The SAFE-T Act has tipped the scales of justice in favor of violent criminals. The law needs to be refined before it's too late
I spent nearly four decades in law enforcement, including 13 years as a police chief. I have seen the system at its best and at its worst. I know what it takes to keep communities safe. And I know when laws are written in ways that undermine that mission. The SAFE-T Act is one of those laws. It is failing the public, failing victims, and failing the men and women of law enforcement who are sworn to protect them.
The recent Blue Line attack is a case study in how this law is handcuffing justice. Before that brutal attack, a nurse at MacNeal Hospital in suburban Berwyn was knocked unconscious by the same violent offender in the Blue Line attack. The charge — aggravated battery — qualified for detention under the Act’s narrow “great bodily harm” standard. Yet a Cook County judge released him. Why? Because of the Act’s third prong, which requires prosecutors to prove that no condition of release could mitigate the risk.
Judges can always imagine conditions of electronic monitoring, curfews, and reporting requirements, and that speculation is enough to block detention. In this case, the judge decided electronic monitoring was “good enough.” That is not justice. That is a loophole.
Misleading claims from leadership
Governor J.B. Pritzker has repeatedly claimed the SAFE-T Act allows judges to detain violent offenders. That statement is dangerously misleading. It ignores the fact that detention is only possible for a narrow set of qualifying offenses. Burglary and aggravated fleeing are excluded. Let me be blunt: If a crew smashes into a store at night and flees at 100 miles per hour, prosecutors cannot detain them. They cannot even file for detention. Those suspects are issued notices to appear in court, like traffic tickets. That is insanity, yet the public is told otherwise.
The media has largely failed to challenge these claims. Instead of scrutinizing the statute, they repeat talking points. The public is left confused, believing judges and prosecutors are being lenient when, in reality, their hands are tied by the law itself.
The three-prong burden
The SAFE-T Act requires prosecutors to prove three prongs by clear and convincing evidence:
- The proof is evident, or the presumption is great, that the defendant committed the qualifying offense.
- The defendant poses a real and present threat to safety or a high likelihood of willful flight.
- No condition or combination of conditions can mitigate that threat or flight risk.
Prongs one and two are achievable. Prong three is the problem. It is an unfair burden. Judges can always hypothesize a condition. Electronic monitoring. Daily reporting. Curfews. Treatment programs. The mere existence of those options allows judges to deny detention — even for defendants with violent records who have demonstrated a danger to the community. Prosecutors across the state have criticized this prong, and rightly so. It elevates hypothetical conditions over real risk.
The absurd definition of flight
The Act’s definition of “willful flight” is equally absurd. It requires proof of intentional conduct designed to thwart prosecution. In other words, prosecutors must show that a defendant was formulating plans to miss court — buying airline tickets, arranging to leave the jurisdiction, and running from police? Missing court dates? Living outside the venue? None of that counts unless prosecutors can prove premeditated intent. Common sense tells us those are flight risks. The SAFE-T Act says otherwise. It protects offenders, not the public.
And when offenders do skip court, what happens? Instead of issuing warrants, the court sends postcards reminding them of their next date. Postcards. This is not accountability; it is a joke. If you fail to appear, a warrant should be issued. Period. Anything less tells offenders the system is toothless and court orders are optional.
“Essential movement days” — a free pass
Another glaring loophole is the practice of granting “essential movement days” to defendants on electronic monitoring. These days are supposed to allow limited movement for work, medical appointments, or family obligations. In reality, they function as complementary passes. Offenders are given broad leeway to roam, often without meaningful oversight. For violent offenders, this is nothing more than a license to reoffend while technically remaining “monitored.”
If electronic monitoring is already being misused as a substitute for detention, adding “essential movement days” only compounds the problem. This practice must end. If you are deemed dangerous enough to require monitoring, you should not be given a free pass to move about the community.
What must change?
The fixes are obvious:
- Expand qualifying offenses: Burglary and aggravated fleeing must be added. Organized retail theft and high-speed pursuits are serious crimes that endanger lives. Prosecutors should be able to file for detention.
- Make aggravated battery of a police officer a mandatory detainable offense: When offenders assault law enforcement officers, it is not just an attack on an individual — it is an attack on the rule of law itself. Allowing those suspects to walk free sends a dangerous message that violence against police carries no immediate consequence. That cannot stand.
- Reframe prong three: Judges should weigh criminal history and recent violent conduct, not just hypothetical conditions. The burden should be “substantial likelihood” that conditions are insufficient, not “no condition exists.”
- Restore commonsense flight standards: Running from the police, missing court dates, and living outside the jurisdiction should count. Prosecutors should not have to prove premeditated plans to evade.
- End the postcard practice: If offenders skip court, warrants must be issued. Anything less undermines the authority of the courts and emboldens defendants to ignore the system.
- Eliminate “essential movement days:” Electronic monitoring is already a weak substitute for detention. Adding free passes to roam the community makes it meaningless. If you are dangerous enough to require monitoring, you should not be given liberty disguised as oversight.
These changes would restore balance. They would give prosecutors and judges the tools they need to protect the public. They would align the law with reality.
Why this matters
The SAFE-T Act was drafted with reform in mind. Reform is important. However, reform cannot come at the expense of public safety. When violent offenders are released because prosecutors cannot meet an unfair burden, victims are betrayed, and communities lose faith in the system. That faith is essential to justice. Without it, trust erodes, cooperation declines, and safety suffers.
I spent my career protecting communities. I will not stay silent while a law strips away the tools we need to do that. The SAFE-T Act must be amended — now. Anything less is political cowardice. Every time a violent offender walks free because of this law, the blame rests squarely on those who defend it.
A call to action
The Blue Line case should be the wake-up call. Legislators must act. Prosecutors must speak out. Judges must demand clarity. And the media must stop parroting talking points and start exposing the truth. The SAFE-T Act is not keeping us safe. It is handcuffing justice. It is endangering communities. And it must be fixed.
This certainly is not a complete list of changes needed, but it is a start.
Tom Weitzel served 37 years in law enforcement, including 13 years as Chief of Police in Riverside, Illinois. He now writes and advocates nationally on public safety, criminal justice reform, and responsible media coverage. Opinions are his own. Tom can be found on X @ChiefWeitzel.
