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
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments