Is Blakeman doing anything about crime?? (Nassau, Peconic: homes, tax credit, shop)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good judges know the difference between people who deserve ROR and the ones who should be remanded or sent back to jail with high bail. Discretion is the best rule.
But if you ask court house regulars, you will find out that too many non violent first offenders were ending up in jail because they were too poor to make bail. Add dumb legislators in Albany and you end up with stupidly rigid rules that limit judicial discretion.
Proper balance is somewhere in between. Recidivists and people accused of violent crimes are in a very different category. Let judges do their job. But pick the right people for the job. Most first offenders and minor offenders should get ROR. Career criminals, no way. And if there is probable cause of a violent or otherwise serious offense, pre-trial prison is justified.
Good judges know the difference between people who deserve ROR and the ones who should be remanded or sent back to jail with high bail. Discretion is the best rule.
But if you ask court house regulars, you will find out that too many non violent first offenders were ending up in jail because they were too poor to make bail. Add dumb legislators in Albany and you end up with stupidly rigid rules that limit judicial discretion.
Proper balance is somewhere in between. Recidivists and people accused of violent crimes are in a very different category. Let judges do their job. But pick the right people for the job. Most first offenders and minor offenders should get ROR. Career criminals, no way. And if there is probable cause of a violent or otherwise serious offense, pre-trial prison is justified.
Lol Article from 2020 you dig up now? Seriously just stop the hole you are digging is only getting deeper lol. And the discrestion need to go MUCH further than just violent felonies. Ridiculous.
My mistake but you failed to answer any of the points I made on your link to Mayor Adams and you also failed to address many of the links in the Brennan Center article. Just claiming my sources are bad isn't a very intellectual debate. So where do you draw the line, do you want to go reverse bail reform entirely
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilawyer
Good judges know the difference between people who deserve ROR and the ones who should be remanded or sent back to jail with high bail. Discretion is the best rule.
But if you ask court house regulars, you will find out that too many non violent first offenders were ending up in jail because they were too poor to make bail. Add dumb legislators in Albany and you end up with stupidly rigid rules that limit judicial discretion.
Proper balance is somewhere in between. Recidivists and people accused of violent crimes are in a very different category. Let judges do their job. But pick the right people for the job. Most first offenders and minor offenders should get ROR. Career criminals, no way. And if there is probable cause of a violent or otherwise serious offense, pre-trial prison is justified.
Good points and the reason we had support for bail reform. It does need to be adjusted to address the problem of a small number of career criminals responsible for hundreds of non-violent felonies being released without bail but jailing an individual on a non-violent felony first time offense causing them to lose their jobs is senseless.
Reform is working but they do need to make adjustments.
My mistake but you failed to answer any of the points I made on your link to Mayor Adams and you also failed to address many of the links in the Brennan Center article. Just claiming my sources are bad isn't a very intellectual debate. So where do you draw the line, do you want to go reverse bail reform entirely
Good points and the reason we had support for bail reform. It does need to be adjusted to address the problem of a small number of career criminals responsible for hundreds of non-violent felonies being released without bail but jailing an individual on a non-violent felony first time offense causing them to lose their jobs is senseless.
Reform is working but they do need to make adjustments.
I guess you can’t read my previous post where I was quite clear bail reform should be completely repealed. I’m not saying no one should ever be ROR’d, what I am saying is that should be completely up to the judge based on the totality of circumstances for ANY crime, not leftist idiots in the state legislature.
Lmao “reform is working” and the sky is green and the earth is flat, SMH
My mistake but you failed to answer any of the points I made on your link to Mayor Adams and you also failed to address many of the links in the Brennan Center article. Just claiming my sources are bad isn't a very intellectual debate. So where do you draw the line, do you want to go reverse bail reform entirely
Good points and the reason we had support for bail reform. It does need to be adjusted to address the problem of a small number of career criminals responsible for hundreds of non-violent felonies being released without bail but jailing an individual on a non-violent felony first time offense causing them to lose their jobs is senseless.
Reform is working but they do need to make adjustments.
In my opinion, there is nothing that has been reformed at all, rather, abandoned and with total lack of common sense.
I guess you can’t read my previous post where I was quite clear bail reform should be completely repealed. I’m not saying no one should ever be ROR’d, what I am saying is that should be completely up to the judge based on the totality of circumstances for ANY crime, not leftist idiots in the state legislature.
Lmao “reform is working” and the sky is green and the earth is flat, SMH
I posted articles that indicated bail reform was working and claimed they were bad sources.
Rolling back bail reform makes little sense, jailing people on minor crimes making them lose their jobs just adds to the burden to society. Judges can still make sure that felons that are a danger will be jailed, that has not changed, they can still consider the severity and frequency of their crimes.
Judges of course make mistakes, that is also often criticized.
What Blakeman has done, is to not be a Democrat. That's the best you can do in NYS to sustain a decent law and order level.
Not good enough. NY is a blue state. Most of this nonsense comes via Albany in cahoots with NYC.
The only way to achieve change is to flip the state.
AINT HAPPENING.
This is for those who think they know everything but won't show any statistic or fact.
Sure, it's annoying to have 76 cases in one year. But how many were innocent and didn't stay in jail for not having money?
In any case, 76 cases in one year is nothing that a county executive can't deal with.
He could've started programs such as tax credits for camera installation at homes, issuing permissions to install cameras on public light posts, educating people about how to protect your car from catalytic converters, etc...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
