Again, we have actual trials and prison sentencing to “deter crime” and put criminals away. In the pre-trial process, you’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you have no issue with friends and family bailing out someone awaiting trial but have an issue with non-wealthy people doing the same thing for each other, I would question whether you’re actually being as logical and non-emotional as you claim.
TRHLIM
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Again, we have actual trials and prison sentencing to “deter crime” and put criminals away. In the pre-trial process, you’re presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you have no issue with friends and family bailing out someone awaiting trial but have an issue with non-wealthy people doing the same thing for each other, I would question whether you’re actually being as logical and non-emotional as you claim.
*cough* Darrell Edward Brooks Jr *cough*
Would you have had an issue if a trust fund kid was committing violence at the protest and was bailed out by family and friends?
Neither of these should happen. I find it a bit strange that you’d support the cash bail system given your views on the incompetence of the government. The government cannot be trusted with anything, but it’s great that someone must spend thousands of dollars based on the word of the government before their trial!
It should make everyone sick that someone murdered someone. However, that’s where I’d argue the emotional response is outweighing the logical response. You don’t hear the stories of all the people who got bailed out of jail that didn’t go commit a bunch of crimes, and I’m sure there were far, far more of those cases. Losing faith in a lot of people doesn’t mean you have to abandon your principles, and I just fail to see how you wouldn’t see this as government overreach.
sturg33
I
It's a nuanced discussion that requires a lot more thought than message board posturing.
But I'm of the position that people who commit violent crimes should have a challenging road to walk free. If that discriminates against poor people, well, most every law in existence does.
But I like my new idea of holding Kamala criminally liable for any additional crimes her bailed out person just committed. Think that might make those bailout decisions a bit more selective
But I'm of the position that people who commit violent crimes should have a challenging road to walk free. If that discriminates against poor people, well, most every law in existence does.
But I like my new idea of holding Kamala criminally liable for any additional crimes her bailed out person just committed. Think that might make those bailout decisions a bit more selective
When has that ever stopped anybody?
I’m okay with maintaining a middle ground where we don’t just release any and all those accused of a crime. However, I just can’t understand why the answer to that is possibly how much money the accused has access to. I’d argue for a more holistic approach that considers the crime and the history of the accused, and have it be a straight yes/no on whether the defendant needs to remain in jail pre-trial.
Becuase its a risked based approach to deterring crime.
The overwhelming majority of violent crime are perpetrated by those with little money. This shouldn't be a controversial statement to be made but rather an obvious one.
With that data point in hand the logical conclusion is to create policies that leverages that to deter future criminal activity.
Fun fact: you could just not release any person arrested for a violent crime. Judges routinely deny bail to defendants. Rather than put an astronomical amount of money out there that rich people can pay, just don’t allow for it at all.
Also, if it’s such an effective deterrent, why does violent crime still happen under the existing system?
Last edited:
What do you suppose the calculus looks like right now for a risk-averse criminal? Do you believe there are people about to rob a convenience store that have decided that risking a lengthy prison sentence is worth it, but because they know they can’t afford bail before the trial that they’re going to refrain? Are you expecting a bunch of people to decide to rob stores if there’s no cash bail because they calculate that they might get caught but released without bail and then live life as a fugitive?
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
They should be able to make a common sense judgement. For instance Kyle Rittenhouse should have been considered a low risk to commit crimes out on bail despite being accused of a violent crime. A person who breaks into a home and murders the resident should ne considered a high risk and not be on bail.
I understand the thought that people accused of violent crime shouldn't get jail but that will lead to innocent people serving long prison sentences despite never being convicted. Problem is Judges are butt buddies with prosecutors. I have seen people who are refused any bail spend 6 months in jail then released because the prosecution had no case to begin with. So dangerous he couldn't get bail, that was 10 years ago. Still hasn't committed any crime.
Except again for the part where you go to prison. I simply fail to see how that isn’t the “deterrent” that would override all others if a criminal is acting completely rationally.
Yeah, perhaps I was unclear. I support a non-cash bail system unless the judge justly rules that no release should be granted based on the circumstances. However, if given the option between just the current system and a system where everyone is on equal footing, I’d choose the latter. These reforms would need to go hand-in-hand with a robust change to our court system to prevent DAs and judges from purposely dragging out the process, particularly in non-violent crimes.