No cash bail, coming 01JAN 2023. (crime, felony, attorney)

[NORTY FLATZ]

Yep, Statewide. There's going to be "No cash bail" starting 01JAN2023.

Anyone hazard to guess which crimes are going to rise the quickest?

Murders?
Rapes?
Arson?
Aggravated Assault?
Larceny?
Burglary?
Vice?
Robbery?

Or a favorite of the local constabulary, maybe?

I'm sure those who use guns will love getting back out on the streets, after they are cited for "Felon w/gun."

(Don't laugh, it just happened in California...)

[Cool Arrow]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

Yep, Statewide. There's going to be "No cash bail" starting 01JAN2023.

Anyone hazard to guess which crimes are going to rise the quickest?

Murders?
Rapes?
Arson?
Aggravated Assault?
Larceny?
Burglary?
Vice?
Robbery?

Or a favorite of the local constabulary, maybe?

I'm sure those who use guns will love getting back out on the streets, after they are cited for "Felon w/gun."

(Don't laugh, it just happened in California...)

Many arrested will no longer get any bail. I see no problem. Why would you let someone out just because they paid?

[tw71]

Yeah.... As far as I could tell when I tried to research this whole issue? The devil is in the details, while the political candidates are largely ignoring that and just pushing overly-broad arguments for or against it.


In theory at least, eliminating the cash bail is a good idea. The way it works now, anyone with enough money or access to money through friends or family can pay to dodge jail time until their case is heard in court. Has zero to do with how serious your crime was you're accused of committing. It's purely money-based. People who can't afford to come up with bail automatically do jail time until their court date.


The problem is, they're changing it to say it's at the judge's discretion whether to hold someone until trial, or to accept the new default situation of just letting them go. BUT, they have things worded so a judge can't legally hold anyone unless he or she can show the individual is a credible threat to public safety.


That's going to be impossible to show for someone with no priors, who is accused of something like trespassing. If they were charged with that while harassing/stalking an ex during the middle of a divorce, for example? This means they can now just go right back to doing it again, possibly escalating to a worse confrontation.


In the current situation, a judge can at least order them held until they make bail, which creates a "cool down" period for them to think about what they did, and if it was worth having to come up with all that bail money....


This is stuff you could fix with some careful re-wording of the legislation while generally keeping the changes.

[RowingFiend]

Originally Posted by tw71

Yeah.... As far as I could tell when I tried to research this whole issue? The devil is in the details, while the political candidates are largely ignoring that and just pushing overly-broad arguments for or against it.


In theory at least, eliminating the cash bail is a good idea. The way it works now, anyone with enough money or access to money through friends or family can pay to dodge jail time until their case is heard in court. Has zero to do with how serious your crime was you're accused of committing. It's purely money-based. People who can't afford to come up with bail automatically do jail time until their court date.


The problem is, they're changing it to say it's at the judge's discretion whether to hold someone until trial, or to accept the new default situation of just letting them go. BUT, they have things worded so a judge can't legally hold anyone unless he or she can show the individual is a credible threat to public safety.


That's going to be impossible to show for someone with no priors, who is accused of something like trespassing. If they were charged with that while harassing/stalking an ex during the middle of a divorce, for example? This means they can now just go right back to doing it again, possibly escalating to a worse confrontation.


In the current situation, a judge can at least order them held until they make bail, which creates a "cool down" period for them to think about what they did, and if it was worth having to come up with all that bail money....


This is stuff you could fix with some careful re-wording of the legislation while generally keeping the changes.

No, the devil is not in the details. It's a horrifically stupid, idiotic and cynical political ploy to pander to morons. People are going to die because of this. Other left wing hellholes have implemented it and anyone can see what happens.

My former state of Illinois is hopelessly lost due to idiots who vote for crap like this. Good luck.

[Igor Blevin]

Because it has worked so well everywhere else.

This is sad news. Even woke cities are being pounded by residents who want a return to cash bail and holding more suspects over for trial rather than releasing them to commit more crimes. Illinois is going backwards.

Sad.

[Igor Blevin]

Originally Posted by Cool Arrow

Many arrested will no longer get any bail. I see no problem. Why would you let someone out just because they paid?

That is not at all how it has worked in other states. Lower level crimes have resulted in guaranteed bail for most criminals. This mean lots MORE criminals will be out on the street pending trial rather than being held over for trial in jail where they can't commit more crimes. Cash bail made it impossible for many career criminals to get out on bail awaiting trial. This makes it easier, to the point of automatic.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Igor Blevin

That is not at all how it has worked in other states. Lower level crimes have resulted in guaranteed bail for most criminals. This mean lots MORE criminals will be out on the street pending trial rather than being held over for trial in jail where they can't commit more crimes. Cash bail made it impossible for many career criminals to get out on bail awaiting trial. This makes it easier, to the point of automatic.

So basically what you are saying is that people who can afford bail present less of a risk than those who can't? Most states that have used a "no cash bail" system now keep dangerous people in jail even though they have the money to bail out, or if they are released it's with stipulations like an ankle monitor and check ins with probation.

[RowingFiend]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

So basically what you are saying is that people who can afford bail present less of a risk than those who can't? Most states that have used a system like this now keep dangerous people in jail even though they have the money to bail out, or if they are released it's with stipulations like an ankle monitor and check ins with probation.

How's cashless bail working out in your left wing hellhole, sleepy?

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by NORTY FLATZ

Yep, Statewide. There's going to be "No cash bail" starting 01JAN2023.

Anyone hazard to guess which crimes are going to rise the quickest?

Murders?
Rapes?
Arson?
Aggravated Assault?
Larceny?
Burglary?
Vice?
Robbery?

Or a favorite of the local constabulary, maybe?

I'm sure those who use guns will love getting back out on the streets, after they are cited for "Felon w/gun."

(Don't laugh, it just happened in California...)

Your example of "felon with a gun" isn't a very compelling reason to deny bail, that could mean that someone with a felony conviction was in a house or car where a gun was present. It's always been an offense that allowed for release on bail in California, so I'm not sure where you are going with that.

[Master Jay]

Good morning, here in many of the counties in Wisconsin, we prepare a report called a Public Safety Assessment (PSA) Report, that accompanies a defendant to their intake for new charges and/or Failure To Appear Warrants. It is provided to the offices of the District Attorney, Public Defender (or hired Defender), and the Court Commissioner.

The Court, I believe typically, will follow approximately 80% of the PSA recommendations (bail/bond type, release conditions, ankle bracelet tracking monitoring, pretrial monitoring, etc.). But ultimately, a Commissioner or Judge has the authority to order whatever they like.

So in Illinois, I am confident that it would follow suit, that a Commissioner or judge will take things into consideration such as criminal history, history of violence, history of missing court dates, etc. when establishing a bail.

So it remains to be seen. You vote for your people that hold positions in the courts. So if someone seems to be unfair OR too lenient, then voting is "supposed" to address this.

We all have choices. If you see a sort of "Sodom and Gomorrah" crisis for the future, hopefully you can do like Lot in the Bible. Flee and don't look back!

Wishing you all the best!