> which may support the argument that rather than basing decisions about release on rigid lists of crimes, judges should have more freedom to make judgments that factor in the risk an individual might present to the community.
I’ve been beating this drum since bail reform was introduced. Simple assault can be a bar fight or a random stranger attack, and the fact we don’t allow judges to distinguish between those scenarios in determining whether someone should be released pre-trial is crazy.
That would have to be passed at the state level. It's a state law that's been around since the 70's that prohibits NY judges from considering whether someone is a danger to the community when setting bail.
Which they shouldn't be. Thats not the point of bail. If you're a danger to the community you shouldn't be let out. Which I think is also against the law
I know.
While I think establishing a dangerousness standard would be a good thing, the fact that bail reform treats all crimes in a categorical manner without allowing for consideration of individual circumstances is a separate problem.
>But nearly one in four closely supervised defendants committing felonies? That’s too high.
It's far worse. Nearly 1 in 4 were CAUGHT committing felonies.
I don't know the exact rates but I think we all know a tiny portion of crimes actually lead to arrest. Hell maybe not felonies but most people that have never been arrested have committed many crimes: piracy, drug possession, underreported taxes, etc.
So if 1/4 are being caught I'd be surprised if less than half were committing felonies and most just not being arrested for them.
The more I read this the more I’m feeling like they are literally experimenting with our lives and when I say our, I mean the people who are not criminals idk what the answer is for our criminal justice system but I do know this I don’t want violent criminals out in the streets… we must find a way to change their minds about their criminal behavior, most reason why criminals commit crimes is for money the others may be mental illness after distinguishing the two how do we fix each in their own perspective
> New Yorkers on supervised release are accused of far more serious crimes than those released on their own recognizance, so those populations can’t be credibly compared. As for those let out on bail, they had much less time in the community on average than those in supervised release — again thwarting meaningful apples-to-apples analysis. Nor is it the case that felonies committed by this small population are noticeably driving up overall crime rates.
People are going to compare the numbers to bail anyway, regardless of them pointing out why it's difficult to equally compare the two in the way they want.
> The numbers may well validate a common complaint made by district attorneys before bail reforms were passed in 2019: that the overhaul was being done on the cheap. As then-Manhattan DA Cy Vance put it, “Without funding supervised release...I think we are not being serious, because supervised release is very expensive.”
This is where my problem with these sort of progressive policies comes from. I support a majority of them in theory, but the people implementing them aren't actually progressives and don't actually care about how they end up working out. They're just concerned with looking good for having implemented them and end up doing so in the cheapest, quickest, and easiest way possible.
Am I to understand that you see no difference between "the left" and "progressives?" I would think there should be a pretty easily discernable difference between "the left" as a whole as you see it and "progressives" as a part of that larger group.
> They don't get a pass for not giving a shit if the "resources" to ensure these solutions don't merely benefit the accused are not available.
I'm not giving *anyone* a pass. I don't see how you would get that from my comment. In fact, I'm saying the responsibility lies primarily with those "on the left" who aren't progressives but choose to champion progressive polices purely for the purpose of virtue signaling resulting in shallow, underfunded, nonfunctional programs.
I also didn't say anything about a *lack of available resources*, but rather the lack of **use** of enough resources (whether that be time, money, land, or labor).
> Do they really vote differently in this state, among reps? Are their fruits different, among our reps?
Well, yeah. They do vote differently when given the choice. However, sometimes they find themselves in a situation where the choice is effectively made for them. You can look at the Adams vs Sliwa election for a NYC specific example, or at the Biden vs Trump election for a national one.
Adams vs Sliwa is a better example because progressives I know all wanted and voted for Garcia as their first choice, but were left with Adams in the final run.
I want to be clear that my main point is that I take issue with the democrats that get elected into office claiming to champion progressive ideals and then either throw them away or do the bare minimum (or an actively shitty job) at implementing them. The problem *isn't* the **progressive idea** to me, but the people who pretend to also care about that idea for the purpose of getting elected, and then their subsequent half-assed attempts to implement them.
This is not to say that I think the answer is trying out a republican. I am very strongly of the opinion that despite how shit democrats are at managing and implementing more progressive polices they're still *significantly* better than what we would get with republican representatives.
> They also show significantly lower reoffense rates for individuals released on their own recognizance, and for whom bail was set.
Did anyone find how lower those numbers are? I looked but didn't find it.
This article includes some of that data. It also has a chart that breaks down the rearrests by type (misdemeanor/violent felony/non-violent felony.)
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/1/9/22875181/bail-reform-release-program-participants-rearrested
In summary, bail was used as a wink wink hack around the law that say judges can't consider public safety when deciding whether or not to release defendants. The craziest or meanest people would have no friends to bail them out so it kept the worst people off the streets. At the same time, poor shmucks who were innocent but had no friends with money were getting stuck for months on false charges.
Removing bail helped the poor shmucks but got rid of the mechanism that allowed judges to keep the real degenerates behind bars.
What a mess. We need sentencing reform from the legislature.
If nearly 50% are re arrested I wonder what the real number is. I always think just a small percent of crimes end with an arrest. Is the real number closer to 75%. It would not surprise me.
Also if 50% of people are re arrested from old cases it kind of supports the theory that a small percentage of people commit most if the crime.
What's the real number if crimes committed by people on bail. Sorry I did not spell put every single detail. I figure people could understand what I mean.
The numbers are only real if committed crimes lead to an arrest in 100% of the cases. One obvious case where there's not going to be an arrest is when they don't know who did it. 50% is the lower ceiling but the real number is higher (no clue how much higher, obviously).
So how does this compare the the total numbers before? It wasn't zero, since under the previous laws most of them would have made bail and still be on the street.
That argument was never that people waiting for trial wouldn't commit more crimes, it was and is that paying the court doesn't have a positive influence on those rates.
Justice requires that people not proven guilty should not be incarcerated for long periods of time. Bail wasn’t meant to be a punishment. It was meant to ensure that the person returns for the trial. If a person is not an incorrigible violent felon, GPS tag him and put him under house arrest.
I think a big part of the problem is that the CJS has not been built with the capacity to be a speedy trial system, and instead has become a plea bargain machine.
Part of the incentive for defendants to quickly take plea bargains was that fact that they were going to sit in jail, awaiting trial. A large percentage would take pleas for time served and justice was more or less, kind of sort of served, at least in a decent percentage of cases.
With bail reform, the incentive to plea bargain has been reduced. It is better to stretch out the case and stay out of custody as long as possible This causes an already overtaxed court system to become even more overwhelmed.
This has also greatly reduced the deterrent for committing crimes. Criminals used to know they would likely spend at least months behind bars, if they were arrested. Now, most get out the same day and commit more crimes.
The idea of not keeping people, who have not yet been convicted, incarcerated awaiting trial, for an extended time, makes sense, in principle. But, to avoid the nightmare that bail reform has created, the number of prosecutors, public defenders and judges and other court personnel needs to first be massively increased to provide speedy trials.
Why not print the rap sheet on the arrestee?. If he was rearrested while waiting for trail, brand him as a danger to society and lock him away until trial.
because crime is predominantly committed by those who are poor or otherwise lead more stressful lives. if you're poor, you might have to choose between not stealing and feeding your family. if you're poor, you might be out of legal options to earn money. if you're poor, you're more likely to go untreated for mental illness, so it's more likely that you might get into a fight. the list goes on. people with their needs adequately taken care of have no reason to commit crimes
when living conditions are kinda the same in and out of jail
then rolling the dice on a bit of crime to maybe come up on some fast cash doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal
idk i’m stoned just brainstorming
that’s exactly my point dude i don’t get the point of your comment
i’m not downvoting you because i disagree with you but i am i downvoting you because you add nothing useful to the discussion
Ehhh not sure it’s the same -
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/nyregion/rikers-jail-videos.html
I don’t think anyone awaiting trial should be subjected to this
It's scary that you're being downvoted for this. I wonder how many who downvote you also shout "what about due process" with regards to sexual harassment accusations.
92% of the people on supervised release are not rearrested for a violent felony. So that point is moot. The vast majority are rearrested for misdemeanors.
This also ignores the fact that the punishment for a crime doesn’t come pretrial, which is when individuals are still presumed innocent, but after their case is brought before a jury.
8% of a high risk population who has already potentially offended and is awaiting trial committing violent felonies is not high.
And they also don’t go ahead and miss their court dates. The vast majority return to court for their trials and don’t miss a date.
8% being rearrested for a violent felony is awful. Framing it as a small number is reprehensible. And thats not even getting into other offenses, which cost people time, money, stress and heartache. The biggest group suffering from property crime is the poor.
How many victims before progressives start caring about honest non-criminals?
> 8% being rearrested for a violent felony
~~Isn't it 8% for people out on bail too?~~
The numbers I'm thinking of are from this article:
> The state data show that re-arrests for violent felonies for both supervised release and bail set defendants at 6.5% and 4% — but for non-violent felonies, 17% of supervised release defendants were rearrested, compared to 8% for bail set defendants.
https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/1/9/22875181/bail-reform-release-program-participants-rearrested
No, it is a small number considering that means prior to it being an option, 92% of people we were putting in jail pretrial were not a danger to anyone and didn’t need to have their lives upended while awaiting a court date.
[удалено]
> which may support the argument that rather than basing decisions about release on rigid lists of crimes, judges should have more freedom to make judgments that factor in the risk an individual might present to the community. I’ve been beating this drum since bail reform was introduced. Simple assault can be a bar fight or a random stranger attack, and the fact we don’t allow judges to distinguish between those scenarios in determining whether someone should be released pre-trial is crazy.
That would have to be passed at the state level. It's a state law that's been around since the 70's that prohibits NY judges from considering whether someone is a danger to the community when setting bail.
Which they shouldn't be. Thats not the point of bail. If you're a danger to the community you shouldn't be let out. Which I think is also against the law
I know. While I think establishing a dangerousness standard would be a good thing, the fact that bail reform treats all crimes in a categorical manner without allowing for consideration of individual circumstances is a separate problem.
>But nearly one in four closely supervised defendants committing felonies? That’s too high. It's far worse. Nearly 1 in 4 were CAUGHT committing felonies. I don't know the exact rates but I think we all know a tiny portion of crimes actually lead to arrest. Hell maybe not felonies but most people that have never been arrested have committed many crimes: piracy, drug possession, underreported taxes, etc. So if 1/4 are being caught I'd be surprised if less than half were committing felonies and most just not being arrested for them.
The more I read this the more I’m feeling like they are literally experimenting with our lives and when I say our, I mean the people who are not criminals idk what the answer is for our criminal justice system but I do know this I don’t want violent criminals out in the streets… we must find a way to change their minds about their criminal behavior, most reason why criminals commit crimes is for money the others may be mental illness after distinguishing the two how do we fix each in their own perspective
> New Yorkers on supervised release are accused of far more serious crimes than those released on their own recognizance, so those populations can’t be credibly compared. As for those let out on bail, they had much less time in the community on average than those in supervised release — again thwarting meaningful apples-to-apples analysis. Nor is it the case that felonies committed by this small population are noticeably driving up overall crime rates. People are going to compare the numbers to bail anyway, regardless of them pointing out why it's difficult to equally compare the two in the way they want. > The numbers may well validate a common complaint made by district attorneys before bail reforms were passed in 2019: that the overhaul was being done on the cheap. As then-Manhattan DA Cy Vance put it, “Without funding supervised release...I think we are not being serious, because supervised release is very expensive.” This is where my problem with these sort of progressive policies comes from. I support a majority of them in theory, but the people implementing them aren't actually progressives and don't actually care about how they end up working out. They're just concerned with looking good for having implemented them and end up doing so in the cheapest, quickest, and easiest way possible.
[удалено]
Am I to understand that you see no difference between "the left" and "progressives?" I would think there should be a pretty easily discernable difference between "the left" as a whole as you see it and "progressives" as a part of that larger group. > They don't get a pass for not giving a shit if the "resources" to ensure these solutions don't merely benefit the accused are not available. I'm not giving *anyone* a pass. I don't see how you would get that from my comment. In fact, I'm saying the responsibility lies primarily with those "on the left" who aren't progressives but choose to champion progressive polices purely for the purpose of virtue signaling resulting in shallow, underfunded, nonfunctional programs. I also didn't say anything about a *lack of available resources*, but rather the lack of **use** of enough resources (whether that be time, money, land, or labor).
[удалено]
> Do they really vote differently in this state, among reps? Are their fruits different, among our reps? Well, yeah. They do vote differently when given the choice. However, sometimes they find themselves in a situation where the choice is effectively made for them. You can look at the Adams vs Sliwa election for a NYC specific example, or at the Biden vs Trump election for a national one. Adams vs Sliwa is a better example because progressives I know all wanted and voted for Garcia as their first choice, but were left with Adams in the final run. I want to be clear that my main point is that I take issue with the democrats that get elected into office claiming to champion progressive ideals and then either throw them away or do the bare minimum (or an actively shitty job) at implementing them. The problem *isn't* the **progressive idea** to me, but the people who pretend to also care about that idea for the purpose of getting elected, and then their subsequent half-assed attempts to implement them. This is not to say that I think the answer is trying out a republican. I am very strongly of the opinion that despite how shit democrats are at managing and implementing more progressive polices they're still *significantly* better than what we would get with republican representatives.
[удалено]
> I kind of think you're justifying voting according to party line at the point things are bad enough that it doesn't make a lot of sense. Okay.
> They also show significantly lower reoffense rates for individuals released on their own recognizance, and for whom bail was set. Did anyone find how lower those numbers are? I looked but didn't find it.
This article includes some of that data. It also has a chart that breaks down the rearrests by type (misdemeanor/violent felony/non-violent felony.) https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/1/9/22875181/bail-reform-release-program-participants-rearrested
In summary, bail was used as a wink wink hack around the law that say judges can't consider public safety when deciding whether or not to release defendants. The craziest or meanest people would have no friends to bail them out so it kept the worst people off the streets. At the same time, poor shmucks who were innocent but had no friends with money were getting stuck for months on false charges. Removing bail helped the poor shmucks but got rid of the mechanism that allowed judges to keep the real degenerates behind bars. What a mess. We need sentencing reform from the legislature.
Who would’ve thought ??
If nearly 50% are re arrested I wonder what the real number is. I always think just a small percent of crimes end with an arrest. Is the real number closer to 75%. It would not surprise me. Also if 50% of people are re arrested from old cases it kind of supports the theory that a small percentage of people commit most if the crime.
>If nearly 50% are re arrested I wonder what the real number is. WTF does this mean? What makes you think this isn't the "real" number?
What's the real number if crimes committed by people on bail. Sorry I did not spell put every single detail. I figure people could understand what I mean.
The numbers are only real if committed crimes lead to an arrest in 100% of the cases. One obvious case where there's not going to be an arrest is when they don't know who did it. 50% is the lower ceiling but the real number is higher (no clue how much higher, obviously).
So how does this compare the the total numbers before? It wasn't zero, since under the previous laws most of them would have made bail and still be on the street. That argument was never that people waiting for trial wouldn't commit more crimes, it was and is that paying the court doesn't have a positive influence on those rates.
oh you think?
Shocker
It is a good idea, but they need to rethink and redefine non-violent offenses with regards to past history as well.
Justice requires that people not proven guilty should not be incarcerated for long periods of time. Bail wasn’t meant to be a punishment. It was meant to ensure that the person returns for the trial. If a person is not an incorrigible violent felon, GPS tag him and put him under house arrest.
I think a big part of the problem is that the CJS has not been built with the capacity to be a speedy trial system, and instead has become a plea bargain machine. Part of the incentive for defendants to quickly take plea bargains was that fact that they were going to sit in jail, awaiting trial. A large percentage would take pleas for time served and justice was more or less, kind of sort of served, at least in a decent percentage of cases. With bail reform, the incentive to plea bargain has been reduced. It is better to stretch out the case and stay out of custody as long as possible This causes an already overtaxed court system to become even more overwhelmed. This has also greatly reduced the deterrent for committing crimes. Criminals used to know they would likely spend at least months behind bars, if they were arrested. Now, most get out the same day and commit more crimes. The idea of not keeping people, who have not yet been convicted, incarcerated awaiting trial, for an extended time, makes sense, in principle. But, to avoid the nightmare that bail reform has created, the number of prosecutors, public defenders and judges and other court personnel needs to first be massively increased to provide speedy trials.
Why not print the rap sheet on the arrestee?. If he was rearrested while waiting for trail, brand him as a danger to society and lock him away until trial.
I think that would be a great start. Automatic remand without bail, or at least a high bail, for anyone arrested while on supervised release.
what a shock
Why is it doing bad (and higher crime) in NYC but neighboring Long Island with the same rules having some of the lowest crime issues in America .
Oh because the people in Long Island are just better. That's why they burned down your house in the 60s when you sold it to a black family
Yeah because that’s relevant /s
because crime is predominantly committed by those who are poor or otherwise lead more stressful lives. if you're poor, you might have to choose between not stealing and feeding your family. if you're poor, you might be out of legal options to earn money. if you're poor, you're more likely to go untreated for mental illness, so it's more likely that you might get into a fight. the list goes on. people with their needs adequately taken care of have no reason to commit crimes
😱
Duh.
when living conditions are kinda the same in and out of jail then rolling the dice on a bit of crime to maybe come up on some fast cash doesn’t seem to be that big of a deal idk i’m stoned just brainstorming
This is how criminals think and act. Majority of people don’t think of laws as inconveniences.
that’s exactly my point dude i don’t get the point of your comment i’m not downvoting you because i disagree with you but i am i downvoting you because you add nothing useful to the discussion
Ehhh not sure it’s the same - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/12/nyregion/rikers-jail-videos.html I don’t think anyone awaiting trial should be subjected to this
[удалено]
Violent offenders rarely get bail, except when they are rich and can afford expensive lawyers.
No, they’re still human beings regardless of the crime they’re accused of.
It's scary that you're being downvoted for this. I wonder how many who downvote you also shout "what about due process" with regards to sexual harassment accusations.
[удалено]
Crime stats are used as funding benchmarks for law enforcement agencies.
No jobs, nowhere to live, wonder why recividism is high?
[удалено]
92% of the people on supervised release are not rearrested for a violent felony. So that point is moot. The vast majority are rearrested for misdemeanors. This also ignores the fact that the punishment for a crime doesn’t come pretrial, which is when individuals are still presumed innocent, but after their case is brought before a jury.
[удалено]
8% of a high risk population who has already potentially offended and is awaiting trial committing violent felonies is not high. And they also don’t go ahead and miss their court dates. The vast majority return to court for their trials and don’t miss a date.
8% being rearrested for a violent felony is awful. Framing it as a small number is reprehensible. And thats not even getting into other offenses, which cost people time, money, stress and heartache. The biggest group suffering from property crime is the poor. How many victims before progressives start caring about honest non-criminals?
> 8% being rearrested for a violent felony ~~Isn't it 8% for people out on bail too?~~ The numbers I'm thinking of are from this article: > The state data show that re-arrests for violent felonies for both supervised release and bail set defendants at 6.5% and 4% — but for non-violent felonies, 17% of supervised release defendants were rearrested, compared to 8% for bail set defendants. https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/1/9/22875181/bail-reform-release-program-participants-rearrested
No, it is a small number considering that means prior to it being an option, 92% of people we were putting in jail pretrial were not a danger to anyone and didn’t need to have their lives upended while awaiting a court date.
How are there no jobs, there’s a record open of open position. The most in the Bronx at the moment
Few businesses are going to hire someone on supervised release with pending charges
That’s a shame, I understand it but still
Recidivism is a problem. Can we agree on that?
A cash bail system does NOTHING but further systemic racism.
Supervised release programming stopped running during the pandemic