Fill Out Witness Slips Today
(Click HERE to do that now.)
It is a mystery why any victim advocate would support HB 1302. The bill, sponsored by State Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-Chicago), amends four separate sections of Illinois’ criminal code. While framed as a progressive reform, several provisions risk undermining victim rights and enabling the abuse of the justice system.
The first revision involves the repeal of the retail theft notification requirement (720 ILCS 5/16-25.2). Currently, the retail victim is required to be given seven days’ advance notice of any court proceeding involving their case. If Representative Cassidy has her way, that requirement will be eliminated.
Retailers are direct victims of organized theft, yet this amendment strips their ability to prepare evidence or seek restitution. Repealing the retail victim notification prioritizes expediency for the court over victim participation and causes a reduction in successful prosecutions because it leads to:
- Limited Evidence Submission—Retailers cannot prepare or share critical evidence without advance notice.
- Undermining Victim Engagement—Uninformed victims are less likely to participate, weakening case narratives.
- Increasing Underreporting—Businesses may avoid reporting thefts if they perceive systemic neglect.
The second provision in the bill is unrelated to the first (725 ILCS 5/112A-29). It removes police discretion when investigating a report of domestic violence. The bill adds this paragraph to the law:
“A law enforcement officer may not refuse to complete a written report as required by this section on any ground. A law enforcement officer shall not discourage or attempt to discourage a victim from filing a police report concerning an incident of abuse.”
Why remove police discretion? If police cannot be trusted to exercise discretion, we might as well program robots to enforce the law. Not all claims made by alleged victims are truthful. Studies have shown that between 2% and 10% of reports of domestic abuse are false. In custody cases that number jumps to between 15% and 35%.
Police often can discern the truthfulness of a claim on the spot based on physical indications and behaviors of the alleged victim and the suspected perpetrator. Moreover, they can tell if there is a dominant-submissive relationship between the parties, which helps to determine the truth of what happened. Sometimes, the actual offender will falsely allege being the victim.
Discretion prevents overloading the justice system with minor or unsubstantiated claims, allowing focus on high-risk cases. It also helps to avoid arresting both parties by allowing the officer to identify the aggressor, which is crucial in relationships where there is coercive control, which is common in repeat domestic violence cases.
The third element of the bill, again unrelated to the others, allows charges to be vacated against anyone who can show the crime was committed as a result of being the victim of human trafficking. (725 ILCS 5/116-2.1).
Previously, the law provided that a charge of prostitution could be vacated if it was shown the person was the victim of sex trafficking. Representative Cassiday wants any victim of human trafficking to get a pass for any crime whatsoever—prostitution, theft, burglary, terrorism, battery, kidnapping, murder, whatever. The only requirement is the person must show by a preponderance of the evidence that crime or crimes were committed as a result of being trafficked.
This is a terrible idea. A good attorney could make the case that any crime committed by a trafficking victim could be the result of being trafficked. Already Illinois law provides for the defense of duress. The statute, 720 ILCS 5/7-11, states in part:
“A person is not guilty of an offense, other than an offense punishable with death, by reason of conduct that he or she performs under the compulsion of threat or menace of the imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, if he or she reasonably believes death or great bodily harm will be inflicted upon him or her, or upon his or her spouse or child, if he or she does not perform that conduct.”
Cassidy’s proposed legislation is overbroad, too lax, and completely unnecessary.
The final provision is similar to the second. It revises 750 ILCS 60/303 by adding:
“A law enforcement officer shall not discourage or attempt to discourage a victim from filing a police report concerning sexual assault or sexual abuse.”
Eliminating police discretion does not improve law enforcement. It will make it worse. Let’s look at Chicago to get an idea of the impact removing discretion would have. There are approximately 12,000 sworn law enforcement officers in the Chicago Police Department. Of those, a little over 1,000 are detectives. Every year in Chicago, there are between 70,000 and 80,000 Part I crimes reported in the city, that is, crimes like murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. The total Part I and Part II crimes is 250,000.
Does anyone seriously think a thousand detectives can solve and help prosecute 80,000 major crimes in a year, eighty each? Or even 70,000, seventy each? What about all the rest of the crimes? If officers cannot exercise discretion in reporting crimes, the system will quickly become even more overwhelmed.
The entire bill should be withdrawn.
Take ACTION: Click HERE to send a message to your state representative to ask him/her to oppose HB 1302. Ask them to uphold victim rights and reject any proposal to enable the abuse of the justice system.
