Violent Crime in America - It is only Going to Get Worse

You're still conflating being accused of a crime and being convicted of one. And an absolute cornerstone of our justice system is the sharp distinction made between the two. An accused citizen has all the rights he had prior to the accusation. And insofar as repeat offenses committed by those released on bail--that virtually nonexistent (despite all the tabloid horror stories) problem could be eradicated altogether by simply never granting bail. But if you give some people their freedom, some of them will commit crimes. Just as when you let somebody out of prison after ten years, they could walk directly to the nearest 7-11 and rob it. Or for that matter, when the cop who pulled you over allows you to sign the ticket and drive away, he doesn't KNOW that you'll show up in court. I don't like the fascist authoritarian alternative to all that. Very few guilty people were set free in Hitler's Germany. But still, somehow, that place wasn't a utopia.

I tried to explain to you that a lack of resources (including available jail cells) was a primary driver of making it relatively easy for defendants to post bail and escape pre-trial incarceration. The only way to head that off would be to throw everyone in the clink--and then somehow come up with the funding to do that. How? Raise taxes, or divert money from some other areas, like roads and schools and such. Neither move would be popular, especially among the bleaters who bitch about crime.

So it looks like you want (Republican) politicians to directly interfere with the judicial process? I don't like slippery slope arguments, but this would seem to be one of the first steps down such a slope. Many democracies that died started that exact way.

No, I'm not conflating a thing. All are innocent until proven guilty / take a plea in a court of law at some future point.. What I'm addressing  is the up front process undertaken early following suspect arrest by some DA's involving turning these suspects loose on the streets. Depending on the nature and severity of the charged crime itself, our laws don't support that action other than bail options.

We're never going to agree on this, so vote your conscience..

Why shouldn't someone who is accused of a crime be "turned loose"? They haven't been convicted of anything yet, so how do you justify preemptively punishing them?

Keep in mind that bail isn't supposed to be punitive; it's meant to assure that the accused shows up for trial.

I vote according to whether a candidate supports fundamental human rights--for EVERYBODY. So anyone pontificating that people accused of crimes should be treated as if they were automatically guilty wouldn't get my vote.

Unfortunately for both sides of this (and most) arguments, words (and their usage) have power, the power to sway or affirm a belief that may be unfair or incorrect, prejudicial, etc..  And not necessarily bad or vulgar words, just words, talk, etc.  An example of this is "an accused citizen"...having all the rights he had prior to the accusation.  TV news, newsprint, and now all the social media plagues out there) can design their headlines and stories so that an "accused" person is already guilty or otherwise damaged (reputation, career, etc.).  Otherwise, their product may not sell as well, right?  Got to keep it going.

Yes, that accused citizen has rights, but just ask any person, professional or otherwise mildly high profile (teacher, doctor, mayor, neighbor) how normal his/her life becomes the second an accusation is made public.  And unless the hearer or reader of such words and/or accusation has good discernment skills and intent...admit it...who doesn't take a little gasp...as in "gosh, he did that"?  The accusation becomes "fact" long before investigation.

JMHO.  

Candy

Oh, I agree with you. There wouldn't be any stigma attached to being accused if people understood that an accusation, even by duly constituted authority, doesn't mean jack diddly by itself. But so many people, particularly true-red conservatives who worship "law and order," think that an arrest is the same as a conviction.

I'm seeing this in all the recent RepubliQ political advertising. Joe Democrat is referred to in hushed, horrified tones as having been "accused" of something, mass murder, arson, jaywalking, whatever. By whom? When? Did anything come of it? Doesn't matter. In one instance, the accuser was Tucker Carlson--eight years ago. And as with everything Mother Tucker says, it was bullshit. But I doubt that one in a thousand people actually checked that out.

Returning to the issue of cash bail, the damage done to a person's life and reputation by a criminal accusation is yet another reason to modify the cash bail system. The truth is, bail is a seven centuries-old practice originating in English common law. But it's a LOT harder for someone to disappear now than it was then. And if the court is worried--why not make an ankle bracelet a condition of release?

Another reason for bail is to protect society from criminals & that they are a danger to society.  That is why bail for accused murderers is so high.

People who take an axe to a McDonalds shouldn't be let out without bail, who was rearrested a few weeks later.

When people are repeatedly arrested for felonies, they should be kept in jail. 

A Bronx man who put an innocent person in a coma, was released without bail even though this attack was a parole violation.  After an uproar he was imprisoned.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-man-released-without-bail-mcdonalds-ax-attack-arrested-again-released-without-bail.

 In June 2019, before the new laws took effect, a study in Queens and found that there were only 20 defendants held in city jails on Queens misdemeanor cases awaiting trial solely because they could not make bail. They had an average of 12 prior unsealed arrests, seven prior convictions and three prior bench warrants.

After the no bail law was passed, in New York City between July 1, 2020 and June 30, 2021, 26,535 people were arrested for a felony. 69% of them, 18,239, had a prior conviction or a pending case. 4,062 of these defendants were released on non-monetary release. Of the 4,062 released on NMR, 1,737, or 43%, were rearrested while their case was pending.

Note that in the above NYC refers to Manhattan only, not all 5 boroughs.

The re-arrest rates for defendants with pending cases or prior convictions released on NMR were 57% for home burglaries, 66% for commercial burglaries, 58% for grand larceny and 68% for petit larceny.

No, Tom, the purpose of bail isn't to "protect society from criminals"; criminals (as in, those actually convicted of crimes) aren't granted bail. (And please don't get all confused and refer to anyone convicted of a PRIOR offense as a "criminal"--that's called prejudice and is prohibited in the justice system. Someone convicted of twenty prior felonies still has the same rights at trial.)

Your misunderstanding of the purpose of bail is pretty typical for you and your kind. Obviously, if "protection" was the goal, there would be no bail at all, for anyone. Hitler's Germany, Soviet Russia,  communist China--they didn't have bail. And yeah, everyone was "safe."

And you seem really, really, really obsessed with those few sensationalist stories from the NYC tabloids--you've posted links to them several dozen times. We have tabloids here, too--but I laugh at them, rather than using them as sources of information. I learned that even before I became a grownup. You should, too.

This is an issue precisely because Tom's kind think everyone arrested or accused is a criminal and their rights are just silly formalities and can be safely ignored.

Why are alleged murderers & other violent suspects either not given bail or it is very high?  It is because they are dangerous to society. Bail should be higher for them & repeat offenders that have numerous cases pending already. 

The above studies show only a few people could not afford bail. The other study showed 43% of people released without bail were rearrested within a year. 

Since you are such a supporter of no bail, do you think the Jan 6 rioters should have been held without bail?

No. Almost all of them had minor or no criminal records. And despite their pissing on America, they retained the rights that being Americans granted them.

An ALLEGED murderer CANNOT be preemptively judged a "danger to society." If high bail is imposed, it's because the court thinks the defendant is a flight risk, NOT because the court has a crystal ball.

The purpose of bail is to ensure court appearances without the trouble and expense of incarceration of the accused. It is NOT to punish defendants, even if they've committed other crimes in the past.

But all this is waaaay over your head, isn't it?

Looks like you changed your mind with regards to Paul Pelosi's alleged attacker, eh Kev