https://www.ky3.com/2022/09/09/gates-are-open-illinois-ending-cash-bail-system/
Can you of liberal bent, at least, without being facetious or clever, tell us the mindset that causes such decisions as this?
Foreigners, please refrain, as you would not understand cultural problems if they happened on your back porch.
🤔 😏
- Joined
- 23 Feb 22
- Moves
- 1798
12 Sep 22
@averagejoe1 saidLibs claim that cash bail is like, all kinds of racist and stuff, because whites can afford bail and blacks can't, so all blacks should just be set free after committing a crime..
https://www.ky3.com/2022/09/09/gates-are-open-illinois-ending-cash-bail-system/
Can you of liberal bent, at least, without being facetious or clever, tell us the mindset that causes such decisions as this?
Foreigners, please refrain, as you would not understand cultural problems if they happened on your back porch.
🤔 😏
12 Sep 22
@averagejoe1 saidHow much money you have should not be a factor in whether you are confined while awaiting trial (at which point, you are still legally innocent).
https://www.ky3.com/2022/09/09/gates-are-open-illinois-ending-cash-bail-system/
Can you of liberal bent, at least, without being facetious or clever, tell us the mindset that causes such decisions as this?
Foreigners, please refrain, as you would not understand cultural problems if they happened on your back porch.
🤔 😏
12 Sep 22
@athousandyoung saidBut you, a lib who has been asked to respond as to the reason for ending cash bail......can you tell us the reason? Is it the same as. JJ, that it is racist ?
Cash bail is just another one of those ways in which the system is rigged in favor of the rich.
CA got rid of it last year.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/29/982417595/california-does-away-with-cash-bail-for-those-who-cant-afford-it
12 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidIn years past, maybe the wild west, someone sat in jail while arrested. Why are they let out in the first place? Because they re the husband of Nancy Pelosi? Now this is one place I agree with libs about, the rich get a pass on crimes.
How much money you have should not be a factor in whether you are confined while awaiting trial (at which point, you are still legally innocent).
- Joined
- 29 Jun 10
- Moves
- 412
12 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidAgreed but they should have a threat assessment program or something. Maybe they do I dunno.
How much money you have should not be a factor in whether you are confined while awaiting trial (at which point, you are still legally innocent).
12 Sep 22
@averagejoe1 saidWhy should someone sit in jail for possibly months or years awaiting trial simply because they don't have as much money as someone else? No, it was never the case that defendants in the US had to await trial in penal custody; in fact, the US Constitution prohibits excessive bail and the purpose of bail is to assure attendance at trial, not exact punishment on those who can't afford to pay it.
In years past, maybe the wild west, someone sat in jail while arrested. Why are they let out in the first place? Because they re the husband of Nancy Pelosi? Now this is one place I agree with libs about, the rich get a pass on crimes.
12 Sep 22
@ccpatzer saidThe Illinois law does in effect:
Agreed but they should have a threat assessment program or something. Maybe they do I dunno.
"The SAFE-T Act states that all defendants “shall be presumed eligible” for pretrial release unless prosecutors present “clear and convincing” evidence to deny the suspect pretrial release, such as proof that the suspect committed the crime and poses a threat to the physical safety of a “specific, identifiable” person."
https://www.capitolnewsillinois.com/NEWS/whats-in-the-safe-t-act-a-look-at-the-2021-criminal-justice-reform-and-how-it-has-evolved
12 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidThen we must all agree that the bail process favors the rich. No question. Mr. Pelosi, a felon, could and did (?) pay bail. A lesser person would still be sitting there.
Why should someone sit in jail for possibly months or years awaiting trial simply because they don't have as much money as someone else? No, it was never the case that defendants in the US had to await trial in penal custody; in fact, the US Constitution prohibits excessive bail and the purpose of bail is to assure attendance at trial, not exact punishment on those who can't afford to pay it.
What is the answer?
12 Sep 22
@no1marauder saidAvJoe says this is absolutely ridiculous.
The Illinois law does in effect:
"The SAFE-T Act states that all defendants “shall be presumed eligible” for pretrial release unless prosecutors present “clear and convincing” evidence to deny the suspect pretrial release, such as proof that the suspect committed the crime and poses a threat to the physical safety of a “specific, identifiable” person."
https://www.c ...[text shortened]... s.com/NEWS/whats-in-the-safe-t-act-a-look-at-the-2021-criminal-justice-reform-and-how-it-has-evolved
The words 'clear', 'convincing', 'evidence' and 'proof', proof being the funniest, must be defined for such law! Proof is funny, because if there is proof, they would be going to sentencing phase....why have a trial?
We will never run out of subjects to discuss!
@no1marauder saidI do agree with the still legally innocent part, yes.
How much money you have should not be a factor in whether you are confined while awaiting trial (at which point, you are still legally innocent).
But allowing everyone to go free while they are awaiting trial has some major drawbacks. I'm sure you'll agree
@averagejoe1 saidMr. Pelosi isn't a felon.unless and until he is actually convicted of a felony.
Then we must all agree that the bail process favors the rich. No question. Mr. Pelosi, a felon, could and did (?) pay bail. A lesser person would still be sitting there.
What is the answer?
12 Sep 22
@earl-of-trumps saidWhich is why all these laws have exceptions.
I do agree with the still legally innocent part, yes.
But allowing everyone to go free while they are awaiting trial has some major drawbacks. I'm sure you'll agree
12 Sep 22
@averagejoe1 saidWill you buy a legal dictionary?
AvJoe says this is absolutely ridiculous.
The words 'clear', 'convincing', 'evidence' and 'proof', proof being the funniest, must be defined for such law! Proof is funny, because if there is proof, they would be going to sentencing phase....why have a trial?
We will never run out of subjects to discuss!
I'm tired of explaining to you basic concepts of law which you seem incapable of understanding. Both the "clear and convincing" standard and the legal concept of "proof" are well defined and those definitions are easily accessible via a proper Google search.