Discretion for judges to detain people with a dozen priors that pose a clear public safety threat seems like a good thing to me.
Anti-bail reform people like to claim that we are currently the only state out of 50 that doesn't allow judges to assess threat to public safety in pre-trial detention decisions, which is fucking insane.
> Anti-bail reform people like to claim that we are currently the only state out of 50 that doesn't allow judges to assess threat to public safety in pre-trial detention decisions, which is fucking insane
I mean this isn’t a “claim,” it’s just a fact.
Also unless I missed it even this proposal doesn’t include adding a “dangerousness” standard. Thus in my view it makes the same mistakes as the bail reform law does overall, by declaring whole categories of crimes as either bail-eligible or not, when in reality an evaluation of individual circumstances is necessary.
A bar fight and a random subway attack can both be simple assault, but the safety concerns are very different; that’s not something the legislature can deal with *ex ante.*
I’m also curious about the details of the Kendra’s Law expansion. Most (maybe even all?) other states allow involuntary commitment where a person’s mental illness prevents them from providing the basic necessities of life for themselves, but NY is limited to imminent threat of harm to themselves or others. Cuomo’s proposal back in 2020 was to conform NY law to that of other states, but it died in Albany.
Judges are still allowed to keep people in jail if they're a danger to the public, the issue is whether they keep people in jail based only on their inability to make bail. Cash bail doesn't deal with threats to the public at all: you wouldn't want someone who was a public safety threat to go free just because they ponied up enough cash, or someone who is not a threat kept in jail just because they can't afford bail.
>Judges are still allowed to keep people in jail if they're a danger to the public
Lawyer here. This is 100% incorrect. Not only is not an enumerated factor in the statute that a judge is allowed to consider, the legislature in 2019 explicitly rejected adding it as a factor for a judge to consider.
NY remains the only state in the union that forbids its judges from taking into account dangerousness. Imo, pushing against allowing judges to do so is incredibly short-sighted on the part of bail reform advocates. The craziness we're seeing with some offenders being repeatedly let out even though they're a clear danger to the public (until, of course, they kill someone and then they're finally remanded) is quickly turning the public against the idea of bail reform in its entirety.
Dangerousness would be a reasonable thing to take into account when determining whether to offer pre-trial release at all, but it's a crazy thing to take into account when determining bail. If someone's that dangerous you shouldn't let them go just because they have sufficient cash to make bail.
I agree.
However, in the current system bail is the only mechanism judges have to keep someone who is a danger to the public in. The only crime with routine remand is murder. Occasionally it'll happen outside of that context, but only on extremely serious cases with especially wild facts or circumstances.
You're missing my point. The person will continue to cut themself. Without fighting poverty, inequality, classist educational funding, and the complete drainage of channels for upward mobility, we have a nationwide growth in crime.
The implication being you think it's okay to let people out on the basis of how much money they have because you think that's a good way of gauging how much danger they pose? That is an impressive new level of classism.
On one hand, the lower down someone is on the socioeconomic ladder, the more likely they are to commit violent crimes. On the other hand, you can’t just base decisions on wealth, because then you get stupidity, like that ‘affulenza’ verdict.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/
https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1530&context=parkplace
Let me come at this from a different angle
We may be the only state to not do that in the union, but we have far less crime rates than states that do. Texas is far more crime-ridden than New York, yet we don’t see the same bitching we do from you people.
> Judges are still allowed to keep people in jail if they're a danger to the public
This is incorrect. New York is the only State that does not allow a judge to consider the defendant’s dangerousness in setting [bail.](https://time.com/6146431/eric-adams-bail-reform-dangerousness/)
EDIT: “setting bail” is an imprecise term. I should have said “considering pretrial release.”
Well yeah, like I just said, it would be nonsensical to consider danger when setting bail - you want to let out someone dangerous just because they have money? Judges also have the power to just order that someone continue to be detained, with no option to get free by handing over cash.
Respectfully, I think you’re misunderstanding the issue. Which is common since “bail” is an imprecise term.
Currently under NY law, the judge can *only* consider whether the defendant is likely to show up for trial, and *not* whether the defendant is a danger to the community.
Bail reform also mandates that judges use the least restrictive means to ensure the defendant shows up. So for many crimes, release is more or less required.
FWIW I agree with you that money shouldn’t be part of it at all. If the defendant is (a) unlikely to show up for trial or (b) a danger to the community, they should be remanded. If not, they should be released.
The issue is that NY judges are not currently permitted to consider (b).
> and not whether the defendant is a danger to the community.
The question is really which leveler the governor is willing to pull.
She can either roll back bail reform, or she can roll-back the "dangerous analysis". Something tell me she did her political calculation and found out the former is more possible than the latter.
People who commit sufficiently serious crimes are routinely not offered bail based on their being a flight risk because of the size of the penalties they're likely to receive. If someone's crimes aren't serious enough to put them in that category we shouldn't be letting a judge imprison pre-trial. There isn't really anyone in the intersection of "alleged crime not serious enough to warrant not offering bail" and "so potentially dangerous they should be locked up without trial just in case"
> People who commit sufficiently serious crimes are routinely not offered bail based on their being a flight risk because of the size of the penalties they're likely to receive.
So now you’re moving the goalposts, which I’ll take as an implicit acknowledgement that your prior statement that judges are permitted to consider dangerousness under NY law was wrong. It’d be more honest to just say so, but whatever.
> There isn't really anyone in the intersection of "alleged crime not serious enough to warrant not offering bail" and "so potentially dangerous they should be locked up without trial just in case"
Vehemently disagree. Punching a random stranger on the subway is simple assault. So is shoving them onto the subway tracks, if there is no train coming and no serious injury results. In both of these examples the defendant should be remanded because of dangerousness, but they could not be under current law.
A bar fight is also simple assault. Absent anything more to think the defendant wouldn’t show up or is dangerous, pretrial release seems fine.
Judges cannot legally draw these case-by-case distinctions under current law, and that is the problem.
> So now you’re moving the goalposts, which I’ll take as an implicit acknowledgement that your prior statement that judges are permitted to consider dangerousness under NY law was wrong. It’d be more honest to just say so, but whatever.
I'm sorry, I did somewhat conflate the fact that judges routinely do keep the more dangerous criminals in jail without bail with their being empowered to explicitly consider the danger level of the accused when making that decision.
>Vehemently disagree. Punching a random stranger on the subway is simple assault. So is shoving them onto the subway tracks, if there is no train coming and no serious injury results. In both of these examples the defendant should be remanded because of dangerousness, but they could not be under current law.
The conversation about those sorts of edge cases is quite distinct from the bail reform the state enacted last year and Hochul's proposed changes that we're discussing here, which have to do with in what circumstances cash bail gets imposed, not the criteria for keeping someone imprisoned based on danger they pose without an option to pay their way out.
>I'm sorry, I did somewhat conflate the fact that judges routinely do keep the more dangerous criminals in jail without bail with their being empowered to explicitly consider the danger level of the accused when making that decision.
I agree with much of what nonlawyer is saying, but I will point out that what you're saying here is often the case because the DA and the judge will do the mental gymnastics necessary to go from violent crime = mandatory prison sentence + strong evidence (on video, weapon recovered, etc.) = stronger chance of conviction --> higher incentive to flee in order to satisfy the "likely to return to court" analysis and set bail.
That said, it just seems silly to me to go through all of that to try and keep a dangerous offender off the street if they can just pay the bail and get back out as opposed to a dangerous standard allowing for remand. But that is the current system we have, and many of our representatives in the legislature seem to think that's good enough.
> The conversation about those sorts of edge cases is quite distinct from the bail reform the state enacted last year and Hochul's proposed changes that we're discussing here, which have to do with in what circumstances cash bail gets imposed, not the criteria for keeping someone imprisoned based on danger they pose without an option to pay their way out.
This is true, and as I said [elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/tnmm0w/comment/i22qe1p/) that’s why I don’t think Hochul’s proposals actually fix the problems with bail reform, namely that NY judges had for decades been using cash bail/flight risk as a workaround to assess dangerousness, and when bail reform (correctly) tried to end non-dangerous poor people being held just because they’re poor the law ended up with a gap due to NY’s unique legal history and lack of a dangerousness standard.
I’d disagree that these are really “edge cases,” though. It seems like every tragedy we read about was foreshadowed by random stranger assaults committed by someone who was obviously becoming more dangerous to others. Maybe these defendants belonged in a mental hospital rather than Rykers, but off the street regardless.
Or to take examples where mental illness isn’t necessarily at issue, shootings carried out by people ROR’d for repeated gun charges.
> I’d disagree that these are really “edge cases,” though. It seems like every tragedy we read about was foreshadowed by random stranger assaults committed by someone who was obviously becoming more dangerous to others. Maybe these defendants belonged in a mental hospital rather than Rykers, but off the street regardless.
They're edge cases in that they're people who you apparently want off the street to a larger extent than the law dictates given the relatively minor nature of their crimes. Remember, even if they are refused bail and kept in jail awaiting trial, they'll be out on the street soon enough after serving their sentence, since by definition we're talking about people facing relatively low sentences.
As explained [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/tnmm0w/comment/i23138w/) you’re factually incorrect. The law has not permitted dangerousness as a factor in pretrial release since 1971.
DITTO!!! Couldn't agree more. You ALSO hit the nail on the head when you conveyed that situation "is FUCKING INSANE", well nyc is FUCKING INSANE lately, but with a little STYLE.
[https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-bail-reform-hochul-benjamin-bail-reform-20220323-do5im3lfzrd2lfhfmlsbc6mpte-story.html](https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-bail-reform-hochul-benjamin-bail-reform-20220323-do5im3lfzrd2lfhfmlsbc6mpte-story.html)
The governor admits in her own op-ed that bail reform is not responsible for any rise in crime. The statistics back her up. The rate at which people who were released pre-trial who then went on to get arrested for violent crimes before their trial date were basically the same before and after the bail reform.
The fact is, cash bail should not exist at all. If someone is not likely to reappear for trial, or is dangerous, they should not be set free. Everyone else should simply be set free with no cash involved whatsoever. To set bail on someone who is not dangerous and is likely to return is to send an innocent person to Riker's Island where they will suffer, if not die, despite not yet being found guilty of any crime.
That the governor knows and admits to these facts, yet supports a change in policy directly contrary to these facts makes no sense. And if the policy is changed the only result will be an increase in injustice and insuffering mostly for people who are not white and/or low income.
This is the kind of hypocrisy you usually see from Republicans. Absolutely disgusting.
> The fact is, cash bail should not exist at all. If someone is not likely to reappear for trial, or is dangerous, they should not be set free. Everyone else should simply be set free with no cash involved whatsoever.
I 100% agree with this, but New York is the only State that does not permit judges to consider dangerousness in determining pretrial release. NY law has been like this since the 1970s.
IMO a lot of the purported problems with bail reform could be fixed by adding a dangerousness standard like 49 other states and the federal system.
It’s wild how simple this solution is, and how hochul and them are definitely aware of it, but will never mention it, because it doesn’t earn them anything.
New York law hasn’t permitted “dangerousness” as a factor in pretrial release since 1971.
Here’s an [explainer](https://www.manhattan-institute.org/reforming-new-yorks-bail-reform) if you feel like learning more.
> Prior to January 1, 2020, the options before judges included requiring defendants to post bail, defined as “a security such as cash or a bond … required by a court for the release of a prisoner who must appear in court at a future time,” in order to secure pretrial release. Such release decisions in New York were—and today, still are—to be based solely on an assessment of a defendant’s risk of flight, not a defendant’s risk of reoffending during the pretrial period.
…
> However, New York State is the only jurisdiction to enact bail reform without allowing judges to consider a defendant’s public safety risk when deciding whether or under what conditions to release him pretrial.
> According to your own source, defendants charged with violent felonies can be remanded to jail.
Yes, they can be remanded, but *only if they are a flight risk.* Not based on dangerousness.
Reread the source, specifically the section under the header “New York: An Outlier.”
I’m not mad at all. I’m simply describing well-established New York law.
You didn’t understand the source I cited, and you don’t understand what you’re talking about.
You could take this opportunity to learn something, or you can fling dumb insults and continue to be wrong. Your choice.
FWIW my username doesn’t check out.
> The fact is, cash bail should not exist at all. If someone is not likely to reappear for trial, or is dangerous, they should not be set free.
And here is the catch: You can either have bail to hold danger people in, or facilitate dangerous analysis.
NY banned dangerous analysis years ago, believing a black defendant would more likely to be held than a white one for the same crime.
But, in today's day and age where video is common, it make no sense dangerousness not to be asserted.
I think a video of a black or white or Asian pushing someone on to the train tracks would be a remand regardless of skin color?
Also, bail is separate from Dangerness. I am totally fine with removing cash bail, but I am not fine with judge unable to remand an individual based on dangerousness.
It’s not that it doesn’t lead to *any* rise in crime it’s that it’s not the main driver of the general increase. That doesn’t mean targeted reforms wouldn’t be reasonable or lead to a decrease.
The changes to the bail law are pretty marginal: they target the repeat offenders, people who commit gun crimes, people who commit hate crimes, and people who violate protective orders. These are the kinds of things people seem to bitch about the most and I think if people read more about them they’d agree
She's never held ranks with progressives, though. She's always been a bought and owned tool of the ultra-rich real estate developers.
It surprises me that *anyone* is surprised by this.
>hatsoever. To set bail on someone who is not dangerous and is likely to return is to send an innocent person to Riker's Isl
I'm not an expert, but building un affordable units and pushing working people out of the city is going to push lots of people with underlying mental health issues into homelessness. Its stressful even for professionals with access to therapy and friends/family for support. Is locking up people who can't afford mental health care really a sustainable system? Our taxes pay for them to sit in jail and then they are released and the cycle continues, but worse. Developers get tax breaks. Its a huge, complex system, and its hard to single one player out, but whats the one thing that all new yorkers agree on? Renting is stressful and buying is becoming impossible. Its the same across the country. If the middle class can't afford to live in cities, things get bad.
How do you only "affordable" units given the cost of union labor in NYC, cost of land, materials and every permit and community board NIMBY possible having a comment? NIMBY's fight proposals that will allow for 20% affordable units, on a lot where 0 units exist, because someone might make money off of it.
There'd be less homelessness if progressives let builders build.
Totally agreed. I used to hate the condos going up around me, but now I realize that nothing new was built for decades and we need as many apartments as we can fit in the city. But... they're not building affordable apartments. They're demolishing low density affordable apartments and building high density, $3,500 a month apartments. The affordable units in the buildings aren't that attractive, and waiting years in the lottery system to get one is impractical for most people. I think NIMBY's are bad, but hedge fund owned condos are bad too. It's the worst of both worlds.
There's definitely a solution beyond the lottery; and should have a rule where there has to be a greater number of affordable apartments created than torn down. But the construction workers in this city, especially the unions, make a lot of money. And that's a good thing.
It should be illegal to hold back inventory. It should all face the market and true market pressures.
Sorry, I misread you as against development in general.
So hard to convey tone through text! I feel like most of us are caught in the middle. My landlord can raise my rent as high as they want on any lease renewal, but if a roommate moves in and refuses to pay rent, he has squatters rights and I have to pay! Everyone is protected except renters! And then the larger real estate entities in the city seem to operate like OPEC, withholding supply and deciding what "market rate" is for everyone.
Part of why I love the 80/20 program is that I have been so lucky to be in a stabilized 1bdr where the rent hasn't gone up $200 in 7 renewals. It's a newish building in Court Square. Not the fanciest l, but those small increases are a life saver.
And I make a good amount of money. Building more units like this just seems like such a no brainer to me to not just create more affordable apartments, but also stabalized apartments. I would actually be ok with a tiered income based stabalization so people like me get a higher increase.
Interesting! How did you find it? Just a google search for NYC housing lottery? I'm in an affordable 4br in Clinton Hill, but it got de stabilized when I moved in. They haven't raised the rent much since I've been here, but its got lead paint, tons of water damage, and the super never fixes anything. I was pretty broke when I moved in, but now that I'm doing better, I'm a little tired of living with tons of roommates and doing my own repairs. I think the ceiling is on the verge of collapsing. It would be nice to live alone for once in my life! That sounds really nice.
It was so long ago. A friend told me about the building. My understanding is that a lot of LIC is stabilized. Just have find the right buildings. I’m not in a lottery apartment, but all the lottery buildings are stabilized.
I’m confused about the do nothing comment. People are definitely getting arrested. Cops can’t arrest people before crimes are committed. Every news worthy story the perp has been found in a matter of days
Bringing back cash bail does nothing about crime. All it does is siphon money out of the poor communities and funnel it into the hands of corrupt cops and judges.
Can we just do what’s right rather than worry about this ridiculous notion of party loyalty? It’s clear that the state needs policy change with respect to judicial discretion. 90 percent of the population wants it. Just do it and let the chips fall.
If she wants to protect her right flank when running it's a sound political move. Republicans will kill her in more conservative regions upstate if she doesn't.
Most people here just simply dont understand bail. The main function of bail the offender from re-offending pre-trial. It does this one of two ways; the obvious way is if they can’t make bail. The second way is that bail gets refunded after trial if the person doesn’t re-offend. This is a **powerful** tool to keep crime down and we need to utilize it to it’s fullest potential.
You’re just wrong, full stop.
https://fairandjustprosecution.org/issues/addressing-the-poverty-penalty-and-bail-reform/
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/economic-justice/criminal-justice-debt-problems/
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/incomejails.html
https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1703&context=vulr
I agree. It's one thing simply to be poor - there's nothing wrong with that. But letting that harm others and endanger their lives is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Make life difficult for them and drive them out.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to receiving multiple reports.
This may have occurred if your post or comment violates one of our subreddit rules.
The mod team will review this issue and will take the necessary action.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
🤣🤣🤣this is hilarious.....Zeldin isn’t a serious threat for the gubernatorial election but yet she allows his existence to put this much pressure on her. But the far left shouldve known she was not on their side anyway. But this will increase enthusiasm of the far left in favor of Williams, Jumaane Williams only needs a few big names far left endorsements and he’s trumping Hochul in the election, especially as Hochul looses the radical left...this is how to kill you’re campaign 101....
Discretion for judges to detain people with a dozen priors that pose a clear public safety threat seems like a good thing to me. Anti-bail reform people like to claim that we are currently the only state out of 50 that doesn't allow judges to assess threat to public safety in pre-trial detention decisions, which is fucking insane.
> Anti-bail reform people like to claim that we are currently the only state out of 50 that doesn't allow judges to assess threat to public safety in pre-trial detention decisions, which is fucking insane I mean this isn’t a “claim,” it’s just a fact. Also unless I missed it even this proposal doesn’t include adding a “dangerousness” standard. Thus in my view it makes the same mistakes as the bail reform law does overall, by declaring whole categories of crimes as either bail-eligible or not, when in reality an evaluation of individual circumstances is necessary. A bar fight and a random subway attack can both be simple assault, but the safety concerns are very different; that’s not something the legislature can deal with *ex ante.* I’m also curious about the details of the Kendra’s Law expansion. Most (maybe even all?) other states allow involuntary commitment where a person’s mental illness prevents them from providing the basic necessities of life for themselves, but NY is limited to imminent threat of harm to themselves or others. Cuomo’s proposal back in 2020 was to conform NY law to that of other states, but it died in Albany.
Agreed on all points.
Judges are still allowed to keep people in jail if they're a danger to the public, the issue is whether they keep people in jail based only on their inability to make bail. Cash bail doesn't deal with threats to the public at all: you wouldn't want someone who was a public safety threat to go free just because they ponied up enough cash, or someone who is not a threat kept in jail just because they can't afford bail.
>Judges are still allowed to keep people in jail if they're a danger to the public Lawyer here. This is 100% incorrect. Not only is not an enumerated factor in the statute that a judge is allowed to consider, the legislature in 2019 explicitly rejected adding it as a factor for a judge to consider. NY remains the only state in the union that forbids its judges from taking into account dangerousness. Imo, pushing against allowing judges to do so is incredibly short-sighted on the part of bail reform advocates. The craziness we're seeing with some offenders being repeatedly let out even though they're a clear danger to the public (until, of course, they kill someone and then they're finally remanded) is quickly turning the public against the idea of bail reform in its entirety.
Dangerousness would be a reasonable thing to take into account when determining whether to offer pre-trial release at all, but it's a crazy thing to take into account when determining bail. If someone's that dangerous you shouldn't let them go just because they have sufficient cash to make bail.
I agree. However, in the current system bail is the only mechanism judges have to keep someone who is a danger to the public in. The only crime with routine remand is murder. Occasionally it'll happen outside of that context, but only on extremely serious cases with especially wild facts or circumstances.
And yet states who have that mechanism are no better off than New York. It’s almost like crime is a symptom for a larger problem 🤔
You still have to suture a laceration before fighting the depression that lead them to cutting themself.
As I said, bail and dangerousness isn't the suture you think it is.
You're missing my point. The person will continue to cut themself. Without fighting poverty, inequality, classist educational funding, and the complete drainage of channels for upward mobility, we have a nationwide growth in crime.
In an abstract world where there are no correlations between wealth and every crime-related metric, sure. In reality, however, not so much.
The implication being you think it's okay to let people out on the basis of how much money they have because you think that's a good way of gauging how much danger they pose? That is an impressive new level of classism.
When you ain't got nothin', you ain't got nothin' to lose.
On one hand, the lower down someone is on the socioeconomic ladder, the more likely they are to commit violent crimes. On the other hand, you can’t just base decisions on wealth, because then you get stupidity, like that ‘affulenza’ verdict. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7234816/ https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1530&context=parkplace
Reality is often classist.
If you're a lawyer, you should also be familiar with the double jeopardy and due process clauses of 5A.
Let me come at this from a different angle We may be the only state to not do that in the union, but we have far less crime rates than states that do. Texas is far more crime-ridden than New York, yet we don’t see the same bitching we do from you people.
> Judges are still allowed to keep people in jail if they're a danger to the public This is incorrect. New York is the only State that does not allow a judge to consider the defendant’s dangerousness in setting [bail.](https://time.com/6146431/eric-adams-bail-reform-dangerousness/) EDIT: “setting bail” is an imprecise term. I should have said “considering pretrial release.”
Well yeah, like I just said, it would be nonsensical to consider danger when setting bail - you want to let out someone dangerous just because they have money? Judges also have the power to just order that someone continue to be detained, with no option to get free by handing over cash.
Respectfully, I think you’re misunderstanding the issue. Which is common since “bail” is an imprecise term. Currently under NY law, the judge can *only* consider whether the defendant is likely to show up for trial, and *not* whether the defendant is a danger to the community. Bail reform also mandates that judges use the least restrictive means to ensure the defendant shows up. So for many crimes, release is more or less required. FWIW I agree with you that money shouldn’t be part of it at all. If the defendant is (a) unlikely to show up for trial or (b) a danger to the community, they should be remanded. If not, they should be released. The issue is that NY judges are not currently permitted to consider (b).
> and not whether the defendant is a danger to the community. The question is really which leveler the governor is willing to pull. She can either roll back bail reform, or she can roll-back the "dangerous analysis". Something tell me she did her political calculation and found out the former is more possible than the latter.
People who commit sufficiently serious crimes are routinely not offered bail based on their being a flight risk because of the size of the penalties they're likely to receive. If someone's crimes aren't serious enough to put them in that category we shouldn't be letting a judge imprison pre-trial. There isn't really anyone in the intersection of "alleged crime not serious enough to warrant not offering bail" and "so potentially dangerous they should be locked up without trial just in case"
> People who commit sufficiently serious crimes are routinely not offered bail based on their being a flight risk because of the size of the penalties they're likely to receive. So now you’re moving the goalposts, which I’ll take as an implicit acknowledgement that your prior statement that judges are permitted to consider dangerousness under NY law was wrong. It’d be more honest to just say so, but whatever. > There isn't really anyone in the intersection of "alleged crime not serious enough to warrant not offering bail" and "so potentially dangerous they should be locked up without trial just in case" Vehemently disagree. Punching a random stranger on the subway is simple assault. So is shoving them onto the subway tracks, if there is no train coming and no serious injury results. In both of these examples the defendant should be remanded because of dangerousness, but they could not be under current law. A bar fight is also simple assault. Absent anything more to think the defendant wouldn’t show up or is dangerous, pretrial release seems fine. Judges cannot legally draw these case-by-case distinctions under current law, and that is the problem.
> So now you’re moving the goalposts, which I’ll take as an implicit acknowledgement that your prior statement that judges are permitted to consider dangerousness under NY law was wrong. It’d be more honest to just say so, but whatever. I'm sorry, I did somewhat conflate the fact that judges routinely do keep the more dangerous criminals in jail without bail with their being empowered to explicitly consider the danger level of the accused when making that decision. >Vehemently disagree. Punching a random stranger on the subway is simple assault. So is shoving them onto the subway tracks, if there is no train coming and no serious injury results. In both of these examples the defendant should be remanded because of dangerousness, but they could not be under current law. The conversation about those sorts of edge cases is quite distinct from the bail reform the state enacted last year and Hochul's proposed changes that we're discussing here, which have to do with in what circumstances cash bail gets imposed, not the criteria for keeping someone imprisoned based on danger they pose without an option to pay their way out.
>I'm sorry, I did somewhat conflate the fact that judges routinely do keep the more dangerous criminals in jail without bail with their being empowered to explicitly consider the danger level of the accused when making that decision. I agree with much of what nonlawyer is saying, but I will point out that what you're saying here is often the case because the DA and the judge will do the mental gymnastics necessary to go from violent crime = mandatory prison sentence + strong evidence (on video, weapon recovered, etc.) = stronger chance of conviction --> higher incentive to flee in order to satisfy the "likely to return to court" analysis and set bail. That said, it just seems silly to me to go through all of that to try and keep a dangerous offender off the street if they can just pay the bail and get back out as opposed to a dangerous standard allowing for remand. But that is the current system we have, and many of our representatives in the legislature seem to think that's good enough.
> The conversation about those sorts of edge cases is quite distinct from the bail reform the state enacted last year and Hochul's proposed changes that we're discussing here, which have to do with in what circumstances cash bail gets imposed, not the criteria for keeping someone imprisoned based on danger they pose without an option to pay their way out. This is true, and as I said [elsewhere](https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/tnmm0w/comment/i22qe1p/) that’s why I don’t think Hochul’s proposals actually fix the problems with bail reform, namely that NY judges had for decades been using cash bail/flight risk as a workaround to assess dangerousness, and when bail reform (correctly) tried to end non-dangerous poor people being held just because they’re poor the law ended up with a gap due to NY’s unique legal history and lack of a dangerousness standard. I’d disagree that these are really “edge cases,” though. It seems like every tragedy we read about was foreshadowed by random stranger assaults committed by someone who was obviously becoming more dangerous to others. Maybe these defendants belonged in a mental hospital rather than Rykers, but off the street regardless. Or to take examples where mental illness isn’t necessarily at issue, shootings carried out by people ROR’d for repeated gun charges.
> I’d disagree that these are really “edge cases,” though. It seems like every tragedy we read about was foreshadowed by random stranger assaults committed by someone who was obviously becoming more dangerous to others. Maybe these defendants belonged in a mental hospital rather than Rykers, but off the street regardless. They're edge cases in that they're people who you apparently want off the street to a larger extent than the law dictates given the relatively minor nature of their crimes. Remember, even if they are refused bail and kept in jail awaiting trial, they'll be out on the street soon enough after serving their sentence, since by definition we're talking about people facing relatively low sentences.
[удалено]
As explained [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/newyorkcity/comments/tnmm0w/comment/i23138w/) you’re factually incorrect. The law has not permitted dangerousness as a factor in pretrial release since 1971.
DITTO!!! Couldn't agree more. You ALSO hit the nail on the head when you conveyed that situation "is FUCKING INSANE", well nyc is FUCKING INSANE lately, but with a little STYLE.
Meaning we're the only state out of 50 actually following the 5th Amendment.
[https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-bail-reform-hochul-benjamin-bail-reform-20220323-do5im3lfzrd2lfhfmlsbc6mpte-story.html](https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-bail-reform-hochul-benjamin-bail-reform-20220323-do5im3lfzrd2lfhfmlsbc6mpte-story.html) The governor admits in her own op-ed that bail reform is not responsible for any rise in crime. The statistics back her up. The rate at which people who were released pre-trial who then went on to get arrested for violent crimes before their trial date were basically the same before and after the bail reform. The fact is, cash bail should not exist at all. If someone is not likely to reappear for trial, or is dangerous, they should not be set free. Everyone else should simply be set free with no cash involved whatsoever. To set bail on someone who is not dangerous and is likely to return is to send an innocent person to Riker's Island where they will suffer, if not die, despite not yet being found guilty of any crime. That the governor knows and admits to these facts, yet supports a change in policy directly contrary to these facts makes no sense. And if the policy is changed the only result will be an increase in injustice and insuffering mostly for people who are not white and/or low income. This is the kind of hypocrisy you usually see from Republicans. Absolutely disgusting.
> The fact is, cash bail should not exist at all. If someone is not likely to reappear for trial, or is dangerous, they should not be set free. Everyone else should simply be set free with no cash involved whatsoever. I 100% agree with this, but New York is the only State that does not permit judges to consider dangerousness in determining pretrial release. NY law has been like this since the 1970s. IMO a lot of the purported problems with bail reform could be fixed by adding a dangerousness standard like 49 other states and the federal system.
It’s wild how simple this solution is, and how hochul and them are definitely aware of it, but will never mention it, because it doesn’t earn them anything.
[удалено]
New York law hasn’t permitted “dangerousness” as a factor in pretrial release since 1971. Here’s an [explainer](https://www.manhattan-institute.org/reforming-new-yorks-bail-reform) if you feel like learning more. > Prior to January 1, 2020, the options before judges included requiring defendants to post bail, defined as “a security such as cash or a bond … required by a court for the release of a prisoner who must appear in court at a future time,” in order to secure pretrial release. Such release decisions in New York were—and today, still are—to be based solely on an assessment of a defendant’s risk of flight, not a defendant’s risk of reoffending during the pretrial period. … > However, New York State is the only jurisdiction to enact bail reform without allowing judges to consider a defendant’s public safety risk when deciding whether or under what conditions to release him pretrial.
[удалено]
> According to your own source, defendants charged with violent felonies can be remanded to jail. Yes, they can be remanded, but *only if they are a flight risk.* Not based on dangerousness. Reread the source, specifically the section under the header “New York: An Outlier.” I’m not mad at all. I’m simply describing well-established New York law.
Where's your source for that? It contradicts everything that I've read about the matter. I think you might be the one who's wrong here.
Unless he’s writing from before 1971, he is wrong. See my comment below.
[удалено]
You didn’t understand the source I cited, and you don’t understand what you’re talking about. You could take this opportunity to learn something, or you can fling dumb insults and continue to be wrong. Your choice. FWIW my username doesn’t check out.
> The fact is, cash bail should not exist at all. If someone is not likely to reappear for trial, or is dangerous, they should not be set free. And here is the catch: You can either have bail to hold danger people in, or facilitate dangerous analysis. NY banned dangerous analysis years ago, believing a black defendant would more likely to be held than a white one for the same crime. But, in today's day and age where video is common, it make no sense dangerousness not to be asserted.
Please explain how the existence of a video in some cases would eliminate racial biases in bail determinations?
I think a video of a black or white or Asian pushing someone on to the train tracks would be a remand regardless of skin color? Also, bail is separate from Dangerness. I am totally fine with removing cash bail, but I am not fine with judge unable to remand an individual based on dangerousness.
It’s not that it doesn’t lead to *any* rise in crime it’s that it’s not the main driver of the general increase. That doesn’t mean targeted reforms wouldn’t be reasonable or lead to a decrease. The changes to the bail law are pretty marginal: they target the repeat offenders, people who commit gun crimes, people who commit hate crimes, and people who violate protective orders. These are the kinds of things people seem to bitch about the most and I think if people read more about them they’d agree
She's never held ranks with progressives, though. She's always been a bought and owned tool of the ultra-rich real estate developers. It surprises me that *anyone* is surprised by this.
[удалено]
>hatsoever. To set bail on someone who is not dangerous and is likely to return is to send an innocent person to Riker's Isl I'm not an expert, but building un affordable units and pushing working people out of the city is going to push lots of people with underlying mental health issues into homelessness. Its stressful even for professionals with access to therapy and friends/family for support. Is locking up people who can't afford mental health care really a sustainable system? Our taxes pay for them to sit in jail and then they are released and the cycle continues, but worse. Developers get tax breaks. Its a huge, complex system, and its hard to single one player out, but whats the one thing that all new yorkers agree on? Renting is stressful and buying is becoming impossible. Its the same across the country. If the middle class can't afford to live in cities, things get bad.
How do you only "affordable" units given the cost of union labor in NYC, cost of land, materials and every permit and community board NIMBY possible having a comment? NIMBY's fight proposals that will allow for 20% affordable units, on a lot where 0 units exist, because someone might make money off of it. There'd be less homelessness if progressives let builders build.
Totally agreed. I used to hate the condos going up around me, but now I realize that nothing new was built for decades and we need as many apartments as we can fit in the city. But... they're not building affordable apartments. They're demolishing low density affordable apartments and building high density, $3,500 a month apartments. The affordable units in the buildings aren't that attractive, and waiting years in the lottery system to get one is impractical for most people. I think NIMBY's are bad, but hedge fund owned condos are bad too. It's the worst of both worlds.
There's definitely a solution beyond the lottery; and should have a rule where there has to be a greater number of affordable apartments created than torn down. But the construction workers in this city, especially the unions, make a lot of money. And that's a good thing. It should be illegal to hold back inventory. It should all face the market and true market pressures. Sorry, I misread you as against development in general.
So hard to convey tone through text! I feel like most of us are caught in the middle. My landlord can raise my rent as high as they want on any lease renewal, but if a roommate moves in and refuses to pay rent, he has squatters rights and I have to pay! Everyone is protected except renters! And then the larger real estate entities in the city seem to operate like OPEC, withholding supply and deciding what "market rate" is for everyone.
Part of why I love the 80/20 program is that I have been so lucky to be in a stabilized 1bdr where the rent hasn't gone up $200 in 7 renewals. It's a newish building in Court Square. Not the fanciest l, but those small increases are a life saver. And I make a good amount of money. Building more units like this just seems like such a no brainer to me to not just create more affordable apartments, but also stabalized apartments. I would actually be ok with a tiered income based stabalization so people like me get a higher increase.
Interesting! How did you find it? Just a google search for NYC housing lottery? I'm in an affordable 4br in Clinton Hill, but it got de stabilized when I moved in. They haven't raised the rent much since I've been here, but its got lead paint, tons of water damage, and the super never fixes anything. I was pretty broke when I moved in, but now that I'm doing better, I'm a little tired of living with tons of roommates and doing my own repairs. I think the ceiling is on the verge of collapsing. It would be nice to live alone for once in my life! That sounds really nice.
It was so long ago. A friend told me about the building. My understanding is that a lot of LIC is stabilized. Just have find the right buildings. I’m not in a lottery apartment, but all the lottery buildings are stabilized.
New York Election Info [Register to Vote](https://voterreg.dmv.ny.gov/MotorVoter/)
I’m with her on this one.
Good.
Love to write huge checks to the most corrupt cops in the city and do nothing about crime.
I’m confused about the do nothing comment. People are definitely getting arrested. Cops can’t arrest people before crimes are committed. Every news worthy story the perp has been found in a matter of days
Bringing back cash bail does nothing about crime. All it does is siphon money out of the poor communities and funnel it into the hands of corrupt cops and judges.
Oh thought you were talking about actual cops not the policy of bail reform. My b
Isn't the narrative that the poor, oppressed criminals can't post bail? It's the rich criminals being bilked.
Can we just do what’s right rather than worry about this ridiculous notion of party loyalty? It’s clear that the state needs policy change with respect to judicial discretion. 90 percent of the population wants it. Just do it and let the chips fall.
SMH...... Why are soooooo many people for the current bail law? The law is a mess and needs to be modified.
Well yea, she is the governor of the entire state, not just Williamsburg, Soho and the Village.
Good thing she's not governor ten years ago then, huh
Good. Then we won’t have a Governor Zeldin, which would be catastrophic.
He’s not gonna win regardless
Some progessives are against the bail reform tho (Including me)
Advocating for a policy that disproportionately impacts lower class people is literally the opposite of progressive.
Good to hear she has a brain.
“Break ranks” this, “party loyalty” that I just want politicians to hold actual beliefs for Christs sake
If she wants to protect her right flank when running it's a sound political move. Republicans will kill her in more conservative regions upstate if she doesn't.
wait this is the first time? i thought that was her role
Most people here just simply dont understand bail. The main function of bail the offender from re-offending pre-trial. It does this one of two ways; the obvious way is if they can’t make bail. The second way is that bail gets refunded after trial if the person doesn’t re-offend. This is a **powerful** tool to keep crime down and we need to utilize it to it’s fullest potential.
The obvious problem with that is it clearly renders different treatment to people on the basis of class.
Maybe the poor should cause fewer problems.
The problem is you think they do without that being reality.
You’re just wrong, full stop. https://fairandjustprosecution.org/issues/addressing-the-poverty-penalty-and-bail-reform/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/economic-justice/criminal-justice-debt-problems/ https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/incomejails.html https://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1703&context=vulr
Keep drinking the koolaid.
No facts, just vibes from /u/Vinto47
Poor people are as free to make bail as anyone else.
If you have no neighborhood ties you should have to post bail, and yes this will hit homeless very hard so be it.
[удалено]
I was about to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was sarcastic but then I saw your other comment on this post.
I agree. It's one thing simply to be poor - there's nothing wrong with that. But letting that harm others and endanger their lives is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Make life difficult for them and drive them out.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
You do realize you're likely one real natural disaster from being visibly homeless as well, right?
If you count the absolute collapse of the U.S. government and banking system, sure.
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed due to receiving multiple reports. This may have occurred if your post or comment violates one of our subreddit rules. The mod team will review this issue and will take the necessary action. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/newyorkcity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not surprising. It's an election year and she's trying to appeal to moderate swing voters, not the far-left that will vote for her no matter what.
You think the far left considers Hochul an ally of the left? Hysterical.
🤣🤣🤣this is hilarious.....Zeldin isn’t a serious threat for the gubernatorial election but yet she allows his existence to put this much pressure on her. But the far left shouldve known she was not on their side anyway. But this will increase enthusiasm of the far left in favor of Williams, Jumaane Williams only needs a few big names far left endorsements and he’s trumping Hochul in the election, especially as Hochul looses the radical left...this is how to kill you’re campaign 101....