[ab_goat]

The key issue here is the difficult choice between:

a. Incorrectly and significantly disrupting people's lives by locking them up pre-trial when many cases up getting acquitted. This can often sink folk into much worse situations than they were before, creating an endless cycle

b. Potentially releasing some dangerous criminals back into society while they wait their trials

edit: to be clear, I think the likelihood * impact of false positives is way worse than the false negatives

[steveBK123]

One thing with the bail reform movement is that the voters who are asked whether they support it don't necessarily understand the seemingly obvious, but technically non-obvious terms being used.

For example in NY, it was sold as only applying to non-violent crimes. So one might say - sure this sound great, obviously we don't need to pre-trial hold non-violent criminals!

However technically, as defined in law, theres a lot of things that "sound violent" but are considered non-violent felonies. Second degree manslaughter (125.15) is, for the purposes of NY State law, a non-violent felony.

So the next question - what might get a person charged with second degree manslaughter? * Well, a guy recently chocked an erratic mentally ill homeless man to death on the subway was charged with second degree manslaughter only

Other historical examples just to name a few-

* Speeding 55mph in a 25mph local road (Delancey), killing a pedestrian and fleeing the scene

* Guy accidentally shooting a friend with an unregistered gun while playing video games

* DUI with kids in the car so badly you flip the car, killing one child

* Drunken stealing a truck, driving up 7th Ave and hitting a Bus so fast they killed the driver

* Guy overdosing his 10 month old on fentanyl somehow

* Cop accidentally shoots a guy in the stairway of a housing project, proceeds to leave and call union rep rather than render assistance, while arguing with his partner not to report the shooting

* Drunk driving 90mph in a 25mph, crashing into another drunk driver who was on a suspended license, killing a passenger in the back, and the most either of them got charged with was again, second degree manslaughter

[Izkata]

> * Well, a guy recently chocked an erratic mentally ill homeless man to death on the subway was charged with second degree manslaughter only

He and two others were subduing the homeless man to protect other passengers (there were five 911 calls), then tried to help the homeless man after he went unconscious.

[steveBK123]

I'm actually in agreement that he should probably not see a day in prison.

But I leave that with the NYPD, DA and jury. There is evidence few of us have seen or heard going in either direction which will be seen inside the courtroom.

However, it seems bizarre that he is ultimate charged with something, which sounds violent & scary "manslaughter in the second degree" that obviously did involve violence (choking & death) but ultimately under NYS law, it is not classified as a "violent felony".

This is what I mean between the difference of the logical & legal definition of violence, and how some bail reform supporters didn't understand what they were supporting.

[oerpli]

I don't see how any of these cases prove your point. None of these offenders seem to fit a profile of someone that is a threat to public safety.

[steveBK123]

I'll add that the #1 thing we heard over and over for bail reform advocates was - it's all these nonviolent drug offenders being locked up for using or selling a little bit of drugs!

But there are clearly many classes of "non violent" crimes which seem violent enough, and/or result in death. And as a lay person it's a bit opaque.

Given prosecutorial discretion in charging, there are things that could be murder or manslaughter, and therefore the same crime can be "violent" or "nonviolent" depending on some 50/50 charging choices by the DA... sometimes those choices being driven by what they think they can get a conviction on with a jury, not what they think the crime actually merits.

[steveBK123]

Recklessly driving 90mph drunk in a 25mph zone / owning an illegal firearm and waving it around such that it kills someone, these aren't like.. random fluke "they just did it once" kind of things.

Did they intend to kill? No.

But what did they think was going to happen when they drove drunk 90mph / acquired an illegal firearm and used it recklessly?

[pseudalopex]

Fatal reckless driving is not a threat to public safety?

[steveBK123]

Right? I can't help but think some people have settled on "putting anyone in prison is bad" and work there way backwards from there.

Some people do bad things. Some people repeatedly do bad things. Living consequence free leads to more bad things.

I mean what do you do with a DUI driver, already on a suspended license who causes a fatality? Take away their license?

[masklinn]

It is not a choice, (b) is not and has never been what bail was supposed to be about. If your prosecutors were using it that way, it was very much a misuse, at the very least out of sheer laziness (because getting insane bail amounts was easier than actually demonstrating a need for remanding) and most likely racist and / or classist.

[masklinn]

Probably corrupt as well now that I think about it, how many have financial interest in bonds through kickbacks, campaign contributions, etc…?

[dfxm12]

Don't fall into the trap of already thinking of the accused is guilty. Also, framing this as an a or b choice is a false dichotomy. There are other outcomes, and they largely depend on the factors involved - prosecutors have the option to prove the accused is a danger to society, and if they can, they won't go back.