6 ms·

It seems like this was a bail hearing, where “danger to the community” is a condition—-and not a particularly rigorous one—-required to set bail[0]. Since his

by _n_b_ 6y ago

It seems like this was a bail hearing, where “danger to the community” is a condition—-and not a particularly rigorous one—-required to set bail[0]. Since his bail was set at $1000 according to the article, it seems like the judge also didn’t believe this guy was really all that dangerous either. It’s important not to confuse this finding purely for bail purposes from a preliminary exam with any actual finding of guilt or innocence. [0] https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1966&ChapterID=54&SeqStart=15600000&SeqEnd=18000000 https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1966&C...

scotty79 6y ago
Is it fine for the judge to say false things in the court if it's a part of the protocol?
- totalZero 6y ago
  If 'danger to the community' is a term of art that sets a standard for imprisonment/bail, then it's not so cut and dried as to say that the guy seems harmless so the judge is lying. Clearly this guy exploited a security problem that endangers the community, and clearly he didn't physically harm anyone during his time in the airport.
  - marcosdumay 6y ago
    > exploited a security problem that endangers the community Well, it's not his fault the security problem endangers the community. The US felony system is quite absurd. This guy is now marked for life for trespassing into a public space, based on the subjective opinion of a judge that despite him not harming anybody for 3 months, he is a danger to the community.
    - _n_b_ 6y ago
      > This guy is now marked for life [...] based on the subjective option of a judge That is not quite what this is. He hasn’t been convicted of anything; the judge is determining the conditions on which he can be released before the trial happens and making that determination requires the judge to weigh the available evidence and apply a legal standard—albeit one where ‘danger’ doesn’t align with its everyday definition-to determine if some level of monetary bail is required. I do agree that he may well be marked for life and in the sense that Google will remember this event forever, even if he is acquitted at trial.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    This term if built out of actual words that have actual meaning. Why call it danger-to-community if he's is not a danger to community? If you want arbitrary label you want to assign arbitrarily why not call it ooglaboogla instead? At least you wouldn't be lying while using it.
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    Well, if "danger to the community" is a requirement to set bail, and this guy was not a danger to the community, then the judge could have simply... not required bail?
syshum 6y ago
The raw amount of the bail is not, and should not be relevant, as to a person with no money $1 bail is unattainable. This is why the Cash Bail system is regarded as punishment for the poor, and in part what makes the Legal system different for the "rich" vs the poor
- pc86 6y ago
  I'm curious if you would still say the amount of bail is irrelevant if it were a well-off person getting a $1,000 bail. For what it's worth, bail is supposed to set to an amount based in part on the person's wealth. So for two people ~~convicted~~ accused of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. It doesn't always happen that way of course, but it is part of the guidelines.
  - mamon 6y ago
    Also, please keep in mind that bail is not punishment, it's just means of ensuring that the defendant will attend their trial. That's why it's refundable at the trial's end. Good bail should be low enough that defendant can afford to pay it, but not afford to lose it.
  - notyourday 6y ago
    > So for two people convicted of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. Accused, not convicted.
    - pc86 6y ago
      You're right, I misspoke (mistyped?). Fixed :)
  - baobabKoodaa 6y ago
    You forget that bail is refunded upon appearing to the court. A rich person will post bail, gain their freedom, and get the bail refunded to them when they go to court. A poor person can not afford to post bail, so they will lose their freedom. No-one will "refund" this lost freedom to them in any form.

by _n_b_ 6y ago

scotty79 6y ago

Is it fine for the judge to say false things in the court if it's a part of the protocol?

totalZero 6y ago
If 'danger to the community' is a term of art that sets a standard for imprisonment/bail, then it's not so cut and dried as to say that the guy seems harmless so the judge is lying. Clearly this guy exploited a security problem that endangers the community, and clearly he didn't physically harm anyone during his time in the airport.
- marcosdumay 6y ago
  > exploited a security problem that endangers the community Well, it's not his fault the security problem endangers the community. The US felony system is quite absurd. This guy is now marked for life for trespassing into a public space, based on the subjective opinion of a judge that despite him not harming anybody for 3 months, he is a danger to the community.
  - _n_b_ 6y ago
    > This guy is now marked for life [...] based on the subjective option of a judge That is not quite what this is. He hasn’t been convicted of anything; the judge is determining the conditions on which he can be released before the trial happens and making that determination requires the judge to weigh the available evidence and apply a legal standard—albeit one where ‘danger’ doesn’t align with its everyday definition-to determine if some level of monetary bail is required. I do agree that he may well be marked for life and in the sense that Google will remember this event forever, even if he is acquitted at trial.
- scotty79 6y ago
  This term if built out of actual words that have actual meaning. Why call it danger-to-community if he's is not a danger to community? If you want arbitrary label you want to assign arbitrarily why not call it ooglaboogla instead? At least you wouldn't be lying while using it.
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  Well, if "danger to the community" is a requirement to set bail, and this guy was not a danger to the community, then the judge could have simply... not required bail?

syshum 6y ago

The raw amount of the bail is not, and should not be relevant, as to a person with no money $1 bail is unattainable. This is why the Cash Bail system is regarded as punishment for the poor, and in part what makes the Legal system different for the "rich" vs the poor

pc86 6y ago
I'm curious if you would still say the amount of bail is irrelevant if it were a well-off person getting a $1,000 bail. For what it's worth, bail is supposed to set to an amount based in part on the person's wealth. So for two people ~~convicted~~ accused of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. It doesn't always happen that way of course, but it is part of the guidelines.
- mamon 6y ago
  Also, please keep in mind that bail is not punishment, it's just means of ensuring that the defendant will attend their trial. That's why it's refundable at the trial's end. Good bail should be low enough that defendant can afford to pay it, but not afford to lose it.
- notyourday 6y ago
  > So for two people convicted of identical crimes, where one has 10x the means of the other, the bails should be 10x different. Accused, not convicted.
  - pc86 6y ago
    You're right, I misspoke (mistyped?). Fixed :)
- baobabKoodaa 6y ago
  You forget that bail is refunded upon appearing to the court. A rich person will post bail, gain their freedom, and get the bail refunded to them when they go to court. A poor person can not afford to post bail, so they will lose their freedom. No-one will "refund" this lost freedom to them in any form.