Posted on 07/20/2023 6:19:36 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Sheriffs in southern Illinois say they are bracing for more crime and more victims that result from the end of cash bail across the state.
"Folks who live here are extremely concerned," Franklin County Sheriff Kyle Bacon told Fox News. "It's an experiment on the backs of victims of crime. I have serious concerns and so do the people that live here."
On Tuesday, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled in favor of eliminating the state's cash bail system. The ruling takes effect Sept. 18, making Illinois the first state to fully abolish cash bail.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
final
Sure is moving in that direction, no doubt.
All a part of the plan.
Make life so dangerous that people will be screaming for a totalitarian government to ‘protect’ them.......................
In order to formalize the communist state, it is essential to break down the current illusion of a capitalist state.
If they only ended “cash bail”, could a judge require “hard asset” bail (gold, silver, movable property)?
Help me understand the effects of this law change here and elsewhere as well. Is no one held while awaiting trial? (doesn’t seem likely) or is it that unless you are such a prima facia danger such as multiple murder suspect, etc, that you are denied bail, you get out on personal recognizance signature, promising to be good and show up at trial later?
A number of months ago I thought Civil War II was heresy, now not so sure. Perhaps it will be inevitable.
Chalk up another advantage of either joining in BRICS and/or going to a PM-based currency.
Cash bail == hard asset bail
Nations showing strong interest in BRICS:
Algeria
Argentina
Bahrain
Egypt
Indonesia
Iran
Saudi Arabia
United Arab Emirates
Afghanistan,
Bangladesh
Belarus
Kazakhstan
Mexico
Nicaragua
Nigeria
Pakistan
Senegal
Sudan
Syria
Thailand
Tunisia
Turkey
Uruguay
Venezuela, and
Zimbabwe
I’d like to know how this happened.
Politicians did this?
Voters did this?
Both?
"Samuel Francis first coined the term “anarcho-tyranny” in a 1994 essay titled Anarcho-Tyranny, U.S.A., summarized as:
“A concept where the state is more interested in controlling citizens so that they don’t oppose managerial class, rather than tending to real criminals. Laws are argued to be enforced selectively depending on what is beneficial to the ruling elite.”
It essentially describes a situation in which the government has the necessary tools and capabilities to wield oppressive power over its subjects, and does so to further its own interests.
On the other hand, the government actors themselves — and, importantly, their footsoldiers (like Antifa and BLM in the modern American context) — act with impunity, immune from legal consequences."
You saw something similar to this in the early Soviet Union.
Under the new law, judges across Illinois will not require those charged with a crime to post bail in order to be released from jail while they await trial, unless the judge determines them a threat to the public or a flight risk.
Per the article
Or better yet, simply keep everybody locked up until their trial
The road to anarchy. Who wants to work in law enforcement when violent criminals are not locked behind bars?
This is the end of civilized society where practiced.
Who wants to bet most sheriffs in the state vote democrat?
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
Sheriffs in southern Illinois
Read, sheriffs outside of Cook, Lake and DuPage counties. Chicago and adjacent vassals. The paved over northeast corner.
Bingo!
Illinois for many decades has essentially been the national headquarters of the Marxist party. This action is evidence of a quite obvious agenda at work.
This is just not innocent policy that reasonable men might enact, it is akin to defunding police departments and creating public turmoil.
Will our national and local political party in opposition step forward and loudly and repeatedly call it what it is, or will the party allow the beast to slowly consume us?
Thanks. I did read the article but it seemed fuzzy on the not required vs shall or shall-not type language you read about in say, issuing concealed carry permits to those who apply and qualify. I’m wondering if this gives leeway to those progressive leaning locations to immediately release almost everyone after being charged, giving benefit of the doubt as to who may be a danger to their community or a flight risk. The devil is in the details and our system kind of depends upon the citizens running it to be moral and honest for it to work and be fair.
I think a lot of people will see the government failure as a sign that they need to take a different course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.