Who would have seen murder coming from that? But from where you sit, what failed here? Was this a law enforcement issue or was it proof that the electronic monitoring in Illinois itself is flawed?

I think it's proof that electronic monitoring system that we have is flawed and the Safety Act that implements large parts of it is flawed.

What we've seen is with the Safety Act, the point of it was to give judges more discretion.

But a lot of ways, the Safety Act has limited judicial discretion in the types of offenses for which a person can be held prior to trial.

laws that require individuals on electronic monitoring to get two periods each week where they're off the monitoring and are free to roam about without that electronic monitoring.

Those are a couple examples of where the law could be tightened up and we could avoid situations perhaps like this one, and we could also have full judicial discretion as the point of the Safety Act was.

How does mandatory revocation distinguish between a missed curfew or a lesser crime, as Mr. Mitchell is saying, and a genuine public safety threat?

Well, the bill would say that if an individual on electronic monitoring commits another offense, then their pretrial release would be revoked upon a showing of probable cause that they committed the offense and violated the pretrial monitoring.

Uh, are any of your constituents from across the aisle talking about, uh, dramatic and, and, and, and sustainable changes to this, uh, home monitoring system? Because maybe you don't have to deal with it down there on the 117th, but up here in Chicago it's very real, and it just plain doesn't work.

Well, it's not working, uh, statewide.

The, the problems are bigger, uh, in Chicago, being a, a bigger city, but we see the problems, uh, throughout the state with the way the Safety Act's been implemented with, uh, electronic monitoring.

Uh, are we gonna see any changes? Uh, I think we'll see statements that there'll be change, but I think there's a real reluctance on the other side of the aisle, uh, to have any real change to this system.

Uh, you know, it, it's hard not to be, uh, cynical that they, the other side actually wants the system to continue as is rather than fixing it.

These problems have been obvious for three years now.

It's not like this is something that's just coming up here in the last several months.

You, you have a hard time getting these things, uh, even heard, don't you?

Uh, are any of your constituents from across the aisle talking about, uh, dramatic and, and, and, and sustainable changes to this, uh, home monitoring system? Because maybe you don't have to deal with it down there on the 117th, but up here in Chicago it's very real, and it just plain doesn't work.

Well, it's not working, uh, statewide.

The, the problems are bigger, uh, in Chicago, being a, a bigger city, but we see the problems, uh, throughout the state with the way the Safety Act's been implemented with, uh, electronic monitoring.

Uh, are we gonna see any changes? Uh, I think we'll see statements that there'll be change, but I think there's a real reluctance on the other side of the aisle, uh, to have any real change to this system.

Uh, you know, it, it's hard not to be, uh, cynical that they, the other side actually wants the system to continue as is rather than fixing it.

These problems have been obvious for three years now.

It's not like this is something that's just coming up here in the last several months.

You, you have a hard time getting these things, uh, even heard, don't you?