A 50-year-old man accused of setting a woman on fire on a Chicago train had repeatedly violated court-ordered curfew and movement restrictions before the alleged attack, according to court records. The incident has intensified scrutiny over the effectiveness of pretrial release conditions and raised concerns about the oversight of individuals with a history of non-compliance. Lawrence Reed, who faces federal terrorism charges, had been under electronic monitoring since August 22 for a prior aggravated battery case involving an incident at a psychiatric ward. The records show that he violated his curfew on multiple dates, including the days leading up to the November 17 attack.
Reed was taken into custody on November 18 with burn marks on his hands and in the same clothing depicted in surveillance footage of the attack. The victim, identified as 26-year-old Bethany Magee, remains in critical condition after sustaining severe burns to her face and body, according to authorities. The Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office has moved to revoke Reed’s pretrial release in the aggravated battery case based on the new federal terrorism charge. In a recent filing, prosecutors requested that Reed be held without bond in the county case, regardless of the federal proceedings. His next court date in the Cook County aggravated battery case is set for December 4.
In federal court, U.S. District Judge Laura McNally ordered Reed’s detention pretrial on November 18 before the hearing for the terrorism charges. The attack, which occurred as Reed left his home without authorization, raised concerns about the effectiveness of current monitoring systems and the potential risks of pretrial release for individuals with repeated violations. Experts have highlighted the dangers posed by decarceration policies, emphasizing the need for increased oversight and accountability to prevent future incidents. The case has sparked a broader debate over how justice systems can balance the rights of individuals with the safety of the public. The situation also underscores the growing tensions within the legal system regarding the appropriateness of pretrial monitoring and the effectiveness of existing protocols in safeguarding community safety.
Reed’s approved movement schedule under electronic monitoring allowed him to be out only during limited windows: Sunday from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m., Tuesday from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., and Saturday from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. The logs detail multiple instances where Reed left his home with his ankle monitor without authorization, returned late, or triggered