In a 5-2 ruling Tuesday morning, the state’s highest court overturned a ruling by a Kankakee County judge that the law ending cash bail was unconstitutional. The end to cash bail will now go into effect across the entire state on Sept. 18, according to the Illinois Supreme Court ruling.
Would someone mind explaining like I’m 5? Is this a catch and release program except for those that pose a risk to the public? Eliminating jail bonds?
Other countries do this. Bail does not exist. If you are a risk you are held. If not you are let go until trial free of charge.
The issue is the bail system traps poor people. The Atlantic - The Dangerous Domino Effects of Not Making Bail
Cash bonds unfairly affect people with lower incomes. Eliminating cash bonds makes it so people will be released unless they are a risk to the public or are a flight risk from trial. This should reduce the inequality in treatment by the justice system based on income.
When you can pay for your freedom pending trial, it means that arrests will result in extended pre-trial incarceration disproportionately for poor people. Which further means that police can use the power of arrest - not conviction - to imprison people they find undesirable, based on specific officer biases. Pre-trial incarceration impacts the lives of poor people disproportionately, too, as they are more likely to lose employment, or lose enough work that they can’t pay rent or a car payment, lose custody of children, etc. Not to mention that Illinois has never had bail bonds, so if a judge sets bail at $1000, you have to fork over $1000. I have that money available to me; plenty of people simply do not. Depending on the charges, it’s also an incentive for poor people to plead guilty even if they know they are not, in order to get a shorter sentence or probation. Edit: And doing so means they now probably have a felony on their record, which will impact their employment opportunities and child custody for the rest of their lives.
Cash bail disproportionately punishes poorer people who have not been convicted of a crime.
As an ELI answer: If you’re rich, you can afford infinite bail already so for the rich its already “catch and release”. So the only ones it was preventing from being the same is the poor that don’t have infinite money.
This change makes it equal to both groups now. Whether we should allow release at all and under what circumstance are different and valid questions to ask, but we shouldn’t be treating groups to different sets of rules.
That’s correct. It’s just going to increase petty crime as opposed to solving any problems. The crime in this state is already bad, I can’t fathom what it’s going to be like this time next year.
Why do you think it will increase petty crime?
It depends on how it’s enforced.
Where I live they ended cash bail for any non-felony offense and it’s led to repeat offenders being picked up, released and they’d offend again, where they get picked up and then released again.
It’s a complex issue, many of these people need mental health help, and putting them in jail isn’t the solution, but allowing them to continue to walk free when they’re known re-offenders isn’t helping either.
Is the problem that they are just releasing all non-felony offenses instead of evaluating them in place of the cash bail process?
Because using cash bail was just evaluating and adding a layer that costs the accused money based on their risk, and without it they should still be taking the same steps to determine the risk.
I’m in… Uh… Not Chicago…ill say that. Crime downstate is running pretty rampant right now. There’s a lot of gang violence, and we are at a record clip for gun violence.
What kept a lot of that in check in the early 00s was the people committing the harder crimes were getting picked off by lower level stuff.
However, after being pretty intimately involved in our justice system as of late, that’s stopped. The cops just aren’t interested in dealing with the fallout of picking up people for petty / low level felonies. It both political and resources keeping them from getting involved.
The result is, unless there’s a gun involved, the cops aren’t coming.
Combine that with the few times they do get someone, and said person is immediately released, we are in trouble.
The really interesting case that’s going to happen… Trespassing. Let’s say I’m pissed and go sit on my ex’s porch. The cops pick me up for Tresspassing, I get released and go sit right back on her porch. If I’m not threatening or being violent, that’s a completely plausible situation.
In short, the people who want cashless bail have never been around criminals. For those of us that actually need protected, we are fucked.
Sounds like the police where you live kinda suck at their job.
That sounds like a police oversight problem, not a bail problem.
If you’re not threatening anyone but you do it again, that’s a violation of your bail conditions (presumably they would have told you to stay away from her and her house/work/whatever), and you’d sit in jail until your hearing.
Someone hates the constitution
You realize you’re arguing for imprisoning people who’ve been convicted of no crime, right?
deleted by creator
Police will enforce the law because that’s what police do. Locking up poor people without a trial is a bad idea. Book them into the system, then see them at their court date. If the don’t show up, they become a fugitive. It just means these seedy bail bond companies charging huge rates will have fewer poor people to prey on. I think only the richest should have to pay bail.
That’s painfully naive considering we’re in year three of a deliberate slowdown
It’s great to see people that genuinely think that imprisonment without trial is the way to go. Really warms the heart.
The blame for that lies squarely with the judge’s decision to release them. The only factor should be whether they’re likely to be a social harm, not whether or not they happen to have money for bail, which is a completely unrelated matter.
Or the DA not pressing charges.
Because they’ll eventually be convicted? Or are you asking why police will bother arresting people they don’t think will be convicted? Because the answer to that is really simple: they absolutely should not, because we’re not living in a police state (in theory, anyway).