Criticism of Illinois’ SAFE-T Act resurfaced this week on Chicago’s Morning Answer as Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow warned that the state’s no-cash-bail system continues to undermine public safety despite amendments made after its passage. Glasgow, one of the most vocal opponents of the law, said recent violent incidents involving defendants released pretrial illustrate structural flaws that lawmakers have still failed to correct.
Dan Proft revisited remarks made by Governor J.B. Pritzker in 2022, when he dismissed opponents of the SAFE-T Act as fearmongers and promised the law would make Illinois safer and more just. Proft contrasted that pledge with a growing list of cases in which defendants charged with serious crimes committed new offenses while on pretrial release or electronic monitoring, including shootings and assaults that left multiple victims dead or injured.
Glasgow argued that the law’s original framework was far more extreme than many Illinois residents realized. He said a lawsuit brought by county prosecutors forced lawmakers to rewrite major sections of the statute, preventing what he described as a system that would have mandated release for virtually all defendants within 90 days and stripped judges of authority to issue warrants for those who failed to appear in court. Without those changes, he said, judges would have been required to ignore public safety risks unless a defendant posed a threat to a specific, identifiable individual.
Although amendments softened the most sweeping provisions, Glasgow said the SAFE-T Act still contains mandatory release requirements that prevent judges from detaining repeat offenders even when their criminal histories suggest a high likelihood of reoffending. He cited cases involving habitual burglars and individuals caught with small quantities of fentanyl, noting that judges are often barred from considering decades-long records of violence or repeat arrests when deciding whether to detain a defendant pretrial.
The state’s reliance on electronic monitoring also drew criticism. Glasgow said ankle monitors are frequently violated and are no substitute for incarceration when dealing with dangerous offenders. While recent comments from Cook County’s new chief judge and state’s attorney signal a reassessment of electronic monitoring practices, Glasgow questioned whether administrative changes can compensate for statutory limits imposed by the SAFE-T Act itself.
The discussion also touched on broader concerns within the criminal justice system, including staffing shortages among prosecutors and law enforcement. Glasgow praised Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke for shifting office priorities toward public safety but warned that chronic understaffing makes it difficult to prosecute cases effectively and protect victims.
Beyond bail reform, Glasgow expressed alarm about other legislative proposals he said reflect an ideological hostility toward policing, including measures that would have restricted traffic stops and suppressed evidence obtained during them. He also raised concerns about illegal immigration, arguing that a lack of enforcement and vetting has strained communities and public safety, while emphasizing that his objections are rooted in law enforcement rather than opposition to lawful immigration.
Asked whether the SAFE-T Act should be repealed entirely, Glasgow said full repeal is unlikely in the current political climate, leaving prosecutors to push for incremental reforms. He said restoring judicial discretion, eliminating mandatory release provisions, and allowing judges to consider a defendant’s full criminal history are essential steps to preventing further violence.
As Illinois enters a new legislative session, Glasgow said state’s attorneys across Illinois remain engaged on the issue and intend to keep pressing lawmakers to revisit the law. With high-profile crimes continuing to draw public attention, he argued that the gap between political assurances and on-the-ground outcomes has become increasingly difficult to ignore.