Our Chicago: Calls For Change To The Safe-T Act
CHICAGO (WLS) -- The deadly shooting of Chicago Police Officer John Bartholomew and the wounding of his partner, have prompted calls for changes to the Illinois Safe-T Act.
Shooting suspect Alphanso Talley is a seven-time felon, on electronic monitoring who failed to show up for a court appearance in March on charges of carjacking and armed robbery.
The Safe-T Act made big changes to pretrial detainment protocols across Illinois, that included the elimination of cash bail.
One of those calling for changes to the Safe-T Act, Illinois Senate Republican Leader John Curran of Downers Grove.
"The Safe-T Act was designed to make sure that indigent individuals, non-violent charges were not sitting in jail simply because they could not afford to post the $100 or $200 bail. That part of the Safe-T Act is working. But it is the turnstile apparatus of the Safe-T Act with the violent offenders that show a habitual pattern of violent offenses that's where we're failing," Curran said.
Curran says there is a way to make the existing law better. He says the trouble is with suspects who are on pretrial release and ankle monitoring, who are then arrested for other crimes.
"So, you're talking a small subset of those in the criminal justice system. But these are the most dangerous individuals in the criminal justice system and pose the greatest risk to public safety," he said.
Curran says right now, it's the end of the legislative session, but there are discussions about his proposal.
Illinois House Republican Leader Tony McCombie of Savanna has filed identical legislation.
Curran hopes by the end of May, the legislature will pass their proposed change.
Speaking about the Safe-T Act and the shooting of Officer Bartholomew, Governor JB Pritzker said, "Well, what played a role here was that the judge who had the ability to keep the person in jail, didn't."
Sharone R. Mitchell Junior is the Cook County Public Defender. He says the Safe-T Act has impacted the people his office represents.
"I think what it's done is create a better hearing process for when this important decision needs to be made," Mitchell said. "Before you had these hearings that would last a minute. And the final determination would be how much money a person had. The changes to the Safe-T Act have made these hearings far longer. Far more expansive. Far more informative. And it's given judges more information to make this really important decision."
He says the Safe-T Act is "far better than the status quo."
Mitchell says the decisions that judges make won't always be perfect.
As for the proposal by State Senator Curran he said: "The problem with that proposal is that it's completely unconstitutional. There has to be a hearing to determine whether a person is going to get their rights taken away. What we're talking about is a person accused of an offense. And accountability happens when there's a trial. When there's evidence presented. And a judge or jury makes a decision or a person pleads guilty."
