Crime Bail Fund Praised By Kamala Harris Has Twice Freed The Same Rioter. He Was Just Charged Again

[panamaican]

No. This guy clearly couldn’t pay his bail and it ensured that he would be in jail until trial. He was threat and should have been considered one. The fact that he could t bail himself out, should show that he doesn’t have money and probably has no ties to any community. Which would mean he is a risk. They bailed him out no questions asked. Maybe be selective in the criminals you choose to bail out? Maybe Democrats could not try to constantly try and create chaos every chance they get.
And lol no one like Harris because she is an awful and unlikable human. Dem or not. She’s awful and your silly defense of pretending this is always partisan. People can see mistakes and call them out for being stupid.

1) If he went to a bail bondsman, what is the difference?

2) Why should a bail fund be selective in who they bail out? Think that one through very carefully before you type your answer. Who determines the risk factor of the individual - the bail fund or the judge?

 

[Scerpi]

No offense but that's a very unintelligent take. It's a bail fund -- that means providing bail for people who can't afford it themselves.

An intellectually honest take starts with whether or not those people deserve bail. If they do then it doesn't matter who pays the bail. If they don't deserve bail then it doesn't matter who pays the bail.

Another part of why this is an unintelligent take is that this is a bail fund. Bail is relevant to criminal trials. If you're going to bail out people, quite a few of them are going to be criminals - that's why they're in court in the first place. It's insanely poor reasoning to expect a bail fund to only bail out angels and saints.

As for a former prosecutor supporting a bail fund -- that makes perfect sense. Anyone who cares about the application of criminal law, fair trials and blind justice would support the idea that wealth shouldn't dictate if you meet bail or not. If the judge grants an accused bail then relative income shouldn't be the barrier to accessing that granted right. And it is a "right", the 8th Amendment disallows "excessive bail". It's not an unreasonable argument that bail that a normal person can't afford is probably excessive.

So, like I said - having an issue with a bail fund because it bails out criminals is a very unintelligent argument since the granting or denial of bail is up to the judge not the fund. Being upset that a former prosecutor supports a bail fund is equally unintelligent since most prosecutors support having lower and more reasonable bail amounts due to the unfairness of money bail system benefitting wealthy criminals over poor ones - which has absolutely nothing to do with "justice".

After everything I've witnessed over the last year, between activists judges and DA's continually releasing repeat criminals with PR Bonds or severely reduced bonds and the resulting spikes in violent crimes... I'm having a harder and harder time feeling sorry for accused criminals who can't afford their bonds.

 

[ElKarlo]

1) If he went to a bail bondsman, what is the difference?

2) Why should a bail fund be selective in who they bail out? Think that one through very carefully before you type your answer. Who determines the risk factor of the individual - the bail fund or the judge?

He didn’t go with his own money. The bail was set and he fining afford it. He wouldn’t have been out otherwise Given his record that was a justifiable level

For your second question? What ? Seriously. I’m sorry man but your intellect is falling apart here trying to justify all this idiocy
If a violent man can’t afford bail and you pay for him, you think in any way that is similar to bailing out a stupid kid who got caught up in a riot and got arrested
Before you answer, think very carefully about how much you are ruining your reputation here defending this

 

[panamaican]

After everything I've witnessed over the last year, between activists judges and DA's continually releasing repeat criminals with PR Bonds or severely reduced bonds and the resulting spikes in violent crimes... I'm having a harder and harder time feeling sorry for accused criminals who can't afford their bonds.

No one needs you to empathize with them. The question of legal fairness in the judicial isn't driven by whether or not we can empathize with the accused.

In this case, it's a very simple question: Should economic means dictate access to bail? Note that I said "access to bail", not the bail amount itself.

The answer to that should always be "no". A judge should determine if bail is appropriate for the individual and then set bail at an appropriate amount based on the factors in play. Once that's done, it doesn't matter who pays the bail amount and it doesn't matter how we feel about the individual. Once the judge determines the appropriate amount of bail - access to that shouldn't be about how much money the individual can drum up on short notice.

If it becomes about short term cash access then we're basically saying that poor people have to wait in jail because they're poor, not because the judge thinks they belong there.

 

[panamaican]

He didn’t go with his own money. The bail was set and he fining afford it. He wouldn’t have been out otherwise Given his record that was a justifiable level

For your second question? What ? Seriously. I’m sorry man but your intellect is falling apart here trying to justify all this idiocy
If a violent man can’t afford bail and you pay for him, you think in any way that is similar to bailing out a stupid kid who got caught up in a riot and got arrested
Before you answer, think very carefully about how much you are ruining your reputation here defending this

You didn't answer either of my question. I don't even know what the whole thing about kids and riots has to do with anything unless you're saying that people accused of violent crimes shouldn't be granted bail at all but you didn't say that so I won't assume that's where you were going. Either way, I highlighted the part that you should be thinking about but I suspect you glossed over.

1) If he went to a bail bondsman, what is the difference (he still wouldn't be going with his own money)?

2) Why should a bail fund be selective in who they bail out? Think that one through very carefully before you type your answer. Who determines the risk factor of the individual - the bail fund or the judge?

 

[ElKarlo]

You didn't answer either of my question. I don't even know what the whole thing about kids and riots has to do with anything unless you're saying that people accused of violent crimes shouldn't be granted bail at all but you didn't say that so I won't assume that's where you were going. Either way, I highlighted the part that you should be thinking about but I suspect you glossed over.

1) If he went to a bail bondsman, what is the difference (he still wouldn't be going with his own money)?

2) Why should a bail fund be selective in who they bail out? Think that one through very carefully before you type your answer. Who determines the risk factor of the individual - the bail fund or the judge?

He didn’t have his own money. He wouldn’t have been out otherwise.
Bailing him out meant that his bail was set at a level that he’d be in jail without the fund.
You’re pretending that’s not an issue I guess.
These funds allowed people that had their bail set high which that they couldn’t afford it and didn’t have anyone else who’d help. You effectively let someone out who otherwise wouldn’t be out
You’re also doing it from out of state and not guaranteeing their good behavior and dealing with their consequences

Again the guy didn’t have the ability to get out without the bail fund. Which makes what you said meaningless drivel that’s a vain attempt to defend these obviously I’ll conceived ideas

 

[Scerpi]

No one needs you to empathize with them. The question of legal fairness in the judicial isn't driven by whether or not we can empathize with the accused.

In this case, it's a very simple question: Should economic means dictate access to bail? Note that I said "access to bail", not the bail amount itself.

The answer to that should always be "no". A judge should determine if bail is appropriate for the individual and then set bail at an appropriate amount based on the factors in play. Once that's done, it doesn't matter who pays the bail amount and it doesn't matter how we feel about the individual. Once the judge determines the appropriate amount of bail - access to that shouldn't be about how much money the individual can drum up on short notice.

If it becomes about short term cash access then we're basically saying that poor people have to wait in jail because they're poor, not because the judge thinks they belong there.

I get that argument... but the real world results have been a disaster.

Homicides in 2021 are up almost 50% from 2020
And the 2020 Homicides were up 42% from 2019

Lower Bond amounts and issuing PR Bonds is sacrificing the general public rights for criminal rights. There's always a trade off in these decisions... and who's suffering now?

And these Bond Funds paying for criminal's bond does basically the same thing... There's no incentive for these guys to go back to trial or behave... It's not their money (or their family/friends).

 

[panamaican]

He didn’t have his own money. He wouldn’t have been out otherwise.
Bailing him out meant that his bail was set at a level that he’d be in jail without the fund.
You’re pretending that’s not an issue I guess.
These funds allowed people that had their bail set high which that they couldn’t afford it and didn’t have anyone else who’d help. You effectively let someone out who otherwise wouldn’t be out
You’re also doing it from out of state and not guaranteeing their good behavior and dealing with their consequences

Again the guy didn’t have the ability to get out without the bail fund. Which makes what you said meaningless drivel that’s a vain attempt to defend these obviously I’ll conceived ideas

Still didn't answer either of my questions. But I can see that there's an information gap in play.

Do you think that most people go to bail bondsmen with their own money? Who do you think puts up the 10% to the bondsman - hint: it's usually not the accused. Someone else puts up the money. So back to question 1:

1) If he went to a bail bondsman, what is the difference (he still wouldn't be going with his own money)?

I can see where you're struggling with the 2nd question. Here let's do this slowly.

1) The judge sets bail. The judge sets bail based on the risk factors available to him/her.
2) The bail fund is not the judge.
3) The bail fund is not better positioned to assess risk factors than the judge is. (that's why there is a judge and a bail hearing).
4) Why would the bail fund conduct and rely on a less informed risk assessment than the one conducted by a judge, involving the attorneys and all known facts?

Seriously, think that through. Why would the bail fund substitute their less informed judgment over that of the judge?

 

[panamaican]

I get that argument... but the real world results have been a disaster.

Homicides in 2021 are up almost 50% from 2020
And the 2020 Homicides were up 42% from 2019

Lower Bond amounts and issuing PR Bonds is sacrificing the general public rights for criminal rights. There's always a trade off in these decisions... and who's suffering now?

And these Bond Funds paying for criminal's bond does basically the same thing... There's no incentive for these guys to go back to trial or behave... It's not their money (or their family/friends).

That's not remotely relevant to the question..

Here's a more relevant set of questions: What percentage of people on bail commit a crime while on bail? How much has the percentage changed in recent years?

 

[Natural Order]

@panamaican is 100% correct on the bail issue, and logic behind it.

The argument that the idea is about whether the individual can pay the amount set out of “their own pocket” is absurd and has nothing to do with anything.

You can argue the whole thing needs an overhaul (it does), but most of these points are moot.

 

[SBJJ]

That's not remotely relevant to the question..

Here's a more relevant set of questions: What percentage of people on bail commit a crime while on bail? How much has the percentage changed in recent years?

Why the edit? Was 14% wrong? Or did you realize 14% is already VERY high and that is only those caught.

 

[SBJJ]

@panamaican is 100% correct on the bail issue, and logic behind it.

The argument that the idea is about whether the individual can pay the amount set out of “their own pocket” is absurd and has nothing to do with anything.

You can argue the whole thing needs an overhaul (it does), but most of these points are moot.

Then come up with a better system. But shit canning a system that works at all is absurd

 

[panamaican]

Why the edit? Was 14% wrong? Or did you realize 14% is already VERY high and that is only those caught.

The 14% was from 1994. THat's over 25 years ago.

He was referring to crime spikes in the last couple of years. I should be using data that's from remotely the same time period.

 

[SBJJ]

The 14% was from 1994. THat's over 25 years ago.

He was referring to crime spikes in the last couple of years. I should be using data that's from remotely the same time period.

Let's hope it's now lower than 14%. Because that number is incredibly high. Especially when you consider those are only the ones caught during that time

 

[Natural Order]

Then come up with a better system. But shit canning a system that works at all is absurd

Aren’t money bail systems being done away with in a growing amount of states?

You’d need to do comparative studies on repeat offenders or increases in crime, not sure if anything has been done like this yet.

 

[panamaican]

Then come up with a better system. But shit canning a system that works at all is absurd

No one is shitcanning the system. They're recalibrating it to appropriately reflect the intent of the bail.

Most of the people complaining in this thread aren't even complaining about the bail amount. They're complaining that someone paid the bail amount set by the judge. Which suggests that they are viewing bail as a punishment tool. Implying that bail should be set high precisely so that people can't meet it and thus have to remain in jail pre-trial. Go back through the thread and see how many people have an issue with the amount of bail or the granting of bail itself compared to how many people have an issue with the fact that a 3rd party paid the bail.

It's misplaced.

 

[SBJJ]

Aren’t money bail systems being done away with in a growing amount of states?

You’d need to do comparative studies on repeat offenders or increases in crime, not sure if anything has been done like this yet.

Or just use common sense and realize releasing known criminals on the streets will increase crime.

 

[Natural Order]

Or just use common sense and realize releasing known criminals on the streets will increase crime.

What is the definition of crime that prevents bail? Any? Lol, imagine what your jails would look like.

Garbage take bro.

 

[panamaican]

Let's hope it's now lower than 14%. Because that number is incredibly high. Especially when you consider those are only the ones caught during that time

It's not that high when people look at the data. Most of the re-arrests are drug related. Which makes sense. You arrest someone on drug possession and grant them bail. If they're drug users, they're going to continue using. So, they'll probably get picked up for possession again between the time they make bail and their criminal trial months in the future. No one really expects a drug user to stay clean until their trial, do they?

 

[SBJJ]

No one is shitcanning the system. They're recalibrating it to appropriately reflect the intent of the bail.

Most of the people complaining in this thread aren't even complaining about the bail amount. They're complaining that someone paid the bail amount set by the judge. Which suggests that they are viewing bail as a punishment tool. Implying that bail should be set high precisely so that people can't meet it and thus have to remain in jail pre-trial. Go back through the thread and see how many people have an issue with the amount of bail or the granting of bail itself compared to how many people have an issue with the fact that a 3rd party paid the bail.

It's misplaced.

Why would I continue reading after you say no one is shit canning the system.....when in fact, many are.

Honestly, why should I believe anything you say when you can't be honest about that one simple thing.