4 ms·
They also are objectively more likely to have the means to flee out of jurisdiction. If a criminal is deemed extremely likely to commit violent crime on bail, t
by kuhewa 4y ago
They also are objectively more likely to have the means to flee out of jurisdiction. If a criminal is deemed extremely likely to commit violent crime on bail, they simply shouldn't get bail, the amount they pay or are able to should be moot
- smsm42 4y agoWhat about a non-violent crime? Let's say guy is breaking into cars. Police catches him (they don't anymore, but let's assume they did). He probability that he's going to do the same is about 100% as soon as he is out. And tbh, there's no reason for him not to - if they are going to ever get him to court, he's going to jail anyway, he can't afford a decent lawyer, but in the meantime he'd need to live somehow. So there's little reason for him not to re-offend immediately.
- mantas 4y agoBreaking into cars is closer to violent-y crime than financial crimes. Street crime may be a better phrase.
- at-w 4y ago>They also are objectively more likely to have the means to flee out of jurisdiction. That is explicitly factored into the decision of whether to grant bail and determining flight risk. It's probably not going out on a limb to say SBF's $250 MILLION dollar bail had something to do with his wealth and the flight risk it presented, and isn't standard procedure. >If a criminal is deemed extremely likely to commit violent crime on bail, they simply shouldn't get bail, the amount they pay or are able to should be moot This is also how it works right now. Sometimes established systems have gotten some things right in their thousands of years of development, even when they're not perfect. Presumably nobody's arguing the pudgy crypto fraudster who has never been so much as accused of a violent crime is "extremely likely to commit violent crime on bail."