Illinois became the first state in the nation Monday to completely remove cash bail as a condition to be released ahead of a criminal trial.
Here’s how the new system will work, with some questions still to be answered.
Who will not be jailed?
Under the new law, people charged with the state’s lowest level offenses will likely never set foot in a jail cell, including at a police station after their arrest.
People charged with an offense lower than a Class A misdemeanor — littering, some speeding charges and possession of marijuana over the legal limit — will likely be released with a citation and a court date without having to be processed at a police station.
What about more serious misdemeanors?
Class A misdemeanor offenses are slightly more serious, but still cover a lot of ground. They include shoplifting, simple battery, trespassing in a car or on property, possessing alcohol as a minor, and street racing.
A person facing a Class A misdemeanor will be arrested and taken to a police station for booking, but should be released with a future court date instead of being taken to jail.
The first question for authorities is whether, under the law, the offense allows the judge to jail someone. For example, a judge can detain a person accused of domestic violence, even when the person is charged with a misdemeanor.
In these cases, people usually face no more than six months in prison if convicted and often are released on probation without any incarceration.
However, law enforcement agencies will still be given discretion in certain cases. For example, if a person continues to commit the offense after being cited, they can be taken into custody and held until they appear before a judge, which must occur within 24 hours.
People can also be taken into custody if they can’t be properly identified, or if police believe a person poses a danger to the community or themselves. Police will have to explain their decision to hold the person.
Interesting, are they not worried about people who will go on the run or do we have something proving this won't increase such actions?
I don't think anyone is going to become a fugitive from justice over littering
If they’re a flight risk the judge can still hold them. It’s basically everyone gets automatic bail unless there’s a good reason to think that’s a bad idea. Bail systems based on money essentially make a two-tiered system for those who can afford bail and those who can’t.
Per the article, they can also slap an ankle bracelet on you if they’re really worried about it. This isn’t 1900 anymore: we have technology now.
Definitely not wrong, I haven't had a chance to read the full article. Sounds like this was pretty well thought out, I love it
I’m not going on the lam if I get caught smoking weed lol. I’m pretty sure there’s data to back that up
so you’re okay with rich people going on the run when they commit crimes? they can easily pay for it…
You're welcome to not put words in my mouth.
My goal was to understand how the law works, you've done nothing to help with that. Maybe consider that someone has an earnest goal before accusing them of shit, then accuse them when they've given you sufficient evidence.
Cash bail is reprehensible and the fact that most states use cash bail sickens me. The 8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Given it provably puts a higher punishment on poor people based on percentage of income than rich people, I fully agree with you.
The part I didn't know (and hadn't had a moment to read in the article) was that in situations where required (run risk, threat to themselves and others, etc) a judge could still time that they need to be held in jail/holding/whatever.
I love that the people field is getting leveled here, make no mistake. I just needed to understand were we saying "by default except where required no bail or holding" or "no bail yolo enjoy the chaos"
They won't go on the run, they'll just be scofflaws and ignore the court date. Now they have a warrant out, and I would presume that means incarceration when they're caught again.
If that's not a provision, this is a bad idea. Otherwise I'm all for it. Let's have IL test it out, see where we're at in 5-years.
Yeah you've definitely hit on what I was thinking. I'm fully in support of a well thought idea being tested, I just worried about if there was a lack of a punishment for not showing up.
Part of the idea is that the judge makes a ruling on whether or not they are a continued threat to themselves or others.
And if people do get bail, that doesn't mean they won't run. But now someone related ain't losing their house.
Plus, this gives people the opportunity to continue working until their trial so their families don't suffer because they couldn't afford the bail and have nothing to put up against it.
Plus bond always costs poor people 10% of their bond whether or not they are found guilty. Bond is just a way to make poor people pay for being arrested.
Yeah, I'm super in favor of the idea, I just worry about repercussions or a lack thereof.
I think most people just want to be able to go back to their job the next day. Someone put in jail even for just a few days can have their whole life fucked up. Over littering. This is an improvement for sure.
I definitely agree with you and I'm not worried about most, I'm worried about the few who wouldn't regardless of income. Fortunately the language allows a judge to say if someone (anyone) is a flight risk and take steps to handle that situation.
Sadly me trying to ask a clarifying has lead to all kinds of assholes and thinly vieled accusations of being a bootlicker instead of someone wanting to understand something.
It's honestly pretty fucking bullshit that people can't answer a question without being a full on piece of shit. I thought that was one of the reasons we got on Lemmy was to have decent conversations.
Yeah, why aren't judges worried about people like Trump paying bail and skipping the country on their private jets?
Oh sorry, that's not what you were talking about.
I've explained elsewhere but I'm no fan of today's system. The only part I didn't understand is what brings anyone back to the courtroom.
Turns out that a judge under this proposed system can say if a person is a flight risk or not and take steps to handle it. That's honestly all I needed to know but now I still have to deal with assholes like you who assume I'm a boot licker FOR ASKING A CLARIFYING FuCKING QUESTION
Jfc go back to reddit with your bullshit. I'm here for discussion conversation and understanding, not accusations assholes and brain rot.
When did I assume anything about you? You weren't talking about that, were you?
Cute. "Oh I didn't say you said that! I just heavily implied it but I didn't actually do it tehe"
Act less like a Republican.
Insulting me will not change the facts.