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.
I was about to go outside to get some bike riding done. I feel bad that I haven't gotten any exercise today. But it's dark now and starting to rain more heavily. The early sunsets are the one thing I hate about this time of year. :/
The wording of the measure was terrible. I know people who were going to vote no on that until I told them what it was really all about. Voting yes on that measure was a no-brainer. Hearing about people sitting in jail for nonviolent crimes because they can't afford bail is sickening. I'm also really happy the second measure, concerning funding for open space preservation, passed, as I posted in the Happy Thread.
Of course having people sit in jail for nonviolent crimes is sickening, but I feel that judges have been given way too much power with the passage of this amendment. It's a gray area and innocent people are at risk of being locked up if they're deemed a risk to the public. What's the definition of that? This could also be open to abuse. Our government kills and locks up people all the time with complete disregard for the constitution. Bail is a right that should not be stripped away for anyone. Innocent until proven guilty.
The first step towards helping people who commit 'nonviolent' crimes would be legalization of victim-less 'crimes' like marijuana consumption and prostitution (consensual of course).
Of course having people sit in jail for nonviolent crimes is sickening, but I feel that judges have been given way too much power with the passage of this amendment. It's a gray area and innocent people are at risk of being locked up if they're deemed a risk to the public. What's the definition of that? This could also be open to abuse. Our government kills and locks up people all the time with complete disregard for the constitution. Bail is a right that should not be stripped away for anyone. Innocent until proven guilty.
The first step towards helping people who commit 'nonviolent' crimes would be legalization of victim-less 'crimes' like marijuana consumption and prostitution (consensual of course).
I agree with locking people up who are violent and dangerous. The problem is judges didn't have that power before. Someone could be a clear threat to the community (like a serial killer) and be able to post bail and get out. This is a good thing for civil rights. The ACLU agrees: https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-re...bail-reform-nj
Judges are just being given a power they should have and usually have. I'm sure drugs are a big reason nonviolent offenders are in jail awaiting trial. But drug crimes aren't the only kind of nonviolent crimes you could go to jail for.
I definitely don't agree with legalizing prostitution, nor do I think it's a victimless crime.
I agree with locking people up who are violent and dangerous. The problem is judges didn't have that power before. Someone could be a clear threat to the community (like a serial killer) and be able to post bail and get out. This is a good thing for civil rights. The ACLU agrees: https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-re...bail-reform-nj
Judges are just being given a power they should have and usually have. I'm sure drugs are a big reason nonviolent offenders are in jail awaiting trial. But drug crimes aren't the only kind of nonviolent crimes you could go to jail for.
I definitely don't agree with legalizing prostitution, nor do I think it's a victimless crime.
How do you define a clear threat to the community? This is a gray area. Someone could be accused of being a serial killer and turn out innocent. Or someone might not truly be a threat to the community. Innocent people have been thrown in jail for decades. My main issue with this new law is that innocent people will no longer have the right to post bail and end up sitting in jail for months if not longer. Even if they are found innocent, they were still locked up without the right to post bail; that is unacceptable IMO.
Legalized prostitution could be tightly regulated and protect prostitutes.
How do you define a clear threat to the community? This is a gray area. Someone could be accused of being a serial killer and turn out innocent. Or someone might not truly be a threat to the community. Innocent people have been thrown in jail for decades. My main issue with this new law is that innocent people will no longer have the right to post bail and end up sitting in jail for months if not longer. Even if they are found innocent, they were still locked up without the right to post bail; that is unacceptable IMO.
Legalized prostitution could be tightly regulated and protect prostitutes.
That's why trails are held. But before they can be held--notwithstanding the innocent until guilty principle--if they're accused of a violent crime or are otherwise deemed by a reasonably competent judge to pose a danger to the community, then they should be held in lieu of bail. The matter of who's a danger doesn't need to be (and in fact shouldn't be) clearly defined. At the very least, the passing of this measure will allow many people who would have otherwise been kept in jail for nonviolent crimes pending trail to be released.
That's why trails are held. But before they can be held--notwithstanding the innocent until guilty principle--if they're accused of a violent crime or are otherwise deemed by a reasonably competent judge to pose a danger to the community, then they should be held in lieu of bail. The matter of who's a danger doesn't need to be (and in fact shouldn't be) clearly defined. At the very least, the passing of this measure will allow many people who would have otherwise been kept in jail for nonviolent crimes pending trail to be released.
So what if you were accused of a violent crime, but were innocent? Wouldn't you want the option to post bail or would you be okay with sitting in a dangerous jail or prison for several months? It can take months to schedule a trial.
I agree that it's great that those accused of nonviolent crimes won't be kept in jail, but the right to bail should not have been taken away to those accused of more violent crimes.
I agree that it's great that those accused of nonviolent crimes won't be kept in jail, but the right to bail should not have been taken away to those accused of more violent crimes.
Is it for all those accused of violent crimes? Or just those that have a high potential of being dangerous, say those accused of being a serial killer. Norway is not known for being harsh to the accused or those convicted, but this guy didn't get bail:
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.
