[EB66]

> are objectively less likely to reoffend while on bail in a way that would harm regular citizens

I'm not so sure that's true... do you have data to support that? I can think of some counter examples pretty easily off the top of my head -- Billy McFarland, Michael Avenatti, etc.

[remarkEon]

>Do you have data to support this?

Comments like this are really bizarre. It's like asking for "data" that says looking both ways before crossing the street is a good idea and reduces the frequency of pedestrian fatalities. Your two examples further OP's point. Those two people are asshole fraudsters, but they don't present a physical danger to people around them.

[EB66]

> Comments like this are really bizarre. It's like asking for "data" that says looking both ways before crossing the street is a good idea and reduces the frequency of pedestrian fatalities.

Since when is it "bizarre" to ask someone if they've based their assertion off of hard data? I replied to at-w's fairly remarkable claim that white collar criminals are less likely to harm people while out on bail than non-white collar criminals. That assertion is not a forgone conclusion like the wisdom of "look both ways before you cross the street". Clearly it's reasonable to ask the poster if they're basing their assertion off of some hard data.

> Those two people are asshole fraudsters, but they don't present a physical danger to people around them.

We're talking about the propensity to harm others while out on bail. Harm is not limited to physical harm. The two examples I gave were of white collar criminals who continued to defraud/extort others while they were out on bail.

[r_hoods_ghost]

Comments like this are bizarre. If the claim is that a) is objectively true then you'd better have data to back up that claim otherwise your claim is not objective.

[MagicMoonlight]

“There is no sky fairy controlling the universe”

“BUH BUH BUH WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?”

[baobabKoodaa]

The question was "likely to reoffend". Somehow you reduced this to "present a physical danger". SBF is not accused of physically endangering people, so the term "reoffend" is not a reference to physical violence. It's a reference to defrauding people (the thing he's accused of right now). Your parent already posted examples like Billy McFarland, who immediately go on to defraud more people when they are let out on the street. This very obviously is a danger with SBF as well.

[noyoudumbdolt]

Asking for data on HN is usually just a stupid rhetorical trick to derail a logical thread.

[hardware2win]

Logic != Truth

[at-w]

It's hard to believe that the likelihood of a criminal reoffending in the period awaiting trial (what bail relates to) is higher for someone who depends on committing violent crimes to support themselves than someone that's followed around by the media constantly, depends on their now ruined reputation to run their scam, and has never even been alleged to have committed any violent crime?

I believe many/most white collar criminals are morally reprehensible people who often deserve far greater punishment than even violent criminals for the harm that they do. That doesn't change the fact that in the generally brief period awaiting trial, they are far less of an immediate threat to those around them than even a low-level violent criminal.

[throwawaylinux]

Oh god Avenatti that scummly little weasel who somehow became the darling of corporate press and twitter and talk shows? I can't believe so many fell for that so badly, there were even "serious" opinion pieces from these hacks out there about how he should run for president. It was obvious just about by looking at him that he was a grifter.

[HideousKojima]

He was the lawyer for Stormy Daniels, the media saw him (and the Daniels case) as a way to finally take down Trump, so of course they didn't look any deeper into who he was than necessary.