91–100 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then gangs or cartel members could just forcibly “offer up” a free citizen, then skip trial while someone they don’t care about sits in jail?
That's how it used to be in Britain. Rich people would send somebody else to prison in their place.
This is terrible. Pretrial detention in rough California county jails is often used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors to get quick convictions in exchange for probationary sentences. "Don't like the constant threat of being raped or assaulted every day? Sign the deal, take a felony conviction, and you'll get out on probation tonight". This won't result in more poor people being released. It will simply result in a…
Uhh, sounds like they will be treated the same as a poor person is currently treated then.
I don't see what's wrong with everyone being treated equally regardless of ability to pay.
This is terrible. Pretrial detention in rough California county jails is often used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors to get quick convictions in exchange for probationary sentences. "Don't like the constant threat of being raped or assaulted every day? Sign the deal, take a felony conviction, and you'll get out on probation tonight". This won't result in more poor people being released. It will simply result in a…
This is terrible. Pretrial detention in rough California county jails is often used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors to get quick convictions in exchange for probationary sentences. "Don't like the constant threat of being raped or assaulted every day? Sign the deal, take a felony conviction, and you'll get out on probation tonight". This won't result in more poor people being released. It will simply result in a…
> This won't result in more poor people being released. It will simply result in a higher percentage of middle and upper class people being extorted into guilty pleas that they would not otherwise take, under the threat of losing their careers and families as a result of many months, and in a large number of cases, years, of pretrial detention. Uhh, sounds like they will be treated the same as a poor person is curren…
I agree that judges should have the discretion to release poor people that cannot make bail. That part of the system needed to be changed. I don't agree that they should have limitless discretion to arbitrarily hold anyone without bail. That is a gaping and dangerous hole to open up.
What these are revolving, non-profit bail funds. They screen those who require bail as to maximize the recovery of the money, choosing those that are thought to have good prospects in showing up to court. They seem to be quite effective at this, so I think there is a reasonable chance the law's "commissions" can also enjoy some accuracy. It also lends some ideas as to how such commissions can be held accountable, benchmarked, or enjoy some internal competition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't think of good sides to the bail system. What positives do you see.
Getting people to show up to trial is the main one. I’d like to see an experiment where rather than money, instead a free citizen is offered up for bail. And if you don’t show up for trial the citizen goes to jail till they apprehend you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/when-it-c...
(n.b. the next paragraph of the article doesn't invalidate this argument. If a defendant is deemed to be a serious threat by a judge, they don't have to let the defendant go—bail or not.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Getting people to show up to trial is the main one. So I think at the top end of the spectrum this might make sense. The problem is that a very large percentage people in jail are there because their bail was literally $50 or $100 but they didn't have the money to pay it, so they end up in jail for months or years on end. And for these people, bail has zero impact on whether they show up for trial.
> And for these people, bail has zero impact on whether they show up for trial. All the while that 50$-based jail time has disastrous impact on their personal lives (losing jobs, eviction by landlords, more complicated interaction with police, three-strike-rules ....).
For communities already pushing the extremes of what Prop 47 and Prop 57 allow, this will be one more blow to the common citizenry. Places like Santa Cruz have a very high recidivism rates where serial bike thieves, petty theft, even violence towards common citizens are maybe ticketed and at best brought in and released in a couple of hours will use this as further excuse to do nothing. Examples - woman assaulted in…
I'm not sure if I agree with this change (there are positives and negatives to the bail system), but I love that in a federal system individual states are free to experiment like this. Maybe it will work, and then other states can adopt it.
I can't think of good sides to the bail system. What positives do you see.
For the same person, setting increased bail due to more serious allegations or greater flight risk does seem to make sense. That people have wildly different levels of wealth to start with is the major problem, but a system that would give me a $5000 bail on a shoplifting charge vs. a $5mm bail on murder seems to make some sense.
For communities already pushing the extremes of what Prop 47 and Prop 57 allow, this will be one more blow to the common citizenry. Places like Santa Cruz have a very high recidivism rates where serial bike thieves, petty theft, even violence towards common citizens are maybe ticketed and at best brought in and released in a couple of hours will use this as further excuse to do nothing. Examples - woman assaulted in…
your choice not to use the word convicted but instead known strikes me as really interesting.
So your argument is that the police should focus on enforcing your perception of order despite the fact that the social contract (and the law is a social contract) has been changed because the populace viewed the existing version to be structurally racist and unfair?
Not to mention this has nothing to do with a police officer's failure to act. The 'one party' that has fought for the police to not be legally required to enforce the law is not the 'one party' you are referring too.