Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HanaBothWays t1_j28dout wrote

Same as that guy who ran over people in the Wisconsin parade, out on bail and probably shouldn’t have been. (If he had been in IL which had bail reform he would not have been let out.)

This is why bail is absurd. Either you are a threat/flight risk and should be held pre-trial or you aren’t. Money should have nothing to do with it.

136

Zebra971 t1_j29yvjd wrote

I agree money should not be the determining factor of whether you are a threat either for violence of flight.

13

HanaBothWays t1_j2a3org wrote

Money might be a determining factor in whether you are a flight risk. After all it is easier to skip town and go into hiding if you’re loaded. But then being put on monitored house arrest might be more appropriate than letting you buy your way out of pretrial detention.

9

Socialistpiggy t1_j2a1agd wrote

Bail is a little bit more nuanced than people make it out to be. Entirely eliminating bail or severely restricting it's use leads to what has happened in New York. There is still a place for bail.

I absolutely agree, INITIALLY you are either a threat/flight risk or you are not. If you aren't a risk, you get released without bail. But, what if you are released and you don't show up to court? What then? Warrant, back to jail. Should that person then have to sit there until trial? No, generally they should get offered bail. So, they bail for say $250. Still don't show up to court. Warrant, eventually back to jail. Well, now they have to bail for $1,000. So, they do, still fail to show up to court and once again a warrant is issued and they are back in jail. They either rinse and repeat, bail and show up, or stay incarcerated until their trial date.

Another example of when bail might be appropriate is perhaps someone is arrested for their 9th open offense. They have three different trespass cases, five shoplifting cases and a minor drug offense. Through this process of book and constant release, they are missing court date after court date. They get picked back up, back to jail, new court date issued, back out on the street. They are forever just pushing out their court dates and never appearing. Maybe, on this new minor shoplifting offense, it's time a judge sets bail?

There are a lot of people in society that have nothing to lose, or just don't care, and will not show up to court. There's also people who posting $100 bail is a massive incentive enough to show to court, so they get their $100' back. Outright saying we should eliminate all cash bail fails to address the systemic issue of incentivizing people to show up to court when they outright refuse to.

7

HanaBothWays t1_j2a3gv6 wrote

> There are a lot of people in society that have nothing to lose, or just don’t care, and will not show up to court.

There aren’t, really. For the vast majority of people, picking up and leaving their homes, jobs, families, communities, and/or social circles is just not feasible.

> There’s also people who posting $100 bail is a massive incentive enough to show to court, so they get their $100’ back.

Those kind of people don’t have the resources to skip town over an offense so minor they could pay their way out of pre-trial detention for $100. And it’s usually more than that, like a few hundred at least. For me that’s not a whole lot of money and even I don’t have the wherewithal to skip town and go on the lam.

> Outright saying we should eliminate all cash bail fails to address the systemic issue of incentivizing people to show up to court when they outright refuse to.

Most people will do this. Some people have difficulty doing this for transportation/childcare/job reasons which is a whole other issue and those people would have trouble paying bail anyway. Some people who have a lot of money may skip out - those kind of people should be treated as a flight risk and it may be appropriate to put them on monitored house arrest. Then there are folks who don’t show up because they are in a whole other jurisdiction, perhaps detained/incarcerated there for some other reason, or the court just has the wrong address for them, and the system is not too forgiving about this kind of thing. Ask a defense attorney or public defender.

The number of people who just say “fuck it” and don’t show up is pretty small.

−5

Socialistpiggy t1_j2a957j wrote

>The number of people who just say “fuck it” and don’t show up is pretty small.

You still fail to come up with a way to address the underlying problem that bail is trying to address. And I believe you are severely underestimating the amount of people who refuse to show up to court. The system doesn't have to worry about people that have a home, job families or social circles. Those people already show up to court - or generally don't commit crimes at the rates I'm speaking about. We are talking about people who have 15, 20, 25, 30 arrests in the past 10 years.

>Most people will do this. Some people have difficulty doing this for transportation/childcare/job reasons which is a whole other issue and those people would have trouble paying bail anyway. Some people who have a lot of money may skip out - those kind of people should be treated as a flight risk and it may be appropriate to put them on monitored house arrest.

The people we are talking about don't have permanent addresses. They stay with other people, couch surf, frequently evicted, etc. The individuals I'm talking about don't have jobs. They frequently change phone numbers because they are disconnected. These individuals are in and out of jail on new offenses.

6

HanaBothWays t1_j2akdfy wrote

> The system doesn’t have to worry about people that have a home, job families or social circles.

I don’t know what you are thinking in your head but most of the people who get arrested and charged with crimes are in fact normal people with lives, families, friends, and even jobs. People who break the law are not some anomalous breed of human.

Later on in your post you talk about chronic unemployable types who couch-surf and you’re maybe thinking about folks who don’t have stable housing or employment. They really don’t have the resources to flee or hide from the law.

5

Sirlancemehlot t1_j2azzim wrote

>I don’t know what you are thinking in your head but most of the people who get arrested and charged with crimes are in fact normal people with lives, families, friends, and even jobs. People who break the law are not some anomalous breed of human.

Well this just isn't true at all. Its not even close to true. Most people who get arrested have a long history of arrests. How many times have you been arrested? Never? No kidding. The guy who killed the cop in this article:

"The suspect, William Shae McKay, 44, of San Bernardino County, had a long and violent criminal history stretching back to before 2000 that included kidnapping, robbery and multiple arrests for assault with a deadly weapon, including the stabbing of a California Highway Patrol dog, the sheriff said."

Have you ever walked a block in a dangerous neighborhood? Because in a lot of places, 3/4 of the people you pass on the street have criminal records, some of them pages long.

1

HanaBothWays t1_j2b1aeg wrote

> Well this just isn’t true at all. Its not even close to true. Most people who get arrested have a long history of arrests.

I would like to know what your basis for this statement is. Where is the data to back this up?

> How many times have you been arrested? Never?

If that’s the case I am, by definition, not in the category of “most people who have been arrested.”

> The guy who killed the cop in this article:

Hold up there. What relevance does this have to “most people who have been arrested?” How do you know where he falls on the bell curve of people who have been arrested at least once?

> Have you ever walked a block in a dangerous neighborhood?

Have you? Most of those people have families, friends, places where they live, and jobs - even if they also have records.

2

oracleofnonsense t1_j2dygu8 wrote

>>Either you are a threat/flight risk and should be held pre-trial or you aren’t.

Who gets to decide?

Cops - 100% against bail.

Defense attorney - 100% for bail.

Prosecutor - 100% against bail.

Judge - bad idea. Racist, corrupt judge, defendant jumps bail it could taint judge opinion, etc.

1

HanaBothWays t1_j2e50cq wrote

What are you kidding? All of these parties you mentioned are invested in having a cash bail system.

2

LattewithRum t1_j28uo5t wrote

Bail should be for non violent crimes. Build more prison and jail

−5

HanaBothWays t1_j28vebm wrote

We should not have bail at all, then we just have crimes that people with money can afford.

−2

WirelessBCupSupport t1_j293smd wrote

Bail has its pro and con...but the abuse will always be there.

We have the bail system because: defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Getting rid of bail means authoritarian law and giving up that.

You are innocent till proven guilty.

5

HanaBothWays t1_j294ifo wrote

If we got rid of bail and judges were required to either release people pre-trial because they aren’t a threat/flight risk or keep them detained because they are, we might actually devote resources to ensuring a speedy trial instead of pressuring people to plea out to crimes they didn’t commit or let them buy their way out of detention, which is how it works now.

10

kciuq1 t1_j29kpbb wrote

Bail makes it so that you are guilty until proven rich.

8

[deleted] t1_j28u3ur wrote

[deleted]

−7

IamLars t1_j298r15 wrote

Excessive bail is unconstitutional via the 8th amendment so a judge could not set bail for a homeless person at 5,000,000,000 because they wanted to.

18

[deleted] t1_j29ddu0 wrote

[deleted]

−1

mohammedibnakar t1_j29ooou wrote

It's literally 15 words long.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, not excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

11

[deleted] t1_j29sknp wrote

[deleted]

−5

IamLars t1_j29xnrq wrote

>The word excessive is open to interpretation

It's been litigated out, lol. You really just can't admit that you have no clue what you are talking about.

4

HanaBothWays t1_j2b1iae wrote

The 8th Amendment is a dead letter ever since SCOTUS decided that a punishment has to be both cruel and unusual for it to be prohibited under the 8th - although I guess a billion-dollar fine would qualify.

−1

IamLars t1_j2b49ba wrote

Bail is addressed in the amendment outside of cruel and unusual punishment.

3

HanaBothWays t1_j2b86bn wrote

Ah okay.

1

IamLars t1_j2bkxax wrote

Also, bail is not a fine. You get the money back if you don't turn into a fugitive.

1

HanaBothWays t1_j2bmqz2 wrote

Well, if you can’t afford it in the first place and are stuck in jail for a crime you didn’t commit or are forced to plead to a more serious crime than what you actually did, simply because you can’t afford the bail, that is really not good.

1

HanaBothWays t1_j28wfds wrote

No, bail is not fine, bail just means there are crimes that people with money can afford, and maybe (as in Wisconsin) you can buy your way out of pre-trial detention for a violent crime where the rate of recidivism is high (domestic violence).

It has absolutely nothing to do with “progressivism” or “woke mobs” or whatever. Illinois has progressive bail reform and you know what? That guy who plowed into the parade in Waukesha would never have gotten out on bail for DV in IL like he did in Wisconsin and then plowed into a parade, because DV makes you ineligible for bail or pre trial release under IL’s bail reform law.

People need to stop running their mouths about “progressivism” and “wokeness” and whatnot causing these things when it’s just the whole absurdity of “a judge can let you buy your way out of pretrial detention regardless of other considerations, if you can afford it.”

13

Dutchmaster617 t1_j29np3m wrote

You are replying to a racist troll but it is possible for an innocent person to be charged with DV.

They shouldn’t have their lives ruined in jail for the minimum 8-12 months it will take to have the court dismiss the charges.

2

HanaBothWays t1_j29ouym wrote

One of the reasons it takes so long to get things to trial and resolve charges is that there is no incentive for a speedy trial. We can keep people who can’t afford bail locked up and pressure them to plead out. Upwards of 95% of cases are resolved with a plea, and it’s not because the state has evidence but because it’s someone’s only way out of jail.

Without bail, and the pressure tactic of using pre-trial detention on people who can’t afford it, the whole incentive system changes: suddenly there are reasons for the police, prosecutors, etc. to want speedy trials.

4

[deleted] t1_j2929ld wrote

[deleted]

−10

HanaBothWays t1_j295on5 wrote

> Also he domestic violence argument doesn’t apply here, because after he got out he didn’t murder his girlfriend/children. He murdered random strangers.

This is not the argument you think it is.

People who commit crimes of domestic violence have a much greater propensity to commit acts of violence on strangers, including mass violence. If a man beats his wife and kids, they are not the only people at risk from him. Everyone around him is at risk too.

(Also it’s not okay if the wifebeater only harms his wife while he’s out on pre trial release, which statistically he is quite likely to do.)

10

[deleted] t1_j29ay5l wrote

[deleted]

−2

HanaBothWays t1_j29bf65 wrote

I believe people with DV convictions should not be allowed to have guns and I already made clear that I think cash bail should be eliminated entirely and pretrial detention should be based solely on whether someone is judged to be dangerous/a flight risk.

“Bail decisions should not be racially biased” is meaningless to me. Bail should end.

6

[deleted] t1_j29fxiy wrote

[deleted]

−1

HanaBothWays t1_j29guj4 wrote

> I have known far to many people who’s people were victims of the holocaust. And political landscapes can change for the worse quickly.

The Third Reich had very robust gun rights.

1

[deleted] t1_j29u94l wrote

[deleted]

0

HanaBothWays t1_j29v08r wrote

The people doing Kristallnacht and a lot of the genocidal violence under the Nazi regime, not to mention turning their neighbors over to the Nazis, were civilian “maniacal mob” people. All the industrialized death camp stuff we generally associate with the Holocaust came after years of homegrown racial terror.

Before you invoke the Holocaust and the Third Reich (especially at a Jew with an education) read at least one book.

2

[deleted] t1_j2aalpe wrote

[deleted]

1

HanaBothWays t1_j2aku8p wrote

> Ugg. When I said the gun thing is something else entirely, I really didn’t want to sucked down that argument. And I fell for it. I wish I had just ignored your gun link.

> Don’t talk down to people on the internet with a claim to authority. This is reddit. People have lived different experiences, and reach different views on topics. Try to be respectful.

This is all rather in poor taste after you bought up a genocide of Jews to a living Jew as a political football to make an argument for why domestic abusers, who are statistically more likely than the general population to murder both people they know an people they don’t know, ought to be allowed to keep their guns.

1

HoytG t1_j29zxet wrote

Wow this is easily the most shit take I’ve read this week. And that’s saying something.

Imagine how far your head has to be up your ass to say the police have gone easier on minorities for crimes. Damn that is rich. I hope this is just an elaborate troll.

3