Accelerated Release Isn’t Good Enough for People Who Should Never Have Been in Jail At All

In August 2015, the Accelerated Resolution Court Act created a pilot program in Cook County called the “Rocket Docket.” Developed and pushed by Sheriff Tom Dart, the law promised to release certain highly sympathetic prisoners from the Cook County Jail (“CCJ”) earlier than they would otherwise be released by capping their jail stays at 30 days. As originally designed, the Sheriff’s Office was to refer defendants charged with misdemeanor retail theft or criminal trespass to a special court if they remained in the jail longer than 3 days after their monetary bond had been set. (This was meant to ensure anyone with the means to bond out did so on their own.) The pilot program then required the special Rocket Docket court to resolve these low-level, nonviolent cases within 30 days or to release the defendants on their own recognizance or on electronic monitoring (“EM”). Ultimately, no separate court was established and eligible cases currently continue to make their way through the usual misdemeanor courtrooms. Sheriff Dart’s office simply alerts the State’s Attorney’s office, the defendant’s counsel of record, and the Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division (presently Judge Leroy Martin) after determining that a defendant may qualify for the Rocket Docket’s resolve or release requirements.

Sheriff Dart has been outspoken on the need to reduce CCJ’s population and stop jailing people who pose no threat to public safety. The Rocket Docket idea, however, only impacts a very small percentage of CCJ’s population. Dart’s own estimates predicted about 150-200 of the more than 8,000 people incarcerated in CCJ at any given time would be eligible for the program. With more than 70,000 annual admissions to CCJ, 200 impacted people amounts to less than a quarter of one percent of the admitted individuals. Eligibility is further reduced by the requirement that defendants not have certain prior convictions. Cara Smith, Dart’s Chief of Policy, reported in April of this year that only 13% of eligible prisoners were referred for the Rocket Docket pilot program, and fewer than that were actually released. That means as few as 26 people could have been referred through the pilot program for release, and fewer than that released.

Now, Sheriff Dart is trying to expand the Accelerated Resolution Court Act through HB 6190. The new bill expands the pool of eligible defendants to include those charged with certain traffic violations and class 4 felony violations of the Illinois Controlled Substances Act. The bill has already passed both houses of the legislature and is awaiting Governor Rauner’s signature.

The problems with the “Rocket Docket” as a solution for unnecessary pretrial detention, however, are not simply the miniscule number of eligible defendants or abysmally low referral rate. As a result, the pilot’s real limitations cannot be addressed simply by statutorily expanding the pool of eligible defendants. First and most importantly, 30 days is a horrifically long time to hold anyone in jail who is deemed appropriate for release. As a standard, it avoids none of the well-documented harms caused by even a few days in detention [PDF] such as increased recidivism, loss of jobs and housing, higher rates of conviction, and longer sentences. The easier and much simpler, evidence-based solution [PDF] would be to release such low-level offenders on personal recognizance bonds immediately instead of allowing judges to continue to set monetary bonds that will be overridden only after a defendant has spent 30 destructive and expensive days in detention.

CCJ beds.jpg
Hundreds of inmates sleep together on bunks in a large room of the Cook County Jail, Thursday, Sep. 5, 2013, in Chicago. (Alex Garcia/Chicago Tribune)

 

Secondly, the vast majority of misdemeanor retail theft and criminal trespass cases are already resolved in under 30 days, most often through dismissals or plea agreements. Rather than shortening the length of stay in Cook County Jail, establishing 30 days as a cut-off period for such low-level cases has in some instances worked to lengthen the defendant’s incarceration, the opposite of its design. When public defenders raise the issue of bond for eligible defendants and request release on a personal recognizance bond or EM, the assistant state’s attorneys in some courtrooms have been observed to cite the 30 day cut-off as still weeks out and reason to put off re-evaluating the money bond currently keeping the defendant incarcerated. Rather than create a norm of not incarcerating people charged with misdemeanors, the Accelerated Resolution Court Act has in part worked to normalize up to 30 days of incarceration for defendants charged with even these most harmless of offenses.

If the goal is to release these defendants who cannot pay their bonds, then there are also numerous court dates that occur earlier than 30 days in and that would provide much more natural points of re-evaluation for bond decisions, such as arraignment or preliminary hearings. In addition, the Rocket Docket’s narrow eligibility requirements further reinforce the idea that defendants who are not eligible should remain detained longer than 30 days–reinforcing a false division of “worthy” and “unworthy” defendants based simply on a short lists of current charges cross-referenced with past convictions. Such an oversimplified and thus politically appealing determination of who may be detained pre-trial for more than 30 days is not research-based. In fact, it flies in the face of studies that link unnecessary pretrial detention with increased recidivism and support the use of only interventions that match properly assessed risks and needs. These costs to the larger conversation about necessary criminal justice reform are quite simply not worth the benefit of releasing at most 26 people per year sooner than they might otherwise be released.Cook County Jail

Sheriff Dart, meanwhile, has been reaping the publicity benefits of the Rocket Docket and its proposed expansion. As a statutory intervention into jail populations, it is not designed to address the issues of mass incarceration, something Sheriff Dart has implied. Overall, the Rocket Docket legislation is poorly designed policy carrying the potential to serve far too few people to be worthwhile. While heartbreaking, the stories Dart shares with press–such as that of “D.E.” who spent 86 days in Cook County Jail for trespass–are outliers. These extreme cases should be addressed alongside the unnecessary and unjustifiable four day or two week jail stays requiring that all defendants with nonviolent charges be given personal recognizance bonds or some similarly broad standard. The public should demand good policy that pushes judges to rely increasingly on personal recognizance bonds instead of maintaining a system that allows money to determine pretrial incarceration. Additional policy changes occurring earlier on in a potential defendant’s contact with the criminal legal system such as alternatives to arrest and pre-prosecution diversion must also be explored if we are to truly decrease the strain on criminal courts and lessen case processing time.

Although the Rocket Docket makes a great soundbite for an ambitious politician, it is poor public policy. We can and must do much better if we are truly serious about reducing unnecessary pretrial detention.

Advertisements

Visitation at Cook County Jail – Part 3

Cook County Jail is one of the largest single-site jails in the nation, occupying 96 acres on the city’s West Side. Most inmates are housed at the jail for only a short period of time before receiving a trial or being bailed out. It is common, however, for some inmates to spend months and in some cases even years in the jail before they are released or sent to prison. Receiving visits during incarceration can be incredibly beneficial for the morale of an inmate and their loved ones. Unfortunately, the process is often complicated, inconvenient and exhausting.

To find out more about  visiting an inmate at Cook County Jail, Cook County Justice Watch spoke to Patty Cloud, a member of Progressive Community Church. Patty has been visiting incarcerated members of the church’s congregation since 2011, and is involved in religious volunteer work in the Cook County DOC. In the first segment of this series,  Patty talked about the process of being cleared for visitation, which involves locating the inmate and being placed on their visitor list, submitting a visitor application and clearing a background check. In the second segment, she talked about visiting day and the process of conducting a conversation with an inmate through a metal grate that prohibits eye contact while speaking.

In the third and final segment of this series, Patti talks about just a few of the many obstacles she encountered while visiting or attempting to visit inmates and some improvements she feels could make visitation easier.

 

In this interview, she talks about the difficulty that older visitors may have navigating lengthy walks from check-in kiosks to their division. She also suggests that there must be somewhere inside the massive jail where visitors could sit while waiting to visit, sheltered from the elements, rather than standing outside for hours. Alerting families when a division or tier goes on lockdown  would help families to determine if a visit is even possible on a specific day, she says.

cook-county-jail-facilities
The Cook County Jail complex at 2700 S. California Ave. has 10 divisions.

Have you ever been held at Cook County Jail, or visited an inmate there? Please share your experience below. Cook County Justice Watch would like to know how you think the process of visitation could be improved.

Interview footage shot and produced by Rachel Hoffman. rachelehoffman.com/video/

Interview conducted by Ruby Pinto. 

Visitation at Cook County Jail – Part 2

Approximately 100,000 people are admitted into Cook County Jail every year, which maintains an average daily population of about 7,500. When a family member finds out that their loved one has been detained at the jail, their first response may be to attempt to visit as soon as possible. This process can be very challenging to navigate however, and often friends and family encounter setbacks that make gaining and maintaining access to visitation incredibly difficult and sometimes impossible.

To find out more, Cook County Justice Watch spoke to Patty Cloud about her experience with visitation at the jail. Cloud is a member of Progressive Community Church and has been visiting incarcerated members of the church’s congregation since 2011. In the first segment of this series, Patty talked about the process of being cleared for visitation, which involves locating the inmate and being placed on their visitor list, submitting a visitor application and clearing a background check.

 

Here, Patty talks about her experience on visiting day. Cook County Jail is located at 26th Street and California Avenue. While it is accessible by public transportation, the trip can be exhausting, especially for families with small children and elderly visitors. Once visitors arrive, they must wait outside, exposed to the elements, with nowhere to sit. Often, people will wait in line for hours only to find out that they have not been cleared for visitation, or that the division they were planning to visit has been placed on lockdown and will not be receiving visitors that day.

Patty also describes the experience of holding a conversation with an inmate through a metal grate like the ones shown below. These grates prohibit eye contact while speaking, making communication and connection difficult. Patty questions if this kind of restrictive environment is necessary to maintain safety and order in the jail.

grate
Visitation booths with metal grates to speak through.

In the final segment of this series, we’ll share Patty’s thoughts on how the visitation process might be improved in order to make visits more accessible and beneficial for inmates and their loved ones. If you’ve had experience with visitation at the Cook County Jail, please share your story with us in the comments section below. Subscribe to follow these segments.

Seven Escape From Illinois Jail in Two Days
(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Interview footage shot and produced by Rachel Hoffman. rachelehoffman.com/video/

Interview conducted by Ruby Pinto. 

 

Visitation at Cook County Jail – Part 1

During an inmate’s time at Cook County Jail, a visit from a friend or loved one can mean a world of difference. A study conducted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections found that prisoners who received at least one personal visit at any time during their incarceration were 13 percent less likely to commit another felony and 25 percent less likely to end up back in prison on a technical parole violation. Data showed that the more visits prisoners received, the lower their chance of recidivating after release. Visits can help to improve the morale and well-being of both inmates and their loved ones and maintain personal connections that prove to be crucial during re-entry.

However, gaining and maintaining access to visitation rights can be difficult, especially for those without access to resources and flexible schedules. Potential visitors must fill out an application and submit to a background check. They must also be in contact with the inmate they wish to visit, in order to be placed on the inmate’s visitation list. An online Inmate Locator may be used to find out where an inmate has been placed.

To find out more about the experience of visiting an inmate at Cook County Jail, we spoke to Patty Cloud, a member of Progressive Community Church. Patty has been visiting incarcerated members of the church’s congregation since 2011, and is involved in religious volunteer work in the Cook County DOC. We will publish a total of three segments on visitation, each covering a different aspect of Patty’s experience. In this first segment, Patty talks about gaining access to visitation, the challenges she and others have encountered throughout the process, and the impact that this process has on families.

Next week, Cook County Justice Watch will share Patty’s experience on visiting day, including the wait to see an inmate and the process of communicating during the visit. Subscribe to follow these segments.

front-gate-2
A gate visitors enter during visitation at Cook County Jail

 

Interview footage shot and produced by Rachel Hoffman. rachelehoffman.com/video/

Interview conducted by Ruby Pinto. 

Policy Focus On The State’s Attorney Candidates: Donna More

Donna More, CBS Local
Donna More, CBS Local

The race for the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has gained national interest of late due to controversy surrounding the brutal killing of a black teenager by a white police officer followed by an apparent delay by the state’s attorney office to bring charges against the officer.

This particular incident, of course, represents only a small part of a breakdown of trust between criminal justice agencies and communities of color, concerns regarding codes of silence within and between the State’s Attorney’s Office and the Chicago Police Department, and, more broadly, the trends in law enforcement which have resulted in a system of mass incarceration both locally and nationally.

The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office is in a particularly powerful position not just to prosecute crimes but, with immense influence in Springfield and locally, to set criminal justice policy. It is with this in mind that we at Cook County Justice Watch present the policy goals of each of the candidates for the State’s Attorney and hope to steer the discussion toward the effect their policies may have on communities going forward.

Donna More is a former assistant State’s Attorney under Richard M. Daley and a former federal prosecutor; she has since spent much of her legal career representing casinos and other companies involved in the gaming industry. Her campaign is principally funded by personal wealth, family member donations, followed by companies such as More Sports Management, Universal Gaming Group LLC, and MBR Properties and Management LLC.

What Sets Donna More Apart: Political Stances and Media Focus. Media attention has focused attention on a 2014 contribution made by her to Republican Bruce Rauner’s campaign for governor and pulling a Republican ballot, despite the fact that More is running as a Democrat in this state’s attorney race.

In terms of political stances, More has positioned herself as someone not beholden to vested political interests, attacking the integrity of the office under State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez and painting the other challenger, Kim Foxx, former assistant State’s Attorney and former Chief of Staff to County Board President Preckwinkle, as underqualified. Specifically she has criticized Kim Foxx for spending much of her career in the juvenile division of the Cook County State’s Attorney office and attaining supervisory ranks there as opposed to working in the adult felony division where More spent some of her time under, then State’s Attorney, Richard M. Daley. This stance reflects longstanding beliefs within and without of the State’s Attorney’s Office that adult felony cases, particularly involving very serious crimes, define the office more than the juvenile division, which, though dealing with similar crimes at times, often has a more rehabilitative focus.

Below are positions on particular policies. We, in our series on the Cook County State’s Attorney race will include the positions of all the candidates on the following issues which have been most remarked upon by the candidates:

  • Special Prosecutor for Police Shootings: She has opposed the need for a special prosecutor for police shootings. A Special Prosecutor would be an independent prosecutorial office that works apart from the State’s Attorney’s Office and the police department, to insure independence, and would be brought in to investigate and prosecute when police officers are charged with crimes. This would be similar to how prosecutions are carried out when it is a state’s attorney who is charged with a crime. More has instead proposed a unit within the State’s Attorney’s Office that would be dedicated toward prosecuting police officers and reporting directly to herself.
  • Violence: She has called for a gun court to be established and has named ‘gun violence’ as her number one priority. The gun court proposal puts Donna More at odds with many research institutions, including Northwestern’s Bluhm Legal Clinic, the Center for Court Innovation, and results arrived at by the Cook County Violence Prevention, Intervention, and Reduction, all of whom have indicated that gun courts may not be effective at decreasing crime and in their sentencing run counter to current best practices for courts, limiting both individual justice and judicial discretion.
  • Civilian Police Accountability Council (CPAC): During the recent debate hosted on WBEZ on Thursday, January 28, 2016, Donna More seemed to be previously unaware of CPAC proposals but foreword by several community groups, but seemed willing to support one so long as that council would not decide upon the bringing of criminal charges.
  • Response to Low Level Crimes, Alternatives to Traditional Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution: More has been less vocal on expanding alternatives to prison for low lever crimes as compared with the other candidates, Foxx and State’s Attorney Alvarez, but has suggested that the cost of jailing individuals for cases that will likely be thrown out to be a waste of taxpayer money.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chicago Community Bond Fund Is Taking On Cash Bond One Person at a Time

The Chicago Community Bond Fund Is Taking On Cash Bond One Person at a Time

Part 3 in our series on bond court in Cook County.

Read Part 1: ‘Disrespectful…inattentive and vindictive’ Cook County’s Bond Court.

Read Part 2: Public Defender Amy Campanelli On Reforming Cook County’s Bond Court.

As Public Defender Amy Campanelli continues to push for the necessary reforms to bond court as described in Part 2 of our series, individuals continue to be caught up in unnecessary pre-trial detention simply because they lack the resources to get out. Now, one group of Chicagoans is taking it upon themselves to pay bond for some of the thousands of people in Cook County Jail (CCJ) who have been granted bond but are unable to afford it. The Chicago Community Bond Fund is a new non-profit organization dedicated to ending the use of monetary bond in Illinois, and working to get people out of Cook County Jail in the meantime.

The basic problems with money bond

As has been well-known for a while, and as CCBF itself pointed out in a recent AREA Chicago article, cash bond is not good public safety policy. Despite claims that monetary bond ensures defendants return to court and discourages commission of new crimes, supporting evidence for those claims is weak to non-existent. For example, Washington, D.C. eliminated use of monetary bond decades ago, and instead established a Pretrial Services Agency (PSA) that uses risk assessment to make release decisions. Once released, defendants are supported by services that further increase their chances of succeeding while awaiting trial. A 2013 BJA funded study of unsecured bonds by the Pretrial Justice Institute found that unsecured bonds are as effective as secured bonds at both ensuring court appearance and achieving public safety goals such as avoiding re-arrest.

Though the benefits of using monetary bond are hard to confirm, the harms of pretrial detention are obvious and well-documented. People who are incarcerated simply because they cannot pay an often arbitrary amount of money may lose their jobs, housing, and even custody of their children. Family and community connections are damaged, the defendant is less able to participate in their own defense, and the chances of being convicted increase. Detained defendants who are convicted also receive significantly longer sentences than defendants who were not detained pretrial. Each one of these outcomes further decreases the defendant’s chances of future success and increases recidivism. In a review of over 150,000 criminal cases in Kentucky, the Arnold Foundation found that defendants who are detained “are over four times more likely to be sentenced to jail and over three times more likely to be sentenced to prison than defendants who are released at some point pending trial.” Perhaps the most compelling result of studying the impact of pretrial detention is the fact that when low- and moderate-risk defendants are detained even a few days, the odds of recidivation significantly increase. (Source.)

Non-financial conditional release, based on the history, characteristics, and reliability of the defendant, is more effective than financial release conditions. Reliance on money bail discriminates against indigent defendants and cannot effectively address the need for release conditions that protect the public. Pro-social interventions that address substance disorders, employment, housing, medical, educational, and mental health issues afford defendants the opportunity for personal improvement and decrease the likelihood of criminal behavior.”Guiding Principles of the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia

Who is in Cook County Jail?

Cook County Jail is no outlier by national standards. Frequently referred to as the largest single-site jail in the country, CCJ has around 70,000 admission every year. Like most jails, the vast majority of CCJ’s population is pre-trial. In early October 2015, fully 95% of CCJ inmates were awaiting trial. The vast majority of those behind bars were technically eligible for bond as set by a judge but were simply unable to afford it. In fact, over 150 of the nearly 9,000 people incarcerated in CCJ at that time needed to post only $500 or less in bond in order to be released. Also like most jails, CCJ is disproportionately Black. Despite the fact that only 24% of Cook County residents are African American, CCJ’s population was 73% Black in October 2015.

Introducing the Bond Fund

Chicago Community Bond Fund’s mission is, quite simply, to help people get out of CCJ. Growing out of a grassroots effort to bond out five activists arrested at an August 2014 community vigil for Desean Pittman, CCBF has now set its sights on less obviously political pretrial detainees. The group of activists, attorneys, and community members has established a revolving bond fund that will pay bond for people who simply cannot pay it themselves. In their words, “paying bond …  restores the presumption of innocence before trial and enables recipients to remain free while fighting their cases.” CCBF also plans to conduct teach-ins and other public education “about the role of bond in the criminal legal system and [advocate] for the abolition of money bond.”

Watch the short video below to hear CCBF co-founder Jeanette Wince speaking at the launch party on November 21, 2015. Jeanette begins by discussing how she and other family members raised bond money for those arrested in August 2014 by throwing house parties and holding raffles.

 

So far, CCBF has been focused on creating organizational structure and establishing guidelines for operation. Nevertheless, the group has found time to continue supporting broader causes of criminal justice reform and racial justice. After the release of the video showing a Chicago police officer shooting Laquan McDonald 16 times on November 24th, CCBF quickly established a bond fund for protesters who took to the street demanding justice and accountability. Now, CCBF has joined a coalition of groups to raise money to post bond for Naomi Freeman, a young Black mother in Cook County Jail after killing her abusive partner.

CCBF’s Adventures Posting Bond

On December 3rd, CCBF posted bond for their first client, and their experience reveals a lot about the hurdles ordinary Chicagoans face when trying to post bond for a loved one. Two CCBF members, Max and Ash, headed to Cook County Jail around 2pm on an ordinary Thursday. When Ash attempted to post bond, he was told that CCBF’s client, R., was serving a sentence and thus could not be bonded out. When Ash tried to ask questions, knowing that R. had not yet been sentenced, he was given no further information. The clerk merely repeated the same thing multiple times, and conveyed to Ash that R. would be released when her sentence was over in March 2016.

After calling R’s attorney and confirming that she had not yet been sentenced and was, in fact, eligible for bond, Max and Ash tried to figure out why the system was reporting an incorrect status. By chance, Max saw someone from the public defender’s office who he knew from when he interned there as a law student. That person was able to contact her supervisor in the public defender’s office, who in turn contacted a supervisor over in the bond posting office. Eventually, a little over an hour later, the county employees were changing shifts, so Ash sat in the office for 30 minutes while the shift change took place. After two more system errors and separate 15-20 minute delays, Ash was finally able to post bond around 5pm, and R. finally walked out of CCJ nearly 4 hours later (approximately 7 hours after Ash first tried to post bond). He noted that as a non-attorney with no special access to supervisors or court records, he would never have been able to correct the system error that reported R’s status as sentenced instead of pre-trial. During his time in the waiting room, Ash saw several people turned away from posting bond entirely and delayed due to system errors. As is unfortunately often the case in Cook County, it was only as a result of special access and connectionsand those mostly the result of Max’s status as an attorneythat Max and Ash were eventually able to post R.’s bond.

You can read more about CCBF’s client R and their other recent news in their newsletter.

 

Public Defender Amy Campanelli On Reforming Cook County’s Bond Court

The following is a transcript of a speech delivered by Cook County Public Defender Amy Campanelli at the Collaborative on Reentry. In the speech, she addresses reforms currently underway in Cook County’s Bond Court and proposals for further improvements.

Speech by Cook County Public Defender regarding Collaborative on Reentry

I would like to thank the members of the Collaborative on Reentry, as well as Esther Franco Payne from the Illinois Justice Project for inviting me to speak today.

On the issue of race, which Professor Stone so elegantly highlighted, it is an issue in the criminal justice system. I want to tell you about two cases that just came through bond court. Two young men, both charged with aggravated criminal sexual assault. The first was a white male and a student at DePaul. He was accused of having sex with someone who was mentally deficient and could not give consent. The second was a black male. He was charged with sex by use of force. Bond for the white male was set at $50,000. Bond for the black male was set at half-a-million. Whether you think the bond should be higher or lower, the disparity is outrageous.

ct-defender-cook-met-jpg-20150310

Nowhere do we see an overreliance on the jail for incarceration more than in bond court. We must reduce that overreliance. Clients who remain in custody pretrial are much more likely to go to prison than those on pretrial release. That said, things have been improving, but there is much more to do.

Our Bond Court initiative began in the Fall of 2012. At that time, the jail regularly had a population of over 10,000 detainees. Now the population is in the 8000 range. The success of the project is due to the support and resources given to us by President Preckwinkle and the Justice Advisory Council. Through efforts of the Council, we received a grant from the MacArthur Foundation to hire caseworkers to help my bond court attorneys. Their work is essential, as I will explain in a moment.

The Council and Supreme Court Justice Ann Burke have also assisted in other ways. Before the initiative began, we had to conduct new client interviews between the bars of the bullpen behind the bond court room. When the Sheriff received custody of a person from the Chicago or suburban police departments for bond court, he was marked with a number on his hand. Before the reforms took place our interviewers would go up to the bars and yell out a number to summon our new clients for an interview. Prior to these interviews we would not have a name, arrest report, or complaint for our new clients.

Things are greatly improved because of the collaboration of all the stakeholders, the President, the MacArthur Foundation and the Supreme Court. On the lower level of Division 5 of the jail, we now have a large private room where interviews are conducted. There are ten private cubicles for the interviews. We now receive all the Chicago Police Arrest Reports for our new clients. We also receive the complaints and the criminal history background. We now have six Safer Foundation caseworkers, provided to us by MacArthur grant money and the Justice Advisory Council, who conduct intake interviews with our new clients to identify and verify background information to present to the court in order to help us secure a reasonable bond. The caseworkers also speak with family members and give them an information sheet explaining the bond court process. That sheet is on your table today.

ct-ct-amy-campanelli-09-jpg-20151022

Also assisting us with the interviews are counselors from the Thresholds Foundation. Two counselors are in our interview area every day. If a new client reports a history of mental illness, the client is referred to the Thresholds counselor for an interview and evaluation. If the client is released from custody on an I-Bond, EM or by posting money, Thresholds will co-ordinate out-patient treatment. If the client does not get released, Thresholds stays in contact with the client to begin treatment if the client does get discharged from the jail back into the community when the case is resolved.

A wonderful success story of our program is the case of a 17-year-old named Marcello. In 2013, he was arrested for stealing three cell phones. He was initially held on a $300,000 bond. My office filed a second chance bond motion. The bond was lowered to $10,000; the Mercy Home for Boys and Girls posted the $1,000 needed for his release. Because he was released, he returned to the Mercy Home and received support. Their support led to his enrollment in college at DePaul University. Three of my attorneys gathered together all his mitigation evidence, brought representatives of Mercy Home to court, and showed the prosecution that this young boy epitomized a story of success. An agreement was reached for misdemeanor probation. This success story, however, depended on his receiving a reasonable bond so that he could reenter the community while he waited for his trial.

A new drug deferred prosecution program has begun in the Central Bond Court here in Cook County for minor drug possession cases. My clients who accept the program are immediately released on an I-bond and are linked with a case manager from TASC (the Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities). The TASC case manager will refer my clients to designated service providers based on an initial assessment of my client’s needs.

In addition, bond court is using a new risk assessment tool. The two major factors for a judge to consider are the seriousness of the offense and the likely flight risk of the person. This tool has been in place only for a few months, and its effectiveness in setting a proper bond, as well as how it will affect the number of people held in jail, is still uncertain, but I am hopeful this tool will lead to fair and reasonable bonds.

Despite these improvements, problems remain. Over 70% of our new clients in central bond court are charged with nonviolent offenses. Narcotics offenses are a large portion of new charges. There are also a significant number of property crimes, ranging from burglaries to felony retail theft. Many clients also indicate that they have suffered through the years with mental illness, drug addiction or both.

Amy Campanelli_2015-8x10color-1_0

In my judgment, none of these people should be held in custody on unrealistic bonds while they are waiting for their trial. My clients cannot even scrape together $100 for bond. Community based support must be available to my clients while they are on pretrial release.

This is not a new proposal. Judge Jonathan Lippman, Chief Judge of the State of New York, has championed the reform of taking money out of the bail process entirely. First, if a judge at a bond hearing determines that an arrestee is safe enough to release on ‘bond,’ that means the judge has determined he is not a threat to public safety. Incarceration because of the inability to pay a monetary bond is nothing more than turning the jail into a pauper’s prison. Second, by taking money out of the process, it eliminates the push for those in jail to plead guilty just so they can get out of the Cook County Jail, even if they are innocent of the charges.

I would like to reiterate the conclusions that were recently expressed in an article on this subject in the New York Times. The long-term damage that bail inflicts on vulnerable detainees extends well beyond incarceration. Disappearing into the machinery of the justice system separates family members, interrupts work and jeopardizes housing. People in the throes of poverty don’t have the luxury of missing their job for even one day. People in need of caretaking, such as the elderly and the young, are left without caretakers. People who live in shelters may lose their housing. People with immigration concerns are quicker to be put on the immigration radar. So when our clients have bail set that they cannot make, they suffer on the inside, they worry about what’s happening on the outside, and when they get out, the world has become a lot more difficult. Thank you.