Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers in Illinois
March 8, 2020
The (Champaign) News-Gazette
Misplaced Compassion
With Democratic supermajorities in the Illinois House and Senate eager to do his bidding, Gov. J.B. Pritzker can be confident that he’ll get much - if not almost all - of his budget and legislative proposals passed into law this year.
But one of his particularly controversial measures requires the rapt attention of legislators from both parties.
It’s Pritzker’s plan to eliminate the setting of cash bonds for individuals charged with criminal offenses who are waiting for the cases against them to work their way through the courts.
Although the bill has not yet been written, making it impossible to determine what exactly he has in mind, Pritzker’s plan has already drawn scorn from the law-enforcement community.
“We’re here to say we cannot, and unequivocally do not, support efforts being discussed to eliminate cash bond. This is not the way to make the criminal-justice system more equitable. It is not the way to make our communities safer,” said Jim Kaitschuk, executive director of the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association.
Law-enforcement officers are girding for what they expect will be a tough fight with the powerful Pritzker. They’ve formed a single entity - the Coalition for Public Safety - out of a group of law-enforcement organizations to lead their cause.
Although he contends otherwise, Pritzker’s proposal has nothing to do with promoting public safety. It’s all about what he considers the inequity of setting cash bonds that some defendants cannot make and, as a consequence, cause them to be held in custody while their cases are adjudicated.
He makes the argument, one that’s plausible under some circumstances, that it’s unjust that individuals who have been charged with a crime but not yet convicted are held in custody.
It’s for that reason that Pritzker asserts that judges should be given two choices with respect to criminal defendants - holding them in jail without bond or turning them loose.
The governor assumes, with no evidence to show otherwise, that judges will, for the most part, release most defendants. But who’s to say judges might be more inclined not to take a chance on what criminal defendants will do if released and err on the side of caution by holding more defendants in jail without bond?
This issue goes to the heart of what setting a bond is about.
As a general rule, a court sets bonds so that defendants will have a financial incentive to return to court. If they do not return, the bonds are forfeited. But they also serve the purpose of allowing judges to set a bond that is appropriate given the nature of the criminal case.
Arraignment-court judges routinely allow defendants to go free on their own recognizance or on very low bonds if they meet certain criteria.
Do they have community ties? Are they employed? Do they have a prior criminal record? What is the nature of the charge against them, a misdemeanor or a felony? If it’s a felony, what’s the nature of the offense - burglary, armed robbery, murder?
Stripping judges of the discretion to set a bond commensurate with the offense and the history and character of the defendant would be a disservice both to the criminal-justice system and the public.
The Legislature rewrote the rules on bail in 2017, directing arraignment-court judges to not require bonds for those charged with nonviolent offenses.
Since then, anecdotal evidence shows more defendants are skipping their court appearances, requiring judges to issue arrest warrants for failing to appear in court.
Ironically, in those cases, not setting any bond has the perverse effect of encouraging defendants not to show up in court, compounding their legal problems.
The argument that proponents of abolishing bond make is easy to understand and tugs at the heartstrings. The office of Attorney General Kwame Raoul foolishly characterizes the issue as one of “wealth discrimination,” as if being able to post 10 percent of a $1,000 or $10,000 bond falls solely within the province of the “millionaires and billionaires” the governor likes to denounce.
But there are real public safety issues in play, as the Chicago Tribune recently demonstrated when it reported that “21 defendants. … allegedly committed murder after being released from custody in the 15 months after” the 2017 bail reform.
That kind of reporting ought to get Pritzker’s attention, but it won’t. Eliminating bonds combines what he considers compassionate policy and vote-getting politics.
So that means it’s legislators who will have to say no. Based on the General Assembly’s political disposition, that could be a tough sell. But opponents of this plan have a strong case to make, and they need to do so.
___
March 8, 2020
(Decatur) Herald & Review
Coronavirus Clearly confusing
Remember the original threat-level warning established by the United States following the Sept. 11 attacks? The since-abandoned color chart gave the degree of alert under which the country should be.
It was replaced by the National Terrorism Advisory System because people found the five colors used a burden, something too complex to remember. The new system would give specific details about the threat.
An extension of having difficulty decoding what the color alerts meant was wondering what behavior appropriately matched the current level of threat.
Appropriate behavior is even more difficult when dealing with the expanding outbreak of COVID-19. The World Health Organization is tossing every warning in its power to the most expansive news organizations. Organizations which, by the way, are only as good as the information being thrown at them.
WHO last week raised the coronavirus to its “highest level warning,” increasing the risk assessment of the coronavirus to “very high” across the world. As of this writing there are more than 100,000 reported cases globally and 3,383 deaths.
That’s a lot. That isn’t a sky-high death rate, but it’s still not good. There are worse viruses contaminating the United States right now. CDC estimates say at least 20,000 Americans had died because of influenza between Oct. 2019 and Feb. 29. There have been at least 34 million cases of influenza in the 2019-20 US flu season. Those numbers aren’t particularly out of line with the average year.
There are survivors of both this year’s influenza strains and the coronavirus. But people don’t flock to the news that “people are getting sick and surviving,” The majority of the people who get either survive.
So it’s a difficult position for anyone making public pronouncements about healthcare. WHO is going to get very excited. Their doctors are handing out warnings like samples at a grocery store. They see a dire outcome, and they’re definitely the folks bringing down the world’s attitude. On the other side are those who scoff at the daily reports and are blustery as they tell friends, co-workers and strangers alike that this won’t be so bad. They’re the kind of people who make fun of weather warnings and bask when they’re right, there wasn’t any tornado touching down anywhere near us.
That type of person is always wrong until they’re not.
Then there are most of the rest of us. Naturally, we’re concerned. Hearing of rising cases of a mysterious disease that makes a person really really sick is alarming. We’ve seen those near ground zero of the virus appear ill and a couple of notable officials have died shortly after making comments for the public. Seeing public events being postponed or cancelled, while laudable, also raises the level of concern and the potential for panic.
A large issue, though, is the same as when we were first trying to remember the Homeland Security threat levels and whether blue or orange were worse. (It was orange.) We’re told to be alert, but terrorists are sneaking and we don’t know exactly what we’re looking out for. Viruses are of course considerably more challenging.
None of us has to be a movie action hero, set to battle the virus at a moment’s notice. We don’t have to be smart enough to make the vaccine that’s probably still at least a year away.
What we can do is listen and follow advice. Wash your hands thoroughly and regularly. Cover your mouth and nose when coughing and sneezing. Thoroughly cook meat and eggs. Avoid close contact with anyone showing symptoms of respiratory illness, such as coughing and sneezing. Ultraviolet lamps should not be used to sterilize hands or other areas of skin as UV radiation can cause skin irritation.
Those most in danger are the elderly and those with existing pulmonary concerns. The virus is extremely communicable, and WHO is warning that at some point, there will be interruptions in everyday routines. The best thing we can do right now is take care of ourselves and those immediately near us, and find a reliable source for ongoing information. Right now, the best we have is WHO and the Center for Disease Control
They’re both preferable to a meme shared on Facebook by an older distant relative.
___
March 6, 2020
(Arlington Heights) Daily Herald
General Assembly should have clear rules on what constitutes a valid vote by legislators
On June 1, 2019, the votes of state Rep. Allen Skillicorn on two dozen bills and resolutions that came before the House that day were placed into the legislative record, and the East Dundee Republican was listed as present at the 12:15 p.m. roll call. But Skillicorn was nowhere near Springfield at noon on June 1. He had attended the Harvard Milk Days Parade more than 200 miles away that morning and didn’t make it to Springfield, he now says, until sometime after a 3 p.m. recess.
So, how to explain the discrepancy, which would suggest a serious breach of legislative rules that require state representatives and senators to be on the floor of their respective houses when they issue a vote on a measure?
An Illinois inspector general’s report and an apology from Skillicorn carefully skirt a direct answer to that question. Legislative Inspector General Carol Pope simply found that a formal complaint that Skillicorn was not present for the votes was “substantiated.” Skillicorn himself merely acknowledged a “mistake,” without directly explaining what the mistake was or how it was made.
“It was a mistake, and we as a legislative body should clearly define what the protocol should be so that the rules are clear and mistakes like this will not be made,” he said in a prepared statement.
Skillicorn has filed a letter with the House clerk correcting the record, but his statement nine months after the fact implies that there is some confusion among lawmakers about what constitutes “protocol” for a vote that is supposed to be made in person on the floor of the House.
The expectation seems pretty clear, but Pope said her inquiry found it is common for lawmakers to ask a seat mate or staff member to flip their voting switch for them if they need to temporarily step away. Whether even that practice satisfies “protocol” is a reasonable question. Pope is surely correct to note that lawmakers should not be allowed to ask someone to vote in their place while they are absent or out of town. Can they step outside for a bathroom break and have a staff member cast their vote? Where, then, between the carpet of the House or Senate floor and a parade 200 miles away is an acceptable distance from the voting switch?
In her statement, Pope said rules exist but many lawmakers have not “totally familiarized themselves with the particulars.” She said she will call for a written protocol to be given to legislators and staff “so there is no question about the procedures to be followed when a member is going to be absent.” Skillicorn said he “strongly supports” that suggestion. The rest of the General Assembly should, too, for if Pope is correct, any other lawmaker might well look at his situation and issue the famous admission that “there but for the grace of God go I.”
Falsifying the official legislative record is a serious infraction. A written policy on the voting rules would help ensure that no lawmaker commits it — and that if one does, there will be no question about what “mistake” occurred.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.