Jail or Bail? There’s a New Option

Spent the first 40 years of my life living and working in New York City. I was mugged, assaulted and burglarized frequently. Somehow the criminal elements feels they have a right for free everything and to prey upon the decent hardworking middle class. I had hoped that Guiliani's cleansing of the insanity that pervaded NYC was permanent. It seems to be returning. Who is standing up for the people who get up at 6 am in the morning, travel to work in the freezing cold, work all day and then come home to take care of their kids? On top of that you and your kids are the victims of the awful people the government forces you to pay for. Then we see idiotic articles like this one. It's not their fault blah blah blah. NYC will soon have three distinct groups: criminals, working-class fascists, and tone deaf self-righteous rich liberals. I am proud to be a fascist

Long overdue. For anyone who has watched a loved one -- sometimes innocently -- get tangled up in the criminal "justice" system, the system is brutal, highly unfair and unrelenting. I wish the author would rethink describing someone as "bullet headed." Unnecessarily derogatory for the NYT, particularly when the subject is pictured (literally and figuratively) so favorably?

ALMOST 22 years. A bail decision ruined my career and my life. No one cared then and nobody cares now.

In New York State, robbery is the FORCEFUL taking of property. There is no “technicality”. You steal a backpack (and the contents are under $1000 and don’t contain credit cards) when no one is looking it is petit larceny which is a misdemeanor. You remove a back pack from someone while using a simulated handgun, act as a group when robbing, or cause an injury, you commit Robbery 2. I am not sure which of the three examples from above is not violent??? It is mistakes like this that cause the whole article to look like left wing propaganda. Are there any criminals that the NY Times believe warrant time in jail? There is a victim associated with each crime and it those innocent victims that the state owes a level of protection and the sense of safety to. New York State Penal Law -Robbery- S 160.10 Robbery in the second degree. A person is guilty of robbery in the second degree when he forcibly steals property and when: 1. He is aided by another person actually present; or 2. In the course of the commission of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he or another participant in the crime: (a) Causes physical injury to any person who is not a participant in the crime; or (b) Displays what appears to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm; or 3. The property consists of a motor vehicle, as defined in section one hundred twenty-five of the vehicle and traffic law. Robbery in the second degree is a class C felony.

Robbery is a violent crime, not a “so called” violent crime. The accusatory instrument in the Browder case alleged that the victim was thrown into a fence, punched in the face and had his backpack taken. That is certainly violent behavior, whomever the perpetrator may have been. While the outcome in that case was tragic, the author misleads the reader by categorizing that crime as “non-violent.” Robbery, the use of force in taking someone’s property, is violent and is always a felony in New York State for a reason.

While the bail system punishes poor people, we need to fix extremely flawed risk assessment systems currently used in America, especially to determine risk for felony crimes involving weapon possession. My dear friend was killed for his property because one of the pair arrested had just been freed, based on a flawed risk assessment system and lack of oversight of the system, as well as, no supervision post release. This suspect had been forbidden from returning to the scene of his alleged crime, yet he easily did so, with a gun. This time the victim was not only robbed, but shot dead. Why? 1. Risk assessment data was entered incorrectly and never reviewed for errors, before used to argue for release. 2. The questions determining risk assessment formulas are woefully lenient & must be changed to reflect real-world risk assessment, especially re: weapon history when committing crimes. 3. Judge & prosecutor did not question the risk assessment report’s accuracy. 4. There was no supervision when the suspect was released. This is not the first instance where the use of risk assessment formulas resulted in the murder of innocent people. So let's get real: human input and judgement are key in assessing which felony suspects get out of jail, along with mandatory rethinking of poorly conceived data driven formulas currently in use and seen as panaceas to an imperfect bail system. And I would ask also, what truly constitutes safe supervision and can cities afford it?

Why can’t voluntary ankle bracelets be an option?

Mr. Quinn, in the Queens DA office, cites a figure of 20% for re-arrests for those on supervised release, but he gives us nothing to compare that number to; for instance, what percentage of people who make bail after arraignment are re-arrested?

Arrest assumes of course, that a crime was committed. It's so easy to forget the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine. Arrest is not an assumption of guilt. On that basis alone-- forget the disproportionate damage to the poor--the bail-bond system is an outrage, undermining a most basic point of the Constitution. And then there's the cynical "copping a plea" concept. The justice system lumbers archaically along as the easiest way out is to lay the burden of proof on those accused and arrested.

When someone is arrested and detained for trial, the consequences are like a rock being thrown into a small pond. The waves of damage spread to families and friends. A crucial paycheck may be lost, children may lose child care as their caretakers take on another job to cover the financial gap. All the normal routines and needs of daily life are disrupted for many. We recognize this in the case of victims of crime. What about the families of those arrested? Why is this not considered in the costs of our criminal justice system? The costs are very high. Other countries have found ways to mitigate this and so should we. It's good to see NYC to a first step.

8% re-arrested for felonies and more than 20% for felonies and misdemeanors. These are not insignificant numbers. It would be useful to hear details regarding these failures of the supervised release program. As far as I am concerned, based upon the facts reported in this story, the jury is still out on whether the benefits of supervised release clearly outweigh the costs.

If "innocent before proven guilty" is to have any credibility, "supervised release" is one (and only one!) of the essential requirements to be heavily used in the criminal justice system. Those who oppose it, likely have not been subject, either themselves or through their families, to the arbitrariness and absolute power of the criminal justice system. There's nothing "democratic" about it. We put countries we ridicule to shame in what we do to the accused (not the "proven guilty," but simply to the "accused").

So 20% of those in the pre-trial release program commit a felony or misdemeanor while on release. What about the individuals and businesses harmed by those who commit these crimes? Is NYC going to set up a (large) fund to compensate the victims of these crimes? Somehow I doubt it. There is another option that the article does not mention: Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.

I am confused by the operation of the court system. I was always taught that the purpose of bail, and the only lawful purpose, was to assure the defendant's appearance in court. As I understand the law, if a person's case is adjourned 100 times, and the person appears at each adjournment, the court has no lawful right to revoke bail even if the person commits multiple crimes. i.e, bail may not be used for preventive detention. The solution for preventive detention is speedy trial. And competent judges.

Doesn't it sound like di Blasio wants to close Rikers so that he can sell it to real estate developers? We could reduce the population to 5000 and still not close the facility. Why is he so set on closing the facility?

The PRSP, Pretrial Release and Supervision Program, was started in Portland, Oregon in 1986. As Director of Community Corrections I was well aware of the missing middle step between release on recognizance and holding and holding a defendant in custody until adjudication of all charges. And, in addition, our jails were overflowing with indigent pretrial detainees who, for lack of a permanent address were being held. The program was set up to heavily screen pre-trial detainees and insure that they would not have otherwise been recogged ( promise to appear, minimal conditions). As such we avoided to the ever present problem of widening the net of social control unnecessarily. Even with screening requirements some low level offenders did creep onto the supervision roles. So, training and vigilance were the key. The biggest and most difficult wild card to control were the judges themselves. Elected every 4 years some didn't want to risk a bad release with possibility of re offense. So, they didn't use the program. Others had to be restrained from sending low level offender who would do well with no supervision ( make court appearances) to the program. Today...31 years later, these programs form the backbone of a pretrial release and supervision program in Multnomah County. Jail populations are at an all time low. One jail, Wapato, built and never opened was actually recently sold...brand spanking new.

Finally we are applying the same standards to Americans as we do to persons who have illegally entered the US and who are caught and released. I am sure that like persons who are “undocumented”, 99% will show up for their court dates.

Personally, I think public safety should be more of a priority than "closing Rikers Island". Maybe the writer of this piece should read the article in his own paper about what happened to public safety when the police force is reduced and dangerous offenders are free to roam the streets. Or he could read another NY paper for a glimpse of the reality of paroling too soon: https://nypost.com/2019/02/01/knife-wielding-suspect-ties-up-uws-family-in-terrifying-home-invasion-cops/

Debtors prisons?we still have them. A very profitable industry. Very much like our mercenary army and charter schools.Public funding, private administration.Our hands are clean especially in Abu Grebe type situations.

Rikers should not be closed. Fix it and don’t build a hideous 23 story 5,000 inmate complex in Kew Gardens that will add to the already horrific Court House traffic and lack of parking. Prisons and their occupants should not be in residential communities that are already overcrowded and congested. We are fighting this monstrosity to save our neighborhood. DeBlasio, don’t destroy the place we call home. You will no longer be mayor when they plan to start building this and, hopefully, the new mayor will decide to spend the billions elsewhere.