What's coming if Dem's win

[HedonistForever]

In another thread, I wrote that if Democrats keep the House and Senate, by 2024, Democrats will never win another National election. Now I may be off a little in how long it will take for the Democrat party to lay waste to this country by allowing crime to flourish.


Then I hear this story coming out of Illinois and SMH was all I could do and pat myself on the back for being able to see WHAT IS COMING, if Democrats manage to hang onto power.


https://www.rrstar.com/story/opinion...c/67438927007/


State's Attorney: More than half of Winnebago County Jail to walk out door Jan. 1



On Jan. 1, 2023, it is estimated that more than half of the inmates in the Winnebago County Jail will walk out the door. Approximately 400 criminal defendants will be released back into our community because our Illinois legislators passed the “SAFE-T Act” back in 2020.
They passed it in the pre-dawn hours of a “lame-duck” legislative session in an attempt to circumvent the democratic process. They were successful. And so, on January 1, cash bail will be eliminated throughout the State of Illinois.
The public has a right to know what this law entails, its practical shortcomings and the serious negative impact it will have on public safety for the citizens of Winnebago County.
While there are numerous issues with the new law, perhaps most problematic is that it only allows for even the possibility of pretrial detention for a small subset of crimes and under very limited circumstances — regardless of a defendant’s risk to re-offend or their known danger to the community.


In so doing, the law eliminates prosecutorial and judicial discretion when determining which defendants should be released back into the community while their cases are pending. In a bond or detention hearing, judges are presented with the facts underlying the charges against a defendant, that person’s criminal history, as well as an evidence-based risk assessment particular to each defendant. With that vital information, the judges of our community, using their discretion and experience, are truly best positioned to balance the important interests at stake and decide if a person should be detained pending trial.


The Illinois Supreme Court has held that when determining bail, a judge’s decision must “balance the right of an accused to be free on bail against the right of the general public to receive reasonable, protective consideration by the courts.” The SAFE-T Act, however, does away with all that. It strips judges of their important role and responsibility to both defendants and the public by actively preventing them from considering each case on its own merits and applying the law accordingly.


Under the new law, entire categories of crime, such as aggravated batteries, robberies, burglaries, hate crimes, aggravated DUIs, vehicular homicide, drug induced homicides, all drug offenses, including delivery of fentanyl and trafficking cases, are not eligible for detention no matter the severity of the crime or the defendant’s risk to a specific person or the community, unless the People prove by clear and convincing evidence the person has a “high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.”
Additionally, in cases involving non-probationable forcible felonies, such as murder and armed robbery, judges may only detain a defendant under the new law if the prosecution proves by clear and convincing evidence the defendant “poses a real and present threat to the safety of a specific, identifiable person or persons.”
Imagine the defendant who murdered his wife, to whom he no longer poses a threat, being released because of this ridiculously limited legal standard. Even more absurd, judges may no longer issue a warrant when a defendant fails to come to court. Instead, an absent defendant must next be served with a court order asking them again to appear and then fail to appear a second time before a warrant may be issued.


This convoluted series of steps will not only delay justice for victims and strike fear into the hearts of witnesses, it will place an unnecessary burden on law enforcement to find defendants who they’ve already arrested and serve them with a piece of paper asking them nicely to come to court. In eliminating virtually all accountability for defendants, the new law severely impedes the orderly administration of justice.
One can hear the wheels of justice beginning to grind to a halt.
In addition to upending longstanding principles of justice, the law places unrealistic timelines and obligations on the State’s Attorney’s Office — and other criminal justice partners — creating unnecessary strain on already overwhelmed employees.


The bottom line: The law will allow dangerous individuals to roam our streets. It will deter victims and witnesses from reporting crimes. And it will make it more difficult to prosecute those alleged crimes.
Oh, and as is customary in Illinois, the new law is an “unfunded mandate” requiring the county to spend even more money on the criminal justice system without any financial support from the state. Come January 1, our criminal justice system will become much more expensive and much less effective.
So, what can we do about it?
First, the effective date of the law should be delayed at least six months so it can see the light of scrutiny and debate outside the shadow of a bygone legislative lame duck session. In hastily passing the law, our legislators failed to heed the warning of the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Pretrial Practices, which stated in its final report: “[S]imply eliminating cash bail at the outset, without first implanting meaningful reforms and dedicating adequate resources toallow evidence-based risk assessment and supervision would be premature” (emphasis added).
Once delayed, our legislature should start over. Our state would do well to model its pretrial fairness law after New Jersey’s 2017 move to a cashless bail system. Unlike our new law, New Jersey allows judges to detain persons for any crime where the prosecution proves the defendant i) will not appear in court, ii) poses a danger to any other person or the community, or iii) will obstruct or attempt to obstruct justice, or threaten, injure, intimidate, or attempt to threaten, injure, or intimidate a prospective witness or juror.


While New Jersey’s law has its detractors, many have found it appropriately balances a defendant’s presumption of innocence against the court’s interest in the fair and orderly administration of justice and the community’s safety. It is certainly a much better law that the one currently set to take effect here in Illinois.
I, along with other Illinois state’s attorneys, have requested the Illinois General Assembly adopt a statute similar to New Jersey’s and continue to allow judges to use their discretion on behalf of the communities they represent in detention hearings. While a few of our local legislators are listening, thus far our requests have not been acted upon.
Let’s hope that action can be taken during the post-election “veto session” in early December. Please call your legislators and advocate for such action — but don’t call me — or the sheriff.
We aren’t responsible for letting over half the jail population walk out the door on Jan. 1.
J. Hanley is the Winnebago County State’s Attorney.

OK, if you find this sensible and would vote for it yourself, please raise your hand, or respond with an affirmative YES, I like this idea!

[HedonistForever]

They passed it in the pre-dawn hours of a “lame-duck” legislative session in an attempt to circumvent the democratic process.

Wait a minute!!!! Democrats attempting to circumvent the democratic process??? I thought that was a Republican thing. You mean to tell me that both parties do this, have done this since their was a democratic process?


So, what would you guess a referendum on this piece of so called legislation would bring? But hell, the people of Illinois put these very people into office. Didn't they know what these people believed and sated they would do or do most of them just vote party and have no idea, till it is to late, to do anything about it.



I'm telling myself, do the legislators that passed this REALLY believe their constituents will want this? They are either very sure or very stupid and I just don't know which, but the races in Nov. should tell us a lot.


Like Fetterman in Penn. who has a top priority, that he talks about often in his campaign speeches, would like to see 30% of the states prison population released and he is damned proud of that statement! He thinks it is a winning statement for GODs' sake and you know what? Right now, it looks like he is ahead against Oz who is no great gift but he's not a lunatic.


Maybe there are that many masochists in Ill.

[69in2it69]

[QUOTE=HedonistForever;10629608 02]In another thread, I wrote that if Democrats keep the House and Senate, by 2024, Democrats will never win another National election. Now I may be off a little in how long it will take for the Democrat party to lay waste to this country by allowing crime to flourish.


Then I hear this story coming out of Illinois and SMH was all I could do and pat myself on the back for being able to see WHAT IS COMING, if Democrats manage to hang onto power.


https://www.rrstar.com/story/opinion...c/67438927007/


WHAT?? A local newspaper with a circulation of a massive (almost) 75k (for the big Sunday edition), half a country away? Dig much? I can probably find something from Cuba that's a lot closer for you to reference.

[Tiny]

What comes if Dem's win? I'm concerned if Democrats hold the House and add several seats in the Senate. And then they say, perhaps rightly so, that they have a mandate to make sure abortions are freely available nationwide. So they end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. Then they make abortions readily available, which I guess is something you and I don't have a problem with. What comes next could be problematic. Say with the filibuster gone, they add Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states. And afterwards the Senate is firmly in Democratic hands for many years, perhaps decades. That's what worries me.

[69in2it69]

Originally Posted by Tiny

What comes if Dem's win? I'm concerned if Democrats hold the House and add several seats in the Senate. And then they say, perhaps rightly so, that they have a mandate to make sure abortions are freely available nationwide. So they end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court. Then they make abortions readily available, which I guess is something you and I don't have a problem with. What comes next could be problematic. Say with the filibuster gone, they add Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico as states. And afterwards the Senate is firmly in Democratic hands for many years, perhaps decades. That's what worries me.

I don't think that's what you have to worry about. The radical Republican faction has turned off 90% of women and probably 75% of those under 30. That's what's sank the party...it could have recovered from Trump if he had been the only outlier, but I'm afraid it's going to take generations for them to recover now. All that money he raised that bought fealty doesn't go far when you can't win an election and people are getting prosecuted for financial fraud.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 69in2it69

I don't think that's what you have to worry about. The radical Republican faction has turned off 90% of women and probably 75% of those under 30. That's what's sank the party...it could have recovered from Trump if he had been the only outlier, but I'm afraid it's going to take generations for them to recover now. All that money he raised that bought fealty doesn't go far when you can't win an election and people are getting prosecuted for financial fraud.

Yeah, Trump’s the other problem, besides abortion. He’s the Democrats’ best friend.

[ICU 812]

This is not the Democratic Party of our fathers.

This is no longer the party of Roosevelt, Truman Kennedy or Johnson. Nor of Carter and Ckinton either.

This has become the party of anarchy nd the dissolution of society.

[ICU 812]

In 1972, I turned 21 and became eligible to vote for the first time in Michigan. The available field was the Republican, Richard Nixon on the one hand and a choice of senators Hubert Humphry or George McGovern for the Democrats (in the primary). I wanted to vote Democrat. Both candidates seemed to be compassionate, and people oriented. President Nixon was this semi ogre who had already been in office for four years and still hadn't defeated the communists in Viet Nam or withdrawn.

During the primary season, it became obvious to me that both Democrats were buffoons, particularly Humphry, and on election day, I voted for Nixon.

It is interesting to me that much of the today's national discussion generally, and in many threads here, del with President Trump alone, somewhat like in 1972 with Nixon. . . .and today, Trump is a valid topic for discussion.

Yet, that focus ignore the real issues we all face today, every day, such as crime and adverse economics. There are many other issues besides those two, and President Trump is in my view. a side issue now.

The Democratic Party has ceased to be the party of our fathers. It has ceased to be the party of many contemporary liberals such as Bill Mahar. It is no longer the party of presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson Carter or even Clinton.

The Democrats of today have become the party of anarchy, chaos and the dissolution of society.

With all that said:

We should be talking less about either President Trump or President Biden. We should be talking about the issues that threaten to change our Nation forever and for the worse.

[1blackman1]

What’s coming if Dems win, more better policies and legislation than when Republicans had their opportunity in 2016-2018. We can disagree as to the overall effect of the legislation in 3-4 years and know whether it was good or bad. But Dems actually passed legislation. The Rs passed 1 major bill in 4 years which lowered taxes for people like me. They couldn’t put any other of their great ideas into law because they didn’t have any great ideas to pass.

I look forward to 2 more years of Dem bills and policies. And if the hold the senate more Dem judges.

[nevergaveitathought]

further increase in the police state

which means more silencing of opposition voices and criminalizing adherence to the constitution and conservatism

while at the same time less policing of actual crime

attacks on gun ownership, if by law abiding citizens, but continued cashless bail and lax sentencing for those actually committing crimes with guns

and with continuing dimocrat protected marxist and communist sub groups infiltrating and subverting every aspect of american life

an accelerated dissipation of the work ethic

i could go on...

if you think they cant get any worse, you're wrong

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

What’s coming if Dems win, more better policies and legislation than when Republicans had their opportunity in 2016-2018. We can disagree as to the overall effect of the legislation in 3-4 years and know whether it was good or bad. But Dems actually passed legislation. The Rs passed 1 major bill in 4 years which lowered taxes for people like me. They couldn’t put any other of their great ideas into law because they didn’t have any great ideas to pass.

I look forward to 2 more years of Dem bills and policies. And if the hold the senate more Dem judges.

The only thing Dems pass is Gas. They spend their time chasing Donald Trump around. The Democratic Party is nothing but a sordid cast of characters that can't be trusted.

[1blackman1]

Who passed several pieces of major legislation over the past 2 years. They effectively walked and chewed bubblegum.

[winn dixie]

If the dems win ?


"Gloom despair and agony"......

[royamcr]

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Who passed several pieces of major legislation over the past 2 years. They effectively walked and chewed bubblegum.

Who passed several pieces of legislation over the past 2 years which juiced inflation, added to the national debt, and allocated taxpayer money to green energy in a way that won’t do squat to help with global warming?