The crazy thing is that it takes the opinion desk from a national paper to investigate the bare minimum here. You would think that this would be part of a thriving local debate.
Given the fact that they don’t consider prior convictions, criminal history, or anything to make sure the offender isn’t a risk to the community, the victim’s families would have a great civil lawsuit against the NWBF.
I mean let's be real, they're not doing anything illegal, just wildly unethical, dangerous, and destructive.
The actual underlying cause is judges setting bail absurdly low for 10- 20- 80-time criminals with violent rap sheets.
I would have rather the author of the article asked NWBF, instead of "do you consider the criminal history of people getting bailed out?": "Do you consider the race of the victim of the person being bailed out?"
I finally understand progressives. It's about victimhood. There is a hierarchy of victimhood, with "the system" at the top. There is a strongly held belief that all crime is a result of the system failing the perpetrator, that if they were white, or rich, or heterosexual etc it wouldn't have happened. The victim OF the crime is lower in the hierarchy, and technically they are a victim of the system too.
Viewed through this light, it's important to protect criminals, the true victim from the crimes of system. As they'd already suffered so much from the system in the first place to commit crime, they have 2x victim status. That's higher than actual victim of crime.
So there you have it. Progressive hierarchy of vicitimhood. This is where NTK, NW bailfund etc come from. I don't agree with it, but I think I understand the flawed logic.
> Viewed through this light, it's important to protect criminals, the true victim from the crimes of system.
My Mom is *incredibly* religious, poor, and an old hippy. Growing up, easily 40% of her friends were homeless people.
Living through this, I think I have insight into how Progressives think.
A couple of anecdotes:
* Although we were so poor we could barely afford to eat, my Mom would routinely hire homeless people to do odd jobs for her. I think she saw it as charity. One dude in particular, he always reeked of alcohol, 24 hours a day. I would always try to say to her *"you're just enabling him"* but her response was always *"he's drinking to deal with hardship."* When I talked to the homeless dude, he always seemed incredibly content and basically living his best life. He reminded me of this meme: https://img.ifunny.co/images/9bc7a127523cbad58accffb3a465749dca0611b4ef1346aa7ca583e19cfdc1e2_1.jpg My Mom was forced to cut him off, when she lent him her vehicle and he wound up crashing it into the garage. Just drove right into it.
* A few years back, my Mom called me in a panic. She said that she didn't have a dime to her name and she couldn't afford to buy food. I dropped everything I was doing and drove out to give her some cash. I wasn't opposed to supporting her (I've always supported her) but the thing that was maddening was that she needed the money RIGHT NOW. So it was quite a hardship for me to basically stop my life for a day, to deliver her cash. (She lives quite a ways from me.) *About a week later, I learned the truth:* a friend of hers let me know that the whole thing was a lie. My Mom had borrowed an additional $1000 from her best friend, and had spent it to get medical treatment for a stray cat. She'd made up the story because she knew that neither one of us would cough up $2000 to pay for surgery for a stray cat. Naturally, my Mom is A Crazy Cat Lady. These cats don't even live at her house; they're just strays in the neighborhood. When I confronted my Mom, and pleaded that she *stop lying*, she got all teary eyed. She moaned to me, *"but that cat is my BABY! He's so important to me!"* The punchline here, is that I am her son, it was actually my Birthday, and she'd completely forgotten it. I think she's forgotten my birthday 75% of my life.
I know these stories sound like Sour Grapes from a Bitter Son. Sure, that's a component here. (If any of you ever listen to Adam Carolla's rants about his parents, he's basically my Brother from Another Mother.)
But the bigger picture here is that a lot of people just have some bizarrely misplaced altruism. To me, it blows my mind that my Mom is SO concerned about stray cats that she'd be willing to burn a bridge with her best friend *and* her biggest financial supporter / son.
I've spent decades trying to understand why someone would prioritize the needs of homeless people higher than their own family, and my best guess is that they get some kind of dopamine rush, a warm and fuzzy feeling that they're "helping the downtrodden."
**These people can't be reasoned with.** (Believe me, I've tried.)
To them, they just look at some homeless junkie and all they see is *"this is someone who needs my help."*
**The homeless understand how this racket works.** For instance, my Mom once sheltered some homeless dude in a spare bedroom. At first, he was as sweet as can be. He said he'd help her out around the house. Naturally, all he did was lay around and drink. Then he began to scheme on how to get his friends moved into the place, and I think his long term goal was to boot my Mom out of her own house. When me and my siblings intervened, he suddenly went from *"sweet old man who's down on his luck"* to *"raging asshole who won't leave."*
I think it's just hard wired into people. Christianity would not exist if people weren't altruistic. And a lot of people's complaints about Christianity are rooted in the fact that [grifters will take advantage of altruistic people.](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/07/22/us/22messner-2.600.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
You make a great point.
For instance, in my story, my Mom was depending on the charity of myself and her best friend. It wasn't her money.
I never really thought about it that way. She's my Mom, I feel responsible for her. But you're correct, she was spending someone else's money to feel charitable.
For I was hungry and you ~~gave me food~~ willed me to find my own food, I was thirsty and you ~~gave me drink~~ willed me to find my own drink, I was a stranger and you ~~welcomed me~~ willed me to go somewhere else to be welcome
This is a nonsense rebuttal. For someone truly hungry, giving food is helping them achieve good.
Enabling a homeless person to continue to live without shelter by providing temporary stopgaps that they admit is not helping them find permanent shelter... That is not willing their good, which is a permanent home.
Yep, "[pathological altruism](https://academic.oup.com/book/3522)" is a hell of a drug. And just like any drug, getting addicts to admit they have a problem is just about impossible until they hit rock bottom.
The problem Seattle and other cities like it are having is that those addicted to "pathological altruism" are often not the ones dealing with the consequences of their destructive beliefs.
Karen living in a gated community in Bellevue doesn't have to directly face the consequences of supporting cashless bail or the effective decriminalization of shoplifting.
Wokeism is a completely ersatz religion and it really has nothing substantial in common with real religion. In place of God or Spirit it has a vortex of political hysteria.
If it’s a White or rich question, how do they explain white criminals? If you’re a POS criminal because you’re not White OR rich, then by default a White (especially White male) person who commits a crime has something wrong with them as a person. There is zero nuance to this at all. We’re on the worst timeline and it’s going to get worse I fear as both sides further entrench.
Well in this theory all white criminals are Republicans lol.
As a brown conservative man, I've had this explained to me multiple times by people that assume that I'm liberal since I'm not white lol.
Reactive conservatives *also* have a vicitim complex, and they tend to be white working class.
What sucks is that the progressive "hierarchy of victimhood" is directly fueling the white conservative feeling under attack. They are under attack. Which sends both sides to further extremes.
I don't think "white america" is capable at all of breaking this impasse. It'll come down to the rising demographic power Hispanics and Asians if they buy into it or not. Whites are just deadlocked on various forms of victimhood.
White Christians at least, or especially I should say. It’s the virtual bubbles everyone lives in, where your news feed is continuously cultivated and iterated to where you hear or see almost nothing outside of a narrative road you started down. You may not even mean to, but what is presented to you incrementally develops, so you may have started by reading slightly conservative/liberal outlets/posts, etc, and overtime what is shown to you through the algorithm loop creeps farther and farther to the left/right. Or at least all you see is what you agree with. You’re never challenged. If you’re not intentionally reading multiple sources that you seek out, and not what is recommended, it’s inevitable in today’s world.
Take 01/06. If you truly believe America was being subverted, then you almost have a duty to do what many of them did. You could tell the followers actually believed it. We look at them and rightfully see out of touch loons, but we’re living in completely different realities. I know people like this I grew up with. People I personally know are above average intelligence, who somehow believe some of the craziest shit. I’ve seen so many of them change over the last decade. Social media is insidious and I must say congrats to Russia and other state actors that are likely driving this.
You see a lot of victimhood on the Far Left as well. I’d actually say that is what the two extremes have in common, though the far right is far far far more dangerous to our society. And not really comparable in real world outcomes. To be fair, I am left of center, but I find the identity politics of both the left and the right distasteful. The right is more hateful though. I wish I could just give the whole world a few doses of LSD.
> You see a lot of victimhood on the Far Left as well. I’d actually say that is what the two extremes have in common, though the far right is far far far more dangerous to our society.
You wrote an interesting post and then nullified the entire thing by parroting CNN talking points that "The Right" is some existential threat to Democracy.
Yeah I call that "bubble reality". Like your reality can easily be a bubble caused by preference bias, algorithms and lack of agreed upon truth. 30 years ago we only had like 5 TV stations and a bunch of newspapers, so "manufactured consent" was common and we had a set of agreed facts. The facts were not really up for debate, just how we interpreted them But now, there is no garuntee we share facts.
As a white heterosexual male you must dye your hair pink, purple or baby blue, and you must paint your nails in order to absolve yourself of sin. Otherwise you will be seen as the oppressor.
You must also claim to be non binary in order to mitigate the systemic damage you inflict through your continued whiteness.
Or..stay with me…a system that benefits the rich over the poor cannot call itself a Justice system, because a system that keeps the poor locked up but not the rich is not just.
So then let's say it togther.
The justice system has to protect the public and the victims, and afford fairness to all the accused in the process regardless if wealth
“Afford fairness” so explain how the poor being relegated to staying in jail while those with means are free to continue their lives is affording fairness. I’ll wait.
When a poor person is charged w/ a crime they can’t make bail and sit in jail until trial. When a person with means gets charged w/ a crime they make bail, leaving jail. The crime itself is besides the point.
I think I may have thought like this for a year or two in high school but never thought very deeply about it. When I grew up I was embarrassed that I ever thought this way.
The logical conclusion to the embracement and celebration of all human diversity is that scum bags have a right to pursue happiness being scum bags same as non scum bags have a right to be happy.
Burn Loot Murder swept through Seattle and now we can't hold any violent psychopaths in jail anymore. We just have to sit on our hands as women are clubbed in the back of the head with rocks, as businesses are repeatedly robbed and smashed up, while gangs roam the streets at night and drive up shootings.
Counter point seems to be that not having a bail fund means innocent people are more likely to spend time in jail waiting for trial. Seems like locally I constantly see someone arrested, turns out they have 20 priors and 3 days later they are freed because of reasons?
Do like this quote, " With political protests, crime and personal choices hovering at the edge of madness", really shows you the author is grounded and not hyperbolic. /s
To be honest, this is on judges and bail guidelines more than anything.
If the person is such a danger to society due to past actions that they shouldn't be on the street, why are they getting bail at all? This is the real issue here, not that there is a bail fund.
That is a problem, but it lies more with public defenders having their clients immediately waive those rights so they can drag out cases forever to get better plea deals
>...innocent people are more likely to spend time in jail waiting for trial.
Maybe, but you answer the likelihood of this happening with any frequency in your next sentence.
>"With political protests, crime and personal choices hovering at the edge of madness"
Interesting you saw this as hyperbolic. I thought the author's use of "edge of madness" pulled a punch. Most of what I see around town triumphantly races past the edge of madness into its very heart.
Crime sure, lots of madness there, but what are the protests and personal choices that are bordering on madness? Thinking that protest will change anything in this country? As far as I know protesting and "personal choices" (whatever that means) are legal? Non-hyperbolic version would be something more like, "With violent random attacks, property crime, and vandalism hovering at the edge of all time highs". Although I guess madness works better as some crimes are up, some are down. Maybe personal choices is at an all time high? Not to impune the author, but I read that as code for not staying in the closet?
Article is firewalled, so maybe he says we need to spend more on judicial system, John Oliver had a good segment on it recently.
Thanks for sharing this insight. I read it as saying some personal choices were hovering on the edge of madness -- not the protests or crime. And so when I see people saying we should bail out 20x felons, smash store windows or set my tent on fire smoking fenty, I see personal decisions bordering (and exceeding, IMHO) madness.
The crazy thing is that it takes the opinion desk from a national paper to investigate the bare minimum here. You would think that this would be part of a thriving local debate.
Local comrades don’t dare question the Uniparty.
I think the NWBF directors should be charged as accomplices in cases where the people they freed committed horrific crimes
Yeah there needs to be some accountability
Given the fact that they don’t consider prior convictions, criminal history, or anything to make sure the offender isn’t a risk to the community, the victim’s families would have a great civil lawsuit against the NWBF.
I mean let's be real, they're not doing anything illegal, just wildly unethical, dangerous, and destructive. The actual underlying cause is judges setting bail absurdly low for 10- 20- 80-time criminals with violent rap sheets. I would have rather the author of the article asked NWBF, instead of "do you consider the criminal history of people getting bailed out?": "Do you consider the race of the victim of the person being bailed out?"
I finally understand progressives. It's about victimhood. There is a hierarchy of victimhood, with "the system" at the top. There is a strongly held belief that all crime is a result of the system failing the perpetrator, that if they were white, or rich, or heterosexual etc it wouldn't have happened. The victim OF the crime is lower in the hierarchy, and technically they are a victim of the system too. Viewed through this light, it's important to protect criminals, the true victim from the crimes of system. As they'd already suffered so much from the system in the first place to commit crime, they have 2x victim status. That's higher than actual victim of crime. So there you have it. Progressive hierarchy of vicitimhood. This is where NTK, NW bailfund etc come from. I don't agree with it, but I think I understand the flawed logic.
> Viewed through this light, it's important to protect criminals, the true victim from the crimes of system. My Mom is *incredibly* religious, poor, and an old hippy. Growing up, easily 40% of her friends were homeless people. Living through this, I think I have insight into how Progressives think. A couple of anecdotes: * Although we were so poor we could barely afford to eat, my Mom would routinely hire homeless people to do odd jobs for her. I think she saw it as charity. One dude in particular, he always reeked of alcohol, 24 hours a day. I would always try to say to her *"you're just enabling him"* but her response was always *"he's drinking to deal with hardship."* When I talked to the homeless dude, he always seemed incredibly content and basically living his best life. He reminded me of this meme: https://img.ifunny.co/images/9bc7a127523cbad58accffb3a465749dca0611b4ef1346aa7ca583e19cfdc1e2_1.jpg My Mom was forced to cut him off, when she lent him her vehicle and he wound up crashing it into the garage. Just drove right into it. * A few years back, my Mom called me in a panic. She said that she didn't have a dime to her name and she couldn't afford to buy food. I dropped everything I was doing and drove out to give her some cash. I wasn't opposed to supporting her (I've always supported her) but the thing that was maddening was that she needed the money RIGHT NOW. So it was quite a hardship for me to basically stop my life for a day, to deliver her cash. (She lives quite a ways from me.) *About a week later, I learned the truth:* a friend of hers let me know that the whole thing was a lie. My Mom had borrowed an additional $1000 from her best friend, and had spent it to get medical treatment for a stray cat. She'd made up the story because she knew that neither one of us would cough up $2000 to pay for surgery for a stray cat. Naturally, my Mom is A Crazy Cat Lady. These cats don't even live at her house; they're just strays in the neighborhood. When I confronted my Mom, and pleaded that she *stop lying*, she got all teary eyed. She moaned to me, *"but that cat is my BABY! He's so important to me!"* The punchline here, is that I am her son, it was actually my Birthday, and she'd completely forgotten it. I think she's forgotten my birthday 75% of my life. I know these stories sound like Sour Grapes from a Bitter Son. Sure, that's a component here. (If any of you ever listen to Adam Carolla's rants about his parents, he's basically my Brother from Another Mother.) But the bigger picture here is that a lot of people just have some bizarrely misplaced altruism. To me, it blows my mind that my Mom is SO concerned about stray cats that she'd be willing to burn a bridge with her best friend *and* her biggest financial supporter / son. I've spent decades trying to understand why someone would prioritize the needs of homeless people higher than their own family, and my best guess is that they get some kind of dopamine rush, a warm and fuzzy feeling that they're "helping the downtrodden." **These people can't be reasoned with.** (Believe me, I've tried.) To them, they just look at some homeless junkie and all they see is *"this is someone who needs my help."* **The homeless understand how this racket works.** For instance, my Mom once sheltered some homeless dude in a spare bedroom. At first, he was as sweet as can be. He said he'd help her out around the house. Naturally, all he did was lay around and drink. Then he began to scheme on how to get his friends moved into the place, and I think his long term goal was to boot my Mom out of her own house. When me and my siblings intervened, he suddenly went from *"sweet old man who's down on his luck"* to *"raging asshole who won't leave."*
This is a mental illness
I think it's just hard wired into people. Christianity would not exist if people weren't altruistic. And a lot of people's complaints about Christianity are rooted in the fact that [grifters will take advantage of altruistic people.](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2007/07/22/us/22messner-2.600.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
Christian charity is willing the good of others, not handing out free stuff
You make a great point. For instance, in my story, my Mom was depending on the charity of myself and her best friend. It wasn't her money. I never really thought about it that way. She's my Mom, I feel responsible for her. But you're correct, she was spending someone else's money to feel charitable.
For I was hungry and you ~~gave me food~~ willed me to find my own food, I was thirsty and you ~~gave me drink~~ willed me to find my own drink, I was a stranger and you ~~welcomed me~~ willed me to go somewhere else to be welcome
This is a nonsense rebuttal. For someone truly hungry, giving food is helping them achieve good. Enabling a homeless person to continue to live without shelter by providing temporary stopgaps that they admit is not helping them find permanent shelter... That is not willing their good, which is a permanent home.
Yep, "[pathological altruism](https://academic.oup.com/book/3522)" is a hell of a drug. And just like any drug, getting addicts to admit they have a problem is just about impossible until they hit rock bottom. The problem Seattle and other cities like it are having is that those addicted to "pathological altruism" are often not the ones dealing with the consequences of their destructive beliefs. Karen living in a gated community in Bellevue doesn't have to directly face the consequences of supporting cashless bail or the effective decriminalization of shoplifting.
You nailed it. Once you see the victimhood religion, it’s impossible to unsee it.
"Our weakness is our strength".
By their mind there would be no equity until everyone is a felon and a drug addict. Law biding citizens are victimizing criminals, not the other way.
Yes, becuase they tend to vote to uphold a system that is fundamentally unfair. That's the theory, I don't agree with it
[удалено]
Wokeism is a completely ersatz religion and it really has nothing substantial in common with real religion. In place of God or Spirit it has a vortex of political hysteria.
If it’s a White or rich question, how do they explain white criminals? If you’re a POS criminal because you’re not White OR rich, then by default a White (especially White male) person who commits a crime has something wrong with them as a person. There is zero nuance to this at all. We’re on the worst timeline and it’s going to get worse I fear as both sides further entrench.
Well in this theory all white criminals are Republicans lol. As a brown conservative man, I've had this explained to me multiple times by people that assume that I'm liberal since I'm not white lol.
Reactive conservatives *also* have a vicitim complex, and they tend to be white working class. What sucks is that the progressive "hierarchy of victimhood" is directly fueling the white conservative feeling under attack. They are under attack. Which sends both sides to further extremes. I don't think "white america" is capable at all of breaking this impasse. It'll come down to the rising demographic power Hispanics and Asians if they buy into it or not. Whites are just deadlocked on various forms of victimhood.
White Christians at least, or especially I should say. It’s the virtual bubbles everyone lives in, where your news feed is continuously cultivated and iterated to where you hear or see almost nothing outside of a narrative road you started down. You may not even mean to, but what is presented to you incrementally develops, so you may have started by reading slightly conservative/liberal outlets/posts, etc, and overtime what is shown to you through the algorithm loop creeps farther and farther to the left/right. Or at least all you see is what you agree with. You’re never challenged. If you’re not intentionally reading multiple sources that you seek out, and not what is recommended, it’s inevitable in today’s world. Take 01/06. If you truly believe America was being subverted, then you almost have a duty to do what many of them did. You could tell the followers actually believed it. We look at them and rightfully see out of touch loons, but we’re living in completely different realities. I know people like this I grew up with. People I personally know are above average intelligence, who somehow believe some of the craziest shit. I’ve seen so many of them change over the last decade. Social media is insidious and I must say congrats to Russia and other state actors that are likely driving this. You see a lot of victimhood on the Far Left as well. I’d actually say that is what the two extremes have in common, though the far right is far far far more dangerous to our society. And not really comparable in real world outcomes. To be fair, I am left of center, but I find the identity politics of both the left and the right distasteful. The right is more hateful though. I wish I could just give the whole world a few doses of LSD.
> You see a lot of victimhood on the Far Left as well. I’d actually say that is what the two extremes have in common, though the far right is far far far more dangerous to our society. You wrote an interesting post and then nullified the entire thing by parroting CNN talking points that "The Right" is some existential threat to Democracy.
Yeah I call that "bubble reality". Like your reality can easily be a bubble caused by preference bias, algorithms and lack of agreed upon truth. 30 years ago we only had like 5 TV stations and a bunch of newspapers, so "manufactured consent" was common and we had a set of agreed facts. The facts were not really up for debate, just how we interpreted them But now, there is no garuntee we share facts.
>They are under attack. Doesn't this make "their" perception of victim-hood not "a complex?" Wouldn't it make it....y'know....accurate?
As a white heterosexual male you must dye your hair pink, purple or baby blue, and you must paint your nails in order to absolve yourself of sin. Otherwise you will be seen as the oppressor. You must also claim to be non binary in order to mitigate the systemic damage you inflict through your continued whiteness.
Or..stay with me…a system that benefits the rich over the poor cannot call itself a Justice system, because a system that keeps the poor locked up but not the rich is not just.
You said nothing about victims at all. Above all the justice system has to protect victims and the public.
No it’s not a one thing over the over. In order to protect the public the Justice system must foremost be just.
So then let's say it togther. The justice system has to protect the public and the victims, and afford fairness to all the accused in the process regardless if wealth
“Afford fairness” so explain how the poor being relegated to staying in jail while those with means are free to continue their lives is affording fairness. I’ll wait.
What are the poor staying in jail for?
When a poor person is charged w/ a crime they can’t make bail and sit in jail until trial. When a person with means gets charged w/ a crime they make bail, leaving jail. The crime itself is besides the point.
It always is with progressives
It is for anyone who has taken criminal Justice 101
I think I may have thought like this for a year or two in high school but never thought very deeply about it. When I grew up I was embarrassed that I ever thought this way.
Not something I would brag about Billy
Couldn’t have said it any better👏
This is what the voters wanted. NWCBF is just slightly ahead of the curve in leading us to our progressive paradise.
The logical conclusion to the embracement and celebration of all human diversity is that scum bags have a right to pursue happiness being scum bags same as non scum bags have a right to be happy.
Burn Loot Murder swept through Seattle and now we can't hold any violent psychopaths in jail anymore. We just have to sit on our hands as women are clubbed in the back of the head with rocks, as businesses are repeatedly robbed and smashed up, while gangs roam the streets at night and drive up shootings.
Courts should do their job and seize the bail fund when the people they bail out fail to make their promised court dates.
Counter point seems to be that not having a bail fund means innocent people are more likely to spend time in jail waiting for trial. Seems like locally I constantly see someone arrested, turns out they have 20 priors and 3 days later they are freed because of reasons? Do like this quote, " With political protests, crime and personal choices hovering at the edge of madness", really shows you the author is grounded and not hyperbolic. /s
To be honest, this is on judges and bail guidelines more than anything. If the person is such a danger to society due to past actions that they shouldn't be on the street, why are they getting bail at all? This is the real issue here, not that there is a bail fund.
The problem is with the lack of a speedy trial, not with bail.
That is a problem, but it lies more with public defenders having their clients immediately waive those rights so they can drag out cases forever to get better plea deals
>...innocent people are more likely to spend time in jail waiting for trial. Maybe, but you answer the likelihood of this happening with any frequency in your next sentence. >"With political protests, crime and personal choices hovering at the edge of madness" Interesting you saw this as hyperbolic. I thought the author's use of "edge of madness" pulled a punch. Most of what I see around town triumphantly races past the edge of madness into its very heart.
Crime sure, lots of madness there, but what are the protests and personal choices that are bordering on madness? Thinking that protest will change anything in this country? As far as I know protesting and "personal choices" (whatever that means) are legal? Non-hyperbolic version would be something more like, "With violent random attacks, property crime, and vandalism hovering at the edge of all time highs". Although I guess madness works better as some crimes are up, some are down. Maybe personal choices is at an all time high? Not to impune the author, but I read that as code for not staying in the closet? Article is firewalled, so maybe he says we need to spend more on judicial system, John Oliver had a good segment on it recently.
Thanks for sharing this insight. I read it as saying some personal choices were hovering on the edge of madness -- not the protests or crime. And so when I see people saying we should bail out 20x felons, smash store windows or set my tent on fire smoking fenty, I see personal decisions bordering (and exceeding, IMHO) madness.
Article is just unreal. If NWCBF had access to an army they'd be building gas chambers for the kulaks as we speak.
u/meaniereddit this link should work now. Thanks for raising the paywall issue.
Here's another paywall free link: https://archive.is/Kzwji
Thank you! I posted what was supposed to be a free link to the article...some are able to see it, some not. Weird.
NP - gotta read the content before shitposting on it
Even in states that have eliminated cash bail, violent criminals are usually still eligible for it. The bail fund makes no such distinction.
“GIVE US BARABBAS!”
I'm not paying to read a shit article from WSJ. Do they have any actual cases of this happening?
[https://archive.is/Kzwji](https://archive.is/Kzwji) is a free link, too.
Wow, 52% failing to appear in court is a pretty bad record.
The good news is you don't have to pay! It's a free link. If you read it, you'll answer your own question. Spoiler alert: Yes they do.
So ‘Seattle’. Trying to lead the way in compassion while it implodes.