Illinois Becomes First State to Commit to Eliminating Cash Bail

[Au165]

(02-25-2021, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A remanding order is very difficult to obtain under the current system.  This is why I'd support this type of measure if it saw a commensurate rise in remands, but we won't.  

It should be very difficult to take someone's freedom before they have been convicted. The ability to take someone's freedom though should not be based on a person's ability to pay an arbitrary amount of money.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2021, 01:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: It should be very difficult to take someone's freedom before they have been convicted. The ability to take someone's freedom though should not be based on a person's ability to pay an arbitrary amount of money.

Then base it on what?  The seriousness of the crime, correct?  As I have already pointed out, a prohibitively high bail acts the same as a remanding order.  You only get prohibitively high bail for very serious crimes.  So, based on your very criteria eliminating cash bail should mean that those cases in which the bail would have been prohibitively high, i.e. essentially the same a remanding order, should be replaced by an actual remanding order.

[GMDino]

(02-25-2021, 01:15 PM)Au165 Wrote: It should be very difficult to take someone's freedom before they have been convicted. The ability to take someone's freedom though should not be based on a person's ability to pay an arbitrary amount of money.

And I'm repeating myself but this is why I continue to say police need held to the highest possible standard at their jobs.  They can take your property, freedom and life and with qualified immunity almost never be held responsible.

Anything that might give average Joe a little room to be free should be encouraged AND also highly monitored.

[Au165]

(02-25-2021, 01:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then base it on what?  The seriousness of the crime, correct?  As I have already pointed out, a prohibitively high bail acts the same as a remanding order.  You only get prohibitively high bail for very serious crimes.  So, based on your very criteria eliminating cash bail should mean that those cases in which the bail would have been prohibitively high, i.e. essentially the same a remanding order, should be replaced by an actual remanding order.

I would replace "seriousness" with violent crimes. Essentially, if it was not a violent crime then no one should be held until they are tried. If it is a violent crime they need to demonstrate a relatively high certainty to the judge that the defendant is involved somehow. Pre-trial detainment can ruin lives, we need to make damn sure we limit this as much as possible. Prohibitively high bail is all relative though and that is why this all matters. What is prohibitively high to me and to someone working at Mcdonald's are not the same thing. The average bail amount for a felony is about 10k, I can float that without a bail bondsman many can't and that starts a cycle of poverty for many is hard to dig out of.

I think we are kind of aligned but it's more about defining prohibitive. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2021, 01:51 PM)Au165 Wrote: I would replace "seriousness" with violent crimes. Essentially, if it was not a violent crime then no one should be held until they are tried. If it is a violent crime they need to demonstrate a relatively high certainty to the judge that the defendant is involved somehow. Pre-trial detainment can ruin lives, we need to make damn sure we limit this as much as possible. Prohibitively high bail is all relative though and that is why this all matters. What is prohibitively high to me and to someone working at Mcdonald's are not the same thing. The average bail amount for a felony is about 10k, I can float that without a bail bondsman many can't and that starts a cycle of poverty for many is hard to dig out of.

I think we are kind of aligned but it's more about defining prohibitive. 

To your first point, I'll absolutely agree, but you can't just use violent as crimes such as arson are not considered violent but have the potential to cause (many) fatalities.  Also, prohibitively high bail is relative, but not to the extent you're stating.  A judge will almost always tailor the bail to the amount of money the defendant can access.  There is obviously a limit to this, you can't set bail high enough for Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos to give a shit, but it's not just a single figure for a single offense.

You are correct, we are far more on the same page than we are not.  But what disturbs me about these types of movements across the nation is they shift far too much focus away from the victim, and in some cases treat the suspect as more of a victim then the person they victimized.  That's why I stated I have no issue with this as long as it also includes an increase in remanding orders for certain crimes.

[Au165]

(02-25-2021, 02:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: To your first point, I'll absolutely agree, but you can't just use violent as crimes such as arson are not considered violent but have the potential to cause (many) fatalities.  Also, prohibitively high bail is relative, but not to the extent you're stating.  A judge will almost always tailor the bail to the amount of money the defendant can access.  There is obviously a limit to this, you can't set bail high enough for Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos to give a shit, but it's not just a single figure for a single offense.

You are correct, we are far more on the same page than we are not.  But what disturbs me about these types of movements across the nation is they shift far too much focus away from the victim, and in some cases treat the suspect as more of a victim then the person they victimized.  That's why I stated I have no issue with this as long as it also includes an increase in remanding orders for certain crimes.

I would ask about the circumstances around the arson. Was it with people inside or was it their own house for insurance fraud? Things like that have a role here. As to tailoring it, that simply isn't true and it's why bail reform is such a big deal. They consider access to a bail bondsman to be good enough in terms of being able to make bail, but the fallout from such arrangements creates major issues. Heck, even the delays from getting everything set up with the bail bondsman can cause people to lose their jobs.

If you incorrectly incarcerate the wrong person pre-trial you have created another victim and I think that is not talked about enough as it currently stands. I think house arrest would be a fair middle-of-the-road for some instances that should be more readily available as the tech continues to get cheaper.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2021, 02:12 PM)Au165 Wrote: I would ask about the circumstances around the arson. Was it with people inside or was it their own house for insurance fraud? Things like that. As to tailoring it, that simply isn't true and it's why bail reform is such a big deal. They consider access to a bail bondsman to be good enough in terms of being able to make bail, but the fallout from such arrangements creates major issues. Heck, even the delays from getting everything set up with the bail bondsman can cause people to lose their jobs.

Sorry, but you are incorrect here.  Judges absolutely take into account a defendant's ability to pay and will adjust bail accordingly.  There are, of course, limits to this,  The rest of your statement is correct.

Quote:If you incorrectly incarcerate the wrong person pre-trial you have created another victim and I think that is not talked about enough as it currently stands.

I don't disagree with this point, but, again, at some point on the spectrum of seriousness we also need to account for the safety of the victims, if they are still alive, but also society as a whole.  That just isn't part of this movement and it's why I have an issue with it. 

[Au165]

(02-25-2021, 02:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sorry, but you are incorrect here.  Judges absolutely take into account a defendant's ability to pay and will adjust bail accordingly.  There are, of course, limits to this,  The rest of your statement is correct.



I don't disagree with this point, but, again, at some point on the spectrum of seriousness we also need to account for the safety of the victims, if they are still alive, but also society as a whole.  That just isn't part of this movement and it's why I have an issue with it. 

I'll let Fred chime in on this as he has more experience but I know specific examples where that was not the case. They don't know that someone is house poor or has mountains of medical debt, or whatever. Sometimes they do and they simply don't care, the system is too arbitrary, maybe a middle ground is to set guidelines?

Maybe, but the assumption is the person being held is innocent at this point which means their rights are being violated up until their trial. One could argue that there was no way the founding fathers could have dreamed people would potentially wait months to a year before they could prove their innocence.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-25-2021, 02:28 PM)Au165 Wrote: I'll let Fred chime in on this as he has more experience but I know specific examples where that was not the case.

No, I don't put any stock in what Fred says.  He's not here for an honest discussion on anything.

Quote:They don't know that someone is house poor or has mountains of medical debt, or whatever. Sometimes they do and they simply don't care, the system is too arbitrary, maybe a middle ground is to set guidelines?

Correct, which is why I said there are limits to the ability to do so.

Quote:Maybe, but the assumption is the person being held is innocent at this point which means their rights are being violated up until their trial. One could argue that there was no way the founding fathers could have dreamed people would potentially wait months to a year before they could prove their innocence.

Except that doesn't really happen unless the delays are coming from the defense.  You have a constitutional right to a speedy trial.  The People may get away with one continuance in a detained case, but the judge will very rarely grant another and if they are unable to proceed at that time then the charges will be dismissed with our without prejudice.  If you're having someone remain detained for several months it's almost always because the defense has requested more time.  Of course the counter argument to this is that they need the time to put together the best possible defense, which is true.  But I can tell you is that, barring defense requests a detained case will work its way through the court process rather quickly.  Of course, I realize "quickly" is relative.

Again, I largely agree with your arguments against cash bail, I just can't sign on to such a plan that doesn't also include provisions for more serious cases to be remanded at a higher rate.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-25-2021, 01:12 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: A remanding order is very difficult to obtain under the current system.  This is why I'd support this type of measure if it saw a commensurate rise in remands, but we won't.  

Absolutely the judge has to have the power to determine those who are threats and hold them.

[GMDino]

Why don't we give judges a form of qualified immunity?  If they are acting within their training/orders they can be investigated for their actions and it can be determined if they did anything beyond the scope of their job/hadn't been done before (I'm over simplifying it, I know).

But then they can be held responsible if something goes astray but they don't have to worry about it constantly.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-01-2021, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: Why don't we give judges a form of qualified immunity?  If they are acting within their training/orders they can be investigated for their actions and it can be determined if they did anything beyond the scope of their job/hadn't been done before (I'm over simplifying it, I know).

But then they can be held responsible if something goes astray but they don't have to worry about it constantly.

Judges already have complete immunity and they will never give it up, ever.  They have to be shown to have engaged in inappropriate conduct and even then getting even a censure is difficult.  The argument being that a judge has to often make difficult decisions that severely impact the lives of others.  Having them be constantly worried that a Monday morning quarterback is going to get them sued would prevent them from doing their job properly.  I'm inclined to agree in this regard.

[fredtoast]

(02-25-2021, 02:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except that doesn't really happen unless the delays are coming from the defense.

Not true.

Most delays are based on a back log of cases.  Trial dockets are often booked solid for months in advance.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Not a thread necromancer, this is very germane to the thread topic.

https://cwbchicago.com/2021/03/senator-who-sponsored-cash-bail-ban-is-outraged-driver-who-threatened-him-with-gun-only-had-to-post-1500-to-get-out-of-jail.html


An Illinois state senator who sponsored recently-signed legislation that will eliminate cash bail in the state by 2023 is outraged that a man who allegedly flashed a gun at him while driving only had to post $1,500 to get out of jail.

“By him being released on bail, he’s free to do this again,” Sen. Elgie Sims of Chicago told the State-Journal Register.

Yet just last month Sims tweeted, “money bond doesn’t guarantee public safety or someone’s appearance in court, it supports a system where freedom is based on the size of someone’s bank account. We’ve tried the failed tough on crime polices [sic] of the past.”

Looks like someone doesn't like it when their ideology actually affects them personally. I'm sure some of you will point to this sentence as proof that he is right.

Sims called this week’s incident a “perfect example of how cash bail doesn’t make people more safe.”

Of course, under his legislation the man would have been freed without doing anything. For those that doubt this, $15k in bail is a very low amount, there is literally zero chance the alleged assailant in this case would have been remanded under the very law this guy sponsored. While I certainly don't want anyone to be the victim of a crime I can't help but admit a small amount of schadenfreude when people like this get bit on the ass by their own bullshit.

[Mickeypoo]

(03-24-2021, 07:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not a thread necromancer, this is very germane to the thread topic.

https://cwbchicago.com/2021/03/senator-who-sponsored-cash-bail-ban-is-outraged-driver-who-threatened-him-with-gun-only-had-to-post-1500-to-get-out-of-jail.html


An Illinois state senator who sponsored recently-signed legislation that will eliminate cash bail in the state by 2023 is outraged that a man who allegedly flashed a gun at him while driving only had to post $1,500 to get out of jail.

“By him being released on bail, he’s free to do this again,” Sen. Elgie Sims of Chicago told the State-Journal Register.

Yet just last month Sims tweeted, “money bond doesn’t guarantee public safety or someone’s appearance in court, it supports a system where freedom is based on the size of someone’s bank account. We’ve tried the failed tough on crime polices [sic] of the past.”

Looks like someone doesn't like it when their ideology actually affects them personally.  I'm sure some of you will point to this sentence as proof that he is right.

Sims called this week’s incident a “perfect example of how cash bail doesn’t make people more safe.”

Of course, under his legislation the man would have been freed without doing anything.  For those that doubt this, $15k in bail is a very low amount, there is literally zero chance the alleged assailant in this case would have been remanded under the very law this guy sponsored.  While I certainly don't want anyone to be the victim of a crime I can't help but admit a small amount of schadenfreude when people like this get bit on the ass by their own bullshit.

I bet he had a nice, warm, squishy FEELING in his heart when he sponsored the bill though. Too busy trying to FEEL good and pander. Just shows they don't care until it happens to one of them, then it is a whole different story. Pieces of shit they are.

[GMDino]

In New York the NYPD Commissioner was blaming bail reform for a rise in gun violence...until the numbers were looked at and he was asked about it at a hearing.

Then *poof*.

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2021/10/14/bail-reform-nypd-commissioner-dermot-shea-assembly-hearing/

 [/url]

Quote:[url=https://newyork.cbslocal.com/tag/nypd/]NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea did an about face Thursday on the causes of the city’s seemingly uncontrollable gun violence.

While being grilled by lawmakers in Albany, Shea also had a tough time answering pointed questions from Assembly members representing the five boroughs, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported.


It was probably a day Shea wished he’d stayed in bed, or at least not made the long trek to the state capital. Because in addition to switching his story on the cause of gun violence, he had a bout of, shall we say, selective amnesia about an embarrassing case where the NYPD pinned a crime on the wrong guy.


“I certainly have a lot of confidence in the police in New York City,” said Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz, who represents the Bronx.


READ MORE: Law Enforcement Unions Say Bail Reform To Blame For Spike In Violent Crimes As City Focuses On NYPD Reform


It started out OK, but tongues started wagging after Shea seemed to backtrack on his repeated insistence that state bail reform laws are a major reason why cops can’t stop gun violence.


Dinowitz simply wanted to know, “Were there people out with no bail, for example, or bail being set and they made bail, I don’t know, and then committed another shooting and were arrested again for basically for same crime?”


“When you look at who we arrest for crimes, it’s going to be small numbers,” Shea said. “When you look at the entirety of how many shooting arrests we make, and the percentage, it is not dramatic.”


FLASHBACK: Mayor, NYPD Officials Fume After Bridge Assault Suspect Released Without Bail; Commissioner Says ‘The World… Seems Like It’s Upside Down’


Meanwhile, CBS2 obtained a report from the city’s Office of Criminal Justice that throws cold water on Shea’s bail reform argument. It shows that 9.7% of defendants were released without bail for gun crimes, before bail reform was passed. It fell to 3.5% after bail reform was enacted.


But there were more tough questions about Shea’s penchant for blaming bail reform.


“In June of 2020, Commissioner Shea, you blamed bail reform for a rise in shootings. But a New York Post analysis of the NYPD’s own data found that claim to be false. Do you agree with the New York Post that that was a false claim?” Assemblywoman Latrice Walker said.


“Madam, I don’t generally hold, you know, debates over what appears in the paper,” Shea said.


FLASHBACK Bail Reform: New Police Commissioner Dermot Shea Calls Changes ‘Concerning’


The Assemblywoman also grilled Shea about an incident two days ago where the commissioner blamed bail reform as the reason a man police said was responsible for a Brooklyn purse snatching attack on a 65-year-old was still on the street.
“We had a case in Brooklyn today. We’re looking for an individual that has 11 open cases right now and then he goes out and he brutally attacks a woman on the street,” Shea had said in an interview.


It was a “oops” moment. After Shea talked about it on the radio, red-faced cops had to retract the story because the man they identified as the culprit was actually behind bars when the attack occurred. Asked about it at the hearing, Shea all but took the Fifth.


“I do not know the case you’re referring to,” Shea said.


Meanwhile, the Legal Aid Society called on lawmakers to ignore Shea’s calls for changes to the bail laws. It charged that Shea has relied on “falsehoods, fearmongering, dog whistling and other unscrupulous tactics” to undermine the reforms.