Illinois set to become 1st state to eliminate cash bail

The legislation makes presumption of release the default, ending any financial considerations in the decision of who should remain behind bars.

"The use of money as a determining factor in whether somebody is going to be in or out of jail before trial is really just an abhorrent practice," said Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell.

More than 60% of defendants in U.S. jails – an estimated half a million Americans on any given day – are eligible for release but kept in custody before trial because they can't afford to pay bail, according to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Since 1970, the numbers have soared 433%, the commission found in a report released earlier this year. Most are held on low-level offenses and are disproportionately people of color.

Thoughts on this? It seems like something that should have bipartisan support from the economic justice minded Democrats and the small government conservatives.

Link

Can't wait to watch the crap-storm. lol

@Stevo_the_gamer: What's your prediction?

@mattbbpl: inevitable crime rate increase.

Lol definitely going to increase crime.

I'm not a lawyer judge or cop or anyone in the legal system but I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to arrest someone for a crime only to see them released on to the streets the next day or whatever to continue doing more crime. Though that's definitely the cynical view of it.

I suppose the issue at the heart of this isn't so much people being let go, but people being kept in. As the article said, you had one guy just sitting in jail waiting for his court day when he could have been out working, paying bills, etc. but he lost everything because you essentially just disappear from the world when you're arrested.

Judges will have primary responsibility to decide who should be detained before a trial, but can require detention only if the state can prove that a defendant "poses a specific, real and present threat to a person, or has a high likelihood of flight," or in the case of forcible felonies, like murder, battery, burglary or carjacking.

"In each individual case, we will now have an opportunity to make a better decision as a system," Mitchell said, "along with returning those dollars to communities that are desperate to retain other things to keep them safe and healthy."

Is this better than cash bail? I feel like it might overwork an already-burdened judicial system. I suppose doing it on a per-case basis is the smart thing to do, but is it feasible?

Are there other alternatives to this than eliminating it or keeping it in place? Genuinely curious what the middle ground would be.

Government shouldn't use extortion as a tool. For sure there are better ways.

@mrbojangles25: Yeah but many people are stuck in jail on minor charges that can't afford bail and the actual threats more often than not have the money to get out. Judges can still remand violent criminals to jail.

Edit: Also goes for innocent people being stuck in jail without funds.

We have a pre-trial release program which analyzes severity of crime/type of crime, criminal history, work history, permanent residence and family connections to area--basically some guarantees to give someone a chance for being released on their own recognizance. The pandemic basically removed in it's entirety bail requirements for most felonies and unsurprisingly our crime rate increased along with failure to appears. I arrested one transient who broke into a Viva Supermarket by damaging the roof to gain entry; this was his *third* break-in in *three days*. He kept getting arrested and released same day, no consequences for actions. The system is screwed. Illinois can join the crap-show that is California and New York.

Am I understanding it correctly that if it was possible to pay yourself free, you will now be released without having to pay?

@horgen: It's more complicated then that, but that's pretty close.

We have currently a "cash or bond" system in place. Basically, collateral for the court to guarantee you show for court. You don't *lose* that money, it's returned to you following the case. It's a security deposit.

Bonds are similar but instead of you posting the bail amount, a bail bonds agent posts it instead. You pay a 10% fee upfront and the bond agency pockets that. But if you skip court, bond agency is on the hook of losing the cash. So then the bond agents and police try to locate the defendant.

For example, bail for felony domestic violence is 50K in California. You can pay that bail in cash, or have a bond agent do it for you. If the bond agent does it, you pay them 10% (or in this case, 5K).

The system clearly favors the wealthy who can pay the fees and post bail. If I suspect the defendant has money, but it's "ill gotten" I can have a judge approve an examination of bail or bail enhancement. Basically, the defendant has to prove the cash he has was lawfully obtained (combat drug dealers, sex trafficking/cash only transactions)

Gut reaction? Bad idea.

When I think about it, this is a good idea. Judges still have discretion to keep violent people behind bars. Also, the existing method doesn't stop those with money from being on the streets.

So you got a problem with it because the proposed idea wouldn't differ between poor and rich?

lol, no, it's that you remove all incentive for someone to show up for court when there's no repercussions for actions.

Most people would still show up. They do have ties and live and work in the community. Adding another charge to themselves would do them no good.

Adding another charge to themselves? lol

Anything of substance to add or just you're usual snark?

There's a question mark there. lol What do you mean by it?

Usual snark I see.

The previous law favoured the wealthy, as you said yourself. It no longer does.

It's always wrong when we don't favor the wealthy in this country for some reason.

Interesting subject. In my country (United Kingdom) the idea of a 'Cash Bail' is an alien one, we simply don't do it.

I've actually worked in a UK Crown Court (where serious cases are heard). All defendant's can request bail and it will be heard in court and judged on the seriousness of the case and whether the prosecution (referred to as 'The Crown) believe that it is in the public interest that a defendant be released to the public or not before a trial or sentencing. Our concept of Bail dates back to Magna Carta (Great Charter), since the principles of Habeas Corpus mean that someone cannot be detained without sufficient cause.

Not that bail is a guaranteed in our system, it isn't. If someone commits a rather heinous crime such as a murder, robbery or serious sexual assault they can get the bail hearing, but probably not the bail. The concept of paying for it has never been a thing here.

Even if bail is granted, it can often have conditions imposed such as an condition of not contacting a victim, going to their address or perhaps having an electronic tag fitted, with the requirement of reporting to the local police station.

@mattbbpl: I live in the Chicago metropolitan area.

First off, Chicago is now a total sh*thole - people being mugged and shot in every neighborhood in the city. No one is safe. Second, Kim Foxx is a fricken embarrassment, almost as much as Lori Lightfoot. To top all that off, Fred Flintstone (AKA JB Pritzker) is a tax dodging POS who gets his marching orders from his sister. Yet, all of those knuckleheads got re-elected because most of the people in the state live in Chicago and just vote blue like good little sheeple.

Now Illinois will be a no-bail state, and anyone who has a brain will move out. Problem is, most of the people moving out will be from Chicago (because they don't want their kids to be shot), and they will bring their dumb liberal voting to Indiana and Wisconsin... I guess because they believe Indiana and Wisconsin Democrats are better than Illinois Democrats?

In the end, my beloved Chicago is going to descend to the depths of Detroit in the 80s, only Detroit was at least able to keep its sports teams. People are moving out, businesses are leaving ( Citadel, Boeing, Caterpillar, FTX, Tyson Foods, Highland Ventures and soon McDonalds have all left), and the Bears (and maybe White Sox) might be gone by the end of the decade.

@Bond007uk:

Yeah, but you don't have what Chicago has (thanks to people like Kim Foxx):

• Car jack/mug/sell drugs/snatch and grab at a store
• Get Caught
• Get a court date and released same day
• Go out and car jack/mug/sell drugs/snatch and grab at a store some more
• Repeat

Ah, an international take on this.

The UK also appears to have a substantially lower crime rate in a number of areas than the US.

America is never interested in comparing what other countries do, even when the outcomes are better, for some reason.

They also lack the kind of inequality that exists in the U.S. Or the kind of ghettoization. Or the kind of far-right skew that the US has. Even the British Conservative Party is in some ways more liberal than the Democratic Party.

That doesn't explain why some of the reddest states have some of the highest violent crime rates. And why crime has increased nationwide regardless of bail policies since the pandemic. Seems to be something else going on.

Also:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/crains-forum-safer-chicago/chicago-violence-problem-debate-safety-inequality

@jetpower3: I am talking about CHICAGO.

As far as that article - BULLSH*T. I live here, bro. There are muggings, stabbings, and car jacks happening EVERYWHERE. You don't live here, I do - don't try to tell me this city hasn't gone to hell.

You would hardly be the first person I've met who is clueless about a city they live in or near. I hear it all the time about New York, which has also eliminated cash bail. It's generally fine, and nothing that can't be traced to the general rise in crime and such since the pandemic, which has happened nationwide, pretty indiscriminate regarding cash bail policies. I and many people I know have been to Chicago, including recently. No problems.

And if it was really that bad, I would have expected more of a republican response in the recent midterms for Illinois. But they appear to have done about as bad as could have been expected. But don't worry, I will let you run your mouth about the "blue sheeple" and all that ****ing BS you have already spouted.

FWIW, crime in Chicago has risen from it's recent lows, but it's not in unprecedented territory, and it's certainly not a warzone. While I no longer live in the city, I'm up there frequently as I have economic ties, family, and friends in the area. They still love it.

Why are you dancing around the question?

I too prefer the warm hugs method. Everyone and everything is perfectly equal and we lovingly dance into the sunset.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Do you have a source for bail reform resulting in higher recidivism/crime rates? This is all very new so there's only a few instances to study, but everything I've seen says the results are flat or very near it - including in New York and California, which you used as examples.

@Bond007uk: We essentially have the same thing here in Australia. The presumption is that people will be granted bail unless strong arguments are raised about why the accused should stay in jail (from memory you'd raise things like flight risk, safety risks, risk of repeat offence, history of non-compliance, etc. - note it's been about a decade since I last looked at this).

The system isn't perfect, and people die when mistakes are made, but it's still a better system than locking everyone up by default.

@mattbbpl: That's what you got from my post?

How about the mugging, robberies, car jacking in areas like Lincoln Park? How about the stabbings right outside Greektown (where I used to live)? How about the shootings at Millenium Park?

These numbers do not bode well for your comments

https://news.wttw.com/2022/09/01/448-people-killed-chicago-year-homicide-rate-remains-down-last-year

@dabear: Did you mean to link a different source? It backs up my claim that homicides are not unprecedented by citing that numbers are down this year.

You got the weirdest way of saying nothing. Or that you prefer a system that favour the rich over the poor.

It's merely a tongue in cheek method of poking fun at the naivete of viewing the reality of life/practicality.

Do you believe credit checks unfairly target the poor? Do you believe insurance rates unfairly target poor drivers, which de-facto, unfairly targets the poor who can't afford them? The list is practically endless in this manner, but the real question remains, why is there collateral/incentives for private companies and the government to compel individuals to follow these "unfair" practices?

We won't have that data for years to come. My experience is merely anecdotal in the crap-show that is California.

Difference between breaking the law and using private companies.

We do have SOME data. NY is reporting no change to rearrest rates in addition to the expected benefits of the reform:

The data indicate that pretrial rearrest rates remained nearly identical pre- and postbail reform. Data released by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency and the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice show that the share of released people awaiting trial who are rearrested remained roughly the same before and after implementation of bail reforms. In January 2019, 95% of the roughly 57,000 people awaiting trial were not rearrested that month. In January 2020, 96% of the roughly 45,000 people with a pending case were not rearrested. In December 2021, 96% were not rearrested. In each of those months, 99% of people, regardless of bail or other pretrial conditions, were not rearrested on a violent felony charge

Philadelphia show shows little to no increase in failure to appear occurrences:

We find no evidence that financial collateral has a deterrent effect on failure-to-appear or pretrial crime.

Oh, so you view fairness now selectively? Warm hugs for me but not for thee!

You already get your warm hugs, what do you complain about? Seeing your privilege shrinking?

While I realize that lawyers make a huge difference when in court, but the size of your wallet shouldn't be the deciding factor if you are free or not before going to court.

Correct. Especially if one is innocent they should not be detained because they don't have money. It's actually quicker to get out by accepting a plea deal and admitting guilt even if it you weren't guilty.

Yes, comrade! Don't you know we need not any of these pesky rules or ideas, it's "unfair"! We should all be equal, resources included!

The deciding factor is actually the commission of a public offense; the conscious decision made to victimize another or society. ;) As for bail, it's open to everyone; collateral is important to guarantee a mandatory appearance. We can't just take everyone's word at face value. I know this may be shocking for you, but there's a lot of not-so-good people out there who aren't honest folks. Crazy, I know.

@Stevo_the_gamer: Current evidence points to it not affecting the factors you are arguing about. If that holds true, it is simply a drain on society, easily a net negative.

And that's before we address your argument directly above : "The deciding factor is actually the commission of a public offense; the conscious decision made to victimize another or society. ;)"

and point out that this is well before a verdict or even a trial. The cash bail system ensnares a lot of innocent people, causing them to lose their bond fees, their freedom, their jobs, and their economic livelihoods.

Well no, in the eyes of the law these people haven't committed any offences. They've been charged with an offence, and if they are found guilty then they will receive the appropriate sentence (which may include imprisonment).

There *are* several reasons why you might want to detain people before that point. For example, they may be a flight risk, or they may be a danger to society. That definitely won't apply to everyone though, especially when most people would understand that breaching your bail conditions or failing to appear in court only makes the situation worse for you.

As for the "not-so-good people" you described - sure, if the prosecutors can make a persuasive argument why their specific circumstances mean they should be denied bail, then they should be denied bail and kept in detention until the trial. Money shouldn't really be a factor there, and it definitely shouldn't create imbalances in how easy it is to be freed before a trial.

Who is a bigger flight risk? Someone who can afford flight tickets, or those who don’t?

I wouldn't place stock in short term analysis during extraordinary times with less arrests, less filings/VOPs, decriminalization, etc. This will be something years in the making to analyze and I look forward to seeing better reflective analysis/literature reviews.

You won't lose the bail amount if you show for court, but the bond fee is just that, a fee; it's not a security deposit, merely the cost of a service from a private company. The same brush then can be applied for any custodial arrest upon probable cause before any trial or verdict.

Do you support custodial arrests? Or should it be reserved for extraordinary cases (specific felonies) with the rest being cite and release on scene? Even for those specific felonies, should they be afforded bail/bond opportunity even *before* a bail hearing/preliminary hearing? In California, it was a case by case basis because bail schedules were also determined also by criminal history and propensity for re-offense. COVID changed a lot though.

In the eyes of the law, an offense was committed and there was probable cause for a custodial arrest.

I don't think it applies to everyone either, which is why there's a bail schedule to post a bond/bail before the preliminary hearing, or you can request a re-examination of bail based on the offense and your standing (employment, family, nature of offense) at the time of the preliminary hearing. Will they remain in custody for a few days at the most before that hearing? Yes. Will I have any sympathy? None, well, except for the officer who had to spend the hour or more typing the report. lol

Remember comrade, "flight risk" doesn't only pertain to planes. lmao

So I'm reading about this crypto guy Sam Bankman-Fried who is sitting at home with his parents in California out on $2.5 million bail after allegedly stealing billions of dollars of peoples money. We are talking people's hard-earned cash, probably some retirements, livelihoods, etc..

I'd like to ask what is fair and just about some guy like this being able to live in luxury while we wait months/years for his trial to come to a close, while someone who took a brick and smashed a window to steal a TV has to sit in jail for weeks, months, and even over a year in some cases.

I'd like to hear the argument about why this should continue to be a thing. Why someone who steals from a single store maybe a few hundred or thousand dollars has to sit in jail while a white-collar guy who steals so much money from so many people it often drives the victims to homelessness, poverty, and even suicide.

And if you don't like the idea of eliminating cash for bail, then what is the middle ground?

*yes I know things like this are sensationalized and not the norm, but it still happens so let's just argue that it is the way things go.