>> President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week aimed at ending no cash bail nationwide.

Illinois became the first state to implement that type of system with the Pretrial Fairness Act in 2023 that ended money.

Bonds.

Proponents say the laws intended to address equity issues.

However, the president claims the policy, quote, allows dangerous individuals to immediately returned to the streets and further endanger law abiding Americans.

The administration cites cities and states do not comply with the order or risk losing federal funds.

Joining us now are former Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx.

on Zoom, Clay County State's Attorney Philip Givens attorneys.

Thanks to you both for joining Attorney given I want to start with you first, please.

So you were one of the 62 Illinois states attorneys who filed a lawsuit against the safety Act back when do you agree with the president's tactic to withhold federal funding from cities and states that don't comply with his executive order from cities and states that.

Have abolish cash bail.

>> I agree with the fact that he's he's putting out there and making a nationwide issue.

I mean, I think that In essence doing is making it known that accountability is restored at this point time.

You criminal need to understand that they will be held accountable if they commit crimes.

it goes after whole withhold federal turns in order to get people's attention and do I think it's something that was necessary because crime continues to rise.

We continue to have issues with no cash bail.

My discretion or discretion the prosecutor continues to be reduced because of this law.

So I admire the.

The ability in the action.

President Trump attempting to take with the executive order at this time.

>> Kim Foxx, you've been out of office for just under a year at this point.

Of course, you are still serving when this was implemented and you worked with it for a while.

Why do you think this is something the president is singling out?

>> Why I think it's ridiculous.

I think this is a political stunt.

The cash bail system that we now have an Illinois mirrors what the federal system has.

So it is a surprise to hear my fellow prosecutors say that this is an accountability system.

The system that we have is very much like the federal system, which does not generally require cash bond.

The president right now is doing anything and everything to cause chaos and really highlighting Democratic lead cities.

This is political theater and the risk taking away federal dollars that could be used to fight violent crime to make our streets safer.

Tells you that the president's priority is not about public safety, but about politics.

>> Philip Givens, what structural issues do you think need to be addressed with the state's safety act?

>> The main for me is is the the fact prosecutors lost their discretion on which cases we can try to.

And with that cash with cash bail, we were able to sense certain amounts on certain cases that it didn't matter.

The dangers.

The 7 defendants would received $30 per day.

If we did have a cash But the thing about it is people like in Clay County, I mean, in surrounding counties in southern Illinois.

We know our community.

We know the people that are being arrested.

We know who's a danger.

We know what's going on.

Our judges now with within our circuits within our.

Counties.

And so.

Being able to hold people accountable in that sense and ask for certain amount of bail on any case is extremely important.

And we lost that with the safety Act.

Now we have to look at what the charges and trying to make a certain way around it.

You know, there's certain offenses.

They're still not on the table.

Aggravated battery to a police officer concealing a death.

Concealing a homicide on the table.

Offense.

So if you help someone move a body that you didn't kill him.

You can ask to be detained if you have no prior history whatsoever.

I mean, that's that's concerning.

And that's something that at least with cash bail, we were able to try to hold someone have that discretion to determine the dangerousness that way instead of the legislature.

Just trying to tell us which crimes we can hold people.

>> Kim Foxx, what what has the what is the research?

What's the data told you on impact of of cash bail?

Well, one act a reminder that sat here a couple years ago as it was first passed and there was.

>> Doom and gloom, crimes going to rise.

People are going to take over the streets.

The purge, what's going to happen?

And I'm sure my fellow panelists will tell you that the data and the research and the evidence for the past 2 years has shown violent crime in major cities and throughout the state has declined and across the country, it has declined.

We have shown that people who have been committing or been accused of committing violent offenses are being held in custody.

And those who are not have been released.

We've seen a drop in the jail population for people who are there for nonviolent offenses and actual increase in jail population.

For those who've been charged with violent offenses.

So it's been effective and I get slightly frustrated when we're not talking about public safety, but about dollars.

And under the old system, someone charged with the very offenses and that the attorney just described could pay their way out.

It was no guarantee that they were going to be held.

What the difference was if they could write a check, they can be out.

People charged with murder.

People charged with assault.

People charged with violent offenses who can write a check walk out the door with this law has done has allowed for judges to have the discretion to hold those people and not have money be the factor rather dangerousness.

>> given proponents of the active stated that its purpose was to address an equity issue.

As as your your fellow attorney has just referenced, preventing low-income defendants from being detained just because they can't pay bail.

Are there alternative options that you think the state could explored versus going straight to abolishing cash bail except in certain instances.

>> Well, I think that first step is we don't need to get a list of what crimes are dangerous and in crimes.

We shouldn't be able to ask a judge to hold someone.

Recently had someone travel down a neighborhood in Kent Peeping into windows and transparent, and under this law had this item, you come back inside again and come back and finally was able to at least pick them up for the night.

likely had a little bit of methamphetamine and a backpack to be able to see a judge other counties in that situation.

They're going to continue site.

Under the law.

It's it's.

Inappropriate.

In opinion, unconstitutional to have the community's not safe in equity has nothing to do with that part.

We have ethical duties as prosecutors dismiss parts knew when she was a prosecutor in order to hold people accountable.

Live for the best interest of justice.

This interest of justice doesn't mean hold someone.

Jim.

All the time doesn't mean you set a high people can just pay their way out every time murder, concealing a body, things like that, those would have been extremely high amounts in my county.

No one was going to be able to pay if you've got a murder and you want to hold them under line, you still can ask to do that with no bond.

But now we have a list of offenses that we have to abide by doesn't matter on money or not.

It's public safety in this issue.

>> It came head very quickly.

When we talk about constitutionality as my fellow attorney nose under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution.

It says that there should be no excessive bail.

So when I hear him under the old system, we could ask for amounts that we knew people couldn't pay for.

That is actually what unconstitutional.

And the fact that we're using anecdotes about nonviolent low-level offenses and say, but if only we could get money for them, the system was unfair.

The system was not just and the current system mirrors the federal system that we have right now.

And so this isn't about constitutionality of gone through the courts rigorously all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court.

This is about politics.

This is about Donald Trump tried to use a wedge issue in Democratic run cities to garner political points.

And as lawyers and particularly as prosecutors, we ought not be playing into the politics of the moment and uphold our constitutional responsibility.

relates to the Constitution.

>> Almost at a time and I want to get this resort write him to on the Constitution.

Only one of the arguments in in our lawsuit against the governor's that legislature didn't properly past the safety Act.

And as the Illinois Constitution and that all persons shall be available by sufficient.

Sure.

A tease inter out the Constitution and victims rights portion of the Illinois Constitution.

right and the safety of the victim and the victim's family considered in denying we're fixing the amount of bail.

>> And then the legislature just trying to do it and pass it their own way.

So it became political in that sense because that's how it was past.

It did go into the only Supreme Court and I'm not going necessarily get into how they have been back to some of them have been backed by Mister Pritzker.

On their campaigns in order to have certain votes that way.

But I don't believe and it's not just a political.

I still feel that we have a constitutional duty to hold people accountable and and right now under this system, my hands are tied in a lot of sense.

>> Ok, so we've got about 30 seconds left a fill-up given time to come to you very quickly.

Your reaction to the attempting to send the National Guard to Chicago to tackle the crime rate that is falling.

>> helps hold people accountable and axes and turn and to turn against criminals in work continues to happen in the state of Illinois and the city of Chicago and to restore law and order.

Right now >> Kim Respectfully as someone who lives in Chicago, not hundreds of miles away.

This is an attempt to militarize black and brown communities.

And that is what he is trying to do.

This is not about public safety.

This is about having the military on American soil.

Police black folks and it is unconstitutional.

It is not within the bounds of the separation of executive powers from the alleged state powers.

My colleague knows that and it will be shut down by the courts.

But this is theater and theater on the backs of black and brown communities.

that's where we'll have to leave it.

Lake County State's