KillingtonZone.com

throbster wrote: ↑Aug 19th, '22, 09:15 Another losing idea is cashless bail brought to many lib run cities by the evil Soros. What the phuck are they thinking letting violent thugs out with no bail? Check out today's New York Post.

The sh*t going on here in New York because of the bail reform laws is just plain wrong.

Heywood jablowmee wrote: ↑Aug 19th, '22, 09:33 NYPOst. Say NO more. Your credibility just took an irreversible nosedive

Are you saying the story is fake?

What do you read Mr. Blowme. NY Slimes? Washington comPost?

daytripper wrote: ↑Aug 19th, '22, 10:40 The sh*t going on here in New York because of the bail reform laws is just plain wrong.

Well, I think there's some nuance to it. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and the purpose of bail is supposed to be to ensure the accused shows up for court. It is not meant to keep dangerous people off the street. In that line of thinking, the amount of bail should consider a defendant's means, because if a poor person is falsely accused and bail gets set at $1,000, it might mean a long jail stay even if he is ultimately exonerated.

What NY needs is what we have in MA, a dangerousness hearing. In MA, there's a separate statute that allows the judge to hold the accused without bail if they are accused of an offense that contains an element of violence. It is separate from bail altogether.

throbster wrote: ↑Aug 19th, '22, 13:27

Heywood jablowmee wrote: ↑Aug 19th, '22, 09:33 NYPOst. Say NO more. Your credibility just took an irreversible nosedive

Are you saying the story is fake?

What do you read Mr. Blowme. NY Slimes? Washington comPost?

Neither......butt you prolly knew this without asking. DO carry on.......humor is in short supply these days.

"Jhablowmee". You stand corrected...

I think I'm this case, the prosecutor lowered the charges so the mental patient could walk. Mean while these clowns over charge a bodega shop owner for killing a guy in self defense (charges were eventually dropped after public outcry)

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Aug 19th, '22, 14:23

daytripper wrote: ↑Aug 19th, '22, 10:40 The sh*t going on here in New York because of the bail reform laws is just plain wrong.

Well, I think there's some nuance to it. A person is innocent until proven guilty, and the purpose of bail is supposed to be to ensure the accused shows up for court. It is not meant to keep dangerous people off the street. In that line of thinking, the amount of bail should consider a defendant's means, because if a poor person is falsely accused and bail gets set at $1,000, it might mean a long jail stay even if he is ultimately exonerated.

What NY needs is what we have in MA, a dangerousness hearing. In MA, there's a separate statute that allows the judge to hold the accused without bail if they are accused of an offense that contains an element of violence. It is separate from bail altogether.

Violent felons are being released without bail, many already on parole. Shoplifters are just walking into stores filling up shopping bags and leaving because they know that there is no consequences for shoplifting. Repeat offenders of assault just released again and again. What's going on in the NYC area is just ridiculous.

Definitely agree that the failure to prosecute petty theft and the like is outrageous and stupid. And definitely agree there needs to be a way to hold dangerous felons in custody after arrest.

New Orleans’ Democrat Mayor Claims Economy Flights Not Safe for Black Women.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/ ... xgWVEVnpNM

No, the party cannot be saved.

throbster wrote: ↑Sep 12th, '22, 16:34 New Orleans’ Democrat Mayor Claims Economy Flights Not Safe for Black Women.

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2022/ ... xgWVEVnpNM

No, the party cannot be saved.

This just proves that dirtbag politicians occur in both parties. Louisiana seems to be a hotbed of them. Anyone remember the NOLA mayor during hurricane Katrina?

Illinois is making history by being the first state to test out “The Purge” in real life.

On January 1, 2023, the “SAFE-T” act in Illinois will be active. The “SAFE-T” Act stands for Safety, Accountability, Fairness, and Equity-Today and will allow its residents to commit crimes freely.

Governor Pritzker says the law “marks a substantial step toward dismantling the systemic racism. That plagues our communities, our state, our nation and brings us closer to true safety, true fairness, true justice.”

The Counter Signal reported that the law would end cash bail for 12 non-detainable offenses. This includes second-degree murder, aggravated battery, arson, drug-induced homicide, kidnapping, burglary, robbery, intimidation, aggravated DUI, aggravated fleeing and eluding, drug offenses, and threatening a public official.

Stupid is as stupid does. Democrats are stupid.

So again, there's some nuance here. The problem with cash bail is that sometimes poor people get accused of crimes like shoplifting, bail is set at $500, and they can't afford to pay it so they sit in jail for six months to a year awaiting trial on some charge that wouldn't even result in jail time if convicted. So reforming the cash bail system is not a bad idea.

Now there also needs to be a separate mechanism to detain criminals who are potentially violent or may commit crimes again. We have this in Massachusetts, a very Democrat-oriented state. In Illinois, there are groups actually working to add something like this to the SAFE-T act, which doesn't take effect until next year. I think eliminating cash bail without including a mechanism to detain violent or repeat criminals is insane, so hopefully the law gets amended before it takes effect.

Part of the problem in today's America is nobody is listening to each other anymore. The Democrats have a point with this law, and the Republicans have a point in opposing it. If they just talked to each other and compromised, you could end up with a working solution. Instead we're too busy shouting at each other, so what we end up with is half-baked crap instead of a viable solution.

I can understand a first time shoplifter getting released without bail. A second time shoplifter I do not. In NY people shoplift with no regard since if they get caught they just get released. I see absolutely no reason anyone charged with a violent felony (or pretty much any felony) to be released without bail. Yet this happens every day in NY and seems like it will be in Illinois now. This has created major problems in NY and I'm sure it will in Illinois as well.

Right. I think you are failing to understand the distinction between bail, whose purpose is to ensure someone shows up for their next court date, and detaining someone for dangerousness, which is done to protect society from dangerous people. These are two different things and there should be two different mechanisms involved. Consider the other side - bail set at $100k still means the person gets released if they come up with the money to pay it. A violent drug dealer possibly could, as could a person with a rich uncle willing to post bail. So just imposing bail is not good enough in some cases.

Most crimes committed are not violent and are very minor. For a second offense shoplifter, I do not think the person should be held without bail. It can take 6 or 9 months to reach trial from the date of an offense. A 2nd offense of shoplifting does not merit a 6 month jail sentence. That is not a just punishment. Now if you're talking about someone accused of aggravated assault or murder or the like, then yes, detaining them makes a lot of sense.

easyrider16 wrote: ↑Sep 13th, '22, 10:44Most crimes committed are not violent and are very minor. For a second offense shoplifter, I do not think the person should be held without bail. It can take 6 or 9 months to reach trial from the date of an offense. A 2nd offense of shoplifting does not merit a 6 month jail sentence. That is not a just punishment. Now if you're talking about someone accused of aggravated assault or murder or the like, then yes, detaining them makes a lot of sense.

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?