I think holding someone in jail for 6 months for 2nd offense of shoplifting is fundamentally unjust. Imagine an 18 year old steals a candy bar, gets convicted. Then two years go by, he's now 20, and he gets accused of stealing another candy bar. Is it just to sentence him to 6 months in jail for it? That seems pretty unfair to me. The punishment does not fit the crime.XtremeJibber2001 wrote: ↑Sep 13th, '22, 10:52 I could be wrong, but I think Daytripper's point is that maybe this is the wrong approach. I think most second offense shoplifters, age 18 and older, are likely habitual shoplifters. So releasing them is releasing them to continue shoplifting. Eventually it will catchup to them, but could be a year or more of shoplifting before they face any consequences. Would shoplifting behavior change if, say after your third offense, you're held without bail?
Now if you're asking about recidivism, I think the statistics show that jail time does little to deter repeat offenders. If you're talking about habitual criminal activity, the standard is usually 3 crimes, not 2. But again, the issue is that bail applies to an accused, not someone convicted, of a crime. So if you're merely accused of a crime, but you get exonerated, isn't it really unfair that you spent 6 months in jail because you couldn't afford bail? That's where the Democrats have a point.
As a matter of basic human rights, I do not believe a person should be detained prior to conviction unless there's a really good reason - that being that they are likely to be a danger to society. Otherwise, you're guilty until proven innocent. For a lot of poor people, that's how they see the justice system. It's a very different system for people with means, and bail is one reason why.