Why do Dem leaders continue to implement these types of things? Hasn't the horrendous outcomes in other areas been enough to show that it's not a good idea? How do you defend this kind of thing?
Democrats. Why are your leaders doing this?
- Thread starter Boilermaker03
- Start date
Crime creates chaos and Democrats thrive on chaos. Why you ask? Chaos makes people vulnerable and desperate.
I noticed he mentioned no names! In order for something to become a law it also must have bipartisan support. Yet the members of the other party who voted on it never get mentioned! He mentions it came in the middle of the night to be voted on. I could bring up 1 million other bills that also came to the floor at night in the middle of the night over the past 50 years. That’s standard practice in our government! Where has this guy been? He talks about criminal behavior! I would be in jail for over 50 years if I brought classified material home from work!
Dude, stay in your lane. This OP is referring to Illinois’ liberal legislators attempting to decriminalize a number of serious crimes with this so-called “SAFE-T Act”.
You wouldn’t be in jail if you did it in Illinois
The Democrats are just waiting to expand their freeing of the criminals to the entire country.
www.axios.com
"Axios on HBO": Swan challenges Tlaib on emptying federal prisons
These law-and-order issues have come to the center of political contests throughout the country.
www.axios.com
Illinois has a super majority democratic legislature and Governor. Republicans for the last several years have had zero control. They can’t filibuster. They can’t bring bills to the floor. All Boards are Democratic appointees. Nothing. It’s actually provides a great example of the success of progressive ideas.
In another story 80% of Illinoisans will move out would if they could. What does that tell you about the success of progressive ruling?
He did name some names so shows how much you paid attention.
Bipartisan support? You do understand we are talking about Illinois right? Here is the link to the bill. All of the bill sponsors in the House and Senate are Democrats. Not one Republican.
As far as your weak ass jab towards Trump, you aren't the former president of the United States, so yes, you would be in jail for a long time. You don't have the authority the former president does.
As far as I know this is the first state pursuing this. Where was this done where it resulted in horrendous outcomes?
If you commit a crime and have money, you go home and wait for trial. If you commit a crime and are too poor to afford bail, you sit in a detention center and wait for trial. The act does not allow a pre-trial release without a judge reviewing each case.
It costs the state $ to house all the people in detention centers. Also the low income people who can't afford bail most likely likely will lose whatever low paying job they have, if they have one, due to being detained. Regardless of whether or not they are convicted.
I don't see what's wrong with this.
Other than the fact that if you are guilty of second degree murder or one of the other listed felonies and don’t wanna serve the time, you can just move to another state.
Last edited:
But can't people who are guilty of second degree murder and who also have enough money to pay the bail able to do that now? Or are we only worried about people too poor to pay the bail leaving the state?
Of course, I guess we could avoid that problem altogether if there were some mechanism by which one state could apprehend someone and return them to the state that is going to prosecute. Maybe we could even come up with a word for this mechanism!
You mean bounty hunters sent by bail bondsmen? Yeah, big difference than letting people with nothing to lose out to never be found again .
At least there is an incentive to show up for court and NOT leave the state.
And I would be fine if the rule was to slap an in-house arrest bracelet/anklet on the accused. But, nah, let’s let them walk. Heck, make it an option, pay the bail or choose an anklet.
Im sure the accused criminals have a sparkling record for showing up in court
You mean other than not adding yet another crime onto your record?
But that doesn't fix anything. It still makes it so people who can afford the bail are not held to the same standard and could leave the state. Why is that something they should be able to do but not people who CAN'T afford the bail?
It doesn't matter though. If that's the problem we're trying to solve, then people should just all be held in detention while awaiting trial, bail should not exist at all. If, however, we believe that not everyone NEEDS to be held until trial, then why should people who don't have money be stuck in jail while people who do have money aren't?
No, I don't mean this. I was talking about extradition.
You've not addressed the core issue. What is the justification for letting SOME people out, accepting all the risks of them fleeing or committing other crimes, but not doing the same with others who simply don't have enough money to pay for that privilege? Why does having money make someone more deserving of the opportunity to flee to another state pre-trial?
Yeah, the problem is only treating criminals fairly, versus paying for their crime. (Why not just throw both rich and poor in jail..oh, Illinois is out of money….so let’s let them free.). Fine…then make both wear an anklet…(but is it fair to make the poor criminal return to his/her/their home and let the rich go to their home…nah)
My solution for equality….
I think rich Democrats should just let the poor criminals live with them and make the rich criminals go live in Cabrini-Green (maybe I’m dating myself with this reference).
Anyways…Problem solved.
And in the end, prosecutors elect not to prosecute. Let them be free, let them be free!!
Why does money grant you the right to anything? Dumb question . If you and or your family have something to lose or a bondsman odds are a lot higher of showing up for court. You have a really simple understanding of things don't you?
That would be fine, because it's at least equitable. Like I said, you could be advocating for eliminating bail altogether and that would also be fine because it's equitable. The issue being address with the elimination of cash bail is correcting an inequity in the system. If not being in jail before you are convicted of anything is a right that people have (maybe you don't believe it is, but that's a different issue), then ALL people need to have that right, not just people with a certain amount of money.
What? Why wouldn't it be?
Well, I responded to your previous post because, for once, you responded with something of mild substance rather than just calling someone stupid. Back to the status quo I see.
Is it fair for poor people to have to live in poverty and rich people to have the financial resources that the rich have. How is that fair?
This is a deflection.
Should the government impose harsher penalties on poor people ("you have to stay in jail") for allegedly committing a crime than they do on non-poor people ("you DON'T have to stay in jail") for allegedly committing the same crime? If so, why?
Deflection.👍
Dude..if you read what I posted above…give both the rich and the poor an anklet. That would seem like a logical solution to the problem. Do you agree or disagree?
Nope, Democrats pass a law to let them out free on their accord….that’s the Democrat solution. Are you in favor of that (the Safe-T bill) over the above proposal?
Tough on crime…nah…don’t worry about it. 😉
Illinois is too poor to care about the citizens not accused of crimes. Pretty soon that fraction of the Illinois population will be the minority.
Yippee!
Thing is we know it doesn’t work. Since Cook County implemented it’s felony bond rules in 2020 which allowed violent felons to sit at home and wait for their trial 80 people have been murdered by said persons (that we know of). See when violent felons are allowed to go home they don’t stay home. They go out and commit more violent felonies. But you get to feel good about your lawn sign since you probably aren’t the victim.
https://cwbchicago.com/2022/09/36-d...her-car-while-on-felony-bail-prosecutors.html
I'm not sure if you're accusing me of deflecting (I'm clearly not because my question actually has to do with the topic of the thread while yours about the fairness of people's living conditions didn't) or sarcastically agreeing with my statement that you were deflecting. But, whatever, it's not important.
It's an equitable solution, which I've already acknowledged. Whether it's the right one or not requires research and data about what actually works, because what feels intuitively true is not always actually true in reality. There are actual real life experts who study this stuff, so they should be the ones who are consulted by lawmakers. I'm not one of them, so I can't say what the best solution is.
But I'm glad we at least agree that the current system of cash bail is not equitable. We could've avoided a lot of back and forth if you'd just stated that you thought this particular solution to the problem was flawed, rather than saying that the issue was that NOW people could flee the state. Since people could do that anyway, as long as they had enough money, it seemed like you were saying that you were only worried about poor people fleeing the state.
But yet, here you are again worried about letting people out. We've ALWAYS let people out while awaiting trial, depending on various circumstances (the severity of the alleged crime, the person's flight risk, etc.) as determined by the judge. I have no problem with there being circumstances under which someone should not be released while awaiting trial, and those circumstances STILL EXIST within the new law in Illinois. If your problem is that we should not be letting accused criminals free without monitoring them, it seems you should be just as upset with all the states that still have cash bail because they also let people out "on their accord."
As far as I'm aware, no one has made the above proposal in any way that matters (I think we'd both agree that us spitballing on a Purdue sports message board does not result in actual changes to the law). But I do think eliminating cash bail is better than keeping it because I see no reason why poor people shouldn't be let out if, indeed, we're going to go ahead and let non-poor people out. Whatever the law is, it should apply to everyone, regardless of socio-economic status. That's the only fair way, and it seems
So, there are several problems here. First, we'd need more data than just one city and for just 2 years. I can point to any number of articles that reference studies that suggest eliminating cash bail does not lead to any significant increase in crime (like THIS ONE or THIS ONE or THIS ONE). There's not a lot of data yet, so we don't really know for sure what the effects are, although the fact that most other countries around the world DON'T have cash bail and many many of them have far lower crime rates than we do would suggest that, perhaps, it's not that big an issue. Second, is 80 more than within a similar time frame before the change? If not, then you've not found anything identifying a worsened problem. Third, if 80 does represent an increase, can that increase be accounted for with the general rise in crime since the start of COVID or do we know that it's attributable to the policy change? You can't just throw out a single data point as if it proves something, especially without something to back up the supposed causal link.
But, even if I stipulate that this is the problem, the solution isn't to keep cash bail. It's to eliminate bail altogether and detain everyone while awaiting trial. That'd be the only way to ensure that no one can commit another crime while awaiting trial, right? Or are you suggesting that only people who can't afford bail will commit new crimes if they are released?
Last edited:
Good luck “nurturing” criminals.
10 career criminals racked up nearly 500 arrests since NY bail reform began
Stunning statistics compiled by the NYPD show that the city’s alleged “worst of the worst” repeat offenders have been busted a total of 485 times.
nypost.com
Illinois can now take the lead in bail reform from NY. I’m guessing Illinois will see the same result
Last edited:
You waste more words basically saying nothing that anyone Ive seen yet some how you think that makes you important.
You are going to tell me that you aren't aware of the other states that have been letting people out right away without bail and those individuals go and commit another crime while just being released?
JFC. It is 80 people murdered by violent felonies who otherwise would have been in jail awaiting their trial. You are very cavalier with other people’s live waiting more data. Let’s add nearly 100 incidents of attempted murder. And these are just those that are reported and arrests made.
As for your sources. A joke. The Brennan Center? And yeah. Retail theft has gone down in a lot of these places because the Soros DA no longer pursues retail theft under 1k. So the robbery still occurs but it’s not charged and therefore not entered in the crime stats. If you are going to be smart the first thing is to understand when your sources are lying to you.
And oh. Car jacking in Chicago? The 14 year old holds the gun so if it’s the 1 in 20 that results in an arrest it’s a “diversion program.” Guess how many get picked up again?
I didn't say anything about nurturing criminals. What does this have to do with anything?
Do we know if these people could've paid the bail? If they could pay the bail, they would still have been released to commit more crimes.10 career criminals racked up nearly 500 arrests since NY bail reform began
Stunning statistics compiled by the NYPD show that the city’s alleged “worst of the worst” repeat offenders have been busted a total of 485 times.
"There is no data showing that New York’s bail reform has fueled the crime"
More data is needed than 2 years of statistics. I really can’t believe he posted that.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Jacobsen to compete for spot on U18 USA National team
- Latest: Schmedly_Whiplash
-
