By: Matt Rosenberg
The sweeping Illinois criminal justice reform bill known popularly as the SAFE-T Act – passed in the waning hours of the January 2021 state legislative lame duck session and signed into law by Governor J.B. Pritzker a month later – has lately been chewing the political scenery. That’s because a portion of it which takes effect January 1, 2023 would abolish cash bail and allow pretrial detention only in very limited circumstances. Wirepoints this week detailed the considerable problems with the Act’s pretrial detention limitations. But what else needs fixing?
While not intended to be all-inclusive, we’ve identified several other problems with the enacted legislation – a 764-page behemoth – which also need revision. This all comes as debate continues over whether to amend the bill further as some Illinois Democrats now suggest, or rescind it entirely as House Republicans propose.
The additional issues beyond the Act’s altered pre-trial detention standards are several:
- The Act as currently adopted weakens the leeway of police to arrest for certain misdemeanor offenses including trespassing.
- It undercuts fair play in police disciplinary proceedings in two ways that contribute to ongoing retirements and resignations of sworn officers and related staffing shortfalls in Illinois police and sheriff’s departments statewide: anonymous complaints and an end to sworn affidavits. This in turn has the potential over time to significantly compromise public safety as more and more police leave agencies statewide.
- The SAFE-T Act also poses unreasonable risks to crime victims and other potential witnesses by weakening the rules for charged suspects out on electronic monitoring before trial.
- In addition, the Act and approved amendments to it have so far failed to address operational and budgetary challenges of requiring that law enforcement agencies implement widespread usage of body-worn cameras.
In sum, these needed fixes to the SAFE-T Act – among others – suggest either the need to start over again entirely, or at the very least, to dig in hard and deep on further amending the bill.
Reform of Trespassing Arrest Provisions
Until passage of the SAFE-T Act, crimes including Criminal Trespass to Land and aggravated speeding were more simply defined as Class B misdemeanors – eligible for arrest and sentencing of up to 6 months in jail and $1,500 in fines.
But on page 326 of the Act, SAFE-T sponsors stipulated police should not make custodial arrests of Class B and C misdemeanor suspects, but rather should issue a citation for a court appearance 21 days hence so long as the suspects “pose no obvious threat to the community or any person.”
One commentator has argued that under the law, repeated returns to a property by a trespasser could be seen as a threat and constitute grounds for arrest. But the poor wording of the legislation will cause piecemeal problems statewide. Either police have the authority to decide a trespasser is a threat, which leads to the same feared abuse of power the law’s proponents highlight, or the definition is so fuzzy police won’t know what constitutes grounds for custodial arrest.
A booking and arrest for trespassing, versus mere issuance of a citation – as for low-level speeding – sends a message to cease and desist from future transgressions. In contrast, defining down custodial arrest criteria for trespassing has ample potential to serve the interests of criminal offenders at the expense of the safety and security of property owners.
One Democratic legislator has been paying especially close attention to troubles with the SAFE-T Act, including this issue. In SB 4228, a wide-ranging bill he introduced in late September to correct the reform legislation’s flaws, Democratic State Senator Scott Bennett of Champaign has called for strengthening police arrest powers for Class B misdemeanors including trespassing.
On pages 4 and 5 of SB 4228, Bennett underscores the citation alternative but nonetheless also proposes that arrest authority in Class B and C misdemeanor cases include situations where “the officer reasonably believes that a custodial arrest is necessary to discontinue the criminal behavior.”
Police seem to agree. In a detailed mid-September 2022 memo outlining remaining changes needed to the SAFE-T Act, the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and the Illinois Sheriffs Association say that for suspects engaged in Class B and C misdemeanors including trespassing, residential picketing, assault, and disorderly conduct, lawmakers should “clarify language regarding the ability to arrest, detain, and remove subjects to “give consistency to enforcement” and allow “officers to handle everyday calls for service around the state to (the) public’s expectations.”
Yet in the magic-mirror world of the SAFE-T Act, a trespasser pressing up against a home’s window or prowling the home’s perimeter may not constitute “an obvious threat to the community or a person.” One can almost see prosecutors and judges, in that exceptional venue of Cook County, deciding that without burglary tools or an arsonist’s kit, a trespasser poses no “obvious threat.”
But property owners have every right to be protected from the possibility of a trespasser who could then trespass again and escalate to property damage, theft, or even an attempted home invasion and violence. Here, lawmakers need to lean into the rights and expectations of property-owners, rather than invent new ways to minimize and decriminalize criminal behavior.
Anonymous complaints in state decertification proceedings against police.
Page 95 of the SAFE-T Act strips the requirement that a citizen filing a complaint about police misconduct and seeking state decertification of a law enforcement officer, be required to submit their name, phone number and address as part of the publicly-viewable complaint. The Act also underscores on Page 699 that grounds for state decertification of an officer based on anonymous complaints include a range of possible violations under the Illinois Police Training Act on grounds including criminal conduct, excessive force, and evidence tampering, but also the vaguely defined “unprofessional conduct” which encompasses “deleterious conduct or practice harmful to the public.” This seeming catch-all phrase is left further un-clarified.
The police chiefs in their September memo propose that complainant information be made confidential to participants only, but not anonymous.
It’s the least lawmakers could do here. Otherwise, a police officer may face a career-ending misconduct charge, but not even be able to know the name of his accuser. This runs contrary to centuries of established legal canon around the rights of the accused to face their accuser, in a sanctioned proceeding. Accountability cuts both ways.
Sworn affidavits.
The targeting of police continues under page 49 of the SAFE-T Act. It holds that sworn affidavits must no longer be required for a complaint against a law enforcement officer that is filed at the local rather than state level. Further, the Act mandates that no local police collective bargaining agreement with a city or county can require a sworn affidavit as a precondition of a local police misconduct complaint. The Act also strikes down state law mandating the possible prosecution of complainants for statements made in a sworn affidavit which are found to be false.
The result is to add to police workforce and staffing depletion. The Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police reports that “it is getting much harder to retain and recruit officers in our police agencies, and we are at a point of crisis.” Based on survey responses from 239 police or sheriff’s departments in Illinois received by mid-2022, “Resignations and retirements increased by 29% in 2021 from 2020. Breaking that down, resignations increased by 65% in 2021 from 2020 and retirements increased by 7% in 2021.”
The SAFE-T Act was approved by the legislature and signed by the Governor in early 2021. Clearly, other and broader societal factors are contributing to police resignations, post-George Floyd. But whatever the exact array of causal factors, a number of Illinois cities have been transparent about the troubles they are now having in retaining and attracting police. These include Evanston, Champaign, and Chicago.
Speaking about enablement of anonymous complaints under the SAFE-T Act, former Chicago Police Chief of Detectives Eugene Roy said, “It’s opening the door for the anti-police activist community and the attorneys that represent them that are anti-police. The problem that nobody sees or turns a blind eye to is the effect on morale, recruiting and retention. Anybody can just make a complaint against an officer. The department or the investigative agency does not have to tell the officer who it is, which hinders their ability to respond to the complaint accurately and honestly. It has a bad effect on morale.”
Making state decertification complaints anonymous and excising sworn affidavits in local complaints takes the legitimate objective of police accountability too far. Stripping out checks and balances on the motivations and truthfulness of those who file complaints which can end a police officer’s career, aids and abets those seeking to poison the well against police. It is clear who lawmakers are rooting for, and against. There is no place for this sort of bias in deliberative proceedings of a legislature.
Weakening of electronic monitoring provisions puts victims and witnesses at risk.
The SAFE-T Act also changes state law to grant in effect a two-day free-roaming pass for scofflaws who violate confinement conditions of their pretrial release accompanied by electronic monitoring. The Act mandates that such suspects, who have left approved locations, will not be declared in violation of electronic monitoring until 48 hours have passed. In addition, the Act adds additional new language, that pretrial arrestees on monitoring get two days per week to be off it entirely.
The police chiefs’ and sheriffs associations in their memo call out the 48-hour free roaming provision as needing revision. And regarding the two days per week off monitoring, they note there are “public safety concerns for the public, victims, (and) witnesses.” They add they are “not against movement for work, counseling, church, education, etc. with permission of supervising personnel.”
Through these adopted provisions lawmakers demonstrate they favor not the law-abiding public but instead charged suspects on ankle bracelets who – as so often in Cook County – may well have priory felony convictions in addition to their pending charges. Even worse, lawmakers in this manner put victims and witnesses at further risk of retribution by suspects granted leave from electronic monitoring. Compared to the alternative of pretrial detention, electronic monitoring is already a concession to charged suspects. These additional concessions are beyond the pale. But not to Illinois lawmakers.
Body-worn cameras mandate needs revision.
The chiefs and sheriffs also call for an update to Illinois’ Body Camera Act of 2015 because the SAFE-T Act mandates law enforcement officers use body-worn cameras. The law enforcement associations propose a series of suggested revisions to make implementation more affordable and reasonable. They want state grant programs for body cameras to cover not only the hardware but also costs of software and storage and for agencies already partially equipped, costs of adding hardware for additional staff and renewing service contracts. They also want clearer language excluding “administrative officers, academy personnel, internal affairs, planning and research and detectives” from requirements to wear cameras on-duty, and exceptions to the requirement for “exigent circumstances” such as equipment malfunctions and repair.
***********
These are all reasonable changes, and should be granted. It is one thing to impose a sweeping mandate, and quite another to take the time to ensure it can be implemented affordably and in line with on-the-ground operations.
Some of the suggested tweaks to the SAFE-T Act, such as those relating to body cameras, will be easy enough for lawmakers to swallow. Other refinements are a big question mark.
In the real world, changes to a bill with the SAFE-T Act’s vast scope and importance would occur before the election in a special legislative session so voters would know how this landmark and hotly-debated crime bill is being amended. That way Illinoisans would know just how much more at risk the public will be.
But things don’t work like that in this state and barring an unforeseen turnabout, the legislative majority will brazen it out, retain their majorities, and implement minor changes after the election to the huzzahs of a pliant media. And Illinoisans will have been played, once again.
Read more from Wirepoints:
- Threatening Illinoisans’ safety: Six major flaws in the SAFE-T Act’s end to cash bail
- Illinois state’s attorneys demand changes to no-bail law
- Gov. Pritzker, Call A Special Session On SAFE-T Act. Voters Deserve To Know Before Election If Any Real Changes Will Be Made.
- Chicago crime statistics: Even worse than you think
- Chicago 2022 homicides will exceed 2019 baseline; McDonald’s CEO warns city’s future at stake
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.
I have recently said that I know many good people who vote Democrat. I would even trust my life to some of them. However, I can’t understand how anyone would continue to support a party that seem to care more about criminals than law-abiding citizens. As the Louisiana Senator John Kennedy often says, “Republicans are not perfect, but the other side is nuts.”
Governor Pritzker and some of his followers in the legislature have begun to make some noises, some vague sort of promise-sounding comments that “maybe” the bill could or should be amended after the election. DON’T YOU BELIEVE IT!!! The Governor doesn’t have the power to amend a Bill that he’s already signed into law. Sorry, Guv, that ship has sailed – sailed the day you signed this debacle into law! Will the law be amended? DON’T COUNT ON IT! Why? Have you heard what Chris Welch, the Speaker of the House has said? NO Amendments! He’s happy with it the… Read more »
I’ll have to use this to push back against all of the naive posters on Next Door! Amazing how some people can’t see what’s right in front of them.
This legislation is disquieting. It provides yet another reason to leave Illinois as it descends into the depths of hell for its law-abiding citizens. Progressive have long loved criminals.
Nothing is more sacred to The American Dream than owning your own home. Pride of ownership is what causes homeowners to improve their home and property which benefits the entire community. When your home and property are no longer SAFE because of idiotic laws like this, the American Dream is dead. Under this New Democrat law a person can trespass in your yard, stare through your windows, pitch a tent and all the cops are allowed to do is issue a citation. They cannot touch or physically remove the person or persons squatting on your private property. That’s your problem.… Read more »
Such a great article. You have given us so much information, I read it twice so it would really sink in.
This us is really a wake up call to residents.
🙏🙏🙏
Another solid article by Matt Rosenberg, who I was able to catch on his exchange with the preeminent Glenn Loury this past week on YouTube. They spoke about this not-so-SAFE T act and I was struck by Glenn saying in economics there are unintended effects from policy like ending qualified immunity, or these actions of anonymous complaints. And that reality is shaping up around the country: The numbers of people quitting the profession is spiking, and recruits are dropping like a rock in Lake Michigan. Little anecdote: I talked to a cop 5 or 6 years ago who discussed how… Read more »
If people are unwilling to put their names to an accusation, it is worthless.
If this law was designed to make law enforcement better, wait until you see all of the bogus, anonymous complaints that clog up the system.
Democratic, middle-of-the-night, stupidity.
The 500 people who showed up last night in Glen Ellyn to hear a great panel discussion put on by Breakthrough Ideas on the flaws in the Safe-T Act, which included yourself, impressively illustrated what is to become of public safety in this state if this legislation is not changed. The fact that 500 people showed up on a Thursday evening is proof positive that the real “stakeholders” in this process are waking up. Who ever heard of anonymous complaints against police officers being allowed to be litigated? Thank you for your cogent presentation. This will never pass constitutional muster!
https://cwbchicago.com/2022/10/grossly-understaffed-cook-county-prosecutors-office-assigns-law-students-to-courtrooms-sets-low-hiring-requirements.html
This law protects trespassers and squatters over law abiding property owners. It’s crazy heaped on top of crazy but it’s not surprising coming from a Party of woke social justice crap
Among the worst provisions of this horrible legislation the the part allowing anonymous complaints against members of law enforcement. Matt Rosenberg spells is out perfectly in these few sentences: “A police officer may face a career-ending misconduct charge, but not even be able to know the name of his accuser. This runs contrary to centuries of established legal canon around the rights of the accused to face their accuser, in a sanctioned proceeding. Accountability cuts both ways.” It has been established for centuries that the accused has the right to know who his accuser is. Why have Illinois politicians become… Read more »
Once again…legislation carries a name that is exactly the opposite of the result of the bill. The so-called “SAFE-T” act will make nobody safer…well, except criminals. The fact that nearly every law enforcement organization in the entire state opposes the Bill should give pause. Who supports it? Kim Foxx virtually alone. And that should tell you something right there. The Democrat party nationally, locally, and everwhere they wield power is determined to make the lives and welfare of law abiding citizens more dangerous, while pampering the pilligers, thieves, car jackers, rapists, thugs and murderers that prey on the innocent. That… Read more »
This is it–the Bible on the subject, Mattski. I invite everyone to read & absorb it 3-4 times–as I did–to let the subtle nuances all sink in. Bottom line is that if this takes effect on January 1, it may take a few weeks or months even, but residents & visitors to the city will be in far worse shape, and it’s pretty damn bad now. Criminals are smart, exploit social media, and this will galvanize them into even more brazen action. My daughter’s BDay is upcoming, and she wants to dine at our favorite joint on south Oakley, which… Read more »
I’d like to know who really wrote this law with its obvious bias against law enforcement and victims of crimes. Imagine the escalation of gang violence, which is already being seen in Chicago, when the lax electronic monitoring and no cash bail becomes law statewide.
Me too. Who are the writers cloaked behind the curtain? Names and titles,,please. We know who voted FOR it ( Terra Costa Howard,Laura Ellman, Don Harmon) and signed it (Prtizker), all of whom should be voted out!
Because the Democrats have such a heavy majority, they calculated how many votes they needed for passage, excused from a “yes” vote those usually loyal foot soldiers who would be likely facing strong competition in the election about to be decided on November 8, and passed it easily.
The bill was authored by the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus, and they have taken “credit” for it from the very beginning. The sponsors were Senator Elgie Sims and Rep. Slaughter. The core of the support for the bill seems to be being vocalized mostly by Senator Elgie Sims, the lead sponsor of the bill; Tanya Watkins, executive director of the Southsiders Organized for Unity and Liberation (SOUL); Cook County Public Defender Sharone Mitchell; co-sponsor State Representative Justin Slaughter; Mallory Littlejohn, former legal director of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation (CAASE) and Roseanna Ander, founding Executive Director of the University… Read more »
This is garbage legislation that needs to be abolished and taken back to square one and rewritten from scratch and actually debated vs being shoved through in the middle of the night/early morning hours
This whole act is to unarmed our law enforcement officers, to empower criminals, to put ALL state, counties and cities citizens in harm’s way of violence and not being safe. Democratic politicians passed this act to ensure votes, NOT to protect law abiding citizens. In the event the majority doesn’t defeat this come November, we ALL as citizens of this state will be hurting. Never believe what government will say theyre gonna do, always watch what they do for you.
My in-laws moved from the south Chicago suburbs to Indiana 15 or so years ago. Two more reliable Republican votes gone, and multiplied by thousands more like them, much less chance that lunacy won’t prevail and wreck Illinois altogether.
The chance of any significant positive revision of this law is extremely small. This is what the voters of Illinois get for the choices they make.
If the goal was to create chaos and harm the law-abiding citizen, it’s hard to imagine a plan better built for that than this one. Not that some lawmakers somewhere won’t see that as a challenge. Who is this measure supposed to serve? Not the law-abiding. Not the communities most troubled by crime. Not law enforcement. Ultimately, not even lawmakers since public safety about the most elemental responsibility of govt. When things defy reason, it’s become a good idea to posit that the foreseeable negative consequences are intentional.
I don’t see how any of this bill will reduce the number of murders in Chicago. In New York City, residents in high crime areas want more police patrols, not less. By creating more rules and regulations the only groups to benefit are the criminals and the lawyers.
Great piece, as always. Unfortunately those who create it don’t care and will be re-elected by their ignorant voters.
I am today for the act in many ways. Let the Illinois voters live with the mess this will create and be happy with their choices on election day
Yet another example of a law that calls itself something, and does the opposite in practice.
If criminals themselves wrote this “act” what would be different?
Matt, great analysis. As we have seen in both New York and Washington State, when laws like this are passed it emboldens criminals and leaves victims without protection. It really makes me wonder if the goal of the writers of this legislation was to create more chaos. This will not end well.
Blah, blah,blah. Yes, Illinois totally stinks. So what are you going to do about it? Probably stay and complain (I’m guessing), which is exactly what the woke socialists want. So long as you keep paying for their agenda, they will suffer your existence. Think you deserve better? Why?
The Soviet Union went full Bolshevik for 70 years and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Same for China, etc.
Which is why I have such a low opinion of the Illinois residents. Unlike the Soviet Union, Illinois residents can leave, but instead they remain and support their oppressors.
Leaving isn’t always that easy.
Criminal Lives Matter. Yours, not so much.
Innocent Live Matter. This does not apply to criminals. Just those that are accused. No more housing accused in jail just because they don’t have any money. Stop criminalizing being poor.
Will this law make us safer? Yes or no please
Yes. Poor people who are falsely accused will no longer need to suffer living with dangerous criminals. Judge Dredd will no longer be able to implement his brand of justice and instead you will need to prove they are guilty before taking away their freedoms.
Until it is your wife or daughter that is murdered by one of these goons, then you won’t be able to get to the phone to call 911 fast enough, and then show up on television telling anyone who will listen that “this has to stop!”
Do law-abiding lives matter? Innocence is for the courts to determine, not legislators protected by armed agents and often living in gated communities. How many cases of people being released without bail who then commit further crimes must there be before it becomes obvious that this law is not a solution?
Wrong Alex. Innocence is not for the courts to determine. When has any case decided if a person was innocent? Our system is not set up for that. Maybe you should pick up a book and actually try to learn about our system of justice. Until such time, let me help you. Guilt is for the courts to determine. The presumption is innocence until a guilty verdict is set. So the accused are also law abiding citizens until proven otherwise. Stop trying to take away their freedoms and constitutional rights just because they don’t have money for bail. You’re willing… Read more »
Stop accusing the courts for finding some, not everyone guilty. Yes, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Are you saying NO ONE could or should be proven guilty in any court? You’re confusing the issue, if you are proven innocent, no jail, if you are proven guilty then you go to jail. Are you saying EVERYONE who gets arrested should be set free “just because “? Then are you also saying ALL lawyers, police officers and judges are stupid, lazy and/or racist?
If you’re a criminal you should be criminalized. Obviously you were somewhere you shouldn’t have been and doing something you shouldn’t have been doing. The fact that you don’t have any money and can’t afford bail is totally irrelevant. Why were you in the vicinity and not at your job or at home resting up for you job?
Lets see, 30-60 shootings per week in Chicago.
Lack of witnesses to testify against known criminal element, due to fear of retribution, produces lees than a 20% closure rate on murder.
This act enables “trespassers” to freely invade ones property and privacy. What a way to entice witnesses to come forward.
Look who’s doing the shooting. Base voters of democrats
As a former LEO, it disturbs me to see the continual devolution and degradation of the criminal justice system heaved upon us by under educated and over egotistical politicians who have absolutely no idea of what law enforcement entails. I cannot fathom how low morale must be nowadays for those who put on the uniform every day with their hypothetical handcuffs tighter around their own wrists than the law-breakers’. Politicians who place their constituents needs above their own political objectives are rarer than a comprehensible sentence from Biden. These unscrupulous lawmakers and their convoluted self-serving laws are the symptoms of… Read more »
Nothing short of the “Broken windows” policy that turned New York City around can save us now. Giuliani was able to accomplish it because he had a good working relationship with law enforcement. That doesn’t exist here in Illinois after years of vilifying the police.
Vote YES on Amendment 1. If the workers rights amendment passes, this law will have no bearing on local police collective bargaining agreements. If the local police deem this to be a workplace safety issue, this law can not over rule the constitution.
Local police will be better served if Amendment 1 passes. Vote yes 4 workers safety. Vote yes to support the police. Vote YES on Amendment 1.
Not quite, but you illustrate a problem. If passed, the amendment would only assure what cops could collectively bargain for, but it would not assure that they would get what they bargain for. I think this provision of the SAFE-T Act would therefor remain in effect. However, proponents of Amendment 1 would no doubt be arguing for a more expansive reading of it, as you just did. You want to take the legislature entirely out of what could ultimately be included in collective bargaining agreements.
Great to have a resource like Wiresource that thoroughly reviews vital legislation like the SAFE-T Act,
Thanks for the summary… Very reasonable and necessary…Unfortunately, the current tone-deaf establishment Dems running the Illinois government don’t get it…but they may after the November elections…
Great reporting. The distractions of this election are designed to decieve. Look at what they are really doing, Pritzker is holding hands with the devil. Take it seriously Illinois.
How did we get here? How do law abiding tax paying citizens accept this? How do we not fear what will be going on around us? How do we not see this won’t be a Chicago problem but will travel to the suburbs? How do we safely travel highways and roads and feel safe? Sometime back there was a news story of woman attacked in broad daylight and her scream still haunts me. Are we to accept criminals not being detained and then committing horrific crimes? Oh but let’s give them more rights. I must admit I have become complacent.… Read more »
Nobody is releasing criminals. The act doesn’t allow you to lock up accused because they don’t have enough money. The accused are also law abiding citizens until they are convicted. Innocent until proven guilty.
Are you saying there won’t be a release of currently incarcerated people when this law takes effect? Yes or no?
Arrested or incarcerated does not mean convicted. They are innocent until proven guilty. The state will be releasing people that have been accused of crime but don’t have the money to pay bail. Currently people with money are released. Now poor people will also be released.
So the answer is YES. Thanks for the clarification.
Yes. Innocent people will be released. Guilty people will remain in jail.
Their guilt or innocence can only be proven in court. This benefits the accused at the cost of public safety.
And until such time they are innocent. Locking up innocent people before they are convicted is a travesty. If they are a danger a judge can keep them locked up. You won’t be able to lock up the poor ones and release the rich ones anymore and that makes you scared. Stay indoors and hide.
I am all for high bails for indigent people who are accused of heinous crimes and lack meaningful ties or employment in the community. They historically have been the greatest flight risks. This is what the western civilization has been doing for 1,000 years, and existed long before the constitution was even drafted, and it is what most states do today.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Just because the progressive says it’s broke, don’t mean it’s broke.
So there ya go.. Your argument about incarcerating poor people is DEBUNKED.
Correct, the Act applies to the accused not to those already convicted. As for the accused, if previously convicted of violent crimes, money for bond shouldn’t be the main issue, but rather protection of citizens from habitual criminals from those charged with additional violent crimes.
Agreed. If they are a danger to society they should not be released to the public regardless of their ability to pay bail.
How did we get here? Super-majorities in the legislature and executive branches that can pass anything they want with no compromise.
Basically, as far as I can see, the SAFE-T act is an invitation to criminals to do as they please. It is that simple. Darren Bailey and the Republicans understand this, and plan to repeal.
I would like to add: WITH THE FREEDOM TO TRESPASS AS THEY PLEASE, criminals can peep in your windows at any time they wish to do so.
How will this law affect home values? ( Democrats own homes, too….)
You stubbornly refused to leave Illinois in 2022. Well guess what? All those job openings that existed nationwide will no longer be available during a recession. Leaving Illinois won’t be so easy anymore. Soon, very soon, you truly may be stuck in that state. Since leaving Illinois is a diminishing option, my advice is to seek contentment living in a state ruled by Pritzker, or a city ruled by Lightfoot. Stay inside your homes to avoid criminals with nothing to fear. Don’t dwell on the outrageous taxes you pay since it’s beyond your control, and just pray you have enough… Read more »
I’ve read a number of critiques of the act but none of them come close to being as thorough as this piece. Hopefully this will spur readers to flood their lawmakers’ with calls and emails demanding repeal, or at the very least significant amendments, to this awful legislation.
I agree with all comments posted earlier, adding 1) The law in question serves the criminal not the law abiding citizen 2) Democrats are for chaos crime and confusion to destroy the laws on the book that protect the community they are sworn in to protect and serve. 3)Pritzker and company 99% of democrat politicians and seated government officials are the tools of the Elite Oligarchs who all have zero concern about people other than those who serve the comon goal of a One World Government. Hence they know exactly how the law will work against humanity. 4) Vote red… Read more »
A pro “Safe-T” act commercial currently running states that convicted criminals will not be released once enacted. Notice the slight of hand, this act has nothing to do with those already convicted. The issue is whether or not those charged with violent crimes can create further mayhem without fear of jail pending trial for new crimes.
“convicted criminals will not be released once enacted”
Give the woke Illinois government a little more time in power and that might not be true much longer.
Those charged with violent crimes can still be held if a judge determines they are further threat to create mayhem. Accused have always been able to get back on the streets if they could make bail. People with money were free to go back on the streets while poor people were forced to remain locked up. Now the accused needs to be convicted or pose a threat to society before their freedom is taken.
Accused are innocent until proven guilty. Get that through your thick skulls.
Sorry dear, but I believe the judge and DA have to both be on the same page and go out of their way to make a case for continued confinement. Just having been convicted of a violent felony in the past doesn’t ensure this will happen. So contrary to what was said elsewhere, charged offenders that pose a danger to rest of society may still walk with limited electronic monitoring if even that until trial date. I think most of our skulls get that those accused of a nonviolent crime should not languish in jail for inability post a cash… Read more »
The accused shouldn’t be where a crime was committed get that through your thick skull. The accused should be at their job or resting up for their job the next day.
I see no chance for a special legislative session for, a repeal of, or a single amendment to this awful legislation before the election. And once that is behind us, there will be little incentive to do so, for fear of angering the fringe left. Watch the revolving doors of police departments throughout the state in the months ahead.
Thank you, Matt, for such a well written and presented article. It never ceases to amaze me to see how brazen the proponents of restricting the police and making their jobs simply miserable will go to achieve their ends.
Hopefully this bill will not simply be amended, but repealed.
How much more evidence does one need to fully comprehend the agenda being implemented with the apparent “approval” of those who do not bother to read what they toss out? Kim Foxx? Gov Pritzker? Most of our Democrat pols … all apparently enamored of the leftist-marxist-NWO world predicted by George Orwell. Arise! You have nothing to loose by your chains!
The final nail in the coffin of the sputtering heart of Illinois. Expanding criminal rights and telling law enforcement to move to another law-abiding state.
***—anonymous complaints and an end to sworn affidavits.—***
Have they considered the unintended consequence of the cops themselves (or friends & family) inundating the system with bogus complaints against their superiors…?
What better way to fight the system, then to bog it down with it’s own requirements…