Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FarmSuch5021 t1_iwlgzzb wrote

Because of that bail reform there is no justice for the victims. Criminals have a free pass to do whatever they want

−3

kanooker OP t1_iwlirvc wrote

That's why I said it needs fixing but there is a similar provision

>New York’s Criminal Procedure Law sets forth the laws on bail, and sections 530.20, 530.40, and 530.50 have revised sections. On May 9, 2022, the new laws go into effect.

>In short, the revisions give judges more discretion in deciding bail for qualifying offenses, particularly where a person has more than one case pending trial. Moving forward, a judge may consider an individual’s history of using a gun, whether they were charged with causing serious harm, and if they have violated an Order of Protection. Additionally, hate crimes and certain gun offenses are now qualifying offenses.

>Notably, however, lawmakers refused to introduce a “dangerousness” standard into bail considerations. Since 1971, New York’s bail laws have prohibited the consideration of dangerousness in setting bail.

https://pappalardolaw.com/2022/04/bail-laws-revised-ny-2022-2023-budget/

5

KaiDaiz t1_iwlkaem wrote

While everyone harps about bail reform. Speedy trial reform the other part of criminal justice reform is the real issue and driver of lack of prosecution of crimes and drives DAs to downgrade charges for offenses which contributes more to the revolving door atmosphere ppl feel about crime.

33

NetQuarterLatte t1_iwll98l wrote

That only addresses a fraction of repeat offenders, though.

It's a rather timid progress, but progress nonetheless.

​

>Notably, however, lawmakers refused to introduce a “dangerousness” standard into bail considerations.

"Refused" is quite an understatement.

Stewart-Cousins threatened to hold climate change and gun control bills hostage in order to block adding a dangerousness standard.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/ny-state-of-politics/2022/02/08/stewart-cousins-urges-progressive-advocates-to-defend-bail-law-changes

>She urged advocates to send emails and push back against calls for changing the law, such as allowing judges to consider "dangerousness when determining whether a person accused of a crime should be remanded to a local jail.
>
>...
>
>Stewart-Cousins in her talk with the activist group warned issues like gun control, efforts to curtail climate change and further criminal justice law changes are at risk of not getting done if the opponents of the bail law are successful.

−1

kanooker OP t1_iwllx0a wrote

Yeah I'm not gonna disagree if you all would concede some things maybe they would too because this is all a pissing contest that makes everything anyone wants on the other side of anything automatically wrong.

2

mowotlarx t1_iwlmaf0 wrote

He's waving the bloody flag. He's drumming up support using fear and hysteria the way other conservatives do. Fear is a very powerful tool for politicians.

It worked so far. But eventually it'll stop working and he's stuck with a perception of crime that he can't fix because it's not real.

5

kanooker OP t1_iwlnafw wrote

What would keep him in jail if he was only charged with State charges? He has no prior gun charges. There does need to be a dangerousness standard. I say this as a progressive.

2

PandaJ108 t1_iwlo9dk wrote

Some great defenses presented here by the writer.

“The kid almost shot his own crotch off as police roughed him up—clearly he was not a wannabe cop killer.”

Great, he ain’t a wannabe cop killer. He just another person walking around with an illegal gun on multiple occasions. Shockingly he was busted again with a gun. Keep on releasing him back to the streets. He will end up dead or kill somebody with everybody then asking “how could this have happened?”

Teen Bronx drill rapper C Blu busted with gun months after skirting criminal charges in NYPD shooting

“Nash did have assault on his record. It’s not clear what he did, but it couldn’t have been worse than hitting or even shoving someone since he was charged with class-A misdemeanor, the lowest charge for assault. Felony assault remains bail-eligible.”

Nash had racked up 12 other arrest across numerous states. So somebody with 12 arrest is randomly punching people and the author thinks “whoop, class A misdemeanor, no big deal”

“The career criminal has racked up at least a dozen arrests in New York and New Jersey dating back to 2012, when he was just a teen, according to court records and sources.”

Assamad Nash charged in Chinatown murder of Christina Yuna Lee

“Elliot, 63, was socked in the face by murder suspect Assamad Nash, 25, in September at the Grand Street subway station – mere blocks from Christina Yuna Lee’s Chrystie Street apartment where she was slaughtered early Sunday morning.”

Prior victim of alleged Chinatown killer Assamad Nash says ‘Lock him up!’

The last two cases seem to be blocked from reading unless one subscribes. Based on the first two I can only imagine what the other cases were.

8

kanooker OP t1_iwlon8b wrote

>Shockingly he was busted again with a gun

It's worth noting that people who don't want these bail reform laws also support people having a gun no matter what. IE 2A absolutists.

−2

wefarrell t1_iwloze8 wrote

Right, jail should be used to protect the rest of society from potentially dangerous individuals while they wait for trial.

It should not be used as a means of punishing people before they are convicted of a crime.

−1

drpvn t1_iwlt7ti wrote

Why isn’t this in the crime thread?

−2

mowotlarx t1_iwludz0 wrote

This. There was a story the other day about how the Bronx DA office is down over 100 attorneys plus additional administration staff and are on the verge of trying to strike (they can't legally, but are threatening). The justice system is overburdened and way too slow. Rikers is as bad as it is because people can be trapped there for YEARS without a trial. It was never fair that, faced with the same slow system, some people could buy their way to release from jail and others were doomed to stay there because they couldn't afford bail.

22

kanooker OP t1_iwlzhaq wrote

Why? He's bringing up he got caught with a gun, and there should have been some sort of punishment just for that. In your world there is no punishment just for having a gun right?

2

drpvn t1_iwlzkit wrote

Not always true. I dislike bail reform and I’m pro gun control.

And like I said, some of the people who lobbied for bail reform were directly involved in the Second Amendment case that overturned NY’s gun restrictions. I’m talking about the Bronx Defenders and other defenders’ offices.

−1

HEIMDVLLR t1_iwlzqp4 wrote

Correct.

Even the comments about Alvin Braggs be inaccurate. If everyone didn’t like what he was campaigning on, in favor of bail reform, then why didn’t they get the message out and vote against him. Instead they blame the people that voted for him without giving any context as to how those same voters, in favor of Braggs, are directly affected by cash-bails and the conditions of Rikers Island.

1

kanooker OP t1_iwlztes wrote

Some things do happen in this world, like how you are pro gun control and anti-bail reform. Most of these people however are unlike you and don't want restrictions on guns.

1

drpvn t1_iwm23li wrote

Things do happen, like public defenders’ offices who support bail reform also opposing NY’s gun restrictions. But guilt by association is an unreliable heuristic.

3

mowotlarx t1_iwm2f2h wrote

Thanks to the Taylor Law all public employees in this state are barred from striking. Which is a real shame for almost all public workers. I'll exclude NYPD and Department of Corrections because we've allowed them to get away with a work stoppage for years.

5

kanooker OP t1_iwm2pyy wrote

Yet those people don't represent the overwhelming majority of VOTERS on the right who hate bail reform, and also hate restrictions on guns.... or the left who are pro bail reform and pro gun restrictions. But now you're gonna make a case for bears who shit in NYC, and not the woods.

1

kanooker OP t1_iwm39au wrote

>I'll exclude NYPD and Department of Corrections because we've allowed them to get away with a work stoppage for years.

That's exactly how they veto reform, by letting crime go up and blame reform.

3

parkslopeymcamanager t1_iwm5hv3 wrote

Somebody posted here yesterday that cops went on strike in 2014 but crime went down anyway. Now people are saying they're on strike and crime is up. I can't wrap my head around all these crazy theories!

5

kanooker OP t1_iwm5s21 wrote

Ok well they have an opinion and I have proof out of Chicago. I'm not a defunder like most people aren't.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-chicago-violence-2016-aclu-effect-20180315-story.html

Paywall bypass: https://archive.ph/CF6Aa

Look at the arrest rates https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZAyXkEWAAANtKY?format=jpg&name=medium

And the murder numbers

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FfcowitXkAE_IC5?format=png&name=small

Same thing in 2020

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-murder-spike-of-2020-when-police-pull-back-11626969547

https://archive.ph/x7rfc

This is what police do to fight reform

>The officers’ colleagues responded by pulling back on the job, doing only the bare minimum in the following weeks. In the resulting void, crews seized new drug corners and settled old scores. Homicides surged to record levels and case-closure rates plunged. “The police stopped doing their jobs, and let people fuck up other people,” Carl Stokes, a former Democratic city councilor in Baltimore, told me last year. “Period. End of story.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/how-stop-police-pullback/615730/

1

parkslopeymcamanager t1_iwmc85z wrote

Maybe the complete violence and mayhem that befalled the city in the second half of 2020 didn't make it to the news where you were, but shooting rates skyrocketed as he was making that announcement.

−1

parkslopeymcamanager t1_iwmcgvh wrote

You realize the arrest rates declined because of a change of political environment and legalization of marijuana and other low level stuff? Or did you think you were going to get away with posting a pretty little chart as if it made some kind of point?

3

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_iwmd9a8 wrote

In the business I work in the government mandated all these steps had to be followed within a 3 day time limit for every consumer. Every company accross the country had to comply. So every company came up with a solution. Some hired more people. Some changed processes and procedures. Many used IT solutions or a combination of all of the above and Armageddon did not happen.

In the public sector the DAs have to meet certain deadlines to ensure people have some basic common sense rights for people who are presumed and maybe innocent. Though they just claim they can't do their jobs. These smart lawyers apparently have no ability to change their processes and procedures to conform with the new law.

Plus in the end there should have never needed to even be a law. Everyone that is charged has a right to a speedy fair trial. Somehow over time this was changed to it takes a year to get even the simplest charged decided if you want a trial. Though somehow it' was still considered a speedy fair trial. Plead or rot in jail because you could not make bail and we won't even show you the evidence we have because if you don't plead we may or may not sandbag you right before trial. That is not justice

5

KaiDaiz t1_iwmemch wrote

When you have defense lawyers no longer claiming their client is innocent but rather the time to prosecute has expired you know the reform was shiet. This is the norm right now in our courts.

Now, regarding speedy trial reform. If you want to reform and put a finite time frame but provide no resources or means to achieve set deadline, it's a failure of a reform.

Speedy trial reform should be suspended just like what we did during covid until we have the proper resources and finish clearing out our backlog to properly implement it.

0

williamwchuang t1_iwmicih wrote

In the first case, the new bail law didn't change the outcome. He was assessed $250,000.00 cash bail, and was able to make it. He wasn't simply released without bail. Blaming this on cash bail reform is a flat out lie.

15

kanooker OP t1_iwmjpbp wrote

I think I showed you they aren't doing their jobs. It's their job to arrest people. They aren't arresting people for major crimes, not just the shop lifting you're talking about. But this is all about blaming Democrats so you'll find a way. Notice I'm blaming cops. Who don't have to be part of any party.

3

parkslopeymcamanager t1_iwmll6f wrote

You're clinging so hard to your beliefs that you refuse to consider a possibility you are interpreting data wrong. If you want to isolate the index crime arrest rate going down since 2001, the statistic is meaningless without comparing it to the decline of actual reported index crimes in the same city during the same 20-year period.

1

kanooker OP t1_iwmlys3 wrote

>When you have defense lawyers no longer claiming their client is innocent but rather the time to prosecute has expired you know the reform was shiet. This is the norm right now in our courts.

Are they wrong? Does the law say you are supposed to represent your client or not?

2

KaiDaiz t1_iwmmo0j wrote

Pointing out the dramatic shift in defense tactics since speedy trial reform went into effect in our court rooms. Defense now simply cite 30.30 at every given chance now. Also happening in cases we know the perp did the deed as well. Its not like we don't have evidence they did it, defense wants it all toss out pre-trial because of time limits from reform

2

kanooker OP t1_iwmn35d wrote

>Defense now simply cite 30.30 at every given chance now.

My friend defense attorneys work for the defendant.

It would be malpractice otherwise and they could lose their license if they don't use every defense available to them.

What's wrong with you?

3

KaiDaiz t1_iwmncyz wrote

yes lets criminals we know did the deed walk. walk before a jury has a chance to listen to case. great reform. hence why its contributing to feeling of increased crime and nothing done about it

−1

kanooker OP t1_iwmognq wrote

Are you a child? Do you have evidence that there are that many people using this defense and then getting arrested again? No. You are just using your imagination and your feelings.

2

KaiDaiz t1_iwmpiks wrote

plenty of cases of of folks caught in act and go unprosecuted bc of 30.30 and in one I recall regarding a driver that killed someone, case dismiss due to reform and continues to be reckless on road. future victim in the waiting.

2

KaiDaiz t1_iwmr3em wrote

you know you can read those cases and if you want stats. Ask the DA offices around NYC. See how much increased drop cases since reform enacted. We have Bronx, Queens and other DA office in state go to press saying its hampering their prosecution efforts.

2

PorchHonky t1_iwmrbul wrote

He must love this sub then!

−2

Bluehorsesho3 t1_iwmrczs wrote

It’s a revolving door because it’s too expensive to keep people locked up for petty crimes. Honestly, if you did lock up most of the petty criminals for long periods of time the police would likely go back to harassing everyday citizens for “activity”.

The petty criminals allow the culture of collars for dollars to exist in the first place.

−2

KaiDaiz t1_iwms3lu wrote

its not just petty crime getting let out due to section 30.30. We have DUI/DWIs some with serious injuries and fatalities, drug possession, gun charges, abuse, assaults, robbery, etc all citing 30.30 why their charges be dismiss. Again they not claiming they innocent...but simply claim time has expired to prosecute and for jury to hear their case due to backlog especially due to covid. The reform was never envision as a means for these perps to escape justice.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/nyc-criminal-court

2

KaiDaiz t1_iwmudf5 wrote

Funny enough its possible for someone to try to murder you and failed and escape prosecution if the DA is backed up and enough time pass due to speedy trial reform. Justice as you said bizarre concept these days

1

kanooker OP t1_iwmyumu wrote

Well maybe conservatives should focus on that one part instead of the whole law and you can change minds but they'd rather go scorched earth because it's a better political strategy for a power grab.

A conservative governor in NJ did it. Why can't they?

0

KaiDaiz t1_iwn24ua wrote

So if Gendron failed to kill anyone that day and only maimed and charged with attempted murder of folks and say DA failed to bring case to trial in time due to backlog and whatever. Defense cites 30.30 and other things in criminal justice reform...let Gendron go? dismiss all charges due to speedy trial reform? Is he not a danger to public and will likely cause more harm& danger to community?

1

kanooker OP t1_iwn4lnp wrote

You're so fucking dumb. That would never happen. I'm agreeing there needs to be a dangerousness standard but you've been radicalized to disagree by reflex. Lemming.

−1

kanooker OP t1_iwn6dgg wrote

This is your totem isn't it? The sharp rise in crime from two people. Go on. Even the NYPost isn't saying that. Maybe you should lobby them.

1

KaiDaiz t1_iwn6roi wrote

way to deflect....so ok for Gendron to get off due speedy trial reform if he failed to kill anyone plus DA was backlog and failed to bring case due to time limit. got it.

1

KaiDaiz t1_iwn7id0 wrote

its still a problem why DAs still citing how its impacting their prosecutions and even Hochul mention its on things to fix possibly in her 10 pt discussion of things to come if elected but heavily oppose by some dem elements

also still deflecting

1

drpvn t1_iwnerih wrote

Better yet, rather than rant about what conservatives do, you should write or call your state senator or assemblyperson and say that you believe there should be a dangerousness standard. Let them know that their progressive constituents disagree with them on this so they don’t just assume it’s only conservatives who feel that way.

0

stewartm0205 t1_iwnfio5 wrote

Bail wasn’t meant as a punishment for being poor. It is an injustice to serve time before being found guilty. If you have a problem with repeat offenders then do not let them out. On their second indictment they stay until trial.

0

PandaJ108 t1_iwnm5bn wrote

So he is released due to some other flaws in the criminal justice system. At the end of the day, somebody who makes a habit of walking around with an illegal gun is out in the streets.

While politicians are going back and forth blaming each other, New Yorkers are the ones that have to deal with the person walking around with the illegal gun. Or with the guy with 12+ arrest who is randomly punching and killing people.

−2

williamwchuang t1_iwojsk4 wrote

I'm sorry to tell you that no system in the world is going to be perfect. You can lock everyone up like we did back in the 80s and '90s under the Rockefeller laws and there's always going to be someone who slips by. It's just naive for you to sit here and pretend that there was a system where because of eliminated any sort of mistake.

Again, it's moving the goal posts. The point of article is that Eric Adams is lying about bail reform and the first example is a perfect reason of why Eric Adams is lying about bail reform. And then when you are faced with that you just change the subject. But the point is that Eric Adams is lying about Bail reform.

4

_allycat t1_iwpdgxk wrote

My understanding is city employees have been a huge part of the great resignation. Their wages are lower than companies (supposed to be outweighed by benefits but yall know things don't keep up) and they had to put up with so much crap from Covid whoever hadn't been laid off earlier left instead.

4

PandaJ108 t1_iwpp987 wrote

There a wide gap between perfect and keeping people with a documented history of violence off the streets. Like the guy mentioned in the 2nd example. There is reason you latched on the first example only.

What’s the reason for Nash “slipping by”? Arrest in multiple states including for robbery. Randomly assaulting people in the streets.

It seems like every subway shover that been arrested is somebody with 10+ arrest that just happen to slip by as well. Seems like your willing to accept that as the norm cause “no system is perfect”. Most New Yorkers won’t.

Remanding repeat violent offenders into custody does not mean locking everybody up like in 80s. It’s literally the exact opposite.

0

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_iwpq4c8 wrote

So do what the feds do and not arrest and charge someone before you finish the investigation. Make sure you can comply with discovery. Maybe come up with a new computer system where the procecutors can share the discovery with the defense at the click of a button. The procecutors should be screeming that they need more resources or a computer system or whatever solution they want. Lawyers are some of the smartest people in the country and they can't figure out how to get evidence to a defendant in a timely manner?

3

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_iwpr0d4 wrote

It's not the defense attorney who is wrong. The procecutors are wrong. They are not doing their job. I would be they are doing the same thing they have done for 50 years and have not changed their policies and procedures to conform to the law. It was BS for decades how procecutors could just withhold evidence sandbagging a defendent then delay everything for a very long time till the defendent pleads guilty or not just to get on with their life. When 98% of the cases are just a negotiation between procecutor and defense attorney without actual trials anymore os their really justice.

Everyone knows the game. Over charge. Dangle the trial penalty over the defendent. If they are already locked up on bail all the better. The procecutors hide what they really have to just before a trial thats never going to happen. Then negotiate the charges down to clear the cases guilty or not.

I am not saying the procecutors do t thing the person is not guilty. I am sure they do. Though that's the jury's job. They are effectively the procecutor, jury (they just plead everything)and judge ( they decided what evidence to share before the eventual plea) in every case for the last 30 or 40 years.

3

spicytoastaficionado t1_iwps7c3 wrote

This ceased to be a serious article when the author began downplaying how disastrous policies allowed Christina Lee's murderer to be walking free before he killed her, in addition to obscuring his criminal history.

The guy had, just a few months prior, randomly assaulted a subway commuter. The author claims it was "not clear what he did", even though his violent criminal history was widely reported in the aftermath of Lee's brutal slaying.

Ask yourself why this author is going out of her way to obscure the nature of Nash's violent criminal history.

Either she is a shitty journalist blogger who doesn't know how to use Google, or she is intentionally hiding details to fit her narrative. Going by her byline, it seems to be the latter as she appears to prefer innuendo over facts when writing advocacy pieces (which is all she does).

Assamad Nash assaulting a random subway commuter should have been enough to remand him into custody + mandate psychiatric evaluation, if we had a sensible justice system.

​

On top of that, she then goes into how Nash had committed another crime shortly before murdering Ms. Lee. Again, she intentionally does not include what the actual crime was (damaging dozens of MetroCard machines in multiple subway stations) and instead speculates it could have been for squatting or accidentally damaging property.

And then there is this gem:

>Looked at from another perspective, if judges remanded suspects or set prohibitively high bail in the pettiest of crimes—damaged property worth a quarter of the cost of an iPhone, in this case—literally everyone arrested for anything would get sent to Rikers. How’s that tenable?

She specifies a specific crime, in this case property damage, but then shifts to "everyone arrested for anything" as a justification for why psychos who go around fucking up public property shouldn't be held pre-trial. Classic slippery slope fallacy.

No, detaining someone who goes around fucking up MetroCard machines doesn't mean every single misdemeanor offense leads to a Rikers stay. FFS.

Bringing back cash bail for more offenses isn't the answer. There needs to be a complete overhaul of the pretrial detention system so that psychos like the piece of shit who killed Ms. Lee are not allowed to just roam the city streets after assaulting people.

When people like this author obscure facts and misrepresent cases in order to push their talking points, it comes across as bad-faith hackery. It may be enough to fool gullible, low-information readers, which is probably the point given that is her audience, but she comes across as disingenuous to anyone who is even remotely researched on the cases mentioned.

3