3 ms·

The solution seems to be that if an offender is violent enough then they should not be offered bail, not that bail should be more expensive. The first option ad

The solution seems to be that if an offender is violent enough then they should not be offered bail, not that bail should be more expensive. The first option addresses violent crime, the second simply punishes poor people. I very much doubt someone that habitually performs violent crimes is going to think to themselves, no violence today, don't want to risk sacrificing my bail money that I may get back in a few months.

josephcsible 5y ago
> The solution seems to be that if an offender is violent enough then they should not be offered bail Won't this ruin your life if someone who looks like you commits a violent enough offense, and the police accidentally arrest you for it?
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  Of course, but by focusing bail on violent criminals or clear flight risks for financial crimes and those with the means to leverage them, you have effectively filtered out a good portion of optimally non violent people who are not a continuing threat to society. Optimally criminal history is part of the decision as well. There will always be issues with innocent people being arrested and held due to the nature of the accusation but no system is perfect. In my opinion holding a person accused of a violent enough crime (think a random assault on a stranger, intent to cause serious injury, etc. vs a fist fight at the bbq) is warranted. The people assaulting Asians on the street, the knockout game, etc. should absolutely be held, no need for bail. Requiring bail for someone accused of stealing diapers should not be required as they are not a threat. Of course everyone's definition of 'good enough' is going to be different and if I ever find myself as that falsely accused person I am sure my opinion would change again.
hajile 5y ago
The per capital crime rates aren’t consistent across races. For example, 6% of the population (black males) are responsible for 50% of all murders. What will be the reaction to the statistics that white peoples get set free more often than black people because white people tend to commit “victimless crimes” more frequently?

josephcsible 5y ago

> The solution seems to be that if an offender is violent enough then they should not be offered bail Won't this ruin your life if someone who looks like you commits a violent enough offense, and the police accidentally arrest you for it?

wonderwonder 5y ago
Of course, but by focusing bail on violent criminals or clear flight risks for financial crimes and those with the means to leverage them, you have effectively filtered out a good portion of optimally non violent people who are not a continuing threat to society. Optimally criminal history is part of the decision as well. There will always be issues with innocent people being arrested and held due to the nature of the accusation but no system is perfect. In my opinion holding a person accused of a violent enough crime (think a random assault on a stranger, intent to cause serious injury, etc. vs a fist fight at the bbq) is warranted. The people assaulting Asians on the street, the knockout game, etc. should absolutely be held, no need for bail. Requiring bail for someone accused of stealing diapers should not be required as they are not a threat. Of course everyone's definition of 'good enough' is going to be different and if I ever find myself as that falsely accused person I am sure my opinion would change again.

hajile 5y ago

The per capital crime rates aren’t consistent across races. For example, 6% of the population (black males) are responsible for 50% of all murders. What will be the reaction to the statistics that white peoples get set free more often than black people because white people tend to commit “victimless crimes” more frequently?