Gay couple attacked in Times Square (Oneonta: appointed, camping, income)
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.
People refusing to step in is certainly nothing new; of course, you did have some people who would step in then, just as you'd probably have some (no matter how ill-advised) who would step in today. But there is all the more reason to not to so today, especially given the pro-criminal policies that some politicians have supported and enacted.
So you think that more people are becoming criminals due to political influence? Wonder what they were doing before.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Not because of political influence but because they know they won't have consequences to face.
Yeah, seems a bit farfetched that people would simply turn to a life of crime because they think the law is more lax. Most likely these people were not role models to begin with. Do either you or PHR know anybody that started committing more crimes because its supposedly easier now to get away with?
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Yeah, seems a bit farfetched that people would simply turn to a life of crime because they think the law is more lax. Most likely these people were not role models to begin with.
I mean just look at the guy who was out on bail for, guess what, attempted murder, and went on to actually kill two other people due to not being locked up: https://abc7ny.com/nyc-crime-harlem-...east/13112775/ How you're granted bail for the attempted murder of police officers is beyond me, but that's the insanity we're seeing as a result of the bail reform law.
But we don't even need anecdotes to support this; the data support it all the same.
Quote:
There’s a lot to these tables, but the basic takeaway is that rearrest rose after bail reform. Using the constant window, the increase is on the order of 3 to 5 percentage points. But that window necessarily undercounts rearrests.
Perhaps the most suggestive comparison is “ever†rearrest rates in 2020 versus 2019, as graphed below, with the 2020 rates more than 7 percentage points higher than the 2019 rates (with a one-year-less time to reoffend) overall. In other words, offenders arraigned in 2020 were significantly more likely to get rearrested than those arraigned in 2019, even given that more time has elapsed since the 2019 arraignments. It is quite probable, given the much shorter time since most 2021 arraignments, that the “ever†figures will rise to the 2020 level in time.
Regardless of what people's motivations are, it's pretty clear that the bail reform law has allowed people who otherwise would have remained locked up due to not being able to afford bail, etc., to be out on the street reoffend, which they have at increasing rates.
All of this ties back into my earlier point. I'll pass on being a good Samaritan (particularly in violent situations) in a state/city that has enacted pro-criminal legal reforms where my good efforts won't mean much as people likely going to be right back on the streets to reoffend and, potentially, target me in retaliation. It's hardly wild to think that criminals are emboldened by such laws as they know they can offend and still be home for dinner.
I mean just look at the guy who was out on bail for, guess what, attempted murder, and went on to actually kill two other people due to not being locked up: https://abc7ny.com/nyc-crime-harlem-...east/13112775/ How you're granted bail for the attempted murder of police officers is beyond me, but that's the insanity we're seeing as a result of the bail reform law.
But we don't even need anecdotes to support this; the data support it all the same.
Regardless of what people's motivations are, it's pretty clear that the bail reform law has allowed people who otherwise would have remained locked up due to not being able to afford bail, etc., to be out on the street reoffend, which they have at increasing rates.
All of this ties back into my earlier point. I'll pass on being a good Samaritan (particularly in violent situations) in a state/city that has enacted pro-criminal legal reforms where my good efforts won't mean much as people likely going to be right back on the streets to reoffend and, potentially, target me in retaliation. It's hardly wild to think that criminals are emboldened by such laws as they know they can offend and still be home for dinner.
Ok, he was already out on bail for attempted murder, you think this person said to themselves, hey apparently its easier to get away with it, so he went ahead to kill 2 more people, and then on top of that, got caught? That's merely speculation. The truth is you or nobody else knows what motivated him to continue. And the speculation invites fear-mongering. It's the slow down to watch the car wreck phenomenon, that's another reason why the people least affected by NYC crime read all the crime stories.
And the bolded is why bail reform exists, you can't make it more financially convenient to commit crimes. Two commit the same crime, but one gets to go home because his bank account is fatter? Thats the point of bail reform.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
Ok, he was already out on bail for attempted murder, you think this person said to themselves, hey apparently its easier to get away with it, so he went ahead to kill 2 more people, and then on top of that, got caught? That's merely speculation. The truth is you or nobody else knows what motivated him to continue. And the speculation invites fear-mongering. It's the slow down to watch the car wreck phenomenon, that's another reason why the people least affected by NYC crime read all the crime stories.
I think that career criminals, knowing that they'll get a slap on the wrist and be back out on the streets due to bail reform laws, are emboldened to continue committing crime. And, again, the data bear this out; too many are reoffending and getting rearrested when out on bail (or being released on their own recognizance)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeventhFloor
And the bolded is why bail reform exists, you can't make it more financially convenient to commit crimes. Two commit the same crime, but one gets to go home because his bank account is fatter? Thats the point of bail reform.
The perverse irony of that way of thinking (which is exactly what the sponsors of bail reform legislation had in mind) is that bail reform makes crime financially more convenient for an even number of people. Because before, you'd have more people locked up for longer periods and unable to reoffend in the interim. Now, these people are right back on the streets and, as the data show, are reoffending at higher rates, which of course disproportionately impact minority communities. But I guess as long as there's greater parity in terms of who is allowed to get out after committing crimes, that's an acceptable solution? Greater parity and equality in outcome can have disastrous results; they are not always good things.
I think that career criminals, knowing that they'll get a slap on the wrist and be back out on the streets due to bail reform laws, are emboldened to continue committing crime. And, again, the data bear this out; too many are reoffending and getting rearrested when out on bail (or being released on their own recognizance)
The perverse irony of that way of thinking (which is exactly what the sponsors of bail reform legislation had in mind) is that bail reform makes crime financially more convenient for an even number of people. Because before, you'd have more people locked up for longer periods and unable to reoffend in the interim. Now, these people are right back on the streets and, as the data show, are reoffending at higher rates, which of course disproportionately impact minority communities. But I guess as long as there's greater parity in terms of who is allowed to get out after committing crimes, that's an acceptable solution? Greater parity and equality in outcome can have disastrous results; they are not always good things.
You can Google yourself, prior to bail reform recidivism always existed. I think as I type this it's even more alarming to me that there are "tolerable" levels of crime for some. Because if recidivism always existed, this means to me that jail was never a deterrent, and it's all about maintaining a status quo. We actually need society reform more than bail reform. If you have society reform you won't need bail reform.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
You can Google yourself, prior to bail reform recidivism always existed. I think as I type this it's even more alarming to me that there are "tolerable" levels of crime for some. Because if recidivism always existed, this means to me that jail was never a deterrent, and it's all about maintaining a status quo. We actually need society reform more than bail reform. If you have society reform you won't need bail reform.
Sure. But we're seeing an increase directly tied to bail reform efforts, which is a trend in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. Of course, deterrence is only one of the purposes of the criminal justice system, with other purposes being retribution, incarceration, and rehabilitation; they're all supposed to be interconnected.
But what's the alternative? Not locking people up because a certain percentage are going to reoffend? At a minimum, incarceration provides a period of greater peace and stability for communities. There are some bad, bad people in jail, and I'm glad they are there vice walking the streets.
Society reform is all good and well, but that's not something that the criminal justice system can solve, IMO. At least not on its own. And talk of societal reform means little to those who have to suffer from an increased criminal element via those who a few years ago would not be free walking the streets.
Sure. But we're seeing an increase directly tied to bail reform efforts, which is a trend in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned. Of course, deterrence is only one of the purposes of the criminal justice system, with other purposes being retribution, incarceration, and rehabilitation; they're all supposed to be interconnected.
But what's the alternative? Not locking people up because a certain percentage are going to reoffend? At a minimum, incarceration provides a period of greater peace and stability for communities. There are some bad, bad people in jail, and I'm glad they are there vice walking the streets.
Society reform is all good and well, but that's not something that the criminal justice system can solve, IMO. At least not on its own. And talk of societal reform means little to those who have to suffer from an increased criminal element via those who a few years ago would not be free walking the streets.
Thats because the criminal justice system was not designed to solve society's problems. It's part of a capitalist system that is only there for profit.
Think of the large scale - if the perception that crime is low, the neighborhood is worth more, on that level. Why not keep certain neighborhoods decrepit then so that the system stays packed with clients? Literally people being fed off of it.
__________________
"The man who sleeps on the floor, can never fall out of bed." -Martin Lawrence
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.
Greater parity and equality in outcome can have disastrous results; they are not always good things.
