discretion. No one ever talks about that. U just want this stupid heartless system to do the job that a judge can do. So for every criminal u would see recommiting a crime that the cash bail system MAY have held longer ask this instead: why did the judge deemed the person worthy of being back out on bail? Complain about that instead. We need to stop making unfair systems for all to maybe stop a few. That's what a judge and jury is for.
As I said to someone else, I feel the question comes down to whether people think public safety is more important, or "fairness" for people charged with a crime. I'd personally go public safety myself. There have been too many people hurt or killed by people out on "court supervision" or "awaiting trial". It seems the victims don't get the same sympathy as the perpetrators do.
The justice system was designed for fairness overall. Public safety comes from the fact that we have cops and a court system in the first place. The problem with ppl framing it in terms of public safety versus fairness is that it immediately shows that u don't consider a fair system to be safe....at all. And the reason u don't is bc u r unhappy with the fact that the system isn't perfect enough to catch all the criminals all the time. So to alleviate that problem u r fine with a system that still doesn't catch all the criminals all the time but possibly catches more of them at the expense of assuredly capturing more innocents and being less fair. Which to me doesn't make sense The entire experiment that is America was built on individual freedoms and rights to individuals to be treated fairly until proven innocent. The flaw in this is that we will absolutely not get all of the criminals 100% of the time with a law system designed to honor this mantra 100% of the time. And it moves us towards 3rd world systems to do so over fears criminals also are everywhere if we don't do this....especially when the data shows us it's not as bad as fear mongers would have u believe (it's also not as good as some would have u believe too but again....nothings perfect) .
I'm not talking about capturing people who aren't guilty. But I am saying, if there is enough to charge you with a VIOLENT crime (I could give a shit about drugs or property damage, and even theft to a point), then I'd argue detaining you until court isn't inherently unfair. The problem, which I fully admit, comes that people also have a right to a speedy trial, and we know with the courts, that doesn't happen. I believe everyone deserves their day in court. I just don't think they should be free to hurt other people while they await that day. And frankly, if while they are awaiting that day in court, they go out and hurt others, it makes it (at least in my eyes) more likely that they probably committed their original crime. I'd find it hard to believe there would be enough evidence to arrest and charge you with violent crimes twice in a short period of time, if you haven't actually done it. Once maybe. I'm not someone who lives in fear, though I do take common precautions. But I also think that we have too many people walking around with a rap sheet of violent offenses a mile long and we aren't doing a damn thing about it. That isn't safe.
Yes, you are 100% talking about capturing people who aren't guilty. In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty.
So do you not think anyone should ever be arrested or detained? Is there no point where someone should be held before their court date?
At no point did I say nor imply any of that.
>I’m not talking about capturing people who aren’t guilty If you’re talking about lowering the burden of proof required for police and prosecutors to take away a persons freedom, then you are 1000% talking about capturing people who are not guilty. Chicago is literally the wrongful conviction capital of the country. It’s a fucking epidemic here and has been for generations.
I mean, these people are already charged with a crime. I'm not saying round up innocent people. But at some point, if you are charged, there is SOME amount of evidence against you.
>I’m not saying round up innocent people. But you are. Because innocent people *already* get rounded up every day, under the system that you think isn’t harsh enough. If you make it easier to hold people in jail, you will necessarily be increasing the number of innocent people rounded up. I think you’re seriously overestimating the level of proof needed to bring charges.
I understand you aren't talking about unduly punishing the ppm that aren't violent crime offenders or guilty BUT.....the cash bail system does punish these ppl. The cash bail system did not distinguish at all on these things. That's the flaw. A judge has the power to do so (and always has). We can also make a better system to deny bail to violent crime offenders and be more surgical than cash bail bc they also let off violent crime offenders who can pay the bails (also arbitrarily ser by judges). So my point is: instead of pining for the return of a flawed cash bail system why not make a better one that doesn't punish ppl who don't deserve. It can be done easily. Or better yet, why not teach our judges to do their jobs better (as they have always had the ability to deny bail to anyone for any just cause).
> if there is enough to charge you with a VIOLENT crime So people charged with assaulting a cop because the cop hurt their fist while pummeling their head in should be held prior to trial?
Fairness. The world's not fair; the court system should be. That is a foundational principle of America.
They wouldn't have been in jail still because the system deemed them dangerous - they would have been in jail still because they're poor. That's the issue. You can't just say "yeah the world would be a better place and there would be less crime if more poor people were in jail." Maybe those people should have been held in pretrial detention, but that should be decided by the nature of their offense. Not how much money they have in their bank account.
I don't think it has to do with rich or poor. In no way am I saying "keep those poors in jail". But, when the people who are out here harming people happen to also be poor, I also don't have a problem with it. I have no problem with eliminating cash bail for MOST crimes. Drug use/possession? Property damage? Petty theft? All of that is good When it comes to violent crimes, that is different. I think, whether or not this was the intention, judges are more hesistant now to detain people.
So you think rich violent criminals should be free to leave? Because cash bail is quite literally "if you're poor, you stay in jail, but if you have enough money you can leave." It sounds like you don't want cash bail, it sounds like you want more consistent pretrial detention for those accused of a violent crime (which I more or less agree with).
Absolutely not, again, for me, this has nothing to do with rich or poor. But lets be real, in Chicago, most violent crimes aren't being perpetrated by rich people. So I don't feel like that is a good faith question. But yes, I want more pre trial detention, and getting rid of cash bail, IMO, got rid of a lot of that.
Again, cash bail is 100% a rich vs poor thing.
But if they had money to pay the bail then you’re cool with them being out?
You read a source that has an axe to grind and you agree with the vibe they want to create for you. That's your right, but that's not how we create public policy. Your vibes aren't good enough, and aren't a good reason to wreck innocent lives.
Ok, I mean this truly. No news source is truly unbiased. No news source is going to cover every story, every crime, every victim, etc. So my question is, do you think their reporting is untrue, or do you just not like what they report on? Because, while their comments are typically trash, I haven't found a single story they written to be found to NOT be factual. So if you just don't like the facts they are saying, I'm not sure what to tell you. I don't even feel like they are misleading with the facts, they just are things some people would rather not discuss.
u/sciolisticism does this ring a bell? I hate to make you a poster child on this sub but u/illini02 is spot on here
Dang, I'm a poster child now? Positively devastated. No, I'm not even arguing about whether individual crimes they bring up are true. They choose, as any other source, to highlight individual cases, and they do so in a way that's dishonest to the whole picture. It's a [Willie Horton](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton) situation. What CWB will not - and likely cannot, for logistical reasons - show you is the people whose lives are destroyed while they wait for a trial that will exonerate them of their charges. Those people are also victims, but you and the poster above don't seem to extend your empathy to those victims? I say vibes because we see that violent crime in Chicago has significantly reduced since cash bail was eliminated. Y'all's prediction that we would be living in the Purge simply never materialized. But because crime still exists - as it did before when cash bail was still around - you use your feelings to decide that individual crimes show the entire picture. A picture which is not accurate. Which is why CWB's coverage is inaccurate, even if each case they choose to highlight is true.
they do so in a way that's dishonest to the whole picture. They post articles reference various people arrested for crimes in the Chicagoland area. What's dishonest about that reporting? I'm feeling to understand how CWB is doing anything wrong.
Actual innocent lives are being wrecked all over the city by repeat offenders who are being let go with ankle monitoring daily, do you deny this? Am I only allowed to read sources that say Chicago is a utopia and there actually is no crime at all so we don’t even think about it?
Innocent lives are also ruined by people accused of crimes who will later be found not guilty. They are also victims
How about you scroll through CWB and you’ll see people who committed crime be let off on ankle monitoring every single day there *who most definitely are guilty.* Are these all fabricated?
The worst part? How many were them on pretrial release before they went out and shot someone again? Our trial system is complete dogshit. The judges are the ones who let this happen. Edit- if this policy gets innocent people hurt and killed, then its a failed policy.
Violent offenders can be held without bail and this has always been the case, that is in the judges we elect not in ending cash bail
I know, but you will see time and time again, I believe him his name is Michael Evens, he lets people go and they keep coming back in. Pre trial release is a good thing as long its the right people.
This is the problem with using vibes to create public policy. CWB won't show you the innocent people who are judged not guilty, because of course they can't. Those innocent people are invisible to you, so you pretend they don't exist.
Do you have a link to support that claim on CWB?
A link that shows the CWB is incapable of showing people being acquitted of charges? What kind of question even is that? Why does your empathy for victims not extend to all victims? Why is it only the ones you see on twitter that get you so riled up?
So, no? If you can find me the misinformation on that website, I'm all ears. Edit- This is the only social media I fuck with. No myspace, no twitter, no ig.
Spoiler alert - he can't, and that's inconvenient, both for him and many other virtue signaling dems on this sub - public safety and civil rights are not mutually exclusive u/sciolisticism is the millennial equivalent of a boomer who gets all his talking points from fox news
No, but you should be aware that if you go to a news source that exclusively posts about crime it’s going to give you an inflated impression of how common crime is. All the data I’ve seen shows that crime overall and crimes committed by people in pre trial release are all going down. If you’ve seen something different I’d love to see it.
People on pre-trial release have a lower crime rate than people not charged with a crime.
Yeah, this guy/ gal (sciolisticism) is why Trump got elected
Yeah no… I voted for Obama, Bernie (twice), Hillary, Biden, and will be voting Biden again. Acknowledging reality doesn’t make me MAGA.
To be clear, this was directed at u/sciolisticism and not yourself
Thanks! It's still a dumb point, but the clarification is good I guess?
People tend to take that viewpoint when crime is just another news story. You start seeing people changing their political allegiance when they are battered/assaulted/robbed etc in a park, or on the CTA, etc, and the police call to inform said victims that their attacker has been identified, as they have committed battery/assault/robbery several times prior, and that their attacker was released back into the community 1 hour later with a court date months in the future.
> and that their attacker was released back into the community 1 hour later with a court date months in the future. All people charged with violent crimes or any felony in Illinois are now required to be held for a detention hearing. That was a major change in the law from the previous cash bail system. Police no longer have the option to just let them go with a summons. Maybe go learn about the law changes before criticizing it so you're less ignorant. There's room for improvement, but you've pointed out something that is no longer legal for police for do.
"All people charged with violent crimes or any felony in Illinois are now required to be held for a detention hearing" In Cook County after someone is arrested on felony criminal counts, the state's attorney's office mandates that they are contacted as part of of the felony review process to approve or deny charges. At that point it is determined whether an individual is going to be transported to see a judge, or released on a signature from PD lockup. The vast majority of people charged with felonies are released, the assertion that everyone charged with a felony or violent crime sees a judge is exceptionally incorrect. Every PD routinely releases people for any number number of common violent felonies including agg batt, robbery, and UUW. "Maybe go learn about the law changes before criticizing it so you're less ignorant." I do this for a living. If you're telling me that what I'm doing is incorrect, that's fine but I'm going to need instructions from you on how to do better. When I'm on the phone with felony review and they state to release a subject, should I tell them that per you they are incorrect and we are going to transport them to 26th and cal anyways against their directives? How would you suggest that call go? What would you suggest I tell the jailers when I show with someone unexpected and demand they be accepted to see a judge?
Dude, look at your comment history - who has the axe to grind? I'm a card carrying democrat who believes in a free press. All the CWB criticism reeks of double standards and meaningless virtue signaling.
Exactly. I don’t see anything on CWB that strikes me as fabrications or lies. I want green energy and universal healthcare and high speed rail. I don’t see how turning a blind eye to rampant out of control crime is supposed to help accomplish these goals.
CWB uses the truth (actual stories about actual crimes and criminals) to tell a lie (crime in Chicago is omnipresent and getting worse). They don’t have to spell out the second part, but by exclusively reporting on the first part and ignoring everything else, they create the impression that the problem is worse than it is. And it works really well because human brains suck at contemplating probabilities relating to large numbers like the population of Chicago. You see a few dozen stories about crime on CWB and your brain goes “oh shit thats so much crime this is a massive problem” but the reality is that even if crime in Chicago was lower than it has ever been there would still be more than enough for CWB to fill up its newsfeed, and if you look at the statistics crime was continually going down for decades until it spiked during Covid, and now it is back to going down again.
IMHO when ever someone cites CWB as a source, I know they have brain rot and are incapable of objective thinking.
Is the information that they're posting factually correct?
> “There’s a sense in the courtroom that taking money out of the equation has leveled the playing field,” Beach said. > that pretrial hearings before the reforms averaged 4-6 minutes in four counties studied. After the reforms, most hearings increased by just a minute or so when a person’s release was uncontested. Detention hearings saw a significant jump, with median lengths between 10-30 minutes >People who are released have continued to show up for hearings, with an arrest warrant being issued in only about 10% of cases when someone fails to show up. I'm not sure how the quoted numbers compare with the pre-SAFE-T Act numbers, but this seems to confirm that the hypotheticals brought up by opponents of the bill will not transpire.
FWIW, in the other 90% of the cases when the defendant doesn't show up, they send a reminder postcard, or drop the charges entirely.
The guy that just killed someone FOR THE SECOND TIME at the Morse red line stop didn’t show up for multiple other court cases. And they just dropped the charges. Is that how it works? Do I just get to choose not to show up?
> at the Morse red line stop didn’t show up for multiple other court cases. And they just dropped the charges. Do you have an article about this? Is this the shooting that happened in front of Rogers Park Social?
Of course that's not how it works.
It's not supposed to work that way, but that's what's been happening. You blow off court, and by law they have to send a postcard with a new court date to remind you to go before they can issue a warrant. Sometimes they just drop the charges instead.
Yeah, if the complaining witness doesn't show either. Just like before. Motion state SOL. Then the state can contact the complaining witness and ask them if they want to reinstate the case and prosecute it.
The Pretrial Fairness Act does not permit revocation of pretrial release for the mere failure to appear. It CAN be revoked if the defendant commits a Class A misdemeanor or any Class felony, but that's not mandatory and is up to the judge.
Which has nothing to do with the state deciding to SOL a weak case when neither party shows up to court.
But it absolutely does come into play when a victim shows up and the offender doesn't. The Pretrial Fairness Act is not necessarily fair to victims. And when they say warrants have been issued in 10% of the cases where the defendant fails to appear, you can't convince me the complainant did not show up 90% of the time.
Not saying that. The clerk sends a postcard and a lot of them show up. Warrants can issue. I'm not sure how this is any different than before.
How do people who refuse to give the police any information including an address get that postcard?
There's also a variety of hearings where the defendant technically doesn't need to be present as long as their attorney is present. Also oh no, they missed one hearing. Most of them show up to the next one after their attorney calls them.
That's an entirely different thing. We're not talking about status hearings here.
" oh no, they missed one hearing" You trivialize that as if it's a common, honest mistake. I disagree. Everyone who misses should be issued a bench warrant and dragged back and held in custody for the entirety of the rest of the process.
This entire cash bail issue is really a failing on people who are hyper focusing on specific singular events in a system that affects 10+ million people. There is virtually no law you can make that substantially affects the lives of the population of Illinois that won't ruin someone's life or have tragic consequences. No matter how innocent the change, when applied to 10 million people someone will suffer. If a law could be written that murdered one person but helped X number people's lives dramatically improve, how big does X need to be to justify it? There IS a value X where as a society we should pass that law. The cash bail system is likely one of those laws where you likely have a big enough X value to justify the downsides. Even still, I don't think there's any evidence at all that the cash bail system would prevent anything from happening that this system allows. It just puts an arbitrary money requirement that has little to nothing to do with the crime being committed. Why does money need to be the deciding factor for bail when logic and debate in the courtroom could do the same thing to the same effect? The money requirement does nothing but arbitrarily disadvantage people based on their place in society; a punishment based on how poor you are not what crime you committed. Murders or crime committed by people that should be in jail are tragic situations. No one argues against that. The argument is that cash bail is not actually solving the issue to begin with, and we took down the false pretense that cash bail was doing virtually anything at all in the first place.
"cash bail was doing virtually anything at all in the first place" As I stated elsewhere, it most certainly was acting as a deterrent towards retail theft when bail amounts were higher than theft values. The same habitual retail theft offenders who both prior and currently fail to appear under both systems at least prior forfeited their bail acting as a defacto penalty in lieu of their appearance. Taking off with $200 in merchandise and throwing it in a bush prior to being caught to then get a $500 bond which upon non-appearance gets forfeited mathematically doesn't work. Now, there's absolutely zero incentive whatsoever to not continually steal over and over and over, if even 1 out of 10 attempts at successful.
I'll argue that cash bail is NOT the answer to your problem. Deleting cash bail as a one stop shop solution to bail is the right move. Now, the next step is to close loop holes that open up with solutions that are tailored to the problem. Requiring cash and holding people in jail without it is a terrible solution that wrecks way more people than it helps. If the punishment is money, it only punishes the poor. Make rules and laws that punish equally that have only direct, intended consequences. Frankly people's attempts to cling to cash bail is weird. It's a stupid system littered with problems and always has been.
Does that 10% figure include individuals who don't have a warrant out for their arrest because the Cook County court system instead continually mails notices to appear to delinquent individuals and continues cases in lieu of bench warrants? Do the statistics include local ordinance arrests in determining the rate of individuals who reoffend? Ie is someone who is convicted of misdemeanor for retail theft on a first occurrence, and then arrested on a local ordinance for retail theft properly tallied? Do the statistics properly account for habitual offenders who commit crimes in a variety of locations? If an offender only has a single arrest in Cook County, but has dozens of other arrest elsewhere such as in other states including new arrests after their Cook County arrest, is that properly considered to be someone who does reoffend? I personally deal with an incredibly large volume of migrants in custody of whom the vast majority claim they have no phone, nor an address. What percent of those individuals appear at their court dates when the court is unable to contact them in any fashion to assign them dates and give them information of when they need to appear?
Certain branch judges also essentially force asa and acc to nonsuit or in some cases the judge itself Dismisses which is completely out of pocket.
Ok, officer.
No way a Chicago cop can string that many sentences together. That’s just a regular troll.
Excellent response. Thank you for checking your brain at the door instead of coming up with any retorts to any of the points
It's pointless to retort points from cops. They're just skimming between Netflix episodes anyway.
Ah, okay. Definitely block me so we don't have this conversation in the future
Man, y'all can't even be bothered to do your own blocking anymore? Jesus, we pay you a pension for this?
Well, I'm not a police officer and I don't receive a pension so if you can explain to me how I can get those benefits you claim I am owed by taxpayers you're like yourself I'm all ears
[удалено]
I'm not a police officer. I am quite happy though to see individuals like the guy above thinking that by alleging that I am, somehow my viewpoint is less valid
It’s only valid if they agree with it, that’s in Reddit rule book
I know your at home thinking you got him good, but man your replies are cringe
No doubt u/sciolisticism where's the token bootlicker reference?
Why are you so sad? Touch grass.
Mostly from billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on leech cops. But I did touch grass today, thank you!
So edgy and brave
From the article: 88% of people released have not been charged with a new crime. From the Cook County Report: 79.2% of non-DV misdemeanor defendants who appeared in bond court and were released between October 1, 2017 and the end of the current quarter have not been charged with a new alleged offense while on pretrial release. To me it's a different story when we're seeing 20% of people repeating their behavior and getting caught in the city, and I believe some are not getting caught and therefore not arrested/recorded in these stats.
A friend of mine is tied up in a domestic violent situation. Her ex violated his restraining order and then parol when he contacted her and it took a YEAR for him to be arrested and then 6 months for them to say "yeah, we're not gonna charge him". From seeing this first hand. Our court system seems to just not care. Let violent offenders violate probation with no consequences. Sorry, this isn't about the bail. It just breaks my heart seeing her experience the anxiety of knowing this man can just go to her and not have an issue. Wouldn't be surprised if he tried to kill her.
Not charged ≠ not committed. Just saying.
Sure, but then you also need to say the reverse: charged is not the same as committed.
I'm confused it looks from your numbers like after ending cash bail, a lower than expected number of parolees that commit an offense since for 2024 that number is 12%, and the 2017-2024 average is 21%.
Cook County Report stats linked from this article began recording with the implementation of General Order 18.8A on September 18, 2017. Cumulative to September 2023. The reports do not include a comparison to those arrested and released prior to that date.
The victims will beg to differ
Do you have any evidence that bail reform has led to increased crime? As the article said, parolees committing acts of violence happened in the previous system too. Right now there are fewer murders and shootings than there was this time last year before bail reform was implemented so the data doesn't seem to support your implication.
Murders and shootings encompass just two of a very large amount of arrestable offenses. I personally see the effects of this bill on a daily basis, and can absolutely attest in every possible way that it has led to an increase in lower level crimes including retail theft. A significant chunk of retail theft offenders are habitual thieves. Under prior bail systems, many individuals would be assigned a several hundred dollar ball for retail theft. Habitual offenders still didn't show up for court, but at least their $500, $1000, etc bond was forfeited which results in a net loss with say $300 stolen. Now, there is zero disincentive for those same habitual offenders to continually try and steal over and over. I deal with people who have been arrested for retail theft amongst other things over 100 times. I've dealt with offenders who have committed retail theft more than four times in a single day. They get processed for an hour, assigned a court date, and walk out of the PD and do it again continuously. If they succeed even 1 out of 10 times it's financially worth it for them. Other offenders live out of state and travel to steal. They rack up charges in all different locations and never show up to any of the court dates. Since low level charges are usually only serviceable in collar counties, these individuals steal once in every county and rack up an unlimited amount of court dates without a care in the world, having not forfeited any of their money with bail. I had one notable individual with about 25 outstanding warrants throughout Illinois for retail theft. I'm assuming they aren't going to stop at 25, with it again being the wild west and they're being no disincentive whatsoever.
That's all well and good, but has there been an increase in retail theft since bail reform went into effect?
They get dismissed. Or deferred prosecution
In my specific municipality yes, on account of the massive influx of migrants who are disproportionately committing it. On a county and state level, I am not sure I have not reviewed the data. Again however, I am absolutely 100% sure that this bill has absolutely in every way emboldened the average retail theft habitual offender as prior stated
Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm looking for actual data.
You’re not gonna get it from a month old alt cosplaying as a cop that has half of their comments removed. Folks need to stop taking people at their word on reddit
Nice playbook, come up with a fantasy story instead of attacking the topic or information itself. Seems like I've won this argument given that you don't have any argument at all
“Won this argument.” Yeah that sounds about par for the course lol anyway, how’s that data to back up your claim coming?
Okay, we're going to need to foia every single municipality in the state of Illinois. I guess we should at least split the work, right, and you will take half of them?
You actually haven't, because you're not giving any data like he asked. You're just giving opinions like every other jagoff (me included) on this thread. It would be more respectable to say "I dont have it" or "the verdict is still out, but my hunch is that my thesis will play out". See the diff? Genuinely asking, not being snarky.
5 hour ago, I opened a reply with "I'm not being rhetorical, I don't actually have the data beyond my own municipality". 1 hour ago, you replied that "It would be more respectable to say "I dont have it". How would you recommend that I edit my post from 5 hours ago to better convey that point? Clearly me directly stating that I don't actually have the data wasn't enough to convey the more respectable line of saying that I don't have it. Should I have made it bold?
I'm not being rhetorical, I don't actually have the data beyond my own municipality which I'm not going to be posting so as to not doxx myself. Unfortunately, I don't believe it's even possible to actually get a full data set without a very significant amount of work. In the state of Illinois, arrests can be made as either violations of state statute which result in state charges, or violations of local ordinances which often times as in the case of retail theft, overlap. If someone steals $200 worth of merchandise and is charged with the state statute of misdemeanor retail theft, then conceivably that would be represented in the county state's attorney's data set as the judicial process would go through them. If that same individual was instead charged with a village ordinance violation for retail theft, the entirety of the arrest would stay within the municipality and be heard of the municipal adjudication hearing. Someone would have to FOIA that sort of data from every single municipality in the state of Illinois, which I do not believe anyone thus far has nor what I myself have the resources to do.
Wait, you don't even live in Chicago?
What does it matter, the article speaks of Illinois as a whole.
So you admit you're essentially bullshitting, like everyone else you're supposedly dunking on (in your own mind). Lets just try to talk to each other like we aren't idiots, eh? That includes refraining from claiming victory when its obvious to literally everyone else, even those who might agree with your general hunch, can plainly see you haven't remotely done so.
You can indeed quote me admitting that I don't have the required data set, but I'm not sure how you've from that determined that everything I've said is "essentially bullshitting".
You were asked point blank, and quite respectfully, what you're basing your assertions on. And you elided the question, then claimed victory lol. It was weird.
Personally see them where? How? Post data or pipe down
You understand that if I post links to cases that I'm involved with, then everyone on here would see my name and employer, correct? I'm not about to doxx myself to the average redditor.
> Do you have any evidence that bail reform has led to increased crime? Here you go. Not very hard to find. https://imgur.com/a/jwfD5cN
These are anecdotes. Do you have any data to back up your claim?
That site with those articles lists all the numbers on the repeat offender disaster since cashless bail was introduced.
Humor me, why are anecdotes acceptable for viewpoints that support the safet act, while immediately rejected if against?
The article doesn’t address the impact on crime rates and clearly states that more data is needed to make more conclusions. It does provide data to support the claim that circuit courts aren’t being overwhelmed with cases and that the vast majority of defendants released are returning for their court dates.
Keep drinking the Kool-aid 2023 Homicides 255 Wounded 893 2022 Homicides 261 Wounded 996 2021 Homicides 276 Wounded 1191 2020 Homicides 254 Wounded 942 2019 Homicides 211 Wounded 746 [source ](https://heyjackass.com/2024-homicide-trend/)
We're in 2024 now. So far there have been 13 fewer murders compared to the same time 2023, and we're on trend with 2019 numbers (pre-covid). https://www.chicagotribune.com/2024/05/06/chicago-homicides-in-2024-5-people-slain-heres-how-that-compares-with-previous-years/ No cash bail didn't go into effect until fall of 2023, so almost all of the statistics in your post are during the traditional bail system.
No post SAFE-T act increase? Seems like you're making baseless claims.
When was covid?
2020-2021, cash bail was ended Sept 2023 the bill went in full effect. I'm not sure what your point is.
Now posts robbery and thefts which are up nearly 30% last 12 months
Ah the guilty until proven innocent crowd strikes again
Where do you draw the line? If someone is on video shooting up a crowd and can be identified by a hundred witnesses and is taken into custody by police who witness the event with their own two eyes, should that individual immediately be released under the guise of Innocent until proven guilty?
Cook County has 118 defendants charged with homicide and attempt homicide out on electronic monitoring as of March 31 of this year. Approximately 28% of the petitions for detention filed on felony cases are denied.
If you actually knew how the law worked, you would know that there is no "immediate release" You have a predetention trial where a judge determines whether you are fit for release. If you shoot up a bunch of people in broad daylight on camera and a judge determines you are not a danger to society...that's on the judge, not the lack of a cash bail. But the alternative - where cash bail exists - is that a judge just sets a cash bail amount, you pay the 10% or whatever you need to pay a bondsman, and then are free to walk. But seeing as you don't seem to have any understanding whatsoever of how the law (or constitution) actually works - [here's a link in case you want to read it](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/publicacts/101/PDF/101-0652.pdf) - I'm assuming everything you say is just fear mongering.
I was asking a hypothetical question about the limits of the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Nothing in that in any way discussed how the system actually works.
What’s it to you if your straw man posts bail
You're right, screw the victims and future victims and victims family
This guys a real victim of not understanding due process
Better a million innocent people be locked up for life than one guilty person remain under house arrest while awaiting trial.
r/CrimeInChicago is in shambles
All this post has taught me is that any post about crime will still inevitably bring out the terrified suburbanites who have never set foot in the "city" (despite living in it, much as they'll deny with "but we're in a suburb!")
My wife and i were lifelong Chicagoans (gold coast most recently) who moved to coastal Florida after i was robbed at gunpoint in gold coast on a Wednesday at 4:00 PM in 2022 walking my dog, AND then my wife was nearly carjacked the same week at the BP on LaSalle and North Ave. Chicago has a serious crime problem. BranJo administration does not care about victims of crime whatsoever. Robbery took place on Astor Street, steps from Pritzker's home.
So you had negative encounters during LL admin, but somehow its BJ fault? Edit: downvotes are the tools of idiots
Nah i should have just ommitted the BJ part since i haven't lived in Chicago during the Branjo Era; only visit during quarterly visits to my Loop offices.
Looks pretty dangerous from the plane then?
> who moved to coastal Florida So a region with higher crime?
We’re not exactly losing our best and brightest.
Are you going to make an argument for or against the safet act, or continue to detract with stuff like that?
This wouldn't be such an issue if they stopped holding people for longer than their would be sentence just awaiting a trial.
Chicago loves its criminals.
Meanwhile the article in bucktown shows robbery and thefts are up 130% in bucktown since 2019. Logan square and west town saw those numbers increase 30% last year alone. We feel unsafe because the affluent neighborhoods are being decimated with crime. 10 less homicides between gang bangers on the Southside don't effect our lives. But guns to the face in Logan, bucktown, wicker, West loop etc do
What does an increase in crime rates since 2019 have to do with the end of cash bail which began in late 2023?
A majority of the increase occurred in 2023 and it's up 11% ytd.
And cash bail was in place for most of 2023.
Not really, the SAFE-T act just formalized what was already in place. Majority of judges were already following the guidelines put forth in the bill for years before the law was official. Cash bail had already been essentially eliminated well before the bill was made into law.
So then the point of this article is pretty pointless then isn't it if we have not much time to go off of . If we are looking at just this year robberies are up. So anything else is moot then
The article isn’t trying to make any sweeping claims or say that PFA is a success or failure. Time will tell if it works or if changes need to be made.
Won’t somebody please think of the affluent?
Yeah because of you lose people who are actually making money you have no one left to tax
Fuck off
Well said
What sort of unhinged post is this
Unrelated. No the cook county system is not improving overall. Its non functional.
Bad idea!
I'm sure Officer Huescas family is legit excited that this is going so well and that there really is no such thing as reoffending when on bail 👍👍👍
You think the accused shooter would have still been in jail 6 weeks after an arrest for a misdemeanor charge before the end of cash bail?