Analysis of Illinois’s Pretrial Fairness Act and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: Reforming Justice in Line with SDG 16

Nearly two years following the implementation of a no-cash bail system, Illinois continues to evaluate the impacts of its Pretrial Fairness Act. This legislative reform represents a significant effort to advance Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) by promoting equal access to justice for all. The system has transitioned from a monetary bond structure to a risk-assessment model based on detention hearings, fundamentally altering the state’s approach to pretrial detention. This report analyzes the observed outcomes and challenges of this reform through the lens of the SDGs.

Impact on Public Safety and Institutional Efficacy

The primary objective of the reform aligns with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) by ensuring an individual’s freedom is not contingent on their economic status. However, its implementation has produced mixed results regarding institutional efficacy and public safety, key components of SDG 16. Observations from the Tazewell County judiciary highlight a complex learning process.

• Serious Crime Mitigation: According to Presiding Judge Chris Doscotch, there have been no known instances of defendants on pretrial release committing Class X or other serious felonies. This outcome suggests the risk-assessment model is effective in identifying and detaining individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety.
• Misdemeanor Recidivism: A notable increase in repeat offenses at the misdemeanor level has been observed. This indicates a potential gap in the system’s ability to deter lower-level crime among individuals on pretrial release.
• Court Appearance Rates: The number of defendants failing to appear for court dates has risen significantly. Judge Doscotch reported that warrant lists for non-appearance on a typical Monday have increased from approximately a dozen to over 20 individuals, challenging the efficient administration of justice.

Financial and Administrative Challenges to Strong Institutions (SDG 16.6)

The elimination of cash bail has introduced significant financial and administrative strains on county-level judicial systems, impacting the development of effective and accountable institutions as targeted by SDG 16.6. These challenges must be addressed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the reform.

1. Revenue Reduction: Without cash bonds, counties have lost a primary source of revenue used to deduct court-ordered fines, fees, and restitution payments. This financial shortfall has not yet been addressed by alternative funding mechanisms.
2. Resource Depletion: The increase in warrants for non-appearance has placed a greater burden on the sheriff’s and police departments. These departments must now exhaust more resources to locate and arrest individuals, diverting personnel and funds from other public safety duties.

Conclusion: The Path Forward for Sustainable Justice Reform

While the 10th Judicial Circuit Court’s implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act has proceeded without major disruption, the observations indicate a clear need for refinement. Judge Doscotch emphasizes that a continuous process of observation and modification is essential to balance the core principles of individual liberty, public safety, and the efficient administration of justice. Achieving the ambitious goals of SDG 10 and SDG 16 through this reform will require stakeholders to collaboratively address its unintended consequences, particularly the financial unsustainability and the rise in lower-level offenses and court absenteeism. The long-term success of the Act depends on creating a system that is not only equitable but also effective and institutionally sound.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  The article directly addresses the functioning of the justice system in Illinois following the implementation of the no-cash bail system. It discusses the challenges and outcomes related to court operations, public safety, and the administration of justice, which are central themes of SDG 16. The focus on creating a more equitable and effective judicial process aligns with the goal of building strong institutions.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The principle behind eliminating cash bail is to address economic inequality within the justice system. The old system often resulted in individuals with fewer financial resources being detained pretrial, while wealthier individuals could secure their release. The new law, as discussed in the article, is a policy change aimed at reducing this inequality of outcome based on economic status, which is a core objective of SDG 10.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.

  The article’s discussion of the shift from a cash-based bond system to detention hearings based on risk assessment is directly related to this target. The reform aims to provide more equal access to justice by ensuring that pretrial detention is not determined by a defendant’s ability to pay, but by legal and safety considerations.

• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

  The article highlights the challenges in making the new system effective. Judge Doscotch’s comments on it being a “learning process” and the need to “look, observe, see how things went” to make modifications speak to the ongoing effort to develop a more effective and accountable judicial institution. The mention of side effects like financial strain and increased failure-to-appear rates are part of evaluating the system’s effectiveness.

• Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices and promoting appropriate legislation, policies and action in this regard.

  The implementation of the Pretrial Fairness Act (part of the SAFE-T Act) is a clear example of eliminating a policy (cash bail) that was seen as discriminatory. This policy change is intended to reduce inequalities of outcome, where a person’s freedom is not contingent on their wealth, directly aligning with the aim of this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Recidivism Rates: The article provides specific data points that serve as indicators of public safety and the effectiveness of pretrial release.
  • “Doscotch knows of no defendants on pretrial release committing a Class X or other serious felonies.”
  • “However, he has seen more repeat offenders at the misdemeanor level.”
• Court Appearance Rates: The article explicitly mentions an increase in defendants skipping court, providing a quantifiable comparison.
  • “It’s not unusual now on a Monday for me to have 20 plus people on warrant status for not coming to court. [I used to have] maybe a dozen.”
• Financial Health of Judicial Institutions: The article implies a financial indicator by describing the monetary strain on the court system.
  • “Without a cash bond, there’s less cash coming into the county for courts to deduct fines, fees, and restitution payments.” This points to a reduction in operational funds as a measurable impact.
• Proportion of Unsentenced Detainees: While not providing a specific number, the entire subject of the article implies this indicator. The success of the no-cash bail system would be measured by a change in the number of people held in jail pretrial simply because they cannot afford bail, as opposed to being a flight or safety risk.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: 25newsnow.com