6 ms·

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 bai

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.
loeg 6y ago
> Person A and Person B commit an identical crime Not even this. They are alleged to have committed the crime, but have not been tried in court.

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.

loeg 6y ago

> Person A and Person B commit an identical crime Not even this. They are alleged to have committed the crime, but have not been tried in court.