6 ms·

So they were actually releasing dangerous criminals on to the streets. I fail to see how the claim is ridiculous.

jschwartzi 6y ago
In the United States our justice system applies the principal of "Innocent until proven guilty." In other words, when you are merely accused of a crime you are presumed to not be a criminal. The state has to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, the accused, committed the crime. People in Jail are not criminals until they are put on trial, convicted, and sentenced at which point they are convicts and go to prison.
- the-dude 6y ago
  Right, they are suspect. But this was not the point the parent was making. He was comparing the paying group to the non-paying group. If you release more, you have more suspect dangerous criminals on the streets.
  - close04 6y ago
    Wait, "dangerous" or "suspected dangerous"? Because most of the people in jail (not to be confused with prison/penitentiary) are not there for anything dangerous to begin with. A policeman decided they they should be locked up and that policeman doesn't need any particularly good reason for it.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > People in Jail are not criminals until they are put on trial, convicted, and sentenced at which point they are convicts and go to prison. For minor crimes (and in some places major crimes) they go to jail; the main jail/prison distinction in the US is that the former tends to be city or county and include pretrial detention and the latter tends to be state or federal and exclude pretrial detention. But jails, while they include pretrial detention, also include people serving sentences. > The state has to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, the accused, committed the crime. No, the required proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
- metrokoi 6y ago
  This is not correct. No one has a right to bail. It is perfectly legal to hold a defendant if they pose a flight risk or danger to the community. They are not criminals, but they are defendants. >Although the Eighth Amendment protects against excessive bail, there is not an absolute right to bail, as noted in The Bail Reform Act, 18 USC Chapter 207 (1984). Section 3142 of the Act denies bail to certain defendants pending trial, specifically denying bail to defendants likely to flee or pose a danger to society. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail
tartoran 6y ago
People who neglected paying parking tickets and the like due to mental health issues and rampant poverty. You should look more into it..
penagwin 6y ago
This is either sarcasm or you miss read something. * Person A and Person B commit an identical crime. * Person B is released because they have 10,000$ for bail * Person A doesn't have 10,000$ and because of this they cannot work and instead must stay in jail The point is that people don't consider Person A dangerous, and the only difference is how much money they have access to - so why is Person B dangerous and not A?
- the-dude 6y ago
  Neither. You state that "people don't consider Person A dangerous". That is not a fact and just your interpretation. A & B might both be dangerous. I would rather have 100 on the street instead of 200.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    I would rather have no dangerous criminals on the street instead of 200. But more than that, I would rather give everyone an equal opportunity. Being rich (or, having rich friends/family) and making bail is literally a direct contributor to racism. Nothing like taking "the poor" off the streets and then keeping them in jail because they don't have family who, even if they have money in the first place, can take time off work to go down to the courthouse and to deliver a bail.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    Your stance seems to be "don't release many people at all." You should then also oppose bail. So that the people you believe dangerous can't just "buy" their way out. Many people would disagree with you on the danger level, but I'm not sure why you're making an argument against people complaining about the concept of bail.
  - stordoff 6y ago
    Letting people essentially pay their way out doesn't seem the fairest way to do that. Surely it should be based on risk to the public, not ability to pay some arbitrary amount. Also, person A _might_ be dangerous is in some way putting at least part of the punishment before conviction - IMO that should be very carefully considered, and I don't see how monetary means is a large part of that.
ashtonkem 6y ago
Nobody is a criminal until they’ve been convicted. These people were accused of crimes, which is different.
saagarjha 6y ago
They're not criminals yet; that's the entire point of bail.
heavyset_go 6y ago
If you're in jail because you couldn't make bail, you haven't been convicted of anything, you're only guilty of not having enough money to make bail.
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago
  True, but keep in mind the bail money serves a purpose other than keeping people who can’t afford it in jail pending trial...it is collateral to deter defendants from absconding.
  - loeg 6y ago
    That may be the nominal purpose, but the primary function of monetary bail is coercing guilty pleas out of indigent defendants.
    - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
      Their are tons of factors pushing a defendant to a plea...bail/bond are not one of them, perhaps you could explain. There are cases where the defendant is in jail pending trial gets a bail set and can’t afford it, then gets a plea that would result in his release so he takes it...but that in no way is the primary purpose of the bail to force the plea. I don’t think you would ever find such a case where the defendant hasn’t waived their right to a speedy trial. But feel free to link such a case.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    If that were true, bail would be adjusted much more aggressively to match available resources. Instead we see people who are very poor getting five digit bails, and instead languishing in jail because they can’t afford bail. Pre trial detention should be based on the public good, and that is clearly not what we have today.
    - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
      > If that were true, bail would be adjusted much more aggressively to match available resources. Nearly 40% of all defendants out on bail are ROR (no money required). Maybe it should be more or “more aggressive”, but few in my experience know that much or what ROR even is. Bail is otherwise pretty uniform (within each jurisdiction) based on the charges (sometimes a defendants past charges will be considered in the amount as well as ability to abscond). I see your point about matching the bail to the defendants resources...but it would just encourage attempts to abscond and skip trial. I was the victim of a kidnapping and the defendant got bail ($350k or so) and posted bond (paid 10% to a bondsman and they postEd the full amount). In reality the defendants mom posted the bail, the amount (even though not his money) was a deterrent for skipping trial, but he had nothing so if the amount was say $350 instead of $350k there would be no reason for him not to attempt to abscond, but even he wouldn’t run and harm his own mother financially. Still within 7 days Of posting bail and being released he violated the terms of his bail and was rearrested anyway.
bdcravens 6y ago
They already released some of them if they had enough money. How the terrified populace didn't grasp this basic point is what is ridiculous. Also, unless they were convicted of previous crimes, they weren't "criminals".

In the United States our justice system applies the principal of "Innocent until proven guilty." In other words, when you are merely accused of a crime you are presumed to not be a criminal. The state has to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, the accused, committed the crime. People in Jail are not criminals until they are put on trial, convicted, and sentenced at which point they are convicts and go to prison.

the-dude 6y ago
Right, they are suspect. But this was not the point the parent was making. He was comparing the paying group to the non-paying group. If you release more, you have more suspect dangerous criminals on the streets.
- close04 6y ago
  Wait, "dangerous" or "suspected dangerous"? Because most of the people in jail (not to be confused with prison/penitentiary) are not there for anything dangerous to begin with. A policeman decided they they should be locked up and that policeman doesn't need any particularly good reason for it.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> People in Jail are not criminals until they are put on trial, convicted, and sentenced at which point they are convicts and go to prison. For minor crimes (and in some places major crimes) they go to jail; the main jail/prison distinction in the US is that the former tends to be city or county and include pretrial detention and the latter tends to be state or federal and exclude pretrial detention. But jails, while they include pretrial detention, also include people serving sentences. > The state has to actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you, the accused, committed the crime. No, the required proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
metrokoi 6y ago
This is not correct. No one has a right to bail. It is perfectly legal to hold a defendant if they pose a flight risk or danger to the community. They are not criminals, but they are defendants. >Although the Eighth Amendment protects against excessive bail, there is not an absolute right to bail, as noted in The Bail Reform Act, 18 USC Chapter 207 (1984). Section 3142 of the Act denies bail to certain defendants pending trial, specifically denying bail to defendants likely to flee or pose a danger to society. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excessive_bail

tartoran 6y ago

People who neglected paying parking tickets and the like due to mental health issues and rampant poverty. You should look more into it..

penagwin 6y ago

This is either sarcasm or you miss read something. * Person A and Person B commit an identical crime. * Person B is released because they have 10,000$ for bail * Person A doesn't have 10,000$ and because of this they cannot work and instead must stay in jail The point is that people don't consider Person A dangerous, and the only difference is how much money they have access to - so why is Person B dangerous and not A?

the-dude 6y ago
Neither. You state that "people don't consider Person A dangerous". That is not a fact and just your interpretation. A & B might both be dangerous. I would rather have 100 on the street instead of 200.
- inetknght 6y ago
  I would rather have no dangerous criminals on the street instead of 200. But more than that, I would rather give everyone an equal opportunity. Being rich (or, having rich friends/family) and making bail is literally a direct contributor to racism. Nothing like taking "the poor" off the streets and then keeping them in jail because they don't have family who, even if they have money in the first place, can take time off work to go down to the courthouse and to deliver a bail.
- majormajor 6y ago
  Your stance seems to be "don't release many people at all." You should then also oppose bail. So that the people you believe dangerous can't just "buy" their way out. Many people would disagree with you on the danger level, but I'm not sure why you're making an argument against people complaining about the concept of bail.
- stordoff 6y ago
  Letting people essentially pay their way out doesn't seem the fairest way to do that. Surely it should be based on risk to the public, not ability to pay some arbitrary amount. Also, person A _might_ be dangerous is in some way putting at least part of the punishment before conviction - IMO that should be very carefully considered, and I don't see how monetary means is a large part of that.

ashtonkem 6y ago

Nobody is a criminal until they’ve been convicted. These people were accused of crimes, which is different.

saagarjha 6y ago

They're not criminals yet; that's the entire point of bail.

heavyset_go 6y ago

If you're in jail because you couldn't make bail, you haven't been convicted of anything, you're only guilty of not having enough money to make bail.

throwaway_jobs 6y ago
True, but keep in mind the bail money serves a purpose other than keeping people who can’t afford it in jail pending trial...it is collateral to deter defendants from absconding.
- loeg 6y ago
  That may be the nominal purpose, but the primary function of monetary bail is coercing guilty pleas out of indigent defendants.
  - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
    Their are tons of factors pushing a defendant to a plea...bail/bond are not one of them, perhaps you could explain. There are cases where the defendant is in jail pending trial gets a bail set and can’t afford it, then gets a plea that would result in his release so he takes it...but that in no way is the primary purpose of the bail to force the plea. I don’t think you would ever find such a case where the defendant hasn’t waived their right to a speedy trial. But feel free to link such a case.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  If that were true, bail would be adjusted much more aggressively to match available resources. Instead we see people who are very poor getting five digit bails, and instead languishing in jail because they can’t afford bail. Pre trial detention should be based on the public good, and that is clearly not what we have today.
  - throwaway_jobs 6y ago
    > If that were true, bail would be adjusted much more aggressively to match available resources. Nearly 40% of all defendants out on bail are ROR (no money required). Maybe it should be more or “more aggressive”, but few in my experience know that much or what ROR even is. Bail is otherwise pretty uniform (within each jurisdiction) based on the charges (sometimes a defendants past charges will be considered in the amount as well as ability to abscond). I see your point about matching the bail to the defendants resources...but it would just encourage attempts to abscond and skip trial. I was the victim of a kidnapping and the defendant got bail ($350k or so) and posted bond (paid 10% to a bondsman and they postEd the full amount). In reality the defendants mom posted the bail, the amount (even though not his money) was a deterrent for skipping trial, but he had nothing so if the amount was say $350 instead of $350k there would be no reason for him not to attempt to abscond, but even he wouldn’t run and harm his own mother financially. Still within 7 days Of posting bail and being released he violated the terms of his bail and was rearrested anyway.

bdcravens 6y ago

They already released some of them if they had enough money. How the terrified populace didn't grasp this basic point is what is ridiculous. Also, unless they were convicted of previous crimes, they weren't "criminals".