It’s been two years since the Pretrial Fairness Act was passed, but questions remain about who will be jailed and who will not.

Illinois became the first state in the nation Monday to completely remove cash bail as a condition to be released ahead of a criminal trial.

Here’s how the new system will work, with some questions still to be answered.

Who will not be jailed?

Under the new law, people charged with the state’s lowest level offenses will likely never set foot in a jail cell, including at a police station after their arrest.

People charged with an offense lower than a Class A misdemeanor — littering, some speeding charges and possession of marijuana over the legal limit — will likely be released with a citation and a court date without having to be processed at a police station.

What about more serious misdemeanors?

Class A misdemeanor offenses are slightly more serious, but still cover a lot of ground. They include shoplifting, simple battery, trespassing in a car or on property, possessing alcohol as a minor, and street racing.

A person facing a Class A misdemeanor will be arrested and taken to a police station for booking, but should be released with a future court date instead of being taken to jail.

The first question for authorities is whether, under the law, the offense allows the judge to jail someone. For example, a judge can detain a person accused of domestic violence, even when the person is charged with a misdemeanor.

In these cases, people usually face no more than six months in prison if convicted and often are released on probation without any incarceration.

However, law enforcement agencies will still be given discretion in certain cases. For example, if a person continues to commit the offense after being cited, they can be taken into custody and held until they appear before a judge, which must occur within 24 hours.

People can also be taken into custody if they can’t be properly identified, or if police believe a person poses a danger to the community or themselves. Police will have to explain their decision to hold the person.

  • @toasteecupEnglish
    0•1 year ago

    Given it provably puts a higher punishment on poor people based on percentage of income than rich people, I fully agree with you.

    The part I didn’t know (and hadn’t had a moment to read in the article) was that in situations where required (run risk, threat to themselves and others, etc) a judge could still time that they need to be held in jail/holding/whatever.

    I love that the people field is getting leveled here, make no mistake. I just needed to understand were we saying “by default except where required no bail or holding” or “no bail yolo enjoy the chaos”