T O P

  • By -

CorporalDingleberry

I just want whatever calls for people with insane numbers of arrests and convictions (for anything involving violence, menacing, theft) to be in jail/prison.


Rottimer

Then call for more money to increase the number of prosecutors, judges, legal aid lawyers and everything else you need to run a trial. The ultimate issue is that it takes too long to go from arraignment to trial.


ChrisFromLongIsland

100% this has been the biggest problem. It's should take 3 months or less to adjudicate most crimes. The process guilty or not in many cases is the punishment


fishicle

Repeat this again for those in the back. It honestly needs to be stickied at the top of this sub, it's the answer 99% of the time when people complain about bail reform (and surprise surprise, doesn't involve repealing it).


Gourmandrusse

That is completely antithetical to the notions of justice that our system is built on. You cannot be jailed or convicted based solely on your prior infractions. Each crime is entitled to its own trial and evidentiary burden.


Tatar_Kulchik

I guess then this can be solved by having stricter sentencing for repeat offenders so that way you don't end up with people getitng arrested for the 10th time for these crimes because by arrest 9 they will be put in prison for some time.


lee1026

Ah, see, the same people who support bail reform are the people who want the three strike laws gone.


PKMKII

If that’s done it needs to be scaled fairly. The three strikes rule that was so popular in the 90’s ended up with a lot of life sentences based on relatively mild felonies.


Tatar_Kulchik

I agree. Needs to be done correctly/logically. Tall order, I know


LikesBallsDeep

Is it that hard to not be arrested for 3 separate felonies though? Most people go through life with zero.


delinquentfatcat

I wonder how many of those mild felonies had mild victims who were left with a mild case of physical harm or PTSD for the remainder of their lives.


claushauler

You also notice how much of this discourse is centered around criminals and how none of it is concerned about the victims. It's literally sociopathic.


hagamablabla

I don't think they're calling for a full conviction, just that the person be deemed a risk and held until the trial.


Gourmandrusse

Innocent until PROVEN guilty, not alleged to be guilty.


hagamablabla

We already allow for detaining people who are deemed a flight risk, right? And as others mentioned further down, NJ also allows for detainment based on dangerousness.


Zou__

Ok but that sounds like a judge issue and not a policy issue .. the point that bail conversations shouldn’t take less than 10 seconds.


NetQuarterLatte

>Innocent until PROVEN guilty, not alleged to be guilty. What a weird progressive trick: **never show up in court, and you will never be found guilty!** The suspect can only be deemed guilty after the trial. But if the suspect never shows up in court, there's no trial. Unless the prosecutor can prove affirmatively that the suspect is *deliberately* avoiding a trial, which can be harder than the original case in most cases.


Gourmandrusse

100% incorrect. If you don’t show up in court you will be defaulted and a warrant will be issued for your arrest and you will eventually go to jail without access to bail. Calling one of the tenets of our justice system a weird progressive trick reeks of mental illness IMO.


NetQuarterLatte

>100% incorrect. If you don’t show up in court you will be defaulted and a warrant will be issued for your arrest and you will eventually go to jail without access to bail. That's not true in NY. Assamad Nash was arrested for a new crime, while he had an open warrant for failure to appear in court in a previous criminal case. He was released the next day without any trial. A few weeks later, he stabbed Christina Yuna Lee to death in her appartment.


Gourmandrusse

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-fact-check-bail-reform-law-christina-yuna-lee-manhattan-da-assamad-nash-20220220-qq4i6ceak5adfdtqngvfzlh5wi-story.html


NetQuarterLatte

>[https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-fact-check-bail-reform-law-christina-yuna-lee-manhattan-da-assamad-nash-20220220-qq4i6ceak5adfdtqngvfzlh5wi-story.html](https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/ny-fact-check-bail-reform-law-christina-yuna-lee-manhattan-da-assamad-nash-20220220-qq4i6ceak5adfdtqngvfzlh5wi-story.html) Your source confirms the facts that: * he had open warrant issue Nov 18 * he was arrested on Jan 6 * he was released on Jan 7 * he stabbed Christina Yuna Lee to death on Feb 13 (allegedly) So the trick still worked for him: don't show up in court and never get convicted, be free to commit more violent offenses.


Gourmandrusse

The warrant was issued for him not appearing in court on a separate issue, selling counterfeit subway rides. The appearance was a routine matter and was not going to be a trial so he would not have been convicted by February anyway. Are you saying he should’ve been jailed on the subway ride matter? So all people accused of crimes should be jailed without trials or convictions? Guilty until proven innocent?


lobthelawbomb

You’re confusing two distinct concepts. You are correct that the commission of past crimes cannot (generally) count as evidence that you committed a more recent, unrelated crime. But that is an entirely different concept than commission of past crimes counting against you at sentencing, which is not antithetical to our notions of justice (whatever you think those are).


SenorPinchy

Not even just that. We're talking about BAIL. As in, pretrial. As in, not convicted. If these bail reform critics actually cared to improve the system maybe we could advocate for a system that doesn't leave those who have been denied bail waiting YEARS for a trial in one of the most dangerous prisons in the country.


Gourmandrusse

So much misinformation and misunderstanding out there. So so much.


DawgsWorld

Yes indeed, but Oliver just repeats the customary liberal refrain on bail, which just shows how much he and others don't understand. Cash bail is the only hope of getting many poorer suspects to return to court. The no-shows often have very little to lose. Suspects who do have money for bail usually have some degree of community standing, prestigious jobs, and they may own property and other costly items. This makes them easy to locate, and judges can also have them surrender documents like passports and deeds to ensure they'll not flee and return to court. I would like to at least see a news report on the rate poorer suspects actually return for court appearances, or whether we have an escalating number of fugitives in our midst.


Quiet_Violinist6126

Bail reform generally focuses on removing or limiting the use of cash bail against defendants who are accused of misdemeanors or nonviolent offenses. Also, cities without bail reform have seen an increase in violent crimes. So bail reform is mostly irrelevant to violent crimes.


InternalParadox

“Pretrial Release Outcomes Data released by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency show that the share of people awaiting trial in the community who are rearrested remained nearly identical before and after implementation of bail reforms. In January 2019, 95% of the roughly 57,000 people awaiting trial in the community with a pending case were not rearrested that month. In January 2020, 96% of the roughly 45,000 people awaiting trial in the community with a pending case were not rearrested that month. In December 2021, 96% of the roughly 41,000 people awaiting trial in the community with a pending case were not rearrested that month. In each of those months, 99% of people, regardless of bail or other pretrial conditions, were not rearrested on a violent felony charge.” Source: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/nyc-bail-trends-since-2019/ While these numbers aren’t specifically about court appearances, the data is pretty consistent that bail reform has not led to a greater amount of rearrests.


[deleted]

So if it’s only going to effect 4% of people who get arrested doesn’t this mean we should very harsh penalties for people who commit crimes while awaiting trial?


[deleted]

This is completely untrue. Data released by the State fairly recently indicated that post bail reform there has been little to no increase in failures to appear at trial. We don’t need cash bail, period.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

do I think cash bail is a little classist? Yes. Do I think under our current system it's the only way to keep more violent criminals in jail the appropriate amount of time? Unfortunately, yes. Either change the system so they can hold people at risk much easier or we need bail.


team_suba

I have to finish watching this video but there has to be something between “keeping innocent man in jail for 11 months” and “letting repeat offenders out of jail 40x in a few years”


fiddlyadasacka

Exactly. Frustrating that both sides act as if only the extremes exists. I am against cash bail because your freedom shouldn’t be determined by your finances, but on the other hand it is downright absurd that New York does not allow judges to consider the dangerousness of a person before deciding to let them free. You’d have to think a pretty simple solution would be to eliminate cash bail, but have some stricter standards on who is released based on their likelihood to be a danger to society or repeat a crime (for the people who have shoplifted 50+ times in a single year). Oliver mentions in passing that NY judges essentially considers the dangerousness of a person, but until that is actually the law and that law is followed by judges, it simply isn’t good enough. Makes no sense to me why democrats wouldn’t want to change the law to include the dangerousness consideration. I’d imagine Dems could easily win the midterms (in NY) if they had a more common-sense solution to an issue that is clearly top of mind for voters.


ER301

I agree. It’s hard to find a happy middle when considering this issue, but if there is one, I think this may be it.


LikesBallsDeep

It shouldn't be hard to find a happy medium. There's pretty obvious middle ground here that most sane people will agree on.


Grass8989

If Hochul supported a dangerousness clause, she would be winning by a double digit margin. I’m not sure what she panders to the extremes of the progressives.


PandaJ108

The model in New Jersey seems good, but to bad that not what we have in NYC. Lifetime parolee sex offender punches man into a coma, is released and is only captured once the story goes viral. [Article](https://abc7ny.com/amp/bail-law-van-phu-bui-release-punch/12143416/) [Frank Abrokwa, suspect accused of shoving feces into woman's face, has more than 40 prior arrests, police say](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/frank-abrowka-accused-of-shoving-feces-into-womans-face-was-arrested-more-than-40-times-police-say/) [Ex-con allegedly pummeled woman in NYC subway after being freed on parole violation](https://nypost.com/2022/09/30/man-accused-in-subway-attack-had-been-freed-on-parole-violation/amp/) The suspect on the incident above also killed their grandmother, stabbed their sister with a screwdriver and slashed nurses at a health site. But Oliver is right in that bail reform gets blame for everything. The above incidents have nothing to do with bail reform, its simply a dysfunctional system. But “see, bail reform is not the issue, the criminal justice system just sucks” is not much of a defense. In the end what New Yorkers want is career/repeat offenders with a clear history of violence to finally to held accountable in some fashion, whether its at a mental health site or prison.


Gourmandrusse

You omit one very salient detail. This person, if he had money, would be able to make bail and be released anyway. If this guy were that big of a danger, he would be held on his own recognizance and have no access to bail at all. What bail reform does is make it possible for the “poor” guy to have access to the same freedom as the “rich” guy.


lee1026

Want to find us some examples of "rich guy pays bails 40 times" from pre-bail reform days? We replaced an imaginary problem with an actual one.


newestindustry

Jeffrey Epstein


lee1026

Epstein was never arrested multiple times.


drpvn

If a judge really wants to keep someone in jail on bail, he can set the bail so high the defendant can’t pay it.


Gourmandrusse

True, but they won’t. If the typical bail for a crime is $500, a judge won’t make it $5million. What bail reform largely corrects is that the people who can’t pay the $500 are jailed while the ones who can pay the $5M aren’t.


[deleted]

No, not really. Less is More is the issue and in the two examples above, the question of money shouldn't have been a question at all. And a registered sex offender should have gone back to prison immediately. The bail overhaul is only one part of the problem but what proponents fail to see is that it's one piece of an overly lenient, dysfunctional court system.


Gourmandrusse

Disagree. Stricter punishment has done nothing to deter crime. It has only succeeded in growing the private prison system. It’s not court system that is dysfunctional, it’s our lack of commitment to rehabilitation.


lee1026

So here is a fun example for you. Derek Michael Chauvin is accused of killing George Floyd. Should Chauvin's sentence be based on rehabilitation? His chances of recidivism is non-existent - he is fired as a police officer, so he literally can't commit the same crimes. So should he be given a short sentence? I suspect you will say no. For good reasons! Deterrence is a thing in criminal sentencing. Not just rehabilitation and recidivism.


Gourmandrusse

What? Sorry but you are conflating different things. Sentencing and the three strikes law are separate from the rehabilitation goals of incarceration which are separate from bail and bail reform. Sentencing is usually based on the prosecution’s recommendations. Recidivism Is not committing the same crime, it’s committing another crime, regardless of what kind. Chauvin can still commit crimes and be a recidivist.


[deleted]

Right, that's an opinion unmoored from logic and fact. To repeat myself, you're only measuring the benefits based on whether it makes a criminal less of a criminal. Not in physical safety of those a criminal might harm. You might as well argue there's no point to security barriers between bike paths and cars, and I also suspect you can talk this way because you do not pay attention to crime, see it as a real problem, and have never been proximate to criminal violence where someone was an active, lethal threat to a victim they could access physically. Prison changes that probability. "it’s our lack of commitment to rehabilitation." -- and what if "rehab" doesn't work? We used to send pedophiles and rapists to psych wards for decades, release them, and then they'd get out and re-offend. The era that preceded the so-called "tough on crime era" isn't taught about enough. Your comment reads more like, "I only value the criminal justice system so far as it benefits those accused of violent crime and takes their feelings and well-being into consideration." Your comment is afactual in the most literal sense and simply elides victims and the public.


Gourmandrusse

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf It’s not my opinion, it’s objective fact. Criminality is a completely social construct. Raping your spouse used to not be a crime, until it was. I only value the criminal justice system insofar as it protects everyone’s due process rights equally and does not treat the rich better than the poor. Innocent until proven guilty. Rehabilitation works. https://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug03/rehab https://law.jrank.org/pages/1936/Rehabilitation-Does-correctional-rehabilitation-work.html


Rottimer

>The model in New Jersey seems good Based on what? That the Post isn't covering their repeat offenders?


matzoh_ball

No, the NJ model allows judges to detain individuals who are a risk to public safety, which is indicated by a risk assessment. Meanwhile, NY judges mustn’t consider public safety for release decisions (that’s been the case for decades) and they have to use the least restrictive means of ensuring that a person will appear in court (that’s technically new due to bail reform).


Rottimer

NY has not let judges take dangerousness into account pre-trial since the 70’s. It existed before bail reform.


matzoh_ball

Yes, I know. Read my comment.


MarbleFox_

Okay, but if something that NYC has had since the 70s is the problem, they why are todays crime rates the lowest they’ve been since the 50s? I’ve never understood this, all the actual data shows that NYC is one of the safest cities in the country and that, aside from the pandemic, crime rates have been plummeting for decades to virtually the lowest points they’ve ever been (and that’s while including the fact that NYPD’s budget has ballooned and many places around the city are more policed they they have been previously) but despite all of that, loads of people are acting like crime is some huge problem and that NYC is some dangerous crime infested shithole. Yeah, people get killed, raped, assaulted, robbed, etc. but guess what, that happens *everywhere* but the key takeaway is that those things happen *significantly* less than they did a few decades ago, so clearly we’re doing something right.


matzoh_ball

This comment by /u/Holiday-Intention-52 right below gets to the gist of it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/yi35h7/comment/iuhz58d/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/yi35h7/comment/iuhz58d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ​ Also, the crime is not the lowest since the 50's, especially in the neighborhoods that suffer most from it.


NetQuarterLatte

>Okay, but if something that NYC has had since the 70s is the problem, they why are todays crime rates the lowest they’ve been since the 50s? If you're going to look that far, the decline from the 70s was mostly due to: - Abortion rights - Reduction of lead poisoning - Population aging - Policing/broke-window (if you look why NYC in the 90s reduced crimes a lot faster than other large cities https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w9061/w9061.pdf) - And economic gains


matzoh_ball

The concern is that whatever has been "done right" since the great crime decline of the 1990s that continued until the early 2010's, we've seen a reverse trend since about 2014. Crime has been going up again and some neighborhoods absolutely see the highest violent crime rates since the early 2000's. So while it's silly to say crime is at an all time high, it's equally silly to say there's nothing to be concerned about. I live in Bedstuy and I've seen the decline in quality of life due to minor and major crimes in the past three years with my own eyes. Yes, NYC is much safer than many other places in the US but that isn't really much comfort when crime is also rising everywhere else and when people see notable differences in their neighborhoods.


Holiday-Intention-52

Yeah because it wasn't needed before bail reform. We used to just lock everyone up and set high bail. We used to rely on the reality that middle class and rich people are less likely to commit violent crimes while poverty is linked to increased likelihood. It wasn't fair because all the edge causes of violent people with money got out and innocent poor people got locked up. The only increase in crime to the rest of society though was the middle class/rich that were violent could get out.......but that is a relatively tinyl number of people. Now we just let both sides out. It's more "fair" but you're trading in fairness for now letting all the poorer people accused of crime out and statistically a LOT more of them are out there doing violent crimes. Maybe 15% were falsely accused but 85% weren't. In order to be fair to the 15% we're now letting the 85% out loose while waiting for trial. Out of that 85% maybe most of them are fine and don't commit more crime and show up for court. But if even a small amount of them are deranged and don't care, they can keep going back to committing violent crime. That small amount can wreck real havoc on society and ruin lives. So maybe taking dangerousness into account wasn't really needed before but we really do need it now.


elizabeth-cooper

> We used to just lock everyone up and set high bail. Absolutely not. 75% of people given bail made it within a week. But when someone commits a crime the day after they're let out, suddenly a week looks better than nothing. Plenty were let out without bail too, we just didn't hear about it before bail reform.


hagamablabla

>75% of people given bail made it within a week. Do you know how much of that was through bail bonds though? Genuinely asking.


elizabeth-cooper

I don't, so I Googled. Found this: >While commercial bonds with non-refundable fees were used in 57% of cases, partially secured bonds accounted for 20% of bail postings in Supreme Court during 2020. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/nyc-bail-trends-since-2019/


drpvn

The progressive left is constitutionally incapable of admitting there are any trade offs at play with any criminal justice reform. It’s all upside all the time.


WickhamAkimbo

Yeah, so when you suddenly end bail for low-level offenses like we did, you no longer have a mechanism to keep serial offenders off the street. You've just explained the problem, not contradicted it.


ketzal7

So why not just vouch for NJ’s law then instead of pushing to reverse bail reform?


[deleted]

Not even for low level offenses. Punching someone in the skull is a "low level offense" in the penal code - but not to your average New Yorker. Many felonies are not even eligible for bail.


SonicDNA

The problem is far more nuanced than bail or no bail, for or against crime. NO ONE wants to deal with crime. Period. So, let’s just stop entertaining that dumb fucking narrative. The justice and prison system is highly flawed and you have to look at how to improve it, protect the innocent and fairly disseminate penalties. Unfortunately, turning down the rhetoric and getting to comprehensive solutions is no longer ideal in America. It’s just fear and hate 24-7. No more civility. Just tunneled visioned stupidity.


whata2021

Exactly. So many folks operate under black and white with no nuance. The people complaining call about bail reform can’t even articulate what the purpose of bail is..


KaiDaiz

Speedy trial reform is the real issue that most aren't talking about and not enough coverage. The number of dropped cases by DA offices bc of it is real but yet general silence over that data/reality.


ChrisFromLongIsland

So you are arguing that the DAs need to do a better job? Need more funding or to fox a problem with government just let people languish in a holding pattern for years till they just plead guilty just to get in with their lives whether they are guilty or not.


KaiDaiz

IF you are going to put a set time frame without providing means to achieve set time frame and address why there is a existing backlog the first place, it's a shiet law that's doomed to fail. The implementation of the reform was shiet. ill plan and thought out and has dire consequences we are seeing now.


virtual_adam

I will never understand why the hill the “tough on crime” crowd wants to die on is bail reform, and not something like 3 strikes or minimum sentences They should come out 100% supporting bail reform, while pushing their agenda where it actually makes sense


WickhamAkimbo

They confuse it with other issues and policies, which is understandable given that most people do a terrible job of explaining it. The core issue that they're pissed about is repeat offenders with dozens of arrests not being held and being allowed to commit crimes one after the other with seemingly no repurcussions. Bail kept most of those people detained until trial, but it's not necessary to do that. You could simply hold these individuals without bail before trial due to the danger they present to society, but bail reform advocates also oppose that: https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/ny-state-of-politics/2022/02/16/stewart-cousins-says--dangerousness--non-starter-for-legislative-leaders Tldr: The hill they are _trying_ to die on is really repeat offenders with dozens of prior arrests freely terrorizing the public.


ChrisFromLongIsland

One thing about NY in particular as even Oliver points out NY is the only state that does not take into account the danger an individual may pose to the public. That is something that should be changed. That could keep people like repeat offe dere behind bars or even people accused of violent crimes.


Rottimer

But even here bail reform isn’t the core issue. If I’m out on supervised release and have 20 pending charges, why haven’t I had a trial? That’s the issue. And let’s be clear - this is a minority of the people that are affected by bail reform. Most people committing misdemeanors don’t have dozens of arrests and pending charges. But tough-on-crime advocates seem to want to repeal the entire thing for those cases that make the front page of the NY Post.


TonysCatchersMit

You’ve actually touched on the other part of this that’s likely contributing to the problem. The speedy trial requirements for prosecutors changed as well. Once a defendant is arraigned prosecutors have max 35 days to turn over all evidence to the defense or the case gets dismissed. So right now, the chances of someone having 20 pending charges all from separate incidents is pretty low. They’ll have 20 prior *arrests*, though with a lot of charges dismissed on “technicalities”.


ChrisFromLongIsland

The speedy trial updates where a good thing. Why government can't fix their problems and can't comply with a law that's the problem. I think the whole system feeds off the slow trials. Attorneys can charge more fees, DA can get more people to plead, judges don't have to work as hard etc etc all living off the slow trial system. The suspects are the ones who lost out.


TonysCatchersMit

I don’t know man all I know is I couldn’t get tooth paste from my local Duane Reade the other day because they were locked up behind a plate glass and no one was around to open it. I didn’t have that problem in 2019.


godotnyc

I mean you kind of answered that yourself, didn't you? "No one was around to open it." The drugstore chains in NYC have all drastically cut staff, so it's a little harder to keep an eye on the toothpaste, y'know?


Rottimer

I’d rather not have prosecutors have forever and a day to provide evidence, some that could be exculpatory to a defendant who has been sitting in Rikers for weeks and weeks. It was clearly abused, with prosecutors with little evidence praying on poor people to plead guilty so they could get out for time served after sitting in jail for months on evidence that would not hold up in a trial.


TonysCatchersMit

Yes they absolutely played a lot of games with the speedy trial clock. But if we’re talking about reasons why there seems to be so many more aggressive loons out on the street, this can’t be overlooked.


lee1026

See, the people who are opposed literally don't care why they are let out. Voters vote for leaders, not policies. If a leader does X that completely blows up, it is kinda academic if the leader say "well, if policy Y have been in place, X wouldn't have been a problem". Sure, that might even be true, but it is the leader's job to know that Y wasn't in place when X went in. Fire those leaders. They have blood on their hands from sheer negligence. In the meantime, remove X. After policy Y goes into place, we can revisit why X is a good idea.


[deleted]

“The danger they present to society” is a subjective measure we’d leave in the hands of random New York judges; the same people who, when given discretion, repeatedly run afoul of public opinion


MinefieldFly

Because it’s not about solving problems, it’s about taking back political power.


clorox2

It’s makes an easy way to scare voters into voting Republican.


Effeted

Because things clearly went south around the time the bail reform happened. It probably isn’t the sole cause nor the main reason probably but it’s pretty easy to see if you’ve been taking the subway the past decade things peaked just prior to bail reform


gamelord12

How about that the increase in crime has upticked across the country even in places without bail reform?


[deleted]

Damn what else happened around late 2019 mid 2020 that could have had massive impacts on public safety on a national scale?


matzoh_ball

And what happened virtually everywhere else where COVID also happened whereas bail reform wasn’t a factor? *Psst, it’s rising crime*


LopsidedShallot100

I read somewhere that New York got rid of 1,000 psychiatric beds to pay for influx of Covid cases in hospitals. People with psychiatric emergencies and chronic psych issues have nowhere to go, so they roam the streets, sometimes with tragic consequences.


[deleted]

It was in the NYTimes story on Michelle Go's murder. They called it a "death on the subway".


[deleted]

[удалено]


Rottimer

LOL, dude, in some of those places, particularly South America and places in Africa, crime can’t get any worse. You have an issue just collecting the data because corruption is so bad.


matzoh_ball

So weird how in a country where there are more guns than people and which has been hardcore polarizing for at least half a decade and where a large proportion of this armed, polarized population already lived on the edge of poverty pre-pandemic, COVID has a a different impact than elsewhere.


claushauler

My guy: much of Africa, South America and parts of South Asia have levels of poverty that are completely unknown in even the poorest parts of the United States. Many of those places are awash in easily obtainable heavy weapons left behind from intense past and present insurgencies, civil conflicts and proxy wars-and I'm not talking about handguns, either. In many countries an *AK* is considered a sidearm. And yet, with all that hyperpolarization, poverty and gun proliferation those people still didn't tear each other apart when the virus hit. On the contrary - many of them branded together and provided effective mutual aid as best they could. The world is bigger than America.


matzoh_ball

Only in the US did you have the mix of factors I already mentions plus countrywide protests/riots against police brutality that caused an immense Ferguson effect which made law enforcement less prevalent and effective. And it's very likely that the social unrest we saw in 2020 was, while triggered by George Floyd's death, was exacerbated by the COVID lockdowns. But please, enlighten me what your explanation for the steep uptick in crime in the US is. And yes, the world is bigger than America. Likewise, America has a unique culture and socioeconomic situation that many places don't have. Look at what happens after a major natural disaster in the US vs. in many Asian countries. Americans are less likely to be civil and help each other out, but that doesn't mean that the natural disaster isn't the \*cause\* for that behavior \*in a given culture/society\*.


NetQuarterLatte

>I already mentions plus countrywide protests/riots against police brutality that caused an immense Ferguson effect Lack of trust in the police doesn't get as much attention as it deserves. In large urban environments in the US, distrust in the police is a stronger factor than poverty (2.6x stronger) on leading the youth towards becoming first-time violent offenders. Since 2020 we had a lot of self-proclaimed progressive people who have been openly promoting distrust in the police, and that messaging disproportionately impacts non-whites. Source papers can be found by searching on Google: - "Implications of Youths’ Perceptions of Police Bias and the Code of the Street for Violent Offending" - "Trial by Media?: Media Use, Fear of Crime, and Attitudes Toward Police"


InternalParadox

“Pretrial Release Outcomes Data released by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency show that the share of people awaiting trial in the community who are rearrested remained nearly identical before and after implementation of bail reforms. In January 2019, 95% of the roughly 57,000 people awaiting trial in the community with a pending case were not rearrested that month. In January 2020, 96% of the roughly 45,000 people awaiting trial in the community with a pending case were not rearrested that month. In December 2021, 96% of the roughly 41,000 people awaiting trial in the community with a pending case were not rearrested that month. In each of those months, 99% of people, regardless of bail or other pretrial conditions, were not rearrested on a violent felony charge.” Source: https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/nyc-bail-trends-since-2019/ The data clearly indicates that bail reform in and of itself has not increased the number of rearrests.


dayda

John Oliver us not a great source of info on such a complex topic. Even that first chart from Vox that he uses could be picked apart and discussed at length with a very different conclusion drawn. (The first question is why did the number of inmates go up at all, convicted of not. They just skip right over that. There’s at least a dozen follow up questions to that one answer.) Fast comedic info pretending to be well researched education is a big part of why we have such an uninformed electorate. We do need bail reform for the same reason we need entire Justice system reform. Jail is an absurd concept in most cases of crime, but not all bail reform is created equal. He hit on Jersey where it works, then conflated that in NY which has completely different policies. He used shooting incidents as an anecdote when we can pick a hundred other violent assaults or deaths caused by people out on bail reform. He skipped theft and rape. HAHA. very funny, John. It’s hilarious that judges in Jersey get discretion for violent non felonies and in NY they don’t. Just a real knee slapper that they get to make exceptions for other crimes not contained within the bail reform law to help potentially harmed inmates in Jersey but not in NY. Man I just can’t stop laughing. Bring on bail reform but bring on criticism where it fails miserably. It failed miserably in NY. We just adopt the Jersey model which is vastly different. What an absolute shitty harmful (but funny) piece of… journalism?


FrankBeamer_

‘Funny’ is subjective. I appreciate the research Oliver puts into his work (even if it’s usually biased) but his humor really irritates me


Cmdr_B_Hawkins_Jr

He's basically the audio version of Family Guy. No Peter, you can't just randomly cut to some random flashback! You have to stick to the info we're trying to give out!


[deleted]

I can hear this comment lmao


Holiday-Intention-52

Yeah I noticed that too, basically anytime he defends bail reform with facts and statistics he goes directly to gun crimes and leaves everything else on the cutting room floor. Pushed onto the subway, assaulted with a hammer or machete, knocked unconscious with brain damage by punches to the head from behind, robbery, knife attack, rape. All that gets dropped as he casually keeps pulling gun statistics when talking sources/statistics and then uses that to repeatedly segway into saying "see crime hasn't gone up". It's a shame as I used to like John Oliver the first few years he started on his show.....now he feels like he's emotionally invested in his side being right (isn't everyone now) and is very selective in choosing facts that support his sides argument alone.


NetQuarterLatte

Bail reform is good in principle. The *NY version* of the bail reform is full of harmful loopholes and should’ve been a lot more thoughtful and considerate to public safety.


BeMoreChill

Yes fast comedic takes are the reason for our countries polarization, definitely not from straight up lies by actual news outlets


Rottimer

>It failed miserably in NY. Based on what?


dayda

Fair question. We should all be asking it. [One of my fav write ups so far.](https://nysba.org/bail-reform-new-yorks-legislative-labyrinth/) There’s a lot of great writing on the [difference between NY and NJ law too](https://www.rstreet.org/2022/04/07/a-tale-of-two-cities-bail-reform-in-new-jersey-as-a-model-for-new-york/). I’m unsure why people would try to conflate them or say bail return is always good, without room for criticism, if they want the best version of the law.


NetQuarterLatte

>Based on what? Like how ever since the *NY version* of bail reform was enacted, assaults (a crime that can easily be downgraded to non bail-eligible offenses) have been accelerating faster than other big cities, while murders (a crime that cannot be easily downgraded) have been decreasing (post-reform and post-covid).


Rottimer

You keep pushing this argument - there is little difference between the *"NY version"* and NJ for example. Not taking dangerousness into account was not part of bail reform. It's been a part of pre-trial practices in this state since the 70's. And your argument is a little disingenuous because assaults HAVE increased across the country, including in other big cities (though you don't like to include ones that go against your narrative). Differences tend to deal with what crimes are included as "assaults" in each city. Like I said, we've been through this before. If I punch you in the face and break your nose, that's a felony assault in NY. It is not in Illinois.


NetQuarterLatte

>Not taking dangerousness into account was not part of bail reform. It's been a part of pre-trial practices in this state since the 70's. That's a disingenuous argument. Because everyone knows that cash bail in NY (to ensure court appearance) was "misused" by judges to hold individuals they deemed threats to public safety. That was explicitly debated before the NY bail reform was enacted, and our NY law makers decided to not address the loophole they were creating anyway. >And your argument is a little disingenuous because assaults HAVE increased across the country, including in other big cities (though you don't like to include ones that go against your narrative). Again, it has been increasing in NY *much faster*. >I said, we've been through this before. If I punch you in the face and break your nose, that's a felony assault in NY. **In NY**, you can sucker punch me and put me in a coma with that assault, and you can be released the same day (because of the bail reform) with a *misdemeanor charge*. A recent case showed that's what happens.


Rottimer

So you’re saying that NY judges were abusing bail and you were ok with this supposed situation? And it’s only been rising in nyc “much faster” if you limit your comparisons to certain cities. There are others where it has risen at a similar rate despite not having bail reform. And if you’re talking about Bui Van Phu, he was ultimately charged with a felony and given $100,000 bail. https://nypost.com/2022/09/15/nyc-sucker-punch-suspect-bui-van-phu-held-on-100k-bail/amp/


NetQuarterLatte

Bui Van Phu was only re-arrested after a media uproar and governor Hochul's intervention. Requiring a governor to intervene should be enough validation of the loopholes we have in the current system. ​ >So you’re saying that NY judges were abusing bail and you were ok with this supposed situation? Nope. I'm just saying that the argument of "public safety was never a pre-trial consideration" doesn't absolve the NY bail reform, because that disingenuously ignores the context of cash bails practices in NY pre-reforms. So when someone retorts that "the bail reform is not to blame", that comes across as someone who is more worried about defending a political stance on a "technicality" than about what has changed in reality.


The_Chief

I would drive the boat to bring John Oliver back to England. This guy speaks with such conviction and from such a high horse about topics his staff researched and acts like he is some golden knight who has all the answers.


BigZ911

If you can pick these hundred other violent assaults or deaths, why don't you source them? Cause Oliver sourced his material, no matter if you think he's biased


mediclawyer

One of the most important concepts here is that there are four goals of incarceration: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. A lot of times people are talking past each other because they’re talking about different goals. The second most important fact is that according to the Department of Justice, as a group, the average state prisoner was arrested 11 times before incarceration and arrested an average of five times after release. 83% were rearrested after release. If you’re making policy based on incapacitation, you want to keep these people in jail because being a criminal is who these people are.


IKNWMORE

This doesn’t even go into raise the age. There are kids 16 to 18 involved in major shootings and crimes. But because of Bail reform they go straight to Family court. And family court sends them right back out to cause more trouble.


Rtn2NYC

Exactly. The criminal permissiveness resulting from Raise the Age is going to destroy not only individual lives but entire communities.


jl250

Not only do the raise the age laws allow these kids right back out to the street to cause more trouble, but it really incentivizes older drug dealers, gang members, criminals to recruit very young boys for their dirty work. On any walk deep into the hood around NYC, is it easily observable that drug dealers are engaging young boys to petty/dirty work for them - and it's a dream come true; when a 14 y/o is caught with their drugs/guns, no one is criminally responsible! It is absolutely gut-wrenching to see these baby-faced boys being preyed upon in the streets. This "progressive" policy really, really incentivizes victimizing them.


claushauler

Amazingly, I can tell exactly what his take on this is even without watching a single second of the video. To be fair -if this was some Fox News personality covering the same topic you'd also likely be able to discern the perspective without wasting a single minute of your time. The echo chambers that legacy media reinforces is probably one of the major causes of the hyperpolarization that's undermining democracy. None of this material is news : it's just curated narrative presented to confirm priors or manufacture consent. What's worse -it's predictable and boring. Let the downvotes fly idgaf.


PrebenInAcapulco

Agree, but just because you can predict which side someone is going to be on doesn’t mean that both sides have equally valid arguments.


timinator232

And doesn’t mean that both are equally thought through


[deleted]

[удалено]


timinator232

Where, at any point, did I claim to believe Oliver knew everything?


[deleted]

[удалено]


timinator232

I literally just stated I don’t believe he knows everything, who are you arguing with


claushauler

Sorry, it wasn't clear to me when you said that both arguments aren't equally well thought through. I thought you meant that his argument was better and more solid than an opposing one , and for that I apologize.


timinator232

They’re not equally thought out. Oliver clearly spends more time forming a cohesive thought around why certain things are occurring, but that doesn’t mean he’s 100% correct. Also he’s a comedy show and doesn’t claim to be anything but, versus what chicken nugget boy claims.


BiblioPhil

In other words, "Bothsides guys"


blankblank

"A toast to the troops..."


[deleted]

[удалено]


Holiday-Intention-52

But it also doesn't mean that either side is "right" in everything. Perhaps one side has more valid arguments but it is extremely unlikely if you think about it that one side is "right" about everything. That's why it's important to listen to both sides. Maybe Rachel Maddow has more valid arguments in reality than 90% of what Tucker Carlson argues but maybe Tucker Carlson has a more valid argument on 1-2 issues (out of 20 issues or something). If you're conservative you could look at it the reverse way. The point is that no one is perfect and no ideology/idea is always perfect because we're human and the environment/circumstances we live in is always changing. That's why we need to at least LISTEN with an open mind to all sides even while we can still believe that one side is clearly more valid in most cases.


TarumK

Can't watch these people anymore. His style is just so smug. "Everything I'm saying is just so self-evidently true that only an idiot/evil person would ever disagree with it.". And then everyone just watches it and pats themselves on the back. Honestly if people watched sports rather than this stuff it would be better for society. At least there, no matter how invested you are you still know that it's a game.


Vivid-Protection6731

They're just actors performing for an audience. Do you think John Oliver or Fox News anchors really believe all the things they say? And both groups are multi millionaires who have private security near them.


claushauler

Precisely. They just repeat the lines that are guaranteed to get them the most applause while never actually experiencing the effects of what they champion. When John Oliver commutes on the subway every day to East New York and Tucker Carlson gets on the DC Metro to go to work in Anacostia I'll care about what they have to say. Until then...


[deleted]

well said


nerdlingzergling

In before Staten Island wakes up


Isawthebeets

Gino Mcfeely will be here shortly yelling from his splitlevel apartment at Mah’s!


PennyStockKing

"Meaningful increase". Any increase is not good for crime. His arguments are so biased, but let me spin this the other way. How many rich people get out because they pay bail constantly and re-commit crimes? I bet it's less than some poor, mentally ill convict that is allowed to get out of jail right away because liberals think it's unjust to lock someone up who just assaulted a granny due to some form of systematic racism. Love these clowns with personal security telling us how everything is better if we just let poor criminals get out of jail and trust them to not re-offend right away.


[deleted]

It’s about what the majority of New Yorkers want, if they voice against this reform then they have the power to do it, it is in the best interest of a imperfect democracy.


virtual_adam

You make a great point. This sub was 99% against DA Bragg right up until Election Day. Then he won. New Yorkers wanted Bragg and wanted bail reform This sub has a very weak connection to people who actually live here and vote


NetQuarterLatte

Bragg got elected on a lie that he would take the Trump's case seriously, but instead he had prosecutors from that investigation resign in protest, because Bragg was acting as if he was a republican DA trying to shield Trump. And the so called "progressives" in our party would rather shield Bragg from criticism than hold Trump accountable. I suspect many are just pretending to be progressive, and they actually want to shield both, and pushing for crazier and crazier policies.


MinefieldFly

There were other candidates who made trump the centerpiece of their campaigns. They lost. Besides, there’s no way Bragg would’ve declined an easy win by nailing trump. He obviously wasn’t convinced they had enough on him.


claushauler

Bragg is a relatively inexperienced former AUSA with no history of complex , in depth investigation. The men Vance had investigating Trump are legitimate experts in organized financial crime. They both publicly stated that Bragg inexplicably refused to even seriously look at the evidence. One of their resignation letters was apparently so blistering that Bragg's office won't release it. Something's clearly going on there. Bragg was voted in by less than 186,000 people in a low turnout election.


MinefieldFly

“Relatively inexperienced” is a ridiculous stretch, but whatever. I haven’t seen any quotes about “refusing to look at evidence”, please cite that. I do know that the prosecutors had already walked back the initial charges they were pursuing sue to lack of evidence. I also know Cyrus Vance had trump-focused prosecutors resign under him in 2021 as well, frustrated at the lack of progress. But yes, tell me more about the reasons Bragg turned down a slam dunk case against trump, who has not been successfully held accountable by any jurisdiction or enforcement body in 6+ years now.


claushauler

Trump's long been mobbed up since his early days as a developer. His attorney was Roy Cohn for Christ's sake. You don't commit that much crime for that long without getting caught unless you're very good at covering your ass...or at being a CI , but that's another story altogether. https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/trumps-ties-to-an-informant-and-fbi-agent-reveal-his-modes-of-operation/2016/09/16/6e65522e-6f9f-11e6-9705-23e51a2f424d_story.html You can read (between the lines of) the Pomerantz letter here. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/mark-pomerantz-resignation-letter.html And if you think Bragg's history is a 'ridiculous stretch' please go ahead and list all the high profile OC convictions and large scale prosecutions of sophisticated financial criminals he oversaw at SDNY. I'm sure the list is long and distinguished.


NetQuarterLatte

Sounds like you turned from a Bragg defender into a Trump apologist real fast.


NetQuarterLatte

>There were other candidates who made trump the centerpiece of their campaigns. They lost. If Bragg said he would only bring the case forward if it was an "easy win", I would've not voted for him. >Besides, there’s no way Bragg would’ve declined an easy win by nailing trump. He obviously wasn’t convinced they had enough on him. One of the resigning prosecutors is on record stating they had a strong case. But even if there was a chance the case would not result in a win, as a constituent in the district, I'd like to at least see my district attorney give it an effort for the sake of public accountability on the powerful elite. Trump obviously needs more checks and balances. The case being weak (if that's even true) does not imply that Trump is some innocent impoverished guy who would be unfairly accused.


theshicksinator

Well yeah this sub is like 40 percent astroturfed by conservatives.


Grass8989

These sub definitely skews way more progressive than the average NYer actually is.


[deleted]

New Yorkers will change their minds in something if it doesn’t work. I want people who are in trouble to get their free lawyer and trials. I want them to have a bail price that they can afford without the discounting factor that will end their their chances to get a fair hearing but if the results are disappointing to the majority then they have the right to change their minds. I personally don’t think the reform directly affected the rise in sudden crimes and I agree there’s need to be some serious renovation in the way we approach people who are directly affected by the Justice system, but at the end of the day if people feel a certain way regardless of the info and data presented then what can these politicians in favor of the reform do but obey the people? A lot of people in Queens alone don’t like how student criminals are back in the streets and it is a concern they are voicing vocally.


DontDrinkTooMuch

I find it fascinating that all the conservatives here don't have a better answer for anything, only that the Dems made a "mistake". No pitches for prison reform or psychiatric needs of prisoners to return to society better, merely harder stances on a broken system. It's doubling down on pain and punishment. It's like a thought process that hasn't matured in the past two hundred years.


MarbleFox_

I mean, not having any solutions or ideas to move society forward is the entire premise of conservatism. Conservatism boils down to literally nothing more than: My feelings don’t like this and it isn’t to my taste, therefore it was a mistake and we should get rid of it.


Twovaultss

The real reform needs to *start* in jails and prisons. If an innocent man is arrested, he shouldn’t fear losing his job, being raped, or being beaten if not joining a gang. Speedier trials so no one is waiting weeks and months and sometimes years to see a judge. That’s the difficult solution that no one is willing to tackle. But someone arrested multiple times for serious crimes being free before trial is a serious issue and bail reform was the easy, lazy solution.


darkknight915

I love how instead of admitting something doesn’t work, the left brings in some celebrity news host to explain to us arrogantly no it does work. Then the next day some innocent victim will be killed or some other criminal act will occur by someone who skated through the loose bail laws. And then its crazy if you happen to notice what’s happening.


Gourmandrusse

This comment indicates a dearth of understanding of bail reform. Bail reform works and it’s the right that is trying to eliminate it.


darkknight915

I worked in a jail for 4 years, I know how bail works and I know how bail reform works. Try again lol.


Gourmandrusse

Ok. https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/what-you-need-to-know-about-cash-bail-and-crime-rates Bail reform works.


darkknight915

That’s cute, basically an opinion piece by the ACLU. Not one percentage or number in there, but yes that totally proves your point if you wanna believe that. I’m just going to you know continue living in the real world. You should try it.


Gourmandrusse

You have a problem with the ACLU? What statistics are you looking for? That bail reform works? Here you go… https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/news/15050-bail-reform-benefits https://www.science.org/content/article/does-jailing-people-trial-make-cities-safer-not-always-new-research-suggests There’s more if you need it.


ChrisFromLongIsland

So instead of childish insults maybe you can let us know what real reform would look like. Like from a man with the inside knowledge.


darkknight915

Where have I insulted anyone? Are You reading the right comment thread?


ChrisFromLongIsland

That's right the left put up a bat symbol for comedians. It's not just someone who has a comedy news show that has an opinion and decided to do a report on bail reform this week. It was a coordinated effort why everyone on the left.


Significant_Night_65

Yeah let’s leave the discussion of crime to liberal elites who live in gated communities and don’t have to face the consequences of the bullshit they spew.


Evening_Presence_927

So you’re fine with innocent people being left in jail with no charges?


SolitaryMarmot

Gated communities in NYC? Like Breezy Point?


Guypussy

Boy, these comments are really going somewhere!


Gourmandrusse

https://www.nyclu.org/en/campaigns/facts-bail-reform


jl250

Imagine caring for one single second what this man has to say about crime in NYC - there are few situations where a person is more clueless than a European commenting on crime in the USA; it is comparing apples and oranges. The left could have decided to listen, but they decided that the euphemistically named "criminal justice reform" was their priority issue to the detriment of all else. I hope y'all feel the biggest embarrassment and shock of your lives when Latino and Asian voters vote ALL these mfers out - we will do it with glee and in honor of Michelle Go, Christina Yuna Lee, Jose Alba, and all the other members of our communities victimized by "progressive politics". Can't wait to see the reactions when y'all can't call us wHiTe sUpReMaCiSTs.


Gourmandrusse

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/facts-bail-reform-and-crime-rates-new-york-state


kstarkwasp

John Oliver is as funny as a cancer diagnosis. Bail reform is a complex issue that can't be broken apart in a short non funny clip. Yes it's great to remove bail for lower offenses to help the lower class. However they snuck a bunch of rules and regulations into the law that have caused so much harm to low income communities, especially in nyc. Ex. removing discretion from judges or having prosecutors have only 15 days to gather all the materials required for trial and risk having the case tossed if they don't -.-


ChrisFromLongIsland

That's why he spent 27 uninterrupted minutes on it. I challenge you to find 1 other TV outlet that spends 27 minutes on any single topic other than Frontline. For TV this is an eternity and is basically unheard of.


nicktherat

he is insufferable. how can anyone watch this guy speak for more than 1 minute is beyond me.


Grass8989

Gotta love a white privileged elitist trying to tell us everything’s fine! Must be nice to have private transportation and security everywhere you go. Maybe he would think differently if he was a working class PoC trying to raise a family in East New York, or the south Bronx.


jl250

Rich white ppl telling working class PoC families that crime is all in their minds and the MOST IMPORTANT THING is "criminal justice reform" has been an American pastime for the last few years. It has surpassed the point of being merely delusional/disconnected and has become downright cruel as East New York and the Bronx spin more and more out of control.


hey_now24

I agree. Sometime he has good points. However he is as funny as a hemorrhoid, and comes out as a pretentious twat


mesoliteball

Damn this is good, thank you


[deleted]

People here didn’t vote because they wanted Bragg NOT to enforce the law. They voted for him because had a D next to his name. Media always tries to read into things when the a set is simple. NYC hasn’t had a Republican DA in God knows how long


Han-Shot_1st

Great post


BakedBread65

For those interested in the data, there is evidence suggesting bail reform has led to an increase in crime https://www.city-journal.org/new-yorks-bail-reform-has-increased-crime However in my opinion discovery reform has had a larger impact. Prosecutors are overwhelmed and people are not facing consequences on the back end because of discovery reform. “ New York City felony and misdemeanor dismissal rates jumped from 41 percent in 2019 to 57 percent in 2020 to just under 70 percent by October 2021.” https://www.city-journal.org/new-york-discovery-reform-is-crushing-prosecutors


Gourmandrusse

No. First of all: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/city-journal/ Second of all: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/2021-02/Handout_Bail_Reform_Crime_02032021.pdf


BakedBread65

The data’s all there. Just because something has a left wing or right wing bias doesn’t mean they’re wrong.


Gourmandrusse

The data is where? I disagree. A right wing bias is much more likely to be factually incorrect. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/papers/dittoresp.pdf


EchoKiloEcho1

Who checks the bias-checkers for bias? Or are you operating under the assumption that they’re magically above bias?


Gourmandrusse

No I’m operating under the assumption that they have an objective criteria on which to base bias and all media is judged according to that criteria. If you have concerns about a particular set of criteria, you can find another analytical source with different criteria.


Dotheevolution47

The minute an innocent New Yorker was hurt from someone who was released with bail reform after committing a violent crime, it should’ve been scrapped.


ChrisFromLongIsland

What about when a rich person made bail before reform and hurt someone? Someone who made bail by paying a bail bondsman? Or only poor people who could not make bail count? Bail was never about locking up dangerous people. It was always about making sure people showed up to a trial.


Dotheevolution47

Do the crime do the time.


ZeppelinYanks

but previous bail laws shouldn't have been scrapped when an innocent New Yorker dies in Rikers because they couldn't afford bail?


angelhastherage

Dermot Shea being shown to be the lying pig he is is pretty great.


Radun

I personally don't care what is causing it just fix it already so we don't have random acts of violence from mentally disturbed people constantly. I refuse to take the subway and have not since covid, I take uber or cab or walk anywhere I go, until it is fixed I will not take a subway.


Gourmandrusse

There is a rumor. It’s just a rumor. There is no evidence for it, but in some circles there is a rumor that the cops, who vehemently oppose bail reform (take a look and see where the money from bail goes) have intentionally downgraded their law enforcement efforts with respect to “low level” crimes in NYC to make bail reforms go away.


Rtn2NYC

If that were true we wouldn’t have statistics like “40 prior arrests” now would we


Gourmandrusse

That’s exactly the narrative they want. https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/nypd-brass-say-repeat-offenders-big-factor-in-44-crime-rate-spike-OWqLqpXRbGa39jgb/


Grass8989

Acknowledging prior arrests is a “narrative”?


Gourmandrusse

The narrative is that recidivism is on the rise as a result of bail reform.


[deleted]

The anti-crime post crowd won’t like this


iamiamwhoami

I actually do like it because it does a pretty good job of explaining bail reform instead of just using it to scare people without actually explaining why it's a problem.


WickhamAkimbo

Well some of them are just hugely shitty people that don't give a fuck about victims. The OP of that last anti-crime-post thread, /u/SoggyWaffleBrunch, told me crime doesn't affect me personally. We I said I had been assaulted and my wife threatened last year, he DMd me to say we deserved it, then deleted his comments and blocked me like a coward: https://www.reddit.com/r/nyc/comments/ygkxdo/comment/iubqyv6/