Comments
cty_hntr t1_jcbrp0e wrote
If the politicians want to save bail-reform, then fix it so those with recent violenty felony arrests are not eligible. Give back the discretion for judges, especially those with a long arrest history.
SolitaryMarmot t1_jcclbcr wrote
That was already done like 2 years ago though
onemanclic t1_jcb9oxy wrote
Yeah, you probably want NY Post's version of this data. Oh wait, they won't even report on it as it doesn't fit their narrative.
DelTeaz t1_jccjai7 wrote
Probably understated too given there’s people who went in to commit other crimes but weren’t caught
redroverster t1_jcbp841 wrote
Came here to say this.
chargeorge t1_jcb74x4 wrote
No, that's not really how you should read that.
If violent felony re-arrests drops among the entire group, even if it went up slightly in one cohort, that's still a net drop. The recently had violent arrests groups is a small overall group.
So if you take this study at face value (Which, statistical studies like this are always going to be tough, and this is happening in the middle of a massive upheaval that makes any kind of data hard to parse) bail reform would suggest a lower number of re-arrests for crimes in total, and that bail reform dropped crime overall.
EITHER WAY, even the studies I've had that are more more critical of bail reform show very small effects. In terms of overall crime rates, bail reform is mostly just an emotional issue.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcbkyhn wrote
>In terms of overall crime rates, bail reform is mostly just an emotional issue.
That's not quite accurate (emphasis mine).
What's typically measured is not the quantity of crimes (via re-offenses).
They count the quantity of individuals that reoffend: if a single individual commits 50 crimes, that is counted as only 1.
That's a tangible difference on the streets, because most people care about "how many crimes are committed" a lot more than "how many reoffending criminals are out there".
matzoh_ball t1_jccd06f wrote
The 2020 amendments that took effect in July 2020 made some cases bail eligible again, including so-called "harm-harm" cases, aka cases that involve the harm to person or property where the defendant has an open case that also falls under that category. This basically takes care of a large swath of these repeat offenders that you are rightly concerned about.
So for example, if someone is arrested for petit larceny and released without bail, and then they're arrested again while their first case is still open, the judge is allowed to set bail or detain that person.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jccpv4x wrote
There's a loophole here though. First, trials don't happen in a timely manner when the defendant is on the street.
Second, if the defendant never shows up for trial, they can never get convicted.
So a person committing petty theft, for example, can do that forever as long as they never show up for trial, under the current laws.
A person committing misdemeanor violence (like playing the knockout game) can also do that forever as long as they never show up for trial.
chargeorge t1_jccqflx wrote
Rates of missed appearances were down in another study I saw. So more cope
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcd5bv7 wrote
The ones who appear are not an issue.
The ones who never appear are.
chargeorge t1_jcd96gs wrote
I feel like you are confusing arraignment and a trial here
matzoh_ball t1_jccss66 wrote
No, that would be to their disadvantage. The harm-harm rule doesn’t have anything to do with convictions, it’s about being arrested while having an open case, aka a case that did not yet lead to conviction, acquittal, or dismissal.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcd4ubh wrote
The harm to harm rule only applies when the defendant is being charged with a felony, no?
Anyone being charged with a misdemeanor cannot be held under the harm-harm rule.
matzoh_ball t1_jcdh8tm wrote
No, it doesn’t. While the harm-harm rule is kinda imprecise, the basic idea is that every crime is a “harm” crime except for “victimless crimes” such as prostitution or drug crimes (though some judges may consider the sale of meth as a harm crime while other judges may not, so there’s still room for discretion). In any case, for example petit larceny (a misdemeanor) is a harm to property crime and would thus be a harm-harm crime. The same is true for many other misdemeanors.
chargeorge t1_jcbn7bb wrote
I mean if you have some research that shows these people are committing extra crimes in a way that distorts the numbers sure of love to see it.
There are some numbers in the study that suggest the opposite, that those who do re offend in the bail reform group go longer before re offending.
If you have some data I’m happy to see it, but tbh that point sounds like cope.
Brokeliner t1_jcf7bmd wrote
> If violent felony re-arrests drops among the entire group, even if it went up slightly in one cohort, that's still a net drop.
Imagine the overall effect if we didn’t apply the law to violent felony arrests? The net drop would be so stupefyingly obvious it would be impossible to deny the law’s benefits. We should try it.
chargeorge t1_jcf7fvl wrote
We don’t, automatic bail reduction law doesn’t apply to vfo. Could we target "People who have had recent VFO arrests better, sure that seems like a good path
mowotlarx OP t1_jcalrff wrote
It's not disingenuous, you just don't want to hear the fact that ricidivism went down. This study was by John Jay College - a criminal justice school - not by Gothamist.
>This new study found that the two-year rearrest rate for those released due to bail reform was 44%, compared to 50% for those with similar charges, criminal histories and demographics who were held in jail in the period before the reform.
Because most violent arrestees aren't released. They do not account for a significant percentage of those out. Given *all the data on all those released pre-trial"...the numbers went down. So who is being disingenuous here?
PandaJ108 t1_jcan98s wrote
The two year rearrest rate is down once you group misdemeanor, pending case, and violent felonies together. Misdemeanor rearrest being down is what pulls the overall numbers down.
But a look at the chart of page 17 clearly shows that those in the bail/reform group who had a pending case or were arrested on violent felony were more likely to be rearrested.
I think people care way more about those with a pending case and/or a violent felony arrest being more likely to get rearrested even if the raw numbers are relatively low when compared to misdemeanors.
mowotlarx OP t1_jcao397 wrote
>once you group misdemeanor, pending case, and violent felonies together.
Yes, that's generally how studies and averages work.Overall ricidivism is down. Period.
PandaJ108 t1_jcaov3h wrote
When most New Yorkers care way more about violent repeat offenders overall ricidivism being down because misdemeanors rearrest deceased while violent felonies rearrest increase means little.
This is the second study in the past year that has claim “bail reform led to less rearrest” only for the numbers to clearly show that the overall decrease was driven solely by a drop in misdemeanor rearrest while felony rearrest rates increased.
matzoh_ball t1_jcaqmmg wrote
Violent felony re-arrest didn't increase though; it didn't change at all due to bail reform (or might have been gone down). Look at the bar chart on page 13 and the table below.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcatpfn wrote
The “overall” part is extremely disingenuous.
Because it counts things like petty theft or disorder conduct as if they are the same as felony violence.
They are very different and shouldn’t be lumped together.
matzoh_ball t1_jcb00ha wrote
They're not lumped together though. For bail ineligible people (i.e., people where judges could no longer set bail due to bail reform), overall re-arrest rates (regardless of charge) and felony re-arrest rates went down, while violent felony re-arrest rates and firearm re-arrest rates didn't change (see p.13 of the report).
Mrmilkymilkster t1_jcapoad wrote
Yes, I care about the shoplifting recidivist just as much as I care about someone committing violent crimes or having an illegal gun 🙄🙄🙄
matzoh_ball t1_jcaqps7 wrote
Violent felony or firearm re-arrest didn't increase; it didn't change at all due to bail reform. Look at the bar chart on page 13 of the report.
wateringtheflowers t1_jcb3uaj wrote
I would just point out a few things. First, is that re-arrests for violent felony increased, and that is the one statistic that actually matters. Secondly, that “slight” increase occurred despite the fact that overall arrests decreased dramatically during the pandemic. Thirdly, this was basically a “study” funded by the Arnold Foundation, which states very clearly on its website that it is strongly in favor of bail reform: “We must reform every aspect of the pre-trial system from policing to bail…”. Fourthly, this wasn’t a study that was published in an academic journal after peer-review. It appears to be a self-published report. I’m all for using data to guide policy and legislative decisions. The data is what it is. But the way that data is interpreted and presented can introduce a lot of bias. This study could just have easily been titled “Study shows that re-arrests for violent felonies increased after bail reform.”
chargeorge t1_jcb7ys4 wrote
> First, is that re-arrests for violent felony increased, and that is the one statistic that actually matters. Secondly, that “slight” increase occurred despite the fact that overall arrests decreased dramatically during the pandemic.
No, VFO re-arrests were down slightly, only among specific subgroups did the VFO re-arrest go up according to the study, for the other groups it was down. Because of that the overall VFO rate was lower.
Yourgrandsonishere t1_jcbutap wrote
Study seems legit to me. Could you link your source stating that the Arnold Foundation funded it. Anybody who funds a study will absolutely take a position on the matter, but skewing the numbers and being disingenuous isn't hard to figure out. A lot of the data is public lol. Go and find out if your theory holds.
This is one of their key findings from the study:
"Beyond the aforementioned overall takeaways, bail reform had varying
recidivism effects depending on people’s charges and recent criminal
history."
This would support what some of your are saying. Bail reform isn't perfect but we needs these studies to be able to refine it. We are still disproportionately jailing minorities.
NYC has 8 million people accounted for, probably more. There will be crime, no if ands or buts, its just the way the world works.
But here we are on reddit, complaining as usual, sigh.
wateringtheflowers t1_jcc1tvi wrote
Page 2 of the report says the study was funded by Arnold Foundation. Then go to Arnold Foundation’s website and see what causes they support.
I agree that the only valid takeaway from this study is that the data is mixed (but that’s not the kind of conclusion that is conducive to receiving additional funding from the Arnold Foundation). The relatively small differences in comparison groups from which the authors try to derive conclusions is completely outweighed by the fact that the comparison groups were not (and could not be) comparable, because one group was before the pandemic and the other was not. The effect of the pandemic on crime and policing in the city was far more significant than the effect of bail reform. If anything, I would guess that because arrests were down significantly during 2020, re-arrests would also be down. So an increase in re-arrests, even if slight, is something that needs to be looked into more carefully.
matzoh_ball t1_jcdnfsg wrote
The report addresses potential confounding issues due to COVID. In a nutshell, clearance rates were down during 2020 and declined-prosecution rates were up in 2020, and both of those things went back to normal in 2021 (links to that are in the report in the “limitations” section). However, since they tracked re-arrest over two years for everyone, the “pandemic effect” affects (aka downward biases) the re-arrest rates for both the pre-reform group and the post-reform group.
[deleted] t1_jcbw9xy wrote
[deleted]
StrictDare210 t1_jccknyt wrote
I can assure you that to the people who aren’t rotting in Riker’s and/or getting rearrested (disproportionately impoverished minorities) the VFO statistic is not the only one that matters. And even if it is, you should be reading it a little more closely than you are before your race to undermine it. VFO was not up across the board and bail reform does not have to be the one band aid that makes it all go away. You concluded that the headline could be some other categorical statement because you’re lacking nuance, but in the other direction.
Grass8989 t1_jcam5dp wrote
Okay well the ones that ARE being released pretrial for violent crimes are being arrested at higher rates than before bail reform. Maybe we can have some common sense and change that portion?
And the disingenuous part was the headline not the study.
matzoh_ball t1_jcarx2r wrote
Not quite. The table on p.17 shows that people with a *prior* violent felony re-arrest who were released were more likely to be re-arrested. There is no section in that table that shows stats for people with *current* violent felony charges, since almost all of them are still legally eligible for bail.
And FWIW, the authors of the actual study suggest potential changes to the existing law where they do make those distinctions:
​
>Preventing re-arrest in the future could potentially involve careful, targeted policy changes based on these results. For example, future legislation or policy might make fewer “high risk” individuals (e.g., people with a prior violent felony) subject to mandatory release, allowing for wider judicial discretion in considering bail; or might enhance the range of non-monetary conditions for supporting “high risk” individuals. (To avoid misinterpretation, we are not embracing weaker decision-making standards that might compromise due process, undermine the presumption of innocence, or contradict legal precedents concerning when bail or pretrial detention are permissible.)
> On the other end of the spectrum, it could benefit public safety if legislation or policy encouraged the release of more bail-eligible people charged with relatively low-level offenses or with no or only minor criminal history, given that the incapacitation effects of incarceration (most people who face bail end up in pretrial detention) appear to be outweighed by its adverse “criminogenic” effects for these subgroups.
> Alternatively, armed with the knowledge that, in totality, the bail elimination provisions of the original reforms reduced recidivism, and reducing the use of bail in cases legally eligible for it had little net effect in either direction, policymakers would be justified on public safety grounds in avoiding further legislative or policy changes while awaiting additional rigorous studies over longer tracking periods.
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jcaxigp wrote
Attorney practicing criminal law and familiar with NY's OCA's "Office of Court Administration" data reporting.
This report acknowledges pulling all of their data from NY's OCA. My critique is as follows:
OCA admits to being unable to track recidivists in terms of rearrest. In their data set, if a defendant is rearrested 1x it counts as 1 arrest. BUT, importantly, if a defendant is rearrested 100x, it still only counts as 1 arrest. It is impossible for this dataset to paint an actual picture of recidivists who commit multiple crimes as it only counts them as 1 rearrest.
Overall, it paints an incomplete and misleading picture of bail reform, which cannot be divorced from the incomplete data provided by OCA.
matzoh_ball t1_jcb16cv wrote
>OCA admits to being unable to track recidivists in terms of rearrest. In their data set, if a defendant is rearrested 1x it counts as 1 arrest. BUT, importantly, if a defendant is rearrested 100x, it still only counts as 1 arrest. It is impossible for this dataset to paint an actual picture of recidivists who commit multiple crimes as it only counts them as 1 rearrest.
That's the *public* OCA dataset. OCA does have data on *all* re-arrests. But yes, their study doesn't address whether the *number* of re-arrests per person increased; nevertheless, it shows that a lot of critics have completely overblown the negative impacts of bail reform.
>Further, this report focuses only on 1 particular period - that is pre trial to disposition.
Not sure what you mean by that but they didn't only look at pretrial re-arrest, they looked at 2-year re-arrest rates, i.e, beyond the pretrial period in almost all cases.
​
>In my experience, the speedy trial discovery reforms lead to at least 60% of cases being thrown out due to failure to "certify" that all discovery "relating to the case" has been turned over to the defense. The rate of rearrest for those individuals who have had their cases tossed pre disposition because of speedy trial dismissals has not been accounted.
I assume by "thrown out" you mean dismissed? If so, then those cases are included in the results. All prosecuted cases are included, whether they were dismissed or not.
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jcb4pum wrote
The re-arrest rate of petit larcenists, who rack up numerous cases, is more than enough to skew the entire study.
sctp1999 t1_jcbqfof wrote
so in laymans term this study is bullshit and the high crime we've been experiencing could very well be a few people committing crimes over and over and just getting released back on the streets?
matzoh_ball t1_jcbt492 wrote
If they commit crime after crime then they'd eventually be convicted and put in jail or prison. If they aren't convicted or only given super light sentences, then that has nothing to do with bail reform. Also, most people who *are* detained pretrial are only in jail for a few days since they generally make bail pretty quickly, meaning that they could reoffend almost immediately even if the judge sets bail. So the idea that the lack of pretrial detention creates all these repeat offenders is bogus.
sctp1999 t1_jcbv5hc wrote
>BUT, importantly, if a defendant is rearrested 100x, it still only counts as 1 arrest.
he said "BUT, importantly, if a defendant is rearrested 100x, it still only counts as 1 arrest."
matzoh_ball t1_jcbvlg3 wrote
Yes, that's *technically* true. But if someone is arrested 100 times and never gets a jail or prison sentence and thus is out in the community again to reoffend, then you have to blame something other than bail reform for that.
sctp1999 t1_jcbwgqo wrote
So if someone commits petit larceny get arrested and then let back on the street "because of bail reform" to commit it100x more then we have to blame something other than bail reform for that. Got it.
matzoh_ball t1_jcc5pjc wrote
If you're convicted for petit larceny your sentence is up to 1 year in jail. So if someone is released pretrial and he gets re-arrested for petit larceny, judges can still sentence that person to jail time.
Also, since the bail reform amendments that took effect in July 2020, judges can set bail on cases involving harm to person or property if the person has a pending case that also involves harm to a person or property. So if someone is arrested for petit larceny and released without bail, and then they get re-arrested for another petit larceny charge, the judge is allowed to set bail.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcbrd4o wrote
>it shows that a lot of critics have completely overblown the negative impacts of bail reform.
That difference is actually central to the criticism.
Because almost everyone cares about "how many crimes are being committed" a lot more than "how many criminals are out there".
matzoh_ball t1_jcbtc9t wrote
Copying my reply to another person here:
If they commit crime after crime then they'd eventually be convicted and put in jail or prison. If they aren't convicted or only given super light sentences, then that has nothing to do with bail reform. Also, most people who *are* detained pretrial are only in jail for a few days since they generally make bail pretty quickly, meaning that they could reoffend almost immediately even if the judge sets bail. So the idea that the lack of pretrial detention creates all these repeat offenders is bogus.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcd5vfp wrote
>If they commit crime after crime then they'd eventually be convicted
Not if they never show up to trial.
>and put in jail
That depends on the crime.
For example, if someone keeps playing the knock out game and never seriously injury anyone, that will be a misdemeanor assault at best, and that person can avoid jail forever.
>So the idea that the lack of pretrial detention creates all these repeat offenders is bogus.
I don't think any law creates repeat offenders. That's not my position.
However, the law should be able to stop repeat offenders.
And there are clear loopholes right now.
matzoh_ball t1_jcdhr8b wrote
If you don’t show up for court - especially repeatedly - there’ll be an arrest warrant and you’ll be locked up.
I agree with you that the law can and should be improved. That said, the harm-harm guideline that was introduced with the bail amendments in July 2020 addresses a large swath of the “repeat offenders” who people are rightly concerned about.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcdtr6y wrote
Arrest warrants don’t do much though. At least in NYC.
Yuna Lee’s killer was arrested for a misdemeanor, and even though he had an arrest warrant another crime, he was still released (and committed that murder shortly after).
matzoh_ball t1_jcdwfzl wrote
There’s always exceptions but the vast majority of people who repeatedly miss court appearances have an arrest warrant issued and are eventually arrested. The fact that it was a big deal that Yuna Lee’s murderer had not been arrested is precisely part of the reason it was such a big deal.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcdy50v wrote
He was arrested though.
I think the problem with an arrest warrant is that it’s only to bring him in front of a judge.
If the court can’t hold a trial right then and there, then they have to release him if it’s a misdemeanor.
[deleted] t1_jcgeu1g wrote
[removed]
Slow-Purchase3795 t1_jcdas8x wrote
Horse crap... it's not working. No criminal should have to wait a year, etc.... Most can't make bail... and those with multiple arrest? Tell that to inner city citizens
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcaichj wrote
Wow, it's almost like keeping people out of work and impoverishing them makes them more likely to commit crime.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcblzol wrote
We should stop associating crimes and poverty.
Being poor is not a crime.
The 99% of people in poverty who never commits any crimes don't deserve this kind of stigma. It's time to stop perpetuating that.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcbmbhr wrote
Never said otherwise, but poverty is by far the largest cause of crime because it also causes all sorts of other societal issues that cause crime. Homelessness, mental health issues, low-quality education, overpolicing, etc.
tonka737 t1_jcdd9sj wrote
Just how poverty can be the cause of said symptoms it can also bet the result.
elizabeth-cooper t1_jcb109a wrote
In a national study, being arrested and immediately let out and being arrested and kept in jail for less than six months were basically equal in terms of employment rates because it wasn't employed people who were getting arrested in the first place. There are no NYC stats about the percentage of people arrested who lost their jobs before bail reform was implemented.
matzoh_ball t1_jccdvii wrote
FWIW, there is a study on that, which uses survey data that was collected between 2019 and 2021: https://www.nycja.org/publications/the-initial-collateral-consequences-of-pretrial-detention
If you scroll a bit down on that page, you'll see an interactive bar chart that shows that 20.1% of respondents who were arrested and not detained at arraignment lost their job compared to 35.0% of respondents who were arrested and detained at arraignment.
elizabeth-cooper t1_jccuvwz wrote
You didn't read that correctly, but it's not your fault, they deliberately wrote it in a confusing way.
They interviewed 1,500 people and 500 were not employed in the first place.
510 people out of 1,000 reported "issues" with their job. Among those issues, 27% reported being fired. That means 138 people reported being fired out of 1,000, which is 14% of employed arrestees. Which means 86% did not lose their jobs.
That 20/35% is likelihood of losing their job, not the percent of people who did lose their job.
matzoh_ball t1_jcd1fql wrote
Good catch! Yes, kinda makes sense that they’d only report the percentages of people who lost their job of people who had a job in the first place. Still, could be made more clear in their write up.
So, regardless of the job issues stat, it seems they base those likelihoods on the number of ppl who had a job at time of arrest:
> Over one in five participants who were employed at the time of arrest (n=1,031) were no longer employed when they were interviewed (n=219)
elizabeth-cooper t1_jcd3gjn wrote
They don't want to be clear because the actual facts aren't nearly as bad as they're trying to make them sound.
I found what I cited above. As you can see from the chart, "arrested and not incarcerated" and "incarcerated 6 months or less" had nearly identical employment rates.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2019/employment-of-young-men-after-arrest-or-incarceration.htm
BATMAN_UTILITY_BELT t1_jcame9v wrote
Crime is not strongly related to poverty. Rich people commit crime too.
Crime comes down to upbringing and family structure. When the home is rotten, society becomes a little more rotten.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jcaq74b wrote
> Crime is not strongly related to poverty. Rich people commit crime too.
I mean, crime is incredibly related to poverty. Sure things like access to quality education or stable housing also help, but to say there isn't a strong relationship is ignoring a lot of studies and data on the subject.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jcb0ixi wrote
Yes, it contributes. How about we list the other factors that contribute? The quality of home life is a vastly stronger predictor of someone growing up to commit crime than poverty. Growing up in a divorced/unmarried household is also a contributing factor. Witnessing adults using violence as a child is an incredibly strong predictor. These are major factors that seem to just get swept under the rug and are strongly tied to culture.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jcb11an wrote
I’m not here for a big debate, just pointing out the verifiably false thing that the OP said.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jcb2t2r wrote
That's fair.
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jcb385u wrote
Thanks for understanding. Hope ya have a good one.
rdugz t1_jcbel7f wrote
If I had to guess I would say these are all strongly correlated with wealth too
TheAJx t1_jcb4h3n wrote
> I mean, crime is incredibly related to poverty. Sure things like access to quality education or stable housing also help,
Hot beds of crime, places like Ghana, India and Vietnam.
[deleted] t1_jcawnmb wrote
[deleted]
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jcawzk2 wrote
God you're insufferable.
TheJoseph97 t1_jcaxbsx wrote
Shhheeeeeeiiiiiiiiitt
TheJoseph97 t1_jcaxjzl wrote
Real question though, did that 9 year old shot outside the bodega in the Bronx, was that because the gunman was so damn poor he’s just tryna put food on his table?
Or was that other little girl who got shot in Brownsville, that was done so the shooter can afford toiletries for his family right
ThreeLittlePuigs t1_jcaydk1 wrote
Real answer, I don't think its worth us talking about this as I don't think you're interesting in actually having a discussion, and it's not worth my time. If you are actually curious there's plenty of studies on the subject that you can read.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcanouv wrote
Non-white collar crime is almost directly correlated to economic insecurity. Eliminate poverty and you also eliminate the vast majority crime.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jcayseq wrote
>Non-white collar crime is almost directly correlated to economic insecurity.
The group in NYC with the highest poverty rate has the lowest crime rate. Poverty has a correlation with crime, but it isn't anywhere close to the strength you are implying.
There are far larger and more important factors at play here. Your attempts to sweep them under the rug will only make matters worse.
EDIT: Downvote away folks, your view of the world is a joke. A victim mentality will fuck you far harder than your fellow man ever could. Good luck to those of you that are hoping playing the victim will somehow magically unfuck your life.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcaziz9 wrote
Also, it's not exactly hard to look at a crime heat map of NYC and see how it almost directly maps onto the income level of the residents in a given neighborhood. The only exceptions are places like Midtown that have tons of people in them, but very few actual residents so the crime rates get skewed.
Also, there's a reason why I specifically said economic insecurity rather than poverty. Those two things aren't precisely the same thing.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jcb2ino wrote
Yes, I'm confident in the links I posted. I posted links to data across the entire city of 8 million+ and you posted a link to a study with a sample size of 713.
> Also, it's not exactly hard to look at a crime heat map of NYC and see how it almost directly maps onto the income level of the residents in a given neighborhood. The only exceptions are places like Midtown that have tons of people in them, but very few actual residents so the crime rates get skewed.
And now you're trying to conduct an experiment on the fly with some hand-wavy methodology and random speculation.
Address the data: why does the group with the highest poverty rate in the city have the lowest crime rate? How does that work if poverty is overwhelmingly the strongest predictor of criminality? Does it perhaps suggest that other factors are at play?
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcb47gr wrote
You haven't given me any relevant data. All you've done is given me correlations. Why not look at the actual income of convicted arrestees rather than using race as a proxy like some sort of nazi? You're also missing the nuance of economic insecurity vs poverty. A person can be impoverished and not economically insecure. Asian immigrant communities tend to have strong social support networks that make food and housing security less of an issue. Black and Latino communities are also far more heavily policed, so that data wouldn't be valid even if it did indicate what you claim it does.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jccbwsy wrote
I gave very, very accurate data on a much larger scale than anything you offered. I gave you two facts together that are very contrary to your view of the world, and you are here making garbage remarks like
> A person can be impoverished and not economically insecure
I honestly can't tell if you're joking with this stuff. You want to believe what you want to believe. Fine. Believe that poverty is insurmountable and the entire world is out to get you. Fail and fail harder. Play the victim. Maybe one day you'll figure out that you're fucking yourself.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jccj92f wrote
Dude, whether the data is accurate or not is irrelevant. The conclusion you're drawing from it cannot be drawn with that data alone. You're making way too many assumptions.
And yes, a person can be in poverty, but if they have a stable source of food and housing, then they're in much better shape than someone who doesn't technically fall below the poverty line but goes hungry every night so their kid can eat. These concepts shouldn't be particularly difficult to grasp.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jcdjvw5 wrote
> The conclusion you're drawing from it cannot be drawn with that data alone.
Uh, yes, it can. The conclusion I gave was clearly stated as "The group in NYC with the highest poverty rate has the lowest crime rate." That's true and supported by those independent sources. You don't need a sociologist to add an "and" to those sentences.
You tried to discredit the statement with some very poorly-thought-out speculation on your part, and probably didn't take 60 seconds to challenge your own worldview.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcdkvfq wrote
Okay, but the implication you're trying to make from that "fact" (arrest rates are not the same as crime rates) is unsupported by it. The only thing it proves is that you're a racist. Race is irrelevant here. And as I said, the data is skewed because black and brown communities are overpoliced. Looking at crime and wealth maps of the city is far more relevant despite what you're saying because the vast majority of crimes tend to happen in the community of the person committing said crime.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jcfboww wrote
> Okay, but the implication you're trying to make from that "fact" (arrest rates are not the same as crime rates) is unsupported by it.
That's not the point I made either explicitly or implicitly. The point I made is that you are wrong; that crime has more causes than just poverty, and in many cases, poverty isn't even the biggest contributing factor.
> The only thing it proves is that you're a racist. Race is irrelevant here.
You call me a racist because you don't have any valid response to what I'm saying. You panic and use whatever you can to avoid looking at the numbers because they totally disprove your very simplistic view of the world.
> And as I said, the data is skewed because black and brown communities are overpoliced.
Wrong again. Victimization surveys mirror the arrest rates given above. Victims themselves, including black and brown victims, identify their attackers in proportion to arrest rates. That's relevant when you claim that poverty causes crime and yet the most impoverished racial group is vastly underrepresented in crime stats.
YOU ARE WRONG. Your feelings don't matter. I'm giving you some very cold hard data that doesn't care about your emotions, and you are flopping around trying your best to ignore it.
[deleted] t1_jcbqcml wrote
[deleted]
WickhamAkimbo t1_jccc465 wrote
Your post is basically over here trying to give justifications for Black/Brown people to beat up Asian people. I would say your rhetoric is provably more dangerous.
There are systemic issues, that doesn't mean they can't be overcome, and that culture and self-reliance aren't more important determining factors of criminality and outcomes.
BATMAN_UTILITY_BELT t1_jcao064 wrote
What’s the proof of this? No one has ever eliminated poverty, so how can we know if that would eliminate the vast majority of crime?
It also depends on how you define poverty. Is it a specific income level? Is it the ability to afford the necessities but not the luxuries? The terminology needs to be explicitly defined.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcaou2g wrote
Like I said, it's about economic insecurity. If people don't feel like they're at risk of going hungry or homeless they're far less likely to commit a crime. Part of it can be linked to desperation, but equally significant is the psychological effect of being or possibly becoming destitute. Stress greatly affects mental health, after all, and poor mental health also leads to crime.
WickhamAkimbo t1_jcazrvl wrote
The group in NYC with the highest poverty rate has the lowest crime rate.
Poverty absolutely exacerbates crime, but to claim that it is the overwhelming cause of crime in NYC is not supported by the evidence at all. Actual statistics would suggest a very different story.
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcb4i17 wrote
And like I said in my reply to your other comment, this data doesn't say what you claim it does, and isn't even valid in the first place.
Darrackodrama t1_jcarp79 wrote
That’s false, upbringing and family structure failure is related to poverty all the same and correlates with crime
pixel_of_moral_decay t1_jcasmz5 wrote
Crime is correlated with what we categorize as immoral behavior.
At one point sex outside of marriage was immoral and criminal.
We could eliminate crime if we wanted by accepting more cultural differences. The vast majority of crime in our laws is just that.
TheJoseph97 t1_jcayc3h wrote
Yeah this guy gets it, drive-bys are a cultural institution
[deleted] t1_jcb5xuu wrote
[removed]
stork38 t1_jcaqhvc wrote
Rich people do shootings, rapes and street robberies?
ManhattanRailfan t1_jcar07f wrote
I mean, to be fair to him, the wealthy absolutely do murder, rape, and steal, they just have socialists and journalists murdered by others and steal from the people who made them wealthy in the first place.
stewartm0205 t1_jccwkvi wrote
Bail was not meant as a punishment for the poor. It was meant as an incentive to show up for the trial. Now a days, we can easily track people if we need to.
And we can fix computer systems if we need to.
Punishing the poor should be the last option we pursue.
bangbangthreehunna t1_jcahekq wrote
Misleading headline.
“The one exception was for bail-eligible people who were released following recent violent felony arrests. The rate of rearrests for that cohort of offenders increased slightly.”
mowotlarx OP t1_jcaiac6 wrote
The headline isn't misleading. The majority of people released on bail didn't have violent crime arrests and didn't reoffend. Which is the entire point.
PandaJ108 t1_jcajfcc wrote
That’s great and yet offenders in the category most new yorkers care about (violent offenders) saw there rearrest rates increase after being released.
matzoh_ball t1_jcasncz wrote
I guess the headline tried to address the a very common criticism of bail reform, which is that it increased crime in NYC overall. Few critics make the distinction between different offender cohorts.
Also, the article itself does point out that there were re-arrest increases for certain cohorts.
robxburninator t1_jcalmc7 wrote
I would hope you would care about everyone that gets arrested because you have basic empathy and believe incarceration without a right to a speedy trial seems mighty.... amoral.
shant_jan t1_jcaom6g wrote
thats a big ask for reddit
bangbangthreehunna t1_jcalp76 wrote
If the content of the article contradicts the headline, its misleading.
mowotlarx OP t1_jcamhex wrote
It doesn't contradict the headline. They took data of all releases during ball reform and recidivism went down. Again, sorry that isn't what you wanted to hear but the numbers are the numbers.
bangbangthreehunna t1_jcap0uc wrote
Overall, but the quote I provided is pretty telling. Violent crimes are more impactful than non violent crimes.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcatg79 wrote
It’s not only misleading, it’s extremely disingenuous to pretend that a reoffense on a petty theft is the same as a reoffense on a felony violence crime.
redroverster t1_jcbq73d wrote
Let me ask you this, if the total population is 500 people and 400 people with misdemeanor cases, and none of the 400 got re-arrested compared post reform to 200 re-arrests pre bail reform. Then the remaining 100 people had violent felony cases, and bail reform caused the re arrest number to go from 50 to 75, that’s an overall decrease (250 to 75), but are we better off?
sayheykid24 t1_jcb5wac wrote
As a characterization of what the study found it is misleading because it’s a cherry picked metric
robxburninator t1_jcagrsh wrote
You mean that cherry picking individual incidents as "proof" that bail reform is dangerous is actually disingenuous? Who. Would. Have. Guessed?
PandaJ108 t1_jcak138 wrote
Going to go out on a limb and say you only read the headline (and definitely did not bother to click the link leading the study) and completely missed how bail eligible suspects arrested on violent offenses saw there rearrest rate increase.
And look at the chart on page 17 of the study. Want to talk about picking stats. The chart clearly shows that those in the bail reform group who had a pending case where more likely to be rearrested across all categories (any rearrest, felony rearrest, violent felony rearrest).
And the same hold true for those initial arrested on a violent felony. The bail reform group were more likely to be rearrested across all categories compared to the comparison group.
So great, those that were a part of the bail/reform group who were initially arrested on a misdemeanor are less likely to be arrested while those on the bail/reform group who had pending case or arrested on a violent felony were more likely to be arrested.
Anybody that views this as any sort of “win” 100% just read the headline and whatever stats the author wanted to highlight.
Like I said. The chart is on page 17 of the study for anybody that wants to review for themselves.
Edited- page number updated. Chart is on page 17. Specifically, the one breaking down the two year rearrest rate.
matzoh_ball t1_jcat2aw wrote
>So great, those that were a part of the bail/reform group who were initially arrested on a misdemeanor are less likely to be arrested while those on the bail/reform group who had pending case or arrested on a violent felony were more likely to be arrested.
Not quite. Those are people with *prior* violent felony arrests, not people whose *current* charge is a violent felony (since almost all of them would still be bail eligible).
pirepori t1_jcclaty wrote
Ow yes the fella down the block who 6 months ago smashed the guy’s head in for a loose cigarette and a lighter only threatened and stole a 6 pack of White Claws now, so I guess it’s ok. He did us all a favor
matzoh_ball t1_jccmp82 wrote
Dude I just corrected a minor detail, not defending or criticizing any policy here.
FWIW, in the scenario you refer to, my question would be why that guy hadn’t been sentenced to jail or prison for smashing someone’s head in. Bail reform has literally nothing to do with sentencing guidelines so your hypothetical scenario wouldn’t have anything to do with bail reform.
High_Violet92 t1_jcailsg wrote
This! I am ashamed to say I almost fed into reddits bullshit until a more informed friend opened my eyes.
Not to say the released bad players should not be brought to justice but its a lot more complicated than I thought
rextilleon t1_jcbtin9 wrote
Just absurd. Gothamist is a rag with some makeup on.
P0stNutClarity t1_jcah61c wrote
NY Post in shambles
Grass8989 t1_jcalgdn wrote
“The one exception was for bail-eligible people who were released following recent violent felony arrests. The rate of rearrests for that cohort of offenders increased slightly.”
I mean they always talk about bail reform and violent crimes, and it looks like this article proved them correct.
matzoh_ball t1_jcatisf wrote
Not quite. Overall, violent felony re-arrest did not change - or might have slightly decreased - for people who judges can no longer set bail for or detain (see bar chart on p.13 and the table below on the same page).
Doesn't change the fact that there is certainly room for improvement, but the doomsday stories about the effects of bail reform on violent crime increases are certainly BS.
SolitaryMarmot t1_jcclnae wrote
"bail eligible people"
Everyoneeatshere t1_jcafrz9 wrote
For those that do, what types of arrests or crimes committed?
Brolic_Broccoli t1_jcb27lp wrote
Attorney practicing criminal law: Non-bail eligible offenses, meaning the prosecutor can't ask for bail and the judge can't legally set bail for the following offenses, which is a non-exhaustive list:
Public Lewdness
Stalking
Criminal contempt 2nd degree (violating an order of protection)
Assault 3rd degree
Child endangerment
DWI non felony (no prior DWI Convictions)
Forcible Touching
Petit Larcenies
Unlawful imprisonment
Menacing 2nd degree
CPW 4th degree
Everyoneeatshere t1_jcb2fby wrote
Thanks!
d4ng3rz0n3 t1_jcay1vb wrote
Very anecdotally, I saw a man stab his wife in the street in broad daylight in Midtown East. I and others chased him until the police arrived and arrested him. He was released the same day and arrested for petty theft the day afterwards. Unsure if he was released again at that point, but his trial was like 2.5 years later. He was on his 3rd strike (shocker) so ended up pleaing to about 4-5 years.
supremeMilo t1_jcbbtar wrote
Probably wasn’t released specifically under the bail reform law. Lots of people are released and some scream about bail reform and others scream how that wasn’t bail reform.
We need more bail reform, making it easier for some to get out and harder for others to get reduced charges etc.
Chaminade64 t1_jcc35ki wrote
Well, let’s be honest. It’s getting harder to get arrested than it was even 6 months ago.
[deleted] t1_jcak0fq wrote
[deleted]
elizabeth-cooper t1_jcb1f6k wrote
>Study shows those released under NY's bail reform laws are less likely to get rearrested
I'm sure it's true, but it's irrelevant when you consider the Pareto rule. 20% of the criminals commit 80% of the crimes.
smallint t1_jcbcd8m wrote
When they are out in 24 hours? 🤔
Late2thedance t1_jcd0v74 wrote
Now is a crap .. keep letting them out without consequences.. what a wonder society we have ..
F4ilsafe t1_jck5qv5 wrote
interesting how the measure is "re-arrest." This doesn't speak, at all, to re-offending.
[deleted] t1_jcasa0x wrote
[deleted]
Water-Plant98 t1_jcbswic wrote
Not at all. If you read the article, you’ll see they found an increase in rearrests for those released on violent felony charges- aka the ones people care about.
Notthesenator t1_jcbta5r wrote
“Offenses that are still not eligible for mandatory release are almost all violent felonies, sex offenses and certain domestic violence cases.”
Water-Plant98 t1_jcbtp0q wrote
Okay? That does absolutely nothing to counter my point lmao. It just demonstrates that you have no formal education in law nor a real understanding of how the reforms operate.
Even if release isn’t mandatory, bail is highly disfavored outside of homicide cases and certain DV/sex crimes cases. CJA is reluctant to recommend bail. I am an attorney working for the government and have seen it first hand.
Rearrests of those ROR’d or SVR’d violent felony offenders went up. That’s what this article and study shows. Therefore, it was not “racist fearmongering.”
matzoh_ball t1_jccecp5 wrote
Not quite. They found an increase in re-arrest for those who had prior violent felony arrests in the two years leading up to their arraignment. Your point stands, but we might as well be accurate.
Salad_Panda t1_jcdnz2e wrote
And don’t you dare ask me what we studied!
mowotlarx OP t1_jcexuln wrote
The study was conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice and like all studies conducted by such institutions you can just...read the results they published.
KaiDaiz t1_jcaoi7m wrote
Ha its like saying majority of police interactions do not result in violent interaction if you talking about all races but if you zoom in on the cases folks protesting about - black and brown interactions with police. It tells a different story.
Same with this story - majority ok...zoom in part ppl care about - violent actors - different story.
Grass8989 t1_jcal80z wrote
“The one exception was for bail-eligible people who were released following recent violent felony arrests. The rate of rearrests for that cohort of offenders increased slightly.”
Okay, this is the statistic most people actually care about. Disingenuous headline from the gothamist, as usual.