Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: A programming note
Posted in:
* WEEK TV…
The large criminal justice plan could also eliminate cash bail. This is a major piece of the legislation, including language from the “Pretrial Fairness Act” previously filed by Sims’ colleagues in the Black Caucus.
[Ed Wojcicki, Executive Director of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police] is concerned lawmakers aren’t paying attention to whether individuals are too dangerous to leave jail before trial.
“They’re gonna wreak havoc,” Wojcicki said. “We’re always encouraging women to call the police if they’re victims of domestic or sexual abuse. If these people are arrested and just let go like a traffic ticket, that’s very dangerous for women. So, we’re not just saying these things are dangerous for law enforcement.”
* Um, the Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence is for the bill…
The Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence (ICADV) is invested in working to improve the justice system, however, ensuring the safety of survivors has to be included in any reform effort. Our mission has always been to advance statewide policies and practices that transform societal attitudes and institutions to eliminate and prevent domestic abuse. As such, ICADV is supportive of the concept of eliminating money bond as the current system is harmful, especially to people of color.
Working with the Coalition to End Money Bond, ICADV supports ending money bond through the Pretrial Fairness Act as a key criminal justice reform effort. ICADV along with many other survivor-based organizations worked tirelessly with the Coalition to End Money Bond to include provisions that support survivor safety and creates a process that ICADV can support. ICADV is grateful to the Coalition to End Money Bond and Senator Robert Peters for hearing the concerns of the service provider and survivor community and working to address those concerns. This is an example of how criminal justice reform can happen while supporting survivor safety. ICADV is hopeful that future criminal justice reform efforts have the same interest in addressing survivor safety.
* And this language is what they’re talking about…
Detention only shall be imposed when it is determined that the defendant poses a danger to a specific, identifiable person or persons, or has a high likelihood of willful flight.
In other words, while the chiefs may have a decent argument about other topics, they are wrong about this one and ought to drop that line of attack.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:12 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: A programming note
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Under the current language in HB 163, persons charged with DV and sex-related offenses are barred from getting “arrested and just let go like a traffic ticket” which actually strengthens the current law for DV survivors. And even if release via ticket is possible, it would be law enforcement themselves doing the releasing.
Comment by Dee4Three Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:21 pm
Perhaps if the legislation had been introduced with more than a week to go before the end of session there would have been time to clear up some of the misconceptions.
Comment by SAP Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:23 pm
=== there would have been time===
Please. If the ED of the police chiefs can’t take an hour to read a bill, then that’s on him. Don’t make silly excuses.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:25 pm
I would assume that failure to appear even if only for a misdemeanor would result in jail time for some period if not up to trial.
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:27 pm
“whether individuals are too dangerous to leave jail before trial.”
The biggest hole in that argument is cash bail only ensures that dangerous individuals stay in jail only if they can’t afford to pay to leave. If a judge thinks they’re too dangerous, let them say so…but what safety value is provided by allowing rich dangerous people from buying their way out of jail? If this is their main argument for this repressive system, they need to do better.
This issue has been on the table for years. Is this the best they can come up with? If the only real issue here, at the end of the day, is that they’re worried about the revenue loss from losing bail as a way to keep maintain budget, they should be honest and say so.
Comment by NIU Grad Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:29 pm
Interesting argument from the Chief, because the police do not necessarily have a legal mandate to protect anyone. Even someone who has an order of protection and contacts the police when it has been violated.
They want us to believe they are there to “ptortect and serve,” but the Supreme Court has given them some very broad latitude in what they do.
This recent RadioLab podcast was a real eye-opener: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/no-special-duty
The case law is interesting:
“Nothing requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is a limitation on the State, not a guarantee of minimal levels of safety and security.” (Rehnquist) https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/state-regulation-of-the-parent-child-relationship/deshaney-v-winnebago-county-department-of-social-services/
and
“Enforcement is within police discretion, as is the longstanding custom. If the statute wanted to make enforcement mandatory, it would use stronger language than directing the use of “every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” or directing the officers to “arrest . . . or . . . seek a warrant.” (Scalia) https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-brest/the-constitution-in-the-modern-welfare-state/castle-rock-v-gonzales/
I do not know what Illinois law specifies, but I suspect it is similar to Wisconsin and Colorado. I wonder how the Chief would feel about changes that would mandate police action to protect citizens?
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:34 pm
===I do not know what Illinois law specifies===
Among other things, the new bill mandates that police have a duty to render aid to injured persons and a duty to intervene to stop unauthorized force by another officer.
Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:38 pm
I think Mr. Wojcicki’s comments reflect political strategy more than his knowledge of the bill.
Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 4:48 pm
Makes me think, what would Curly Rogers do. First he would have read the bill. Second he would have been prepared.
A lot of these ideas have been around for years and have merit.
If this is the ED of the Chiefs group’s political strategy then Cops are in trouble.
Comment by Back to the Future Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 5:06 pm
“Can’t take an hour to read the bill”? Rich, it’s 611 pages…
Comment by Fast reader Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 5:10 pm
==In other words, while the chiefs may have a decent argument about other topics, they are wrong about this one and ought to drop that line of attack.==
Police, famous for their honesty and forthrightness.
Comment by Precinct Captain Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 5:23 pm
[Detention only shall be imposed when it is determined that the defendant poses a danger to a specific, identifiable person or persons, or has a high likelihood of willful flight.]
So does this mean a person accused of domestic violence is denied bail and release? Or is cash bail still reserved for these instances? Seems like false accusations could lead to detention of innocent persons with no way to bail themselves out.
Comment by Anonny1 Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 5:44 pm
Point of clarification for something that has me confused- does the “specific and identifiable” language in the bill mean that someone who normally would be considered “a danger to society” say and remanded without bail, would no longer be, unless you could point to a specific person they would be a danger to? If someone randomly harmed/killed another person for instance and they’re dangerous and might harm/kill again, but you couldn’t point to any specific person since the nature of the crime was random, could they just be let go?
Comment by Fast reader Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 5:55 pm
Police, famous for their honesty and forthrightness.
Lol. Yea, kinda like politicians. People around here need to grow up.
Comment by Birds on the Bat Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 5:56 pm
=== Yea, kinda like politicians.===
You do know… you’re also admitting the police lack honesty and forthrightness… if you’re saying that about politicians… right?
Please tell me you did it to “own the libs”
To the post,
This is important and consequential legislation that digesting it’s fine pints is needed, to be clear what there is, what isn’t, and what is the intent.
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 6:05 pm
Fast reader, that is correct and is a major problem with the bill. There needs to be language included that allows judges to detain defendants who are a threat to the general public. Under the current version, someone with multiple DUIs, drug traffickers, etc… who threaten public safety, but not an individual, cannot be detained pretrial.
Comment by Riverside Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 6:39 pm
Riverside. The bill also requires access to an attorney within an hour of arrest. Does that mean every county needs to secure PD’s that will be on call 24/7/365?
The FTA requirements seem odd too. Mere FTA cannot result in a warrant, need to issue and serve an RTSC first. Then if FTA at RTSC, then issue warrant. But, it appears prior FTA do not ever eliminate the need to do the RTSC first. There is language have to be a flight risk, not just prior FTA. So how many prior FTA = flight risk? Or am I reading this wrong. Very wordy statute regarding FTA for fairly simple problem.
Comment by BCOSEC Friday, Jan 8, 21 @ 11:45 pm