Two men arrested for allegedly trying to lure children into a van were released on electronic monitoring after a Chicago area judge was under the impression that child abduction and attempted child abduction were not detainable offenses under Illinois's cashless bail system, the 2021 SAFE-T Act.
The judge was incorrect. So were the prosecutors. The obvious question: What the hell?
Two felons accused of luring children into a van where cops found condoms, lubricant and a mattress were NOT detained on the charges because prosecutors and a judge wrongly believed attempted child abduction was not detainable under the SAFE-T Act.https://t.co/yXRbg2S3Uh
— CWBChicago (@CWBChicago) April 4, 2024
As reported by CWBChicago, the two suspects, Kenchi Edwards, 60, and Kraig McCauley, 55, allegedly tried to lure several 14-year-old children into their van with promises of “games” and the promise of meeting a “famous athlete.”
The children didn't buy the pair's shtick and refused to get into to van. A parent then called the police.
The police quickly caught up with and detained the two men, also reportedly finding a mattress in the van, a used crack pipe, “numerous condoms, lubricant and binoculars,” and several open bottles of alcohol.
The men were arrested and charged with two counts of child luring and two counts of attempted child abduction. They have also been detained in the past over parole and probation violations.
Here's Where It Gets Really Bad
During the men's first hearing, Assistant State’s Attorney Sarah Dale-Schmidt mistakenly advised Judge Susana Ortiz that the offenses were not detainable crimes.
Here's more via CWBChicago:
“State,” Judge Ortiz asked Dale-Schmidt after hearing the allegations, “as to each defendant, these are detention-eligible offenses, correct?”
“No, your honor,” replied Dale-Schmidt.
“We’re going to pass this case,” replied the judge.
The transcript does not say why Ortiz took the break. When she recalled the case, though, she appeared to have received information about the state’s detainable offenses.
Judge Ortiz continued:
I want to note for the record that as to each of these defendants, child luring and attempted child abduction are not enumerated offenses on which the People can seek detention. I want to note that attempted animal cruelty is one where detention can be sought but not attempted child abduction, for whatever that’s worth, I want that to be reflected on the record.
Hold the abuse-of-the-law bus. Ortiz said she believed attempted animal cruelty was a detainable crime but that attempted child abduction was not.
I have no words. Not publishable words, anyway.
Ortiz then ordered both men to go on electronic monitoring and barred them from receiving “essential movement” during the 48 hours per week that electronic monitoring participants are allowed to leave their homes. She also ordered them to have no contact with the victims, the witness, or anyone under 18.
So that was that — wrongly so.
CWBChicago contacted several sponsors of the SAFE-T Act, including Representative Kam Buckner (D), Illinois 26th District Assistant Majority Leader. Buckner told the outlet:
Child abduction and attempted child abduction are 100% detention eligible,” Rep. Kam Buckner (26th) said. “It’s both named in the statute and even if it wasn’t, there’s a catch all that makes detention eligible for any felony that includes the threat or infliction of great bodily harm or disability or disfigurement.
Another SAFE-T Act sponsor (and another Democrat), state Sen. Elgie Sims, concurred:
The allegations are more than disturbing — these allegations are exactly the type of circumstances that would allow a person to be detained under the Pretrial Fairness Act. The statute is clear: attempted child abduction should lead to the detention of the accused.
I don’t know what this particular judge based their decision on, so I cannot comment on it. However, I do know that under the old cash bail system, a person charged with this crime would have a judge set a money [monetary] bond amount and if the person paid it, they would have been released.
Yet both the presiding judge and the prosecutors got it wrong — based on their misunderstanding of an Illinois law that has been on the books since 2021.
How does that happen? Perhaps the better question is, Why did it happen?
The Bottom Line
I can't answer the question, but I do know that more than a few Democrat judges and prosecutors in today's America appear to be more interested in sending suspects accused of serious crimes back out the revolving door they used to enter the judicial system, many of whom will surely come back through that door again, some of them more than once.
That is not blind justice. That is not the basis on which this country's judicial system was founded.
RELATED:
Rehabilitation 'Success Story' Busted With Dismembered Body of Former Prison Rival in a Fridge
Join the conversation as a VIP Member