McHenry County State’s Attorney Continues to Spread Misinformation about the End of Money Bond

• The press release states that McHenry County has seen “a 30% increase in crime [committed by individuals] on pretrial release compared [to] those on cash bail.” This statistic is misleading. The actual difference between the number of people who were accused of new offenses under pretrial release vs. people released after paying money bond is 17. It is only because the total number of people accused of new offenses is small that the percentage increase seems large, in the same way an increase from one person to three could be called a 200% increase. Kenneally knows that, which is why he used the percentage and only included the numbers in a footnote.
• Kenneally’s claim that the jail population has increased suffers from the same defect, because the rise is minimal– just 12 people, representing an increase of 5.5%. 
• He further claims there has been a 280% increase in Failures to Appear, which sounds alarming—if it were true. In reality, Failure to Appear Warrants have actually decreased by 42% in McHenry County, dropping from 1,055 to 616. Warrants can be issued when the judge decides it is necessary to bring someone into court because they will not return voluntarily. Instead of acknowledging this significant reduction in FTA warrants, Kenneally attempts to conflate two different things: warrants and summonses.
  • Regarding the increased use of FTA summons, there is no context provided to allow the reader to understand whether multiple summons were issued in the same case or how many people returned to court after receiving a summons. Most people who miss court return voluntarily when given the chance, so the increased use of summons is likely driving the decreased use of warrants. Furthermore, judges are never required to issue a summons instead of a warrant. Judges are thus choosing to give people the chance to return to court voluntarily, reducing unnecessary issuance of warrants and wasted court and law enforcement resources.
  • Given the substantial drop in Failure to Appear Warrants, combining warrants and summons and labeling both as “Failures to Appear” without additional information is misleading.

• Kenneally further claims that the Pretrial Fairness Act was “written by public defenders and advocates for criminals,” conveniently ignoring the fact that a broad coalition of stakeholders crafted the law over the course of years. Supporters of the Pretrial Fairness Act include victims and victim advocates, other state’s attorneys, and community members—all of whom agreed it was time to end a wealth-based pretrial system that prioritized money over safety. Finally, the Pretrial Fairness Act is a cornerstone of the SAFE-T Act, one of the Illinois Legislative Black Caucus’s pillars to increase racial equity in the state. To reduce the work of Black Caucus leaders—many of whom represent the communities most harmed by money bond and other instruments of mass incarceration—is an appallingly racist dismissal of sincere efforts by public officials working to create a safer and more just Illinois for everyone.

The reality is that under the current pretrial system, individuals are no longer jailed simply because they are poor. Illinois’ pretrial system now allows people who do not pose a safety risk to continue to work, care for their families, and improve themselves while their cases proceed. People alleged to pose a danger to others or a risk of flight can be detained after robust, individualized hearings. Judges preside over those hearings and get to decide who is detained pretrial and who is released.

The Pretrial Fairness Act represents a shift towards a more just and equitable pretrial system, one that no longer ties freedom to financial status. Despite opponents like Kenneally spreading misleading narratives, the data from the first year of implementation shows that Illinois’s new system of basing pretrial release decisions on public safety rather than wealth is working.