Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Campaign notebook
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
Posted in:
* Dan Proft’s spokesperson…
Will County State’s Attorney and Democrat James Glasgow was on Chicago’s Morning Answer with Dan Proft & Amy Jacobson Friday morning and discussed the latest updates on the status of the “SAFE-T Act,” the notoriously unpopular and controversial Illinois law set to take effect statewide on January 1st, 2023.
Among those updates are that there are now 56 County State’s Attorney’s who have filed suit seeking declaration the law is unconstitutional, and that it should be enjoined from implementation on Jan. 1st. Only 2 of Illinois’ 102 State’s Attorneys support the law.
Consolidation of all of the cases into a single case is currently pending.
Glasgow also refuted two of fellow Democrat Governor JB Pritzker’s recent public defenses of the law, namely that the SAFE-T Act addresses “poor women who need to steal diapers for their babies, but can’t afford to post bail,” and also the notion that “there are no non-detainable offenses.”
Glasgow: “Obviously, that is not the truth…The non-detainables are not listed in the statute but you figure them out, because the ones that are detainable are listed.”
“As to the diaper example, we don’t have any such people in our jail either, and also Dan, the law’s been amended: On the low-level offenses, a person gets $30 credit for every day they served in jail, so if the bond is $3,000 they wouldn’t do more than 10 days [$300, or 10% of bail] so it’s shocking that they don’t know that.”
Glasgow had a dire conclusion: “I was running around here with my hair on fire back in July because nobody was talking about the fact of releasing these prisoners in the jails. The reason that I have peace and quiet in Will County is because I’m able to restrain the violent offenders. When Chicago gang members come to Will County, they usually don’t leave, they’re in the Will County jail, and the word gets to Chicago, and they don’t come here anymore. I lose that ability [on Jan 1 when SAFE-T ACT takes effect statewide] and then the violent predators who are terrorizing Chicago, they’re gonna branch out. It’s always the path of least resistance, but we give a maximum resistance in Will County. I’ll lose all that with this new law.”
The whole interview is available here: https://morninganswerchicago.com/2022/10/14/jim-glasgow-updates-us-with-progress-made-against-illinois-safe-t-act/
* I asked the governor’s office for a response. Here’s Jordan Abudayyeh…
The current cash bond system that State’s Attorney Glasgow is so vehemently defending allows those “violent offenders and gang members” to buy their way out of jail. You’d think State’s Attorney Glasgow would understand the shortcomings of cash bail since prisoners in his own jail ran an alleged scam to get cash and were then released. The offenders in that scam were charged with felonies for weapon and drug offenses, but were able to buy their way out of jail. If the State’s Attorney is concerned with public safety in his community, then he should focus more time on building cases to keep violent offenders in jail instead of spreading misinformation. Once the SAFE-T Act is in place, violent offenders will no longer be able to buy their way out of jail because detention will be based on risk, not wealth, and State’s Attorneys will be able to present evidence in front of a judge – as they do now – to detain the alleged offender.
• https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-joliet-ppp-fraud-jail-20220922-gbxtgy6dsfcnpm5ggmkn4i3mky-story.html
• As of three weeks ago, they were still searching for 10 of the alleged scammers who bought their way out of jail.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 3:50 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Campaign notebook
Next Post: Reader comments closed for the weekend
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I hope that folks who live in those 56 counties are preparing either a writ of mandamus or other legal action to file shortly after Jan. 1 when their local state’s attorney’s fail to adequately prepare for cash bail to end and take no action to make motion of the court to detain folks that are currently being detained.
It is one thing to disagree with the policy and seek revisions/clarifications. It’ll be another thing if after January 1 they fail to fulfill their official duties…
Comment by Abdication of Duties Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:01 pm
Fool around and find out, Glasgow.
Comment by Google Is Your Friend Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:04 pm
“so if the bond is $3,000 they wouldn’t do more than 10 days [$300, or 10% of bail]” and if they’re living paycheck to paycheck or lose their job, I don’t care. - implied Glasgow statement
So why keep them in jail in the first place? They’re forced to serve time in jail without being convicted for no other reason than they don’t have enough money to post bond: how is that justice? Even 10 days can be very disruptive to someone’s life.
Comment by Steve Polite Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:07 pm
The mind boggles that someone can be so cavalier about the impact of ten days in jail.
“1. Pretrial detention and failure to appear (FTA): Pretrial detention—for any amount of time (not just for three days or
longer)—is not consistently associated with the likelihood of failing to appear.
2. Pretrial detention and rearrest: Pretrial detention—for any length of time (not just for three days or longer)—is associated
with a higher likelihood of a new arrest pending trial.”
https://craftmediabucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/HiddenCosts.pdf
Comment by The Opinions Bureau Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:07 pm
Will County has peace and quiet?
When did that start?
Comment by btowntruth from forgottonia Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:09 pm
This is a mess. Both sides are probably stretching the truth. But it is a safe bet to believe the vast majority of public safety professionals rather than some Dem politicians. The GOP leaves a lot (a really lot) to be desired but this public safety junk from progressive Dems is its own mess.
Comment by Watching Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:10 pm
The Pritzker team’s statement put a smile on my face. I think I’m done with reading any thing else related to IL politics for the day.
Comment by twowaystreet Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:15 pm
Enough is enough.
Go after Glasgow, Glasgow is now just “independent”, Glasgow is against the idea of where the party is, beyond policy beefs
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:18 pm
“The reason that I have peace and quiet in Will County is because I’m able to restrain the violent offenders.”
Persons presumed innocent until proved guilty who are charged with crimes are detained under arrest…only convicted criminals are “restrained” by their conviction…constitutionally speaking…and if law or justice continue to have meaning?
Comment by Dotnonymous Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:19 pm
==The current cash bond system that State’s Attorney Glasgow is so vehemently defending allows those “violent offenders and gang members” to buy their way out of jail.==
It is absolute political malpractice that Pritzker spent $0 on this talking point to preempt backlash to the end of cash bail and the same Republican talking point on crime. They really couldn’t put advocates against domestic violence on television to talk about their support? Frame Republicans as pro-crime for being in favor of cash bail based on this event? Unforced error.
Comment by Nuke The Whales Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:21 pm
I saw my SA Jamie Mosser on Chicago Tonight with the Lake County SA whose name escapes me at the moment. “Both sides, same party” etc.
At the end of the segment, SA Mosser was in agreement - it’s a solid concept that needs work that is being done right now.
Sen. DeWitte also admitted this in an email exchange I had with him.
The politics of this law is being mishandled by its supporters and lied about by its detractors.
Comment by Lefty Lefty Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:31 pm
Agree with Nuke the Whales. It’s like they are afraid of something having bought in whole cloth the mass incarceration argument to argue for almost anything they do on criminal issues. Victims are a powerful force. Make changes based on victims not on the needs of the accused. Start by thinking of victims and see if they want to participate in the dialogue on this. But that requires that you think of the SAFE-T act as something other than helping keep out of jail people awaiting trial
Comment by Amalia Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:33 pm
The time for JB to take off the gloves was when the act was being rammed through in a hurry without adequate supervision, negotiation, or broad buy-in. He could have saved himself a lot of grief so close to the general election. A sternly worded letter from Jordan is him taking the gloves off?
Comment by Responsa Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:34 pm
@Watching: Throw up your hands and go with your gut, and your gut is that you don’t trust the Dems. Got it.
Or, you could evaluate both sides against the facts and decide who’s telling the truth. Some voters won’t do that, and it’s clear you’re one of them. But that doesn’t mean your opinion has much behind it.
Comment by Socially DIstant Watcher Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:36 pm
Drew Peterson made bail.
Comment by Victor Kingston Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:39 pm
==the Lake County SA whose name escapes me==
That’s Eric Rinehart. He’s doing a very good job of explaining the law. I’m glad he’s in office. He is a very effective advocate for reforms that could make us safer in meaningful ways over the long term.
Comment by Lulu in Lake Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:40 pm
Oh snap. Great response Jordan
Comment by Norseman Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 4:44 pm
==Make changes based on victims not on the needs of the accused. Start by thinking of victims and see if they want to participate in the dialogue on this.==
You must be unaware that numerous crime victims rights organizations participated directly in shaping the Pretrial Fairness Act? Prosecutors only claim to speak for victims, but very often don’t listen to them. Case in point: Sen. Bennett’s “clarifications” to the Pretrial Fairness Act would actually *remove* the provision requiring the prosecutor to notify the victim about hearings, providing instead that the victim “shall be notified” but with no accountability for anyone to actually perform the notification. Does that sound like pro-victim legislation to you?
Comment by charles in charge Friday, Oct 14, 22 @ 5:05 pm