02-25-2021, 02:12 PM
(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.
