Note to readers from Mark Glennon re: Ukraine
May 6, 2026
3 Comments
Everybody needs a side hustle these days, and mine is Ukraine, where I am now.
-- Connecting the dots between our economy, government and business --
Audio and summary 
If this bill passes, say goodbye to local control over all Illinois parks and expect to see open drug and alcohol use, needles, no sanitation and fire hazards, but no ordinary park users.
Sorry officer, I am in full support OF holding suspects in custody who are accused of low-level offenses. Keep criminals off the streets. The prisons need to be overflowing.
So you want to lock people up before they are convicted of a crime where they would no doubt not serve any time for said low level offense? You are in essence criminalizing being poor. There are many things wrong with this bill but releasing the innocent/accused without a cash bond for low level offenses is not one of them.
Since the legislation dispenses with cash bonds for some very significant offenses, a focus on low level offenses appears to be a challenge of lower magnitude. Crime is a great driver of population and GDP loss. Illinois will find out the flaws in their legislation the hard way.
There simply aren’t enough people accused of low level crimes languishing in jail with low bonds, especially in the COVID and Kim Foxx eras, to make a dent in the jail and prison population. There are no low hanging fruit. Most people in jail are accused of felonies. The only way to reduce the jail population is to let accused felons out of jail without posting a surety. And that’s what they did. As for population loss and GDP loss, our leaders don’t care. They really don’t care. They don’t judge success by those metrics. They judge success by ‘equity’… Read more »
Hence my statement that there are many things wrong with this bill. Debtsor’s assertion that he fully supports “holding suspects in custody who are accused of low level offenses” is the problem. Why make that point? A reasonable person can say sure let’s fix this issue for those types of defendants but not for the more serious crimes. His assertion is just the other extreme of the far left that want to release everyone regardless of the charges. It serves no purpose other than lock up people who have been accused of something minor. That extreme belief is the exact… Read more »
“You are in essence criminalizing being poor.” LOL, do you always repeat what the communists tell you? Do you always accept their absurd arguments at face value? Sureties go back 1,000 years or more in Danelaw and Anglo-Saxon tradition. Sureties were commonly paid by other people, most often non-familial relations, such as other people in the community, or bondsman. If you had no one to bail you out, and no ties to the community, you were a flight risk, and you were held. I suggest we make bond and bail higher even for petty criminals. If no one wants to… Read more »
“do you always repeat what the communists tell you?” If they weren’t poor would they be locked up? Save us the history lesson on bail from 1,000 years ago. Instead focus on Taylor v Kentucky. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone to a fair trial and the fabric of this great country. Why do you hate our constitution and this great country? Why do you want to take away the individual rights and liberty from the innocent? Why do you think that following our constitution and Supreme Court precedent makes someone a communist? Do you always name call people… Read more »
But they are communists. Yes, yes they would be locked up if they were poor. Petty criminals have always been poor. That’s pretty much the history of civilization. Bail was traditionally used as a surety to enforce a defendant’s appearance in court. It still is. And always will be. Except the left has transformed the surety argument and the long history behind it into ‘criminalizing being poor!’ or some other leftist bleeding heart nonsense. No one is being criminalized before they are poor. Probable cause is the basis to arrest someone and flight right and harm to the community is… Read more »
“yes they would be locked up if they were poor.” Maybe that’s why people think you want to lock up an accused poor person for being poor. The same accusation against the non-poor would result in the accused being released. The only variable is their economic status. “It still is. And always will be.” You sure about that? It sounds like that is going away in 3 months. Hence the commotion about the law. “harm to the community is the reason to hold them” How are these low level criminals a risk to the community? Your argument for holding accused… Read more »