i’m all for bail reform, for NONviolent crimes that are of no apparent threat to life and safety but there isn’t a single offense on this list that fits that description. what the hell is the rationale behind this?
@party05- the rationale is that if people post fake information on the internet they can sway public opinion and insight outrage. Not only does the act not state that these crimes are NOT “non detainable” but it specifically states that those who commit violent crimes, felonies with potential sentences that include no possibility of parole, a whole list of other criteria, AND a specific list of crimes including stalking, child sexual acts and abuse etc. are excluded from the bill. What the bill DOES state is that those committing offenses other than those serious offenses or high danger offenses named in the bill will not be held in jail until their trials with bail as the only way to get out.
In other words- for this bill to apply you would have had to have committed a crime where you could be released from custody on bail anyway, AND not ALL crimes that qualify for bail qualify for this bill AND the judge still has the discretion to refuse to grant your release and could still…
.. hold you in police custody until your trial.
So the “big change” is that instead of paying money to get out of jail until trial some people can get out of jail before trial without paying money- but the same people who could get out of jail before if they had the money can get out after the bill. Who CAN get out hasn’t really changed, they just aren’t holding the people who can’t pay. And there are many good reasons for that. Life isn’t TV. Even before covid if you’re arrested- even for a relatively minor crime, you can be held in county or local jail for a year or years before you get a trial. This happens to innocent people all the time. A guy was arrested for a jewelry shop robbery who was a block from the store getting off a bus. He had an air tight alibi, maintained his innocence, no criminal record, his story made sense and was consistent, and he didn’t match any descriptions of the suspect at all. He spent 2 years in jail waiting to prove he was innocent. Then…
Proved he was innocent. He got like $40k settlement and the police who arrested him were suspended without pay for a bit then demoted. Yay? A 16 year old kid went to prison in New York and spent 4 years in lock up for a crime he didn’t commit. No settlement because there was no gross negligence in that case. Just a pat on the back and hope you enjoy being 20 with a prison record and no diploma or job history and missing your teens and early college.
And that’s a big issue too- because when small offenders can’t pay bail and spend time waiting trial- even when innocent of the original crimes their chances to reoffend increase because being sent to prison for even 6 months can throw your life into ruins and you can be behind. And again- it’s not TV. Just because you are innocent doesn’t mean that your arrest or imprisonment are off your record. If you are declared innocent and go apply for a job it will show: “arrested for aggregated assault” “2 years in prison” even though…
.. in court it was revealed you didn’t do it at all. So it can take money ha or years and hundreds or thousands or more dollars just to get your record cleared to where you started before you went away for a crime you didn’t commit. And if that process can turn non criminals who were arrested into repeat offenders- it doesn’t tend to turn actual offenders into better citizens. So that’s one thing. Another is cost. Average is $150 or so a day to keep someone in jail innocent or not. Do we need to pay $6000 in prison costs alone to keep a guy in jail who got arrested for illegal fireworks or trying to pay to get his pecked puffed? Those guys are a danger to society if we let them out? If they’re so dangerous… why wouid we let them out if they cough up $1000? And there lies a major issue. Bail basically is insurance. If you don’t come back for your trial or get arrested again you lose the money. Some can’t pay at all. Some can pay, and to others the bail fees aren’t a big deal…
So there’s that. There’s more to- but this is long enough. It isn’t all roses and hippie foot tea though- there are legitimate reasons why getting rid of bail can suck. For the MOST part it tends to result in more “nuisance crimes,” if you lock up a bunch of kids for spray painting or some guy for pissing on the side walk- until the trial they aren’t bothering people. When you turn them back on the streets- well- punk kids without much sense of future planning or consequences are probably going to go go do it again. Some mentally unwell person or a drunk/druggie/hobo is probably gonna go do it again. So you tend to see increases in these “nuisance crimes” and police may be less inclined to bust “nuisance crimes” since they have to catch and release. You can also see more severe crimes like property theft or vandalism go up, and in somewhat rare cases a released person can murder or commit felony crimes after being let out for a misdemeanor etc.
San Francisco California USA was a city that adopted a “no cash bail” policy very similar to this one. Residents and law enforcement have mixed feelings. Some have seen good and others see things like increase in “nuisance crime” or property crime. In some ways the misunderstanding of what these bills mean can embolden thieves who aren’t very bright and buy in to the myth that they will just be let go for their crimes instead of the system working exactly the same but your bail is basically “paid for you” if you would be granted bail.
So there’s a lot to it and I’m not saying it’s the only way or best way- but it has its potential good and bad, and it CERTAINLY isn’t what this propaganda says it is.
did a search last night fact checking this and you’re right, just forgot to post back. yeah i’m a fan of no one in illinois politics but i was flabbergasted that anyone would be that stupid, even there
Tl:Dr- this is bullshit lies. The short version is that the new bill basically means that if you would be given the chance to pay bail and go home to await trial under current law, you get to go home without paying bail unless your crime is on a list with ones like murder (any degree,) assaults, sexual crimes, burglary etc. or a judge decides you are too dangerous to let out and holds you in jail.
So the “big scoop” is that everyone who would have gone to jail no matter what before, still goes to jail now.
SOME people who would have been allowed to pay to get out of jail until trial before just get out without paying and have to come back for their trial. If found guilty they go to jail- just like they would before, except now they won’t have their sentences reduced for “time served” because they went home before.
Is it good or bad? It can be both.
Decide what makes sense to you, but please base your decisions on the truth and not online made up propaganda
Well no. This is like… closer to 0% true- maybe like .005% true or some truth content so low that it legally couldn’t be labeled as “contains real truth” even by lax US labeling standards. The point isn’t some sense of shock that there are untruths online (duh there are,) the point is that if one cannot stop the display and dissemination of lies and misinformation that one can at least label them such.
In other words- for this bill to apply you would have had to have committed a crime where you could be released from custody on bail anyway, AND not ALL crimes that qualify for bail qualify for this bill AND the judge still has the discretion to refuse to grant your release and could still…
So the “big change” is that instead of paying money to get out of jail until trial some people can get out of jail before trial without paying money- but the same people who could get out of jail before if they had the money can get out after the bill. Who CAN get out hasn’t really changed, they just aren’t holding the people who can’t pay. And there are many good reasons for that. Life isn’t TV. Even before covid if you’re arrested- even for a relatively minor crime, you can be held in county or local jail for a year or years before you get a trial. This happens to innocent people all the time. A guy was arrested for a jewelry shop robbery who was a block from the store getting off a bus. He had an air tight alibi, maintained his innocence, no criminal record, his story made sense and was consistent, and he didn’t match any descriptions of the suspect at all. He spent 2 years in jail waiting to prove he was innocent. Then…
And that’s a big issue too- because when small offenders can’t pay bail and spend time waiting trial- even when innocent of the original crimes their chances to reoffend increase because being sent to prison for even 6 months can throw your life into ruins and you can be behind. And again- it’s not TV. Just because you are innocent doesn’t mean that your arrest or imprisonment are off your record. If you are declared innocent and go apply for a job it will show: “arrested for aggregated assault” “2 years in prison” even though…
So there’s a lot to it and I’m not saying it’s the only way or best way- but it has its potential good and bad, and it CERTAINLY isn’t what this propaganda says it is.
So the “big scoop” is that everyone who would have gone to jail no matter what before, still goes to jail now.
SOME people who would have been allowed to pay to get out of jail until trial before just get out without paying and have to come back for their trial. If found guilty they go to jail- just like they would before, except now they won’t have their sentences reduced for “time served” because they went home before.
Is it good or bad? It can be both.
Decide what makes sense to you, but please base your decisions on the truth and not online made up propaganda