The amount of bail has no correlation to whether or not a person will go out and commit more crimes. It only separates the people who can get the money from those who can't. In cases like the Waukesha Parade, had the defendant been accused of that sort of crime, there would have been no bail. You can't look at what they did afterward and…
The amount of bail has no correlation to whether or not a person will go out and commit more crimes. It only separates the people who can get the money from those who can't. In cases like the Waukesha Parade, had the defendant been accused of that sort of crime, there would have been no bail. You can't look at what they did afterward and decide that bail was too low (or there at all), you have to look at what charge they were under when the bail was decided.
Unfortunately, you can't get most people to think this through. They're just 'Look what he did on bail!'
This is exactly what I was thinking reading the piece. How would a criterion based on the actual danger posed by the defendant- rather than the amount of money he can scrape together- make the community Less safe?
It seems like the current system tries to assign a cash value to the danger a defendant poses to the community, then allows the defendant the opportunity to purchase the privilege of being a danger to the community. Woohoo law and order I guess?
A big part of this is that it simply provides an excuse to vote for the person you WANT to vote for based upon political/cultural identity. That is what a lot of this stuff actually is.
I REALLY want to vote for the white guy even though he is an authoritarian racist PoS that might take my SS or Medicare away.... but that would make me look like an authoritarian racist PoS--and stupid to boot... oh, wait, the black guy is against bail. Whew, dodged that one.
It doesn't play out consciously like that, but....
What I read about the case was a little confusing, but i don't think anyone on the case knew about that. Other than Darrell, of course, and he wasn't telling on himself.
It is sad, because the logic breaks down immediately. Like you say, the fault isn't the amount of bail set, the fault is in determining that a person was safe to let out at any price. And sometimes, sadly, that's going to be a fault made, but for all the examples given, it is never about the amount of the bail.
What should actually offend people is the concept of really high bail amounts for dangerous people. Oh, you're accused of attacking three people in Walmart with a knife, $1M bail! So you're telling me that if that guy was rich enough you're okay with putting all of us at risk by letting him out because...money?
The public's safety is one goal, compelling appearance in court is another. From that standpoint, the rich should have bail set high enough that running isn't an option.
To me, that's the flight risk question, which comes after the safety question. If safety is in question, no bail. If flight risk is a question, then perhaps bail can considered (though for some, there is no price too high).
It really is hard to parse the concept of high dollar bail any other way. I mean, I suppose you could add in, "if you're rich enough, you can have a do over on running and hiding."
The amount of bail has no correlation to whether or not a person will go out and commit more crimes. It only separates the people who can get the money from those who can't. In cases like the Waukesha Parade, had the defendant been accused of that sort of crime, there would have been no bail. You can't look at what they did afterward and decide that bail was too low (or there at all), you have to look at what charge they were under when the bail was decided.
Unfortunately, you can't get most people to think this through. They're just 'Look what he did on bail!'
This is exactly what I was thinking reading the piece. How would a criterion based on the actual danger posed by the defendant- rather than the amount of money he can scrape together- make the community Less safe?
It seems like the current system tries to assign a cash value to the danger a defendant poses to the community, then allows the defendant the opportunity to purchase the privilege of being a danger to the community. Woohoo law and order I guess?
A big part of this is that it simply provides an excuse to vote for the person you WANT to vote for based upon political/cultural identity. That is what a lot of this stuff actually is.
I REALLY want to vote for the white guy even though he is an authoritarian racist PoS that might take my SS or Medicare away.... but that would make me look like an authoritarian racist PoS--and stupid to boot... oh, wait, the black guy is against bail. Whew, dodged that one.
It doesn't play out consciously like that, but....
I thought he was out on bail after trying to run over his ex....too dangerous for bail territory?
What I read about the case was a little confusing, but i don't think anyone on the case knew about that. Other than Darrell, of course, and he wasn't telling on himself.
Which of course is a failure in communication, not a failure of bail vs. no bail vs. some 'correct' amount of bail.
And yeah, I know you know that, but it would be nice to see it reflected in the article above.
It is sad, because the logic breaks down immediately. Like you say, the fault isn't the amount of bail set, the fault is in determining that a person was safe to let out at any price. And sometimes, sadly, that's going to be a fault made, but for all the examples given, it is never about the amount of the bail.
What should actually offend people is the concept of really high bail amounts for dangerous people. Oh, you're accused of attacking three people in Walmart with a knife, $1M bail! So you're telling me that if that guy was rich enough you're okay with putting all of us at risk by letting him out because...money?
The public's safety is one goal, compelling appearance in court is another. From that standpoint, the rich should have bail set high enough that running isn't an option.
To me, that's the flight risk question, which comes after the safety question. If safety is in question, no bail. If flight risk is a question, then perhaps bail can considered (though for some, there is no price too high).
Yes? I think that is the answer.
It really is hard to parse the concept of high dollar bail any other way. I mean, I suppose you could add in, "if you're rich enough, you can have a do over on running and hiding."
Think? Ya, right.