Illinois Supreme Court upholds law eliminating cash bail

July 18, 2023 11:03 AM

The Illinois Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that eliminating cash bail for defendants awaiting trial does not violate the Illinois Constitution. “We can now move forward with historic reform to ensure pretrial detainment is determined by the danger an individual poses to the community instead of by their ability to pay their way out of jail,” (Governor) Pritzker said in a statement Tuesday.
posted by tiny frying pan (37 comments total)

(I am super excited! Go Illinois!)
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:03 AM on July 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

fantastic!
posted by supermedusa at 11:08 AM on July 18, 2023

fuckin a
posted by cortex at 11:18 AM on July 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

(We are the first state to do this, by the way!)
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:24 AM on July 18, 2023 [21 favorites]

Republicans called this "Pritzker's Purge" because they're racist, classist, fearmongering assholes.
posted by Etrigan at 11:30 AM on July 18, 2023 [12 favorites]

WOOOHOOOO!!! May the other 49 states take note and move to quickly follow.
posted by Silvery Fish at 11:41 AM on July 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

Republicans called this "Pritzker's Purge" because they're racist, classist, fearmongering assholes.

Generally true, but I also suspect that a) bail bonding companies may have had a hand in that as well, and b) a lot of prosecutors are really worried about the dip in their conviction rates. This was very strongly opposed in the deep red downstate counties, as well as another recent gun control measure.
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:49 AM on July 18, 2023 [8 favorites]

How would their conviction rates dip? I'm having trouble following that one.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:51 AM on July 18, 2023 [5 favorites]

It's not just Republicans who are being assholes on eliminating cash bail; civil rights lawyer Alec Karakatsanis has been doing a fantastic job examining just how reporters at outlets like the NYT (especially the NYT) routinely write stories that bolster false narratives about bail reform, ignoring years of evidence that it is effective and does not increase crime rates. This essay from his Copaganda newsletter last August, "The News Media and Bail," is a good detailed overview.
posted by mediareport at 11:52 AM on July 18, 2023 [21 favorites]

Also: whew for this decision.
posted by mediareport at 11:52 AM on July 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

That seems reasonable. As a Dane, the USian bail system has always seemed, well, alien to me—a complete non sequitur.
posted by bouvin at 11:56 AM on July 18, 2023 [6 favorites]

Republicans called this "Pritzker's Purge" because they're racist, classist, fearmongering assholes.

"(Insert minority group here) are coming to murder us all in our beds" has been a bog-standard conservative rabble-rousing trope since forever.

You would think that at least one of them might have actually watched the Purge movies, though, and witnessed that their real monsters were not street criminals given licence to kill with impunity, but the conservative elites seeking to decimate those that they considered undesirables, directly and indirectly.
posted by delfin at 11:57 AM on July 18, 2023 [13 favorites]

You would think that at least one of them might have actually watched the Purge movies, though, and witnessed that their real monsters were not street criminals given licence to kill with impunity, but the conservative elites seeking to decimate those that they considered undesirables, directly and indirectly.

You can accuse conservatives of a lot of things, but "understanding the message of a piece of media" is almost never one of them. (See also: Born in the USA)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:08 PM on July 18, 2023 [37 favorites]

How would their conviction rates dip? I'm having trouble following that one.

Guessing that keeping poor people in jail pre-trial due to not being able to afford bail is one method for increasing pressure to take a plea deal rather than go to trial.
posted by bassooner at 12:08 PM on July 18, 2023 [56 favorites]

How would their conviction rates dip? I'm having trouble following that one.

Guessing that keeping poor people in jail pre-trial due to not being able to afford bail is one method for increasing pressure to take a plea deal rather than go to trial.

Last Week Tonight has had a few episodes centered around the discussion of bail reform, and exactly what kind of a mess the current system is - explicitly designed to extort poor people into taking pleas for shaky charges because the bail system will either bankrupt them if they do pay, or cause them to lose their jobs/housing/etc if they don't.
posted by FatherDagon at 12:13 PM on July 18, 2023 [13 favorites]

I can't access the Tribune article, but the Sun-Times article explains:

"The elimination of cash bail does not mean people charged with crimes cannot be held in custody pending trial.

Under the act, the courts will continue to hold detention hearings for people accused of serious crimes to determine whether someone poses a safety risk if released and whether someone is likely to show up for their hearings — the same considerations that now often determine cash bail."

Criminal experts generally believe that less pretrial detention is a good thing: "The existing evidence suggests that the rates of pretrial detention may not be justified by the average reduction in the risk of crime ... Detaining people pretrial, especially for non-violent offenses, has many costs and may lead to greater crime in the long run due to the costs of being detained (e.g., loss of employment, loss of housing, family separation, etc.)." And whether someone is released before a trial should depend on the risk they present, not their wealth.

But people at high risk of harming others should remain in jail until trial. In DC, where way, way too many people are being murdered, our council just passed a new bill that, among other things, creates a "rebuttable presumption of pretrial detention" for those accused of violent crime, which seems appropriate.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 12:15 PM on July 18, 2023 [9 favorites]

Duh, I didn't think about plea pressure. Fucking prosecutors. Suck on this news today, all who aim to hurt the disenfranchised!
posted by tiny frying pan at 12:40 PM on July 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

I think that is a good idea. But I am also weary of like when I have interviewed at places that have "no hierarchy in company structure except the boss, and they are just like the rest of us".

I left those thinking, "The hierarchy is there, but no one is allowed to talk about it."

I'm worried that the money will still be there. But now we won't be able to see it.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 1:07 PM on July 18, 2023 [3 favorites]

This week the Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity (QSIDE) published their report "Cost Of Discretion: Judicial Decision-Making, Pretrial Detention, and Public Safety in New York City" and in it they name names, i.e. they identify the fourteen "most carceral" New York City judges:

These fourteen judges’ disproportionately carceral decisions over 2.5 years resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 additional years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million of additional costs borne by New York City taxpayers.

I wish I could link you to a free version of the article in today's NY Law Journal (if someone else can, please do!), but reaction has been pretty strong, with a coalition of judges called it "advocacy masquerading as research" and "attempts at intimidating the judiciary".
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 1:46 PM on July 18, 2023 [11 favorites]

These fourteen judges’ disproportionately carceral decisions over 2.5 years resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 additional years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million of additional costs borne by New York City taxpayers.

I calculated out the cost of jail in Illinois once and it was about $33K per year and I know I missed a lot of actual expenses. You could have probably have a pretty decent social support system for the kind money that is used just put into jailing people pre trial.
posted by srboisvert at 2:58 PM on July 18, 2023 [8 favorites]

Whenever this topic comes up, I re-read this piece, to remember exactly why NY needed bail reform.


Kalief Browder, Jailed For Years Without Trial, Kills Himself
June 8, 2015 8:29 AM ET
Eyder Peralta

posted by mikelieman at 3:01 PM on July 18, 2023 [11 favorites]

I'm worried that the money will still be there. But now we won't be able to see it.

I mean maybe and I don't blame you for being suspicious. But other jurisdictions don't have cash bail and it works ok. People are bailed with conditions or they are held on remand if it's considered that they will be dangerous or do a runner.
posted by plonkee at 3:01 PM on July 18, 2023 [3 favorites]

I'm worried that the money will still be there. But now we won't be able to see it.
The greater risk is that some judges will simply determine individuals to be a flight risk based on certain attributes that, in their minds, are indicators of risk such as being poor or being black. People with money will still have a far greater chance of being granted bail, if only because they can afford high-priced lawyers to argue their case.

Still, this seems like a fantastic thing, so it's good to celebrate positive change, which we see so little of anywhere in the legal sphere.
posted by dg at 3:23 PM on July 18, 2023 [4 favorites]

Pritzker is shockingly decent. Not overwhelming or anything, as he's still a lot more centrist than many of us here. But he's willing to throw his clout behind his lefty ideas and has the sense to make sure everyone knows when it works out. And that isn't nothing.

When the revolution comes, we won't put him against the wall, just redistribute his shit.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:28 PM on July 18, 2023 [13 favorites]

New Mexico has something similar, and we voted it into our constitution in 2016. See under “Constitutional changes” at this Ballotpedia page.
posted by NotLost at 4:57 PM on July 18, 2023

Illinois person here (Chicago) and I too am really impressed by Pritzker. Perfect? No. Effective and scandal free? Mostly. His one scandal I can remember was having toilets removed to pay less taxes... but I cannot believe that the man himself ordered that to happen. He's wealthy beyond anything I can imagine and my guess is he has levels of property managers, accountants, and contractors to the point that... I just don't buy that he made the call personally. I could be wrong, but who knows?
posted by SoberHighland at 5:23 PM on July 18, 2023 [5 favorites]

@SoberHighland, same here. I voted for Biss in the primary because I thought Pritzker was gonna be a lame-o rich guy centrist, but he's wildly exceeded my expectations. He did a fantastic job dealing with Covid, and has just been knocking it out of the park ever since. I hope he runs for President at some point.
posted by higginba at 6:27 PM on July 18, 2023 [11 favorites]

Found a PDF of the NY Law Journal, the article starts on page 1 and continues on page 7.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 6:44 PM on July 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

Criminal experts generally believe that less pretrial detention is a good thing...

Sure, but can we trust these guys? I mean, they are criminal experts...
posted by Dysk at 10:13 PM on July 18, 2023 [4 favorites]

I think we can highlight Pritzker's successes without considering him a success. JB ran on ending cash bail, and he achieved it, with a lot of help from organizers, the GA, Kwame Raoul
etc. Reactionary backlash is ongoing. But, this is a policy that is going to reduce harm from our criminal punishment system. I am so deeply happy that it is going to have a chance to do some good for folks. The good it'll do doesn't confer good on JB Pritzker.

He is an heir and a billionaire, and is therefore completely removed and detached from the realities of virtually all the people he governs. He and his immediate family, many of whom are also billionaires, have had an outsized influence over generations. Their wealth was produced for them by the employees of Hyatt hotels (and Marmon, et al). The massive wage theft that is occuring, the lack of labor standards at the hotels themselves, the strike breaking activities of the hoteliers cannot be underestimated, ignored or traded away to make room for the public good that the Pritzkers have done. That public good may be rooted in values we share. It also provides cover and clout. It is also a marketing campaign. Billionaires should not exist. Having some who do some stuff we agree with ain't it. Let's not pick up the crumbs and think, wow! I didn't think we could get a crumb this damn good! Is Pritzker in Springfield harm reduction? Yep. Should his position as an oligarch be regarded as bad overall? Yep. Should a person be able to buy power in a democracy? That's a no, y'all.
posted by kaelynski at 12:20 AM on July 19, 2023 [5 favorites]

Public Defender here. This thread has it about right. Generally the loss of cash bail is positive, but without it, judges' options to release people who have missed a court date (for homeless folks, folks with three jobs, folks with a lot of kids, nearly never an intentional act) or otherwise made a minor mistake with their bond conditions are much more limited.

So you get many more folks than you might expect denied bail entirely because the judge can't put $500 on them.

System this broke is hard to fix
posted by TheProfessor at 3:44 AM on July 19, 2023 [8 favorites]

Honestly, he was already overachieving as an Illinois governor just by not getting sent to prison.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 5:45 AM on July 19, 2023 [13 favorites]

The bad faith that defenders of cash bail will put behind it is depressing. I saw an infuriating news segment some time ago vilifying a local cash-bail fund that had apparently covered bail for violent offenders who then hurt or killed other people pretrial. The tone of the story was "without these bail funds, they wouldn't have been able to commit those crimes", which is technically true, but seems to be missing the point: if the provision of a considerable sum of money is the difference between "violent offender strikes again" and "violent offender doesn't strike again", then the problem is the system which provides such an option, not the fact that large sums of money exist.

I came away from that news segment mostly with the impression that the existence of any sort of bail conditions other than release on recognizance, monitored release, and pretrial detainment without bail are fundamentally immoral. Because if someone's dangerous, the way this news program made it out to be, then detainment shouldn't be contingent on them being able to pay their way out, and if they're not dangerous, then detainment is a waste of resources.
posted by jackbishop at 8:11 AM on July 19, 2023 [1 favorite]

I appreciate the replies about my speculation on this change. My ignorance of things would catastrophize free ice cream sandwiches.
posted by MonsieurPEB at 9:21 AM on July 19, 2023 [2 favorites]

That seems reasonable. As a Dane, the USian bail system has always seemed, well, alien to me—a complete non sequitur.

The structurally very similar (as in, a qualified English lawyer is entitled to take the NY or California bar exams although in practice this is pretty rare in the criminal law world) English legal system also makes very limited use of cash bail.

Lots of people get tagged and set bail conditions (curfews and such), cash bail tends to be used very sparingly here.
posted by atrazine at 10:55 AM on July 19, 2023

It's helpful to distinguish between two inherent problems with cash bail -- first, that it unfairly privileges people with money, and second, that it results in too many people being detained pretrial. Getting rid of cash bail clearly solves the first problem. It will be interesting to see what happens to pretrial detention rates though. The devils in the details on how the new law is written.

I've long thought that cash bail has outlived it's usefulness for a few reasons. My understanding from older sources is that bail was used in the early common law (I think in the pre-norman period) as a means of vouching, sort of. A person charged with a crime could have another person vouch for them, and if the defendant didn't appear for trial, the person acting as bail would either have their property forfeited, or even according to some sources be punished in lieu of the defendant. So I suppose if you knew your brother would be hanged instead of you, or your friends estate forfeited, you'd be more likely to appear. And a judge could assume that if the defendant had someone willing to literally stick their neck out for them, they're a trustworthy person and less of a risk.

Over time the process morphed into what we have now, where a bonding company is paid a fee (usually 8-10%) of the bond, requires collateral to secure the rest, and posts a surety bond for the defendant. Technically the bonding company bears the risk if the defendant doesn't appear and has to pay the full bond amount to the court. The defendant faces a risk that the bonding company will collect the collateral to make themselves whole. So in that case, there is still some pressure on the defendant to appear, to avoid losing the collateral. But there isn't any sense that the bonding company is "vouching" for the defendant. And I'm not even sure that the companies collect on collateral very often, further reducing any incentive to return. And with the rise of bail funds, there is even less point of cash bail. I can't imagine that a bail funds asks for collateral or would collect on it.

All of that is to say that whatever utility sureties and bail had 800 years ago has probably run its course.
posted by bepe at 11:32 AM on July 19, 2023 [1 favorite]

Another Illinois resident here who grudgingly voted for Pritzker last time and will gladly vote for him in the future. He's a good dude. I'm proud of Illinois and glad for this ruling. The decision about whether someone should be released before trial should be based on safety, not the ability to pay. God, the number of absolute bonkers things Illinois republicans have claimed the SAFE-T act does is... well, bonkers. I appreciate that my local NPR station would report on those comments thusly: "Whitey McWhiteDude, republican state rep from southern Illinois, expresses concern that [bonkers claim] - which the SAFE-T act does not do - will make the state a more dangerous place."
posted by obfuscation at 11:35 AM on July 19, 2023 [4 favorites]