They caught the Brighton Peeping Tom9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuhhnua wrote
Reply to comment by anurodhp in They caught the Brighton Peeping Tom by capnlumps
If this guy has enough money to pay his own bail, does that make a difference to you?
What an odd thing to fixate on. Not even a "tough on crime" stance, but specifically a "tough on only those who can't pay their own bail" stance. How bizarre.
Considering this guy already has a default on a previous felony warrant, I'd say there's a good chance there will be no bail offered.
gallagdy t1_iuhjf9i wrote
its not an odd stance. this guy is clearly being tricked by fox news. hes not odd, just gullible.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuhkckh wrote
In a way, its actually a very informed view of how the criminal justice system works. One of the key features of our system is how it disproportionately disciplines the poor.
Efforts to make the system more equitable in regards to wealth are contrary to the implied purpose of the criminal justice system, no matter how much the system itself insists otherwise. Blind lady justice makes for a nice statue, but only a child believes in such fairy tales.
Still, it's somewhat notable how mask-off calls for protecting this inequity have become. This country is having quite the reactionary moment.
Cersad t1_iuhpsj0 wrote
As long as our justice system claims to be designed for everyone to be equal under the law, as long as our legislators write laws designed to apply equally to all parties who break said laws, and as long as the courts rule to uphold equal protection under the law as principle...
...as long as that continues, people have every right to insist on equal protection under the law. No matter how cynical you may feel about it.
9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iuhq8oo wrote
The laws are clearly written to disadvantage the poor and there's nothing cynical about admitting that.
You really have to twist your brain into pretzels to see a system like cash bail any other way. Poor people rot in lockup while prosecutors dangle freedom as leverage in plea deals while richer people negotiate from the comfort of their homes. That's a fact, not cynicism.
Cersad t1_iuhr5u6 wrote
The laws disadvantaging the poor is true. It's also not relevant to my comment.
People advocating for an equitable justice system are advocating for the spirit of the justice system that was founded for this nation, and are supported by plenty of legal, cultural, and philosophical precedents. It's far more than simply "a reactionary moment."
Viivusvine t1_iui5759 wrote
Cash bail needs to be phased out, but that doesn’t mean that bail funds don’t deserve their share of criticism.
Remember that the MA Bail Fund doled out $15k in donations to bail out Shawn McClinton, who was charged with rape. He then raped ANOTHER woman after his release.
Investigators found that the MA bail fund had paid for the release of many others charged with violent and/or sexual crimes, even against children. So yeah, nothing wrong with criticizing bail funds until they work that out.
teenytinyvoid t1_iuibb9v wrote
This is an issue with that person being eligible for bail then, no…? Wealthy people post bail on sexual assault charges routinely.
How could the MA Bail Fund have known that he was going to reoffend any better than the people charged with determining if he was safe for posting bail in the first place?
Viivusvine t1_iuifewi wrote
So since rich rapists can be released back to the public, so should poor rapists? That’s BS. I’m not OK with someone being assaulted because some out-of-touch organization is too hung up over single-issue philosophical purism that they can’t exercise common sense.
You can fight to abolish cash bail AND fight to keep dangerous people off the streets at the same time. Criminal justice reform can only work if it’s done holistically, not incrementally and on an issue-by-issue basis.
The MA Cash Bail fund knew what McClinton was being charged with. He was in fact a REPEAT OFFENDER and that was public record. The fact is that they knew but they didn’t care.
teenytinyvoid t1_iuimd3m wrote
To your first point: yes. Equality for everyone means… even rapists. Sorry, dude. I don’t like it any more than you do. The law applies equally is the concept we’re supposed to be all behind, yeah? I’m not picking and choosing my “I like that this one locks up the poors” when it benefits me.
Because I say it again: if the people using the pretrial risk assessments agreed that he could post bail, meaning he scored lower than a certain number on their 1-6 PRA algorithm, which takes into account prior convictions and flight risk and risk of future violent offenses, then it is NOT on a bail fund to know any better. They (rightfully, in my opinion) see someone who would have freedom but the price tag is too high.
The case you bring up sucks. I’ll give you that. But we can’t point get so hyperfocused on an anomaly when we’re trying to overhaul such a complicated system.
To the rest… I have a spent years researching the horrific coercive nature of our criminal legal system, including cash bail and pretrial detention, and I currently work for a national org supporting reform in the system but honestly, John Oliver does my job better: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xQLqIWbc9VM
Viivusvine t1_iujzc4y wrote
Why trust the risk assessment in the first place if the system is broken? McClinton was a Level 3 sex offender by the time the MA Bail Fund covered his release.
How egregious does the crime have to be before the bail fund says that the risk assessment was wrong?
The McClinton case doesn’t deserve to be diminished as a mere “anomaly.” This is a known issue with the MA Bail Fund.
abhikavi t1_iuia88f wrote
Some bail funds literally don't factor in the crime. The theory is that bail is immoral; the type of crime it's for doesn't matter. If the person shouldn't be on the streets, they shouldn't be allowed bail to be on the streets.
Obviously, a lot of judges are currently using bail for exactly this, to keep people off the streets, which is exactly what the bail funds are protesting, and I get why that's bad, but.... it does lead to exactly this.
Others consider it case by case, usually because they don't want to do something like pay someone's bail only to have them commit another violent crime.
jokeres t1_iuidrz7 wrote
Isn't it just a direct reply to this "creep" being "off the streets"?
He won't be. That's it; that's the whole thing. He was arrested and will be out doing whatever a "creep" does soon, probably without rehabilitation.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments