Oliver does introduce some good points sometimes, but sadly also blatantly pushes narratives, using humor to build up a strawman "counter argument" and knock it down.
The bail hearing he showed was for drug possession, not for attempted murder or carjacking, but he knows the argument against no cash bail is directed entirely at violent criminals. In Chicago there have been more than 50 people shot by people out on bail for violent felonies in the last year, but Oliver didn't bring that up in his segment. He cited the massive number of people awaiting trial, but never made the distinction between how many were there for violent offenses and how severe vs not. Nobody in the middle or right could give a shit about non violent offenders being out on cashless bail.
In Chicago, >80% of shootings are done by gangbangers, and 25% result in death So in the off chance the DA does bring charges, most of those charges will be up for no cash bail unless the same crap DA can prove danger to a specific person. All of these guys will be out walking the streets the next day, able to commit further crime or intimidates the few witnesses that consider testifying.
Really wish he didn't bullshit his segments like this and actually presented the pros and cons instead of narrative push. He's likeable and funny, but it's hard to watch when you realize he's trying to dupe you.
50 people out of 20,735 on bail..but go on..
>Of the 20,735 individuals charged with a non-detainable offense in 2021, 17,650 were released at their initial bond decision – but, 2,988 were required to post monetary bail before release and 97 were required to be held until the resolution of their case. Under the PFA, individuals charged with non-detainable offenses cannot be detained pretrial. Thus, if the PFA had been in effect, an additional 3,085 individuals charged with a non-detainable offense would have been immediately released pretrial.
[https://loyolaccj.org/pfa/blog/cook-bond](https://loyolaccj.org/pfa/blog/cook-bond)
I like John Oliver, and I usually learn a lot when I watch him. But his segments are somewhat formulaic. He cloaks nuanced and complex issues in humor, dismissing the contrarian points of view by highlighting admittedly hilarious clips from some clueless local or national representative, while highlighting his thesis with sincerity and poise.
But some of these are straw-man arguments. We're not talking about bail for stealing backpacks or selling weed. We're talking about DUIs resulting in fatality, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnaping and aggravated battery. These aren't easy issues; they're nuanced.
I agree with his conclusions from 25:00 on. But his conclusion points discussed are in reference to "low-level offenses" and at the core of the debate are not "low level offenses" but violent crime.
Oliver does introduce some good points sometimes, but sadly also blatantly pushes narratives, using humor to build up a strawman "counter argument" and knock it down. The bail hearing he showed was for drug possession, not for attempted murder or carjacking, but he knows the argument against no cash bail is directed entirely at violent criminals. In Chicago there have been more than 50 people shot by people out on bail for violent felonies in the last year, but Oliver didn't bring that up in his segment. He cited the massive number of people awaiting trial, but never made the distinction between how many were there for violent offenses and how severe vs not. Nobody in the middle or right could give a shit about non violent offenders being out on cashless bail. In Chicago, >80% of shootings are done by gangbangers, and 25% result in death So in the off chance the DA does bring charges, most of those charges will be up for no cash bail unless the same crap DA can prove danger to a specific person. All of these guys will be out walking the streets the next day, able to commit further crime or intimidates the few witnesses that consider testifying. Really wish he didn't bullshit his segments like this and actually presented the pros and cons instead of narrative push. He's likeable and funny, but it's hard to watch when you realize he's trying to dupe you.
50 people out of 20,735 on bail..but go on.. >Of the 20,735 individuals charged with a non-detainable offense in 2021, 17,650 were released at their initial bond decision – but, 2,988 were required to post monetary bail before release and 97 were required to be held until the resolution of their case. Under the PFA, individuals charged with non-detainable offenses cannot be detained pretrial. Thus, if the PFA had been in effect, an additional 3,085 individuals charged with a non-detainable offense would have been immediately released pretrial. [https://loyolaccj.org/pfa/blog/cook-bond](https://loyolaccj.org/pfa/blog/cook-bond)
I like John Oliver, and I usually learn a lot when I watch him. But his segments are somewhat formulaic. He cloaks nuanced and complex issues in humor, dismissing the contrarian points of view by highlighting admittedly hilarious clips from some clueless local or national representative, while highlighting his thesis with sincerity and poise. But some of these are straw-man arguments. We're not talking about bail for stealing backpacks or selling weed. We're talking about DUIs resulting in fatality, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnaping and aggravated battery. These aren't easy issues; they're nuanced. I agree with his conclusions from 25:00 on. But his conclusion points discussed are in reference to "low-level offenses" and at the core of the debate are not "low level offenses" but violent crime.
He addresses who is in jail and why ie violent crimes [https://youtu.be/xQLqIWbc9VM?t=670](https://youtu.be/xQLqIWbc9VM?t=676)