11 ms·

Cops are making fewer arrests since N.J. got rid of cash bail

lacksconfidence 7y ago
Link to study: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_New_Jersey_Report_%231.pdf https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_New_Jersey_Repo...
- jgmjgm 7y ago
  Awesome. Thanks for this. I really didn't like the visualization in the article since it was unclear if it was just a seasonal effect and there were no confidence intervals. The report is much, much better. Perhaps useful to note that the results hold for minor/non-indictable offenses. However, I'm out of my depth on the more nuanced legal aspects in the report.
pjc50 7y ago
Like a lot of pieces of the "justice" system, cash bail was more effective at creating poverty and crime than deterring it. The UK got rid of it years ago for all but exceptional circumstances.
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  I don't think this is entirely true. The fascist† tendencies of those in charge created poverty and crime, but these tendencies are more the natural state of man than any personal moral failing.‡ In the early US it was pretty rare for law enforcement to actually do anything, because somebody had to pay for it. This was entirely intentional. Cash bail was a minimal check on getting somebody to show up but not having to spend the money to hold them. A more serious crime might be tried in a matter of days, and even then many crimes did not end in a prison sentence as that cost money. Unless you were a cattle rustler, pirate, or murderer you were probably coming back because the law was minimal, usually made sense, and the punishments likewise. As government has grown there is more money to fund the police force, legal system, and penitentiaries. Cash bail has moved from a cost minimization mechanism to a revenue source. The larger component to this, I think, is the ease with which someone may eventually be caught; in the early US you could simply go somewhere else. Now, the government is omniscient and all encompassing, and the power to destroy your life is available to any drooling policeman or prosecutor in any state. You can no longer escape a crooked local government by moving. States work together to enforce their smallest and most objectionable laws and any violation can severely restrict your ability to live your life within the country. † I think evaluating a lot of societal structures for fascist elements makes sense, the main concept being authoritarianism and suppression. Something does not need to be entirely fascist to have fascist elements. ‡ Though this should not be interpreted as accepting people should not try to improve.
  - chrisdhoover 7y ago
    Fascist is word losing its meaning. Its use should be limited to WW2 in my opinion. Replacing the word with authoritarian in your post would allow for the inclusion of other types of oppressive regimes.
    - Kye 7y ago
      Fascist has long been a synonym for authoritarian. I don't know why so many people suddenly take issue with it. Terms for social and political movements often come to refer to sets of behaviors associated with those movements.
      - viridian 7y ago
        Fascism is a well defined political ideology that doesn't just boil down to authority = good, though. It's like if people equated having a strong head of state with monarchism. In doing so you throw away 95% of the ideology, and use it as a synonym for a much simpler idea.
      - JohnFen 7y ago
        > Fascist has long been a synonym for authoritarian. I don't know why so many people suddenly take issue with it. "Fascist" means something much more specific than just "authoritarian". Far from suddenly taking issue with the misuse of the term, I have always chafed at its misuse. That said, I don't agree with chrisdhoover that "fascist" should only be used in a WWII context. Real fascism existed long before WWII, and still exists today.
      - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
        I disagree. In my city of Bloomington, IN, we have a city run farmers market with known and admitted members of Identify Evropa (now American Identity Movement). Digging into what they want mirrors a "white ethnostate" with strong Nazi tendencies. When the call theselves "volkmom" and talk of lebensraum, the idea of fascism isn't some 80 year old quaint idea. Now, the city cannot remove her, as she has been accused of nothing illegal. And it's a government run market. But last week, was a protest that lead to the arrest (but not detained) of 5 protesters. That ended up in Newsweek. Where I'm sitting, it's right there and up front.
- gizmo686 7y ago
  What qualifies as "exceptional circumstances"? Cash bail claims to be the middle ground between "we trust you enough to show up in your own" and "we distrust you enough to incarcerate you until this is resolved."
  - pjc50 7y ago
    https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/bail/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/bail/ a bit of an explainer. I'm not too sure what the circumstances are, but there is no professional bail loan industry and the only famous case I can think of is .. Julian Assange, who jumped bail. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange...
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    I think you should look at it in reverse. Why have cash bail? To save money and time. But when the state becomes technologically advanced enough that catching the accused is inevitable cash bail stops being an incentive that benefits the government unless it can be used to actively generate revenue. By disallowing cash bail you are forced to hold everyone that is accused and if you were enforcing bad laws for revenue generation this becomes expensive, not profitable. The bail system is very profit driven, even on the government side. The existence of bondsmen has tended to increase the bail that is set for nonviolent, almost civil offenses. What becomes exceptional then is basically just capital crimes.
    - zepto 7y ago
      Catching the accused is nowhere near inevitable so why is this relevant?
      - snagglegaggle 7y ago
        For many crimes they just don't bother looking for you because you will eventually need to resolve the issue. This makes it seem like it is easier to hide than it is, but you're not really hiding. I guess what I am trying to capture is the difference in active vs. passive policing. Have you ever tried to evade the law? You can't get a driver's license or nondriver's identification card, as the warrant prevents you from renewing or they stall you for arrest; you can't apply for social benefits, as you need ID; you can't take most jobs, as they are linked to your identity; and you can't get a passport and often can't leave the country. Going out can be hazardous as even if you don't need to provide ID you might get arrested for not doing so anyway, and social functions may request an ID either for serving alcohol or for admission. If you do get out of the country, you'd have similar or worse problems in Canada, and Mexico is far less amenable to undocumented transients than it used to be. Going further south might be an option but you're now talking about relocating to a different culture at considerable expense. Unless you're a well-off murderer the cost-benefit is not in favor of this.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  This seems like the kind of fact that would change over time. The subset of people that get arrested and the means and incentives to get them to show up for trial have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention the nature of crime itself.
mxuribe 7y ago
It looks like the change to the bail side might be good (avoiding pushing ever more people into poverty, which some believe pushes some people into more crime, etc.). But a little nervous about the use of algorithms here.
- moate 7y ago
  Agreed about the algo usage, but NJ's is much more open than in other states. The formula is available to the public. Obviously "racist data in, racist outcomes" but that's why it's super important to monitor the data put in and the outcomes and articles like this are part of it. Like people in the article said, it's not perfect but it's a great improvement over the old way.
- Wohlf 7y ago
  The alternative is the unknown human biases of random judges. At least an algorithm can be audited and changed.
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    Judges are elected and can be recalled in many states. Their stances and rules are usually public, too. Why would someones proprietary codebase be more accessible than public court documents?
    - moate 7y ago
      The process/decision tree is open and transparent. There's still going to be the potential for implicit bias in the system, but there's no way to remove that entirely from the process (I guess unless you move to a luck based system in which the decision is just made randomly, but nobody would like that)
      - rob-olmos 7y ago
        I have doubts the algorithm would be a decision tree, or capable of being contained in one. I feel like at some point it would use or be an ML model. Would a model also be open and transparent? It would at least be open & testable, but I'm not sure about transparent for easily identifying any biases.
junaru 7y ago
The general move towards "crime is no big deal" and "should not impact you later in life" is quite disgusting. When it comes to trusting anyone about an outcome of policy one chooses to listen either to the people who deal with it on a daily basis or people who want to make careers from it. This article is clearly written by the later, it even mentions the changes in practices but quickly dismisses them as not fitting the narrative. The best way to reduce crime is to change its definition.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  >The best way to reduce crime is to change its definition. Problem is, that's also the best way to increase crime when your budget depends on it.
  - mhd 7y ago
    Does NJ still do civil asset forfeiture? That's another weird thing about US policing for my German mindset, and as opposed to cash bails it doesn't even have a cool Lee Majors TV series attached to it. I do remember that the municipial nature of PDs was also a bit troublesome to me.
    - kaycebasques 7y ago
      What about municipal PDs is troublesome to you?
      - HarryHirsch 7y ago
        Mostly the local oversight of the local force. The overly cozy arrangement just invites corruption.
      - petschge 7y ago
        No training standards, not larger-scale oversight, a lot of "we have always done it like this here", a lot of "I know the DA and the judge because we go to the same BBQs", incentives to contribute to the (very local and therefore very noticeable) general fund through fines and civil forfeiture, the list goes on. Basically a police that is the strongest gang in town rather than a professional and slightly anonymous representation of the law. Which in the end makes it less likely that the law applies the same to all, irrespective of the person.
peterwwillis 7y ago
Once I was pulled over for a tail light out, and it turned out my license was expired. In DC, this means you immediately go to jail. Once I arrived at jail, they informed me that if I had $80 cash on hand, I could go free and show up for trial; otherwise it could take up to 24 hours for me to see a judge, who would then tell me I could go free until trial. If I were someone else, without cash on hand, with a temporary job and kids, I would have missed work and not been able to pick up my kids from school and feed them, to say nothing of paying hundreds to get my car out of an impound lot. I realized then that the justice system is a machine that creates poverty.
- SN76477 7y ago
  Correct, it creates what is essentially a negative feedback loop.
  - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
    This is a positive feedback loop. For feedback, "positive" means that feedback is in the direction of error and tends to quickly exacerbate things. "Negative feedback" is against the direction of error and tends to stabilize the behavior of the system.
    - peterwwillis 7y ago
      Simplified: positive feedback loops increase things (plus); negative feedback loops decrease things (minus). Negative feedback can be good because it can reduce bad things, whereas positive feedback can be bad because it can increase bad things. But you can also reduce bad things, or increase good things.
      - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
        No, that's not quite correct. Positive feedback can either increase or decrease the variable under control. As an example, consider an inverted pendulum. A small swing to the side of upright causes the weight of the pendulum to drag it further to that side of upright. This occurs in both directions of the stable point and is always positive feedback, regardless of the direction.
_sbrk 7y ago
Take a US currency note out of your pocket. Read just below the Federal Reserve System seal: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Until they take that off the notes, I'll continue paying in cash, thank you very much.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  What does this have to do with the topic at hand? "Cash bail" going away doesn't mean they're requiring a check or credit card.
- moate 7y ago
  "Cash Bail" doesn't mean "pay your bail with cash currency" it means "you're kept in jail unless funds are provided as collateral". You do you mister patriot cash man sir.
pmoriarty 7y ago
I wonder how many fewer arrests they'd make if they got rid of asset forfeiture.
- Mountain_Skies 7y ago
  Isn't one of the big issues with asset forfeiture that the police are able to do it without actually charging you with anything? Instead they charge the asset itself.
  - r00fus 7y ago
    > Instead they charge the asset itself. It's a ludicrous assertion, to be sure. Imagine: "we're not holding you, but only the iron in your blood".
tvaughan 7y ago
Chesa Boudin, San Francisco's new District Attorney and son of two former members of the Weather Underground, ran on a progressive platform that included ending cash bail. This is part of a broader movement of judicial reform advocates who advance their policies by taking the District Attorney's office. https://youtu.be/GbILs4N4bLE https://youtu.be/GbILs4N4bLE
bitcurious 7y ago
I imagine that the kind of administration that's willing to end cash bail is also the kind of administration that pushes for community policing, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions.
- jMyles 7y ago
  Is community policing tied to fewer arrests? I haven't ever seen hard numbers on this. According to Derecka Purnell and Marbre Stahly-Butts[0]: > Community policing is an empty phrase. A Washington Post report showed that law enforcement use of force in half of police departments with consent decrees. Asking police officers to strengthen community relationships — including by doing things like playing football with children or handing out ice cream — does not reduce their power to harm anyone. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/the-police-cant-solve-the-problem-they-are-the-problem.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/the-police-cant-s...
newnewpdro 7y ago
California did this then it got pushed to a 2020 ballot initiative SB10 after an opposing coalition collected > 575,000 signatures in 70 days. https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article224682595.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article224682595.html
ummonk 7y ago
>Now, judges weigh whether to lock somebody up, slap an ankle bracelet on them or release them without conditions with the help of a public safety assessment. This seems very reasonable. Either somebody is too dangerous to let out, or is safe but might flee in which case ankle monitor seems like a better bet, both because it keeps people from rotting in jail for being too poor to make bail and because bail isn’t as good a deterrent to flight as an ankle monitor. And if someone is safe and isn’t a flight risk, just let them out without bail.
prepend 7y ago
I had to bail someone out once. Both misdemeanors both set to statutory bail of $350. Since it was so low, I just went to jail with $700 to bail them out. The cashier said I had to pay $810 as there was a $110 fee to fund some police initiative. The $700 was paid back when the bailee showed up. The $110 was a fee lost even if the bailee was acquitted. I never knew about this fee, when I complained to my city council member he said not to commit any crimes. There are many rackets just finding inefficiencies in justice that I’m glad to see we’re slowly chipping away at them.
- merpnderp 7y ago
  This seems unconstitutional since bail isn’t punishment as no one has been found guilty. Your city councilman is not a moral person.
  - prepend 7y ago
    I agree on both counts. I didn’t vote for that person but he’s still in office.

Link to study: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_New_Jersey_Report_%231.pdf https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_New_Jersey_Repo...

jgmjgm 7y ago
Awesome. Thanks for this. I really didn't like the visualization in the article since it was unclear if it was just a seasonal effect and there were no confidence intervals. The report is much, much better. Perhaps useful to note that the results hold for minor/non-indictable offenses. However, I'm out of my depth on the more nuanced legal aspects in the report.

pjc50 7y ago

Like a lot of pieces of the "justice" system, cash bail was more effective at creating poverty and crime than deterring it. The UK got rid of it years ago for all but exceptional circumstances.

snagglegaggle 7y ago
I don't think this is entirely true. The fascist† tendencies of those in charge created poverty and crime, but these tendencies are more the natural state of man than any personal moral failing.‡ In the early US it was pretty rare for law enforcement to actually do anything, because somebody had to pay for it. This was entirely intentional. Cash bail was a minimal check on getting somebody to show up but not having to spend the money to hold them. A more serious crime might be tried in a matter of days, and even then many crimes did not end in a prison sentence as that cost money. Unless you were a cattle rustler, pirate, or murderer you were probably coming back because the law was minimal, usually made sense, and the punishments likewise. As government has grown there is more money to fund the police force, legal system, and penitentiaries. Cash bail has moved from a cost minimization mechanism to a revenue source. The larger component to this, I think, is the ease with which someone may eventually be caught; in the early US you could simply go somewhere else. Now, the government is omniscient and all encompassing, and the power to destroy your life is available to any drooling policeman or prosecutor in any state. You can no longer escape a crooked local government by moving. States work together to enforce their smallest and most objectionable laws and any violation can severely restrict your ability to live your life within the country. † I think evaluating a lot of societal structures for fascist elements makes sense, the main concept being authoritarianism and suppression. Something does not need to be entirely fascist to have fascist elements. ‡ Though this should not be interpreted as accepting people should not try to improve.
- chrisdhoover 7y ago
  Fascist is word losing its meaning. Its use should be limited to WW2 in my opinion. Replacing the word with authoritarian in your post would allow for the inclusion of other types of oppressive regimes.
  - Kye 7y ago
    Fascist has long been a synonym for authoritarian. I don't know why so many people suddenly take issue with it. Terms for social and political movements often come to refer to sets of behaviors associated with those movements.
    - viridian 7y ago
      Fascism is a well defined political ideology that doesn't just boil down to authority = good, though. It's like if people equated having a strong head of state with monarchism. In doing so you throw away 95% of the ideology, and use it as a synonym for a much simpler idea.
    - JohnFen 7y ago
      > Fascist has long been a synonym for authoritarian. I don't know why so many people suddenly take issue with it. "Fascist" means something much more specific than just "authoritarian". Far from suddenly taking issue with the misuse of the term, I have always chafed at its misuse. That said, I don't agree with chrisdhoover that "fascist" should only be used in a WWII context. Real fascism existed long before WWII, and still exists today.
    - crankylinuxuser 7y ago
      I disagree. In my city of Bloomington, IN, we have a city run farmers market with known and admitted members of Identify Evropa (now American Identity Movement). Digging into what they want mirrors a "white ethnostate" with strong Nazi tendencies. When the call theselves "volkmom" and talk of lebensraum, the idea of fascism isn't some 80 year old quaint idea. Now, the city cannot remove her, as she has been accused of nothing illegal. And it's a government run market. But last week, was a protest that lead to the arrest (but not detained) of 5 protesters. That ended up in Newsweek. Where I'm sitting, it's right there and up front.
gizmo686 7y ago
What qualifies as "exceptional circumstances"? Cash bail claims to be the middle ground between "we trust you enough to show up in your own" and "we distrust you enough to incarcerate you until this is resolved."
- pjc50 7y ago
  https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/bail/ https://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/bail/ a bit of an explainer. I'm not too sure what the circumstances are, but there is no professional bail loan industry and the only famous case I can think of is .. Julian Assange, who jumped bail. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange-supporters-ordered-forfeit-bail https://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/oct/08/julian-assange...
- snagglegaggle 7y ago
  I think you should look at it in reverse. Why have cash bail? To save money and time. But when the state becomes technologically advanced enough that catching the accused is inevitable cash bail stops being an incentive that benefits the government unless it can be used to actively generate revenue. By disallowing cash bail you are forced to hold everyone that is accused and if you were enforcing bad laws for revenue generation this becomes expensive, not profitable. The bail system is very profit driven, even on the government side. The existence of bondsmen has tended to increase the bail that is set for nonviolent, almost civil offenses. What becomes exceptional then is basically just capital crimes.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Catching the accused is nowhere near inevitable so why is this relevant?
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      For many crimes they just don't bother looking for you because you will eventually need to resolve the issue. This makes it seem like it is easier to hide than it is, but you're not really hiding. I guess what I am trying to capture is the difference in active vs. passive policing. Have you ever tried to evade the law? You can't get a driver's license or nondriver's identification card, as the warrant prevents you from renewing or they stall you for arrest; you can't apply for social benefits, as you need ID; you can't take most jobs, as they are linked to your identity; and you can't get a passport and often can't leave the country. Going out can be hazardous as even if you don't need to provide ID you might get arrested for not doing so anyway, and social functions may request an ID either for serving alcohol or for admission. If you do get out of the country, you'd have similar or worse problems in Canada, and Mexico is far less amenable to undocumented transients than it used to be. Going further south might be an option but you're now talking about relocating to a different culture at considerable expense. Unless you're a well-off murderer the cost-benefit is not in favor of this.
jeffdavis 7y ago
This seems like the kind of fact that would change over time. The subset of people that get arrested and the means and incentives to get them to show up for trial have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention the nature of crime itself.

mxuribe 7y ago

It looks like the change to the bail side might be good (avoiding pushing ever more people into poverty, which some believe pushes some people into more crime, etc.). But a little nervous about the use of algorithms here.

moate 7y ago
Agreed about the algo usage, but NJ's is much more open than in other states. The formula is available to the public. Obviously "racist data in, racist outcomes" but that's why it's super important to monitor the data put in and the outcomes and articles like this are part of it. Like people in the article said, it's not perfect but it's a great improvement over the old way.
Wohlf 7y ago
The alternative is the unknown human biases of random judges. At least an algorithm can be audited and changed.
- blaser-waffle 7y ago
  Judges are elected and can be recalled in many states. Their stances and rules are usually public, too. Why would someones proprietary codebase be more accessible than public court documents?
  - moate 7y ago
    The process/decision tree is open and transparent. There's still going to be the potential for implicit bias in the system, but there's no way to remove that entirely from the process (I guess unless you move to a luck based system in which the decision is just made randomly, but nobody would like that)
    - rob-olmos 7y ago
      I have doubts the algorithm would be a decision tree, or capable of being contained in one. I feel like at some point it would use or be an ML model. Would a model also be open and transparent? It would at least be open & testable, but I'm not sure about transparent for easily identifying any biases.

junaru 7y ago

The general move towards "crime is no big deal" and "should not impact you later in life" is quite disgusting. When it comes to trusting anyone about an outcome of policy one chooses to listen either to the people who deal with it on a daily basis or people who want to make careers from it. This article is clearly written by the later, it even mentions the changes in practices but quickly dismisses them as not fitting the narrative. The best way to reduce crime is to change its definition.

leggomylibro 7y ago
>The best way to reduce crime is to change its definition. Problem is, that's also the best way to increase crime when your budget depends on it.
- mhd 7y ago
  Does NJ still do civil asset forfeiture? That's another weird thing about US policing for my German mindset, and as opposed to cash bails it doesn't even have a cool Lee Majors TV series attached to it. I do remember that the municipial nature of PDs was also a bit troublesome to me.
  - kaycebasques 7y ago
    What about municipal PDs is troublesome to you?
    - HarryHirsch 7y ago
      Mostly the local oversight of the local force. The overly cozy arrangement just invites corruption.
    - petschge 7y ago
      No training standards, not larger-scale oversight, a lot of "we have always done it like this here", a lot of "I know the DA and the judge because we go to the same BBQs", incentives to contribute to the (very local and therefore very noticeable) general fund through fines and civil forfeiture, the list goes on. Basically a police that is the strongest gang in town rather than a professional and slightly anonymous representation of the law. Which in the end makes it less likely that the law applies the same to all, irrespective of the person.

peterwwillis 7y ago

Once I was pulled over for a tail light out, and it turned out my license was expired. In DC, this means you immediately go to jail. Once I arrived at jail, they informed me that if I had $80 cash on hand, I could go free and show up for trial; otherwise it could take up to 24 hours for me to see a judge, who would then tell me I could go free until trial. If I were someone else, without cash on hand, with a temporary job and kids, I would have missed work and not been able to pick up my kids from school and feed them, to say nothing of paying hundreds to get my car out of an impound lot. I realized then that the justice system is a machine that creates poverty.

SN76477 7y ago
Correct, it creates what is essentially a negative feedback loop.
- ThrustVectoring 7y ago
  This is a positive feedback loop. For feedback, "positive" means that feedback is in the direction of error and tends to quickly exacerbate things. "Negative feedback" is against the direction of error and tends to stabilize the behavior of the system.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    Simplified: positive feedback loops increase things (plus); negative feedback loops decrease things (minus). Negative feedback can be good because it can reduce bad things, whereas positive feedback can be bad because it can increase bad things. But you can also reduce bad things, or increase good things.
    - ThrustVectoring 7y ago
      No, that's not quite correct. Positive feedback can either increase or decrease the variable under control. As an example, consider an inverted pendulum. A small swing to the side of upright causes the weight of the pendulum to drag it further to that side of upright. This occurs in both directions of the stable point and is always positive feedback, regardless of the direction.

_sbrk 7y ago

Take a US currency note out of your pocket. Read just below the Federal Reserve System seal: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." Until they take that off the notes, I'll continue paying in cash, thank you very much.

ceejayoz 7y ago
What does this have to do with the topic at hand? "Cash bail" going away doesn't mean they're requiring a check or credit card.
moate 7y ago
"Cash Bail" doesn't mean "pay your bail with cash currency" it means "you're kept in jail unless funds are provided as collateral". You do you mister patriot cash man sir.

pmoriarty 7y ago

I wonder how many fewer arrests they'd make if they got rid of asset forfeiture.

Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Isn't one of the big issues with asset forfeiture that the police are able to do it without actually charging you with anything? Instead they charge the asset itself.
- r00fus 7y ago
  > Instead they charge the asset itself. It's a ludicrous assertion, to be sure. Imagine: "we're not holding you, but only the iron in your blood".

tvaughan 7y ago

Chesa Boudin, San Francisco's new District Attorney and son of two former members of the Weather Underground, ran on a progressive platform that included ending cash bail. This is part of a broader movement of judicial reform advocates who advance their policies by taking the District Attorney's office. https://youtu.be/GbILs4N4bLE https://youtu.be/GbILs4N4bLE

bitcurious 7y ago

I imagine that the kind of administration that's willing to end cash bail is also the kind of administration that pushes for community policing, so I wouldn't draw any conclusions.

jMyles 7y ago
Is community policing tied to fewer arrests? I haven't ever seen hard numbers on this. According to Derecka Purnell and Marbre Stahly-Butts[0]: > Community policing is an empty phrase. A Washington Post report showed that law enforcement use of force in half of police departments with consent decrees. Asking police officers to strengthen community relationships — including by doing things like playing football with children or handing out ice cream — does not reduce their power to harm anyone. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/the-police-cant-solve-the-problem-they-are-the-problem.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/the-police-cant-s...

newnewpdro 7y ago

California did this then it got pushed to a 2020 ballot initiative SB10 after an opposing coalition collected > 575,000 signatures in 70 days. https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article224682595.html https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article224682595.html

ummonk 7y ago

>Now, judges weigh whether to lock somebody up, slap an ankle bracelet on them or release them without conditions with the help of a public safety assessment. This seems very reasonable. Either somebody is too dangerous to let out, or is safe but might flee in which case ankle monitor seems like a better bet, both because it keeps people from rotting in jail for being too poor to make bail and because bail isn’t as good a deterrent to flight as an ankle monitor. And if someone is safe and isn’t a flight risk, just let them out without bail.

prepend 7y ago

I had to bail someone out once. Both misdemeanors both set to statutory bail of $350. Since it was so low, I just went to jail with $700 to bail them out. The cashier said I had to pay $810 as there was a $110 fee to fund some police initiative. The $700 was paid back when the bailee showed up. The $110 was a fee lost even if the bailee was acquitted. I never knew about this fee, when I complained to my city council member he said not to commit any crimes. There are many rackets just finding inefficiencies in justice that I’m glad to see we’re slowly chipping away at them.

merpnderp 7y ago
This seems unconstitutional since bail isn’t punishment as no one has been found guilty. Your city councilman is not a moral person.
- prepend 7y ago
  I agree on both counts. I didn’t vote for that person but he’s still in office.