The Bill of Rights says "Excessive bail shall not be required."
Not NO bail shall be required.
Of course the Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" and we see how that has been interpreted to mean Congress shall make SOME laws abridging the freedom of speech. So that's that.
Mr. Cuomo has, at best, a tenuous grasp of the US Constitution. He demonstrates this when he repeatedly refers to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution as "a loophole," as in this press release:
"Governor Cuomo Signs Legislation Closing New York's Double Jeopardy Loophole"
https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-signs-legislation-closing-new-yorks-double-jeopardy-loophole-authorizing-state
Cuomo's bail law will not survive. It is trendy, but it will be killed by one "Willie Horton" moment.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
I used to be a bum... Got busted several times for drugs in Manhattan as well as in Newark...Always had wealthy family members who could bail me out even if it took a day or two ... trust me, you regular folks couldn’t hack a single night in the tombs or in any urban lock up...
Cheers
6
This new law is stupid, now non-violent criminals can harass the same person over and over again... Just to get released again because they don't have to pay bail.
The examples used in this article such as stalking, assaults without injury, etc... are crimes that lead non-violent criminals to become violent criminals.
26
You write: "allowing people awaiting trial to remain in their homes with their families and jobs". This is about burglars with day jobs? People who urinate in public, but need to get to work the next morning? People who get paid U$D 15 per hour, but can't afford 11 minutes of that wage to pay their subway fare? I'm getting a bad case of Compassion Fatigue.
59
This is appalling...stupid, completely mislaid. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or whatever the inverse of that would be.
16
DeWitt man charged with 4th bank robbery released without bail https://www.syracuse.com/crime/2019/12/dewitt-man-charged-with-4th-bank-robbery-released-without-bail.html
Really we will release him back. This will blow back on politicians
24
Bail reform is a good idea but the devil is in the details. Many of these so called “nonviolent” crimes are actually quite violent including domestic violence, assault, and robbery (ask Tessa Majors family how “nonviolent” robbery is).
There’s already a sense that the bad old days are returning to NYC and this poorly conceived law will only accelerate it.
39
This notion of criminalizing poverty is hogwash. A crime is a crime. If there is concern about being unable to meet bail then don't commit a crime.
What I find equally troubling is eliminating yeti judge's discretion. That is very scary.
Anyone who believes this bill is going to make our streets safer is severely mistaken. The Law of Unintended Consequences is about to reveal itself in a manner that will force those soft on crime rethink their position and return to reality - crime is bad, safe streets are good!
Oh! Think about this. What communities will be impacted the most - those communities where crime is already rampant.
Stop taking pity on those who violate our well being. They should be in jail. We should be making life more difficult for prisoners not easier.
28
Upstate we already had a convicted sex offender reoffend and be released on bail. We also had someone accused of murder make a 200k bail in cash and another out on $1million bond for murder. This was before the law took effect, so I'm still in the camp of this new law is a good thing. We're trying to not punish poor people and we never had a system that locked up all the criminals.
2
Open minded but when you read the details
It’s crazy. NYC Company aka tourism is going to take a big hit. The NYPD already fudges it’s numbers, cops seem hands off because of the current administration. I really wish Bloomberg would run again for Mayor.
16
DeBlasio wanted to bring the city back down to his knees.
Mission Accomplished.
Unfortunately, Felix Rohatyn is no longer here to save the city.
But we have the Guardian Angels maybe they can hold the line until the city finds the next Batman to save Gotham!
14
New York, once again has gone to far to correct an issue. Taking away the right of judges or anyone else to assess the risk to public safety of the accused being released without bail and of not showing up for their trial is a bad decision. Who is likely to be harmed by these actioins? It certainly won't be "the rich" as so many of the defenders of the new law espouse it corrects for (The rich or more well off can always post bail they claim). It will be the less well off, the poor and lower middlle class, primairly in minority communities who are harmed by individuals that should not have been released without bail. Good luck with another poorly conceived social justice measure/law.
16
By what amazing twist of logic were burglaries and assaults added to the list of 'no bail' offenses? What do you think that burglar is going to do the minute he is let out? Go right back to breaking into apartments and homes. An even more dangerous aspect of this new inane law is the releasing of witnesses names and other personal information to defense lawyers who will surely give that info over to their clients. So that burglar who broke into your place now has your name and email address. My District Attorney McMahon is sending out letters to witnesses warning them of that fact.
What too many of you don't want to understand is that these changes are designed to intentionally destabilize New York City. For what purpose? I have no idea. Ask the nearest progressive democrat.
23
Why do we keep pandering to criminals? You aren’t being unfairly targeted if you are committing crimes. This is insane.
21
To all of the commenters who are against this new law, please google the name Keleif Browder and maybe you'll understand why ended bail for non-violent offenders is so important.
4
Stalking, assault (battery), arson, robbery nonviolent? Witness intimidation few? What planet is this?
14
The real crime we NYers have to deal with is the one our politicians have committed by turning peole out on our streets who have been arrested for crimes like reckless assault of a child,
various types of arson, a variety of homicide and manslaughter charges, several types of hate crimes, assaults, menacing, and more.
Bail reform was sold to the public by the pols and the media as only for low-level nonviolent offenses. That's not the law that was passed. And taking discretionary power away from judges - how well did that work out last time it was tried?
It's disheartening to see democrats take a page from the Trump playbook and dismantle an imperfect but functional and necessary system.
15
Hire more judges.
Hire more prosecutors.
Hire more Court Officers.
Hire more Correction Officers.
Hire more Police Officers.
Hire more Probation Officers.
Gear up to empanel juries 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365. Hold court / trials 24 hours a day.
Build more courts (and utilize existing courts 24 hours a day). Use temporary facilities as courts.
Have your day in court in 24-72 hours, which is reasonable.
Put speedy back in your constitutionally guaranteed speedy trial.
Police will incur OODLES if overtime.
Get arrested and get your trial in 24-72 hours.
Surrender: passport, drivers license (or modify to only very limited use).
Utilize-extensively-electronic monitoring.
Establish and maintain a criminal justice electronic probation network.
The savings from no confinement will offset new hires.
7
I've noticed that all the comments here make both the presumption of guilt upon arrest, an attitude that those who make accusations are "good" and not simply uncaught criminals themselves, and that they don't understand the difference between bail and cash bail. I haven't seen a single comment where anyone wanted bail, but no financial attachments to it.
5
I am an ex-cop. I was a Chief Deputy Sheriff with a jail under my command. We were overcrowded and frequently had to ship prisoners to other counties at a stiff price. A goodly number of the inmates in the jail were pre-trial holds for lack of bail. They took up a lot of space and cost a lot of money. We finally prevailed upon the judges to allow us to release most of those inmates on their own recognizance, a promise they'd appear in court. And they pretty much all did appear
The 8th Amendment forbids excessive bail and a 1,000 dollar bail is excessive for some folk. And let's not forget the only purpose of bail is to ensure a court appearance. It is not to keep someone off the street. That is an unconstitutional abuse of bail. We need administrators to trust the system and stop using bail for purposes it was not intended.
13
If a person is deemed a risk to society or to continue to commit crimes, then he/she should be remanded to custody until trial. Being out on bail no matter how high does not make that person any less of a risk. Setting bail at a high level to keep a suspect in jail only allows those how have the means to continue to be a risk to society. In my opinion, that is neither fair nor consistent with "equal justice under the law". If I were still living in NY, I would have voted for State Senators and Representatives who were in favor of it. If a DA does not ask for a suspect felt to be a risk to society to be remanded, then he/she is not doing his/her job.
3
Please stop the pandering, Ms. Stewart-Cousins. "I know change is scary, change is hard" is a statement I expect to hear from a psychotherapist, not the head of the NYS senate commenting on a bill that will lead to the automatic pretrial release of alleged burglars, stalkers, arsonists, drug dealers and some robbers and assaulters.
If a defendant's rap sheet shows that he or she has had prior bench warrants issued for nonappearances in criminal court or the underlying facts of a particular case point to an increased safety risk should that defendant be released without bail, are you telling me I should be more concerned about the theoretical unfairness to the defendant than I am about the risk to public safety? Given your obvious priorities and that of other Democrats in the state legislature, I can well understand why you're all eager to give the right to vote back to convicted felons.
I'm dumbfounded by this new law and also disgusted by the two-ring circus our state legislature has become under Democratic control. I'm a registered Democrat who's now committed to voting Republican in our next state senate and assembly elections.
33
Wow, some knee jerk reactions.
That said, I think if the history of offenses should be considered. Any sign of violence in the crime should be used to grade the amount of bail just like risk of flight there should be a risk of violence assessment.
If the crime is truly nonviolent or indirectly violent (i.e., drug dealing) I'm okay with this.
2
These are not criminals. These are defendants. Bail is about people who are defendants. They are not criminals until convicted. They are innocent until proven guilty.
9
So catch and release has come from fishing to the human world, eh?
As a Californian, our "no bail" system, coupled with laws releasing "non-violent" offenders has left us trying to find out how to hold on to those things we have paid for. "Petty thefts" (costing less than $1000) have risen astronomically, and people have become more fearful in their homes as criminals have caught on to the fact that there's little punishment for their crimes. Packages are being stolen from cars and homes, home and car handles are being checked in an effort to gain entry for stealing what you own.
Police don't respond anymore due to volumes of crimes, and neighbors are left to install security cameras and share videos with one another to track criminals. So why are we paying high taxes for police support while being left to defend ourselves?
I propose people erecting criminal walls of shame web sites with videos of criminals in action and their vehicles/accomplices, and show repeat offender videos at town/city hall meetings and ask why police and prosecutors are being paid for not doing their jobs. Making those videos publicly available will help others turn in their criminal neighbors and guide future home buying decisions.
Security camera executives are ecstatic! And everyone will be seen on camera 24x7 (loss of privacy).
I propose 3 strikes of a crime (with evidence to prove it) and there is a "no bail for you" option, just jail time with LOTS of hard "productive" labor.
15
This is probably the worst decision ever made by the bureaucrats in Albany. And who controls the bureaucracy in Albany these days? That would be the Democrat party, lead by Cuomo and the Democrat controlled legislature. Bail is meant to bind a defendant to returning to face the music for his accused crime. Eliminating bail puts an accused criminal back on the streets with no compunction to return to face a trial and punishment for his crime. Nobody can ever convince those of us watching this nonsensical policy unfold that it is in the best interests of the law abiding public.
17
"“Someone who deals in drugs is not someone who, once arrested, will just decide to give it up and find legal employment,” said Patrick Swanson, the district attorney in Chautauqua County, on the state’s western border. “They will continue to sell drugs.”"
Someone who is out on bail has been accused of dealing drugs. Under the law, that person is still innocent until proven guilty, and an innocent man does not deserve to be in jail.
The one change to the law I would strongly support is that any person who misses a court date under the new law would forfeit the right to be out on the streets for this offense and any future arrests, as that person has been proven to be unreliable.
2
Bail sometimes meant permanent jail, but outside NYC, it more often meant you weren't missing Court because mom put up the house or grandma posted it....and said GET THERE.
I do defense, but think a lot of defendants won't show.....
5
I thought the purpose of bail was to make sure the accused showed up for trial, not to “keep criminals off the street” before they’re convicted of anything.
4
No pleading out everything goes to trial force the state to give you your day in court.The courts would crash in days.
1
I see similarities between proponents of bail reform and those who oppose broken windows policies in that they have a myopic view of crime and law enforcement. They enjoy the lower crime rates that came about through broken windows, but then conclude that it is no longer necessary because crime is down. How inane. The NYPD should have never been forced to ease up on things like fare evasion and public urination. Any cop will tell you how enforcement of lower level offenses kept the bigger ones from occurring. And they'd tell you how many fugitives and bail jumpers they picked up by enforcement of these more minor offenses. Time will demonstrate that our politicians willfully allowed the pendulum too swing too far and we will end up regretting it.
13
Law enforcement on edge? What gave it away? The 4800 people shot and killed by police since 2015?
3
Can't judges simply deny pre-trial release for defendants likely to commit crimes such as those with many prior offences? It seems so illogical to say to a defendant, in essence, you're a danger to the community. So you'll have to await trial in jail...unless of course you can raise x dollars.
Assault without serious injury is nonviolent—really?
13
One conventioneer or a group hassled and attacked. No consequences. No more NYC conventions. The same kind of thinking that lost 50k Amazon jobs. Duh.
3
If someone is accussed of a violent crime or if the judge thinks they are a flight risk then the judge can deny bail and hold somone in jail until trial. Bail only punishes the poor. To all of the commenters saying that democrats are crazy for putting "criminals" (I use quotations because these people have not yet been convicted of any crime) I ask you this: Is a "criminal" less dangerous because they can afford to put down $2,000 or more in bail money? Are you only afraid of poor defendants and are feel safe when wealthier people accused of crimes are allowed to go free? If so, why?
4
Bail reform allows for summary release of those who are charged with certain non-violent crimes. Take theft of a package left by your front door. Used to be if a frequent offender was caught he'd be held by the judge. You'd call the cops and if they ran into the guy, they'd stop him question him and, if they had enough, they'd cuff him.
Between the work on the street, talking to witnesses, questioning, arresting and, transporting the suspect and writing the whole thing up, it would probably take the better part of a shift.
Now, everything is different. the cop can cuff and all the rest, but when the bad guy is taken before the judge, he is released to the streets. In the minds of the cops it's all for naught. They believe that serial offenders won't show up for anything. So there will be a warrant issued when the bad guy doesn't show which will be put in a file with 10,000 others.
Cops think catch and release is a waste of time -- a whole shift wasted. So when your package is snatched and youmake your call, the cops will now go straight to you, take a statement, put it in a file, and move on to something else.
Getting rid of bail for theft is getting rid of arrests for theft. Bail reform for minor offenses means these offenses will be essentially ignored. So make sure you get to your package before the bad guys do. And tell your neighbors. Theft of packages is now your problem. The cops re too busy with bigger and better stuff.
11
You know this is the best comment in the lot. I'm pretty sure I'm black-listed. Oh well.
2
Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans backed this sort of reform around the country. This is not a Democrat vs Republican issue.
1
I don't understand what all the raucous is about. This law allows people who, previously could not afford bail, to be released. But someone who was charged with a similar offense would also be released if he could afford bail.
So Republicans should stop playing Chicken Little. The sky is not falling. No cash bail is only for non-violent offences.
2
Isn't this another example of a law, poorly written, and then rushed through without proper consideration of ALL the consequences; intended and unintended?
How could the new law NOT allow judges to use their discretion in determining release options??
9
I do not understand why the NY State policy is not closer to the other 10 states that already have low/no bail policies. Logical, careful lawmakers would pick and choose among the policies that work, rather than invent something new based on ideology. Same with Medicare for All. Progressives have proposed the episodically dysfunctional and never top-of-the-line UK single-payer system with no private insurance, rather than the French, Swiss or Japanese single-payer system, all rated higher than UK by their participants. They join Trump in his "fact-doesn't matter at all" zone.
4
I'm a Democrat, but this is why people don't trust Democrats. This law was passed by left-wing ideologues and activists who refused to compromise and rammed through legislation that is undoubtedly going to result in more violent crime. The Dems will lose control of Albany over this -- and they deserve to.
30
Alot of old easy money businesses can be ruined with no bail,just remember this is the justice industry not the justice system.
2
it's not just the police and district attorneys who are concerned about this, it's the public too! I'm for no bail for minor, non-violent offenses, but judges need to be able to remand folks who commit violent crimes, felonies and drug dealing offenses or else there is no deterrent to stop this behavior.
8
And what exactly is a crime? Certainly acts of murder are considered such. But sometimes our parameters change. During Prohibition millions of Americans consumed alcohol. Did we then, or do we now consider them criminals? What about people who drive over the speed limit? Tens of thousands of people are killed or seriously injured every year on our nation’s roads. The loss in capital because of it is astonishing. Aren’t these people criminals? I’m not suggesting we abandon classify acts as criminal - or something less so. New York State had just completely decriminalized marijuana. Possession of less than an ounce is a violation akin to a parking ticket. That’s a good idea. Over my lifetime I’ve known hundreds of pot smokers. From every possible profession you can imagine. The change in NY’s law saved everyone from taxpayers to offenders lots of time and money.
1
Being "tough on crime" means over policing, over charging and mass incarceration. That creates masses of (mostly) men who are unemployable and thus perpetuates and intensifies that which it is intended to thwart.
4
While on the face of it. I don’t like some of what I see. Realistically we need to give it a chance to work. We have Judges to judge let’s give them a chance. The law obviously needs some work. I trust Judges more than those trying to make money off of this.
There is no one solution. But we can all agree that a person who has shown himself to be a menace to others does NOT belong back on the street. There have to be options between bail and no bail. Returning obvious offenders to the streets is NOT a solution. Democrats need to rethink this and do it before the 2020 elections.
9
"ALBANY, N.Y. — When Democrats pushed through a law last spring that sharply curtailed cash bail for nonviolent defendants, they hailed it as a landmark measure to stop the poor from being jailed before trial simply because they had few resources."
If readers are going to understand this article, the authors will need to say what "sharply curtailed cash bail" means.
It is not at all clear what the alternative to cash bail is. Does that mean all prisoners are kept in jail while awaiting trial? Inquiring minds want to know.
1
”Under the new law, judges will no longer be able to set bail for a long list of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses, and even some kinds of arson and robbery”.
Burglary and assault are not violent? I would think it’s violent If someone assaulted me.
20
It makes perfect sense to reform a bail system which can lock someone up for three years.
This is not that reform. What would make more sense is to require a trial within X weeks of the charge, and if the courts can't do that then reform the courts/prosecutors' offices. Why would you release an arsonist? Where does arson stop and terrorism begin? Fires can spread after all. The World Trade Center was set on fire: could the hijackers have got bail if they had survived?
Was the real purpose of this law just to cut the detention budget?
4
Hmm, just wondering:
Wouldn't it be fair to assume, that a judge, who assesses the danger of repetition high, to assume the risk of flight as 'high' too, and vice versa? Because, if the suspect is left free, he may well do both!
Or is it, that NY laws put softer penalties on violence, then on skipping subpoenas?
Allowing people to buy them selfes out of it, thus making people with hidden resources immune to prosecution, is, as far as i can tell, the worse idea.
I would have expected the hardline law and order fanatics to be happy about this solution, because it allows a tougher stance on crime, if administered properly.
Or is it, that the bail business is going to get a hit from it?
Or do some officers use the old mechanism to administer penalty without due process? (Knowing well, how damaging even a short holdover in jail will be to defendants socially)?
2
Bail should be about ensuring that defendants return for trial. Bail is meaningless when the amount exceeds the defendant's ability to pay. If there's concern about the risks of releasing a defendant on bail, the judge should be able to deny bail.
3
The hysteria from the cabal of police, prosecutors and republican lawmakers is no more than another episode in their relentless propaganda campaign to scare voters into allowing them to hog government resources and cling to power through scare tactics. I practiced criminal law in a poor upstate County for many years; I handled, and took to trial, everything from DWIs to rape, drug offenses and illegal possession of handguns. Without exception, other than the DWIs which have strict statutory penalties and are mostly an administrative process, the accused were over charged and over prosecuted by the police and prosecutors and then unfairly held in jail awaiting trial because of punitive bail. The cops love nothing more than to arrest someone and have them essentially convicted by the setting of excessive bail by sympathetic local judges, many of whom are not even lawyers. The prosecutors argue for punitive bail knowing full well they’ll get a plea to often unprovable offenses by defendants desperate to get back to their jobs and families before their pre trial detention ruins both. While the no bail policy may need some tweaks, the savings, both fiscally and socially, will be enormous. This law, along with new disclosure rules requiring prosecutors to turn over discoverable material, will at least give poor defendants (and most defendants are poor) a chance in a system woefully stacked against them.
11
Let me be impractical here.
Isn't the underlying problem that we have strayed so far from the mandate of speedy trials? And is this not because liberals and conservatives have teamed together to create a society that marginalizes so many people, and so poorly meets the inner needs of human beings, that the quantity of anti-social acts vastly outstrips any imaginable system to deal with all the criminal acts?
Thus the practical blowback:
It's not just that we cannot provide speedy trials; we cannot provide trials at all. Plea bargaining is used in the vast majority of cases, not because this best serves the cause of justice, but because the system would break down immediately if most cases ended up before a jury.
THAT is why bail is such a hot topic. Those who cannot afford bail are under vastly greater pressure to plead guilty under some sort of plea agreement, whereas those who are at home awaiting trial are in a better bargaining position.
Thus the politics:
Those who like the two tier justice system will cherry pick the instances where people awaiting trial commit heinous crimes. Statistics will make a poor defense; we are a narrative species, and horrifying stories will always win.
But as dark as the motives for this campaign, the public does have a right to have criminals removed from their neighborhoods. And if speedy trials are not going to happen, it is no great wonder that voters are going to accept morally questionable bail schemes as an alternative.
7
For prosecutors this is about leverage in getting plea deals they want. The vast majority of cases are settled without trial in plea deals. Incarceration for days, weeks, or even months without trial is used to pressure people who need to work, care for children, or maintain outside reputations, into agreeing to plea deals they might not otherwise agree.
What would you agree to, even before any trial, to prevent you from losing weeks of income, losing your job, or being away from your children and traumatizing them? In addition, being unable to work would also impact your ability to hire and retain legal representation.
10
@David - That's an excellent point David that people often forget. Many poor people agree to plead guilty just to get out of jail because they can't afford bail and would otherwise have to wait in jail for months awaiting trial.
7
As recent victim of continuous middle of night burglaries to our building by an neighborhood addict I am finding this law very troubling. Even when people are arrested for burglary bringing with them heavy weapon still let them out to do it again. Where are the safety net protections for victims of crimes? Do I think this person coming in all the time is going to continue to be nonviolent? Am I going to subject my family's to finding out? No! I moved to this affluent neighborhood because it was considered a safe area. So I have to relocate because this law is protecting criminals. Judges should be allowed to hold. This law should be reviewed and amended. Stalking and you get let out. These types of crimes are terrifying and can really impact all aspects of victims lives feeling of personal safety and it's so disrupting. Justice needs to be considered for the victims of crimes as well as those arrested for them.
28
@Beth - Beth, did you read the article? Under the new guidelines a person accused of a violent crime could be held without bail, whereas previously anyone who could afford their bail would be released.
Perhaps you should move to a farm out in the middle of nowhere and lock yourself in a storm cellar, because I'm afraid that is the only way you will be able to protect yourself from ever being robbed.
1
Beth, under this ridiculous new law, burglary and stalking are considered “nonviolent” crimes - as are arson, domestic violence, and robbery.
Read the fine print. That’s why people are reacting, and well they should. This law is incredibly poorly written and considered, not just in its nonsensically narrow definitions of violent crime but also in the fact that judges cannot consider recidivism risk as they can in most other states that have eliminated cash bail.
6
People get all high and mighty when discussing criminal justice. They forget that justice, like sanitation, comes with a cost. And the NYC criminal justice system is the costliest in the country.
The plan to close Rikers and build a new facility will cost a fortune. You can only tax so much. Cuts will be necessary. And getting rid of bail and holding fewer suspects will result in considerable savings.
Bail reform has been discussed forever. The catalyst moving it along now is the need to save money. Getting rid of bail will likely be successful not in order to serve justice, but to balance the budget.
6
@michjas - Michjas, do you even know what bail is? The courts don't get to keep the money unless the defendant doesn't show up for his or her court date.
Indiscriminate use of the “no bail” law will not make us safer or the justice system an fairer. No one seems to care about the victims of these crimes who go to the police and see their tormentors back out on the street within hours. One size fits all doesn’t work in this context. But then well crafted sensible reforms don’t get marches or commendations.
7
@justice Holmes - The new law is not indiscriminate - judges can still hold people accused of violent crimes of those who are considered a flight risk.
4
@justice Holmes - Did you actually read the article or just the title? This new law to release people without bail applies to people accused of misdemeanors and non-violent crimes. Are you really that terrified of people accused of misdemeanors walking the streets?
1
The bail system is an assembly line and too many are imprisoned. Bail reform means letting millions go, the devil may care. Two wrongs and no right. Getting rid of the assembly line and deciding one by one is the obvious best course. The problem is that the best course costs too much. Everyone seems to agree: we can’t afford justice.
3
I will say this, the law probably will have to be amended. But is is a scary thing to be arrested for something minor and not have money for bail, Esp in bigger cities. Then have to go to some Rikers Island type holding jail for an unknown and usually long amount of time.
That's the real root of the problem. Courts are way way backed up. And the main reason .......the drug trade. Legalize it.
5
Removing judicial discretion from the process seems insane. While a person may be before a judge for burglary, stalking of some other 'non-violent' crime their history may show a proclivity for violence.
The previous system has been unfair to the poor but a blanket elimination of bail does not appear to be a rational solution.
20
Under the new law, judges will no longer be able to set bail for a long list of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses, and even some kinds of arson and robbery.
I think stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, and some kinds of arson and robbery should be classified as VIOLENT crimes and not be exempt from bail.
This new policy should only apply to FIRST offenses.
For offenses still requiring bail prosecution must offer to go to trial within a month.
If defendant requests delay that is a separate discussion.
17
Wow. Judges will still be able to set bail for “most” violent felonies, just not minor stuff like stalking or domestic abuse. And they can only consider risk of flight, not public safety. At least there’s no doubt whether New York State is on the side of criminals or the side of citizens.
32
The problem is that trials don't happen quickly enough. We are faced with the specter of a person who may be a violent criminal (stalkers often end up assaulting or killing their targets) being on the streets for months or years before he comes to trial. What's the point then of a criminal justice system?
16
Who do we talk to when someone winds up murdered, assaulted, sexually assaulted or violently robbed as a result of these new policies and laws? Who will be responsible for chasing down and re-arresting the criminals who do not keep up their court appearances? Who is going to pay for the additional resources required as a result of these new laws? I’m willing to be that not of one the people mentioned in this article will be willing to take responsibility when things go sideways.
29
Count me as a staunch liberal who absolutely opposes this law. Laws like this, and the one in California that prematurely released a massive number of unreformed criminals into society (many who had committed serious and troubling crimes) have led to a huge increase in crime. Indeed, SF has one of the worst crime rates of any major city in the US. One example of how the system is broken: a repeat offender broke into our home last year while my wife and daughter were asleep. We had the man on video, and tracked his car to a local store where he tried to use our credit cards. Police declined to investigate due to lax prosecutors. He was apprehended while breaking into another home the next day. They let him back out without bail 2 days later, where he would only commit yet more crimes. Every aspect of the system is a mess - premature release of criminals, failure to apprehend or prosecute, release on own recognizance, repeat....ridiculous
65
@Dr E - Dr. E, I must say that I don't believe your story - you became a private detective and tracked down the guy who broke into your house and then went to the police and they refused to arrest a man who you had caught on video and was in possession of your stolen credit cards?! You've seen too many movies - but you should definitely send this work of fiction to a TV producer. It would make a great Law and Order episode.!
3
@Dr E Was he by any chance someone the Feds want to deport? That might explain the release.
1
It won’t be long before this bill is amended.
3
Wow! What sanity in these comments! I thought that New York had become so hopelessly progressive that everything was seen from a distorted perspective of race and class in this city. I'm glad that I was proved wrong.
32
Heh! Why bother with an arrest in the first place if the person is gonna walk anyway. Seems like a waste of money and manpower. And money and manpower is really what’s behind this.
Just get an email address or mobile phone number and then just text or email the guy when he has to show up for a court date.
Hopefully he won’t be receiving that text on a stolen phone!
10
@SAH - SAH, a waste of money is holding people accused of misdemeanors on jail for moths just because they can't afford bail. Violent offenders can still be held.
2
Umm, arson, robbery, and burglary are not misdemeanors first of all. Second most people wouldn’t classify those as “nonviolent.”
3
"They decried recent cases in which defendants were set free under the new rules, including Tiffany Harris, who was arrested a day after being charged with a bias attack on several Orthodox Jewish women in Brooklyn."
I appreciate that Tiffany Harris' second instance of attacking other people was included in this article, but as is typical, it is buried deep in the NYT article. The Post made this front page news:
https://nypost.com/2019/12/29/woman-accused-of-assaulting-3-jewish-women-arrested-again-day-after-release/
22
Left Wing Democrats continue to make Trump look less bad in comparison
35
It may have its problems but I don’t think the law says anything about pardoning war criminals.
Or for that matter, about not prosecuting them in the first place (Bush, Cheney, et al.).
1
An 18 year first year Barnard College girl was recently viciously knifed in an absolutely horrendous horrible crime apparently by 3 teenage boys
near her dorm and there seems to be significant evidence against the suspects. Why are the suspects not in custody now? Where is the outrage?
32
@David - David, the suspects were arrested, questioned, and then released due to lack of evidence. Do you know something the police don't?
5
More liberal lunacy in the name of social justice. Releasing repeat offenders to commit more crimes is simply insane. In line with the sanctuary city movement, liberals give more rights to criminals than citizens. Unfortunately innocent lives will be lost before this law is repealed.
43
You want to be tough on crime and protect innocent victims of crime?
OK, let's disbar any prosecutor who is found to have withheld exculpatory evidence in discovery.
And let's prosecute for perjury every cop who submits incriminating eyewitness testimony that turn out to be false, which happens frequently now that video cameras are common.
Here's a NYT video in which at least one cop deliberately planted marijuana in a car being driven by a young black man -- and was caught by video (and other corroborating evidence). When his lawyers submitted the videos, the judge dismissed the case. The cop who planted the marijuana, and gave perjured testimony, was referred to the police internal investigation unit, where his case was dismissed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrfZuPFrH8A
How Far Is the N.Y.P.D. Willing to Go to Make a Pot Arrest? | NYT - Visual Investigations
Abolishing bail, and expediting discovery, will make it easier for defendants to defend themselves when they're framed by criminal cops and prosecutors.
2
Assualt and robbery are violent crimes.
38
This is not just an issue of unfairness to persons of lesser means. Bail is a fundamental injustice because it is almost always punishment without trial or conviction of any crime.
About the only time bail is not punishment is if the full amount of the bail is already in the defendant's possession in readily available cash. Any greater amount requires the defendant to either suffer financial loss from liquidating assets quickly, or paying the non-refundable bail bond fee (which is up to 15% in some states), or being held in jail.
Worse, many evil persecutors seek and some evil judges order bail which is purposely set so high that the persecutor and judge intend the defendant to be unable to pay and thus their purpose is to imprison without trial or conviction of any crime.
And, in California legislation is in effect which requires very high bail for each count of an accusation of domestic abuse. The purpose of that legislation is obviously to punish upon accusation, not upon trial and conviction. That is especially clear since the majority of such cases never even go to trial. And persecutors magnify the injustice by often charging multiple counts for the same alleged episode.
2
It's impossible to discuss justice without also discussing crime/criminals. Ultimately, it's wisest simply to stay away from people and situations where criminal activity is possible or likely. No one unwillingly commits a crime. It sounds like the criminals have a few new ways to "game" the legal justice system.
14
@MarathonRunner
Hard to stay away when the criminals stalk you as you get off your commuter train, or break into your family's home. Both have happened to me.
Not true. I guarantee you have unknowingly committed tax fraud at some point by not reporting some service or gift of $500 or more as income.
Taking judiciary discretion away from judges was a mistake with maximum sentencing laws, 3 strikes, etc. and while this one swings the other way politically, it's a mistake as well.
There is no point in having judges if all their decisions are made for them by politicians.
31
I share the concerns that are being raised about this particular version of bail reform, although I very much hope I am proved wrong. Bail reform itself is the right thing to do. No one should be deprived of their liberty simply because they are accused of a crime and are poor.
What is concerning is that there is no process for judges to hold people (rich or poor) who they have compelling reason to believe pose a significant danger to public safety. Some of these crimes are serious crimes that may also have a complicated context around them that needs to be considered.
For example, a person accused of stalking who also has a history of domestic abuse, has other violent felonies on their record and is currently high on methamphetamines and screaming at everyone around them is not necessarily someone who should be immediately released even if their crime technically qualifies.
A rigid version of bail reform also creates a perverse incentive for people to be charged with the absolute most serious crime that the evidence will allow so that they can be held on a felony rather than on whatever charges seems most proportionate to the overall behavior. This is problematic.
I am a huge supporter of bail reform and very much hope this goes well. However, if there are problems I hope that people will not throw the entire enterprise out, but will make whatever changes are needed while still recognizing the right of people not to languish in jail simply because they are poor.
8
@Zoe Wyse
Don't know, how this is handled in the US, but in Germany, apart of the risk of flight, one mayor cause of concern in keeping some one in 'Untersuchungshaft', is keeping him from impeding the investigation, e. g. by talking to accomplices, removing evidence, or intimidating witnesses.
Isn't that possible in the US too?
1
There seems to be a middle ground of common sense that is being ignored here. Of course the judicial system favors the wealthy. Of course we want people who pose legitimate threats to public safety detained. Judges, while not infallible, need to be given some discretion when it comes to setting bail. Perhaps the public advocate could have some say in the process. Is it really that hard for democrats to produce effective legislation? We blame republicans for intransigence. This is warranted. We should also hold Democrats accountable for laws that ignore empirical realities in the pursuit of ideological purity.
20
4/4
Our question to the public is one of, when does redemption begin? When are those required to register given their lives back without the stigma and hate.
We support the principles of Restorative/Transformative Justice; restore the victim, restore the offender AND restore the community. Unfortunately our justice systems, federal and some states, prefer to annihilate human beings using mandatory mandatory minimums sentences, leaving our families destitute for years or decades and call that justice.
Our country is proud to be 'the incarceration nation' with 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated.
3
@Vicki H. - Vicky, unfortunately our country has become a hateful place that lacks sympathy and basic human compassion. (Just look at all these horrible comments of people so angry about people accused of misdemeanors being showed mercy.)
This seems like just another step in giving up the amazing advances made in reducing crime over decades. As someone who grow up in the city in the 1960's and 70's the changes that came under Guilani and continued under Bloomberg were amazing. Especially compared to Dinkins who made fun of people who feared squeege men. Now the city is run by a mayor who thinks policing is inherently racist. Once they gave up enforcing quality of life crimes it was downhill. On my recent visits the city is dirtier than in decades and street people are everywhere. This change in bail laws will just be other step on the road to perdition for NY.
94
It seems like the actual problem wasn’t putting people in jail, but getting them a swift trial. Why should it take years for the accused to receive a fair trial?
22
It’s about *both* getting someone a swift trial and not caging them unless they are found guilty. How many of us would keep our jobs if we suddenly disappeared for even a week, let alone months? Some will get fired for missing a single day.
5
@M
The courts are clogged. Whether there is actually that much wrongdoing going on or not, or whether the criminal codes have gotten out of hand, I leave as an exercise for the reader.
However. The workhorse of the criminal "justice" system is the plea bargain. Over 90 percent of all cases are disposed of by plea bargains.
There are advantages for the defendant. The cost is known in advance, where with a trial anything might happen. Hence, even if as innocent as the purest of driven snow, the temptation is great to cop the plea.
There are advantages for the prosecution. It allows the docket to be cleared more rapidly, and gives an assured conviction, justice be damned.
It is precisely because of these reasons that plea bargains are not allowed in most civil law systems, and this is based on sound theoretical work concerning the Prisoner's Dilemma.
If every one in the dock demanded his right to a full trial with a jury and all the trimmings, the system would collapse. There simply are not enough judges, or enough courtrooms, to do the job.
But if the stakes are high enough even the most innocent person will cop a plea. The alternative is simply too dangerous. And the prosecutors, who have long since forgotten that their station is to seek the truth, not simply get convictions, well know this.
3
@SH most of us don’t randomly assault people in the street either.
6
All these comments demanding high bail to keep criminals off the streets once they have been arrested.
The purpose of bail is to ensure appearance in court, not to incapacitate, before trial, by incarceration.
You can take the route of setting bail so high that the accused cannot get out of jail. If you do that, why not simply eliminate bail altogether and declare that once you have been arrested, you stay in jail until your case is resolved? But if you do that, what will you have you done to the notion of "innocent until proved guilty in a court of law"?
Or, you can have the notion of "innocent until proved guilty in a court of law", but then you must use bail, and other measures as appropriate, for the purpose of, and only for the purpose of, ensuring the appearance of the accused in court.
Attempts to split the middle do not work.
The side argument that danger to the community is simply that - a side argument, and while it should play into the decision to grant bail at all, it should not be used to set the bail. Remember, the purpose of bail is to ensure attendance, not to provide incapacitation.
You might like living in a society where, as the Red Queen put it, "First the punishment, then the trial.". But if they come for you, and they will, you will gain an understanding of why so many people plead guilty to things they did not do, or to crimes which never occurred.
Choose carefully.
11
The schizophrenic man who stabbed people at the Hanukkah celebration had been previously released on cash bail.
Under the new system system, the judge would have had to think through what this man needed to succeed instead of simply requiring his family to write a check to the bail bond industry.
3
Many commenters cite wealth and class disparities as reasons for bail reform.
This is misdirection. The facts are that the well off commit far less crime than other people, both total number and rate.
The reasons are pretty obvious: there are fewer wealthy people than poor people; most wealthy people are old and the elderly commit less crime; wealthy people are less motivated to commit crimes for economic reasons; and—let’s face it—wealthy people aren’t likely to become wealthy or stay wealthy if they suffer from the same personality or social dysfunction that leads many to engage in crime. In any event, bail could always be adjusted to account for ability to pay.
There may be good reasons for bail reform. And there are probably bad consequences that may result. But pretending it is necessary as a matter of class fairness isn’t really true.
61
@Jared thank you!
4
For those who think this is a liberal Democrat thing, the Koch brothers (now just Charles Koch) have been a driving force behind bail reform. Yes. The Koch brothers.
7
"Some Republicans are using the issue to paint Democrats as soft on crime."
There is a difference between being tough on crime and being tough on criminals. Republicans routinely wink at crimes that line their pockets. And particularly, they suck up to the perpetrators of those crimes.
4
Per media reports, Sleazy New York police have a monthly arrest minimum, just like a car dealership, they need to arrest someone by the end of the month, they arrest innocent people and commit crimes against them such as extortion of sex, stealing their money or drugs, making up false testimony, planting evidence, conspiring with criminals to give false testimony or fake accusations, manipulate a person to falsely incriminate themselves through fake interviews, and then keep the person captive to force themselves to sign a fake confession on a plea deal!
2
Let's watch and see. Letting a whole bunch of criminals out of prison at once...brilliant?
31
This has nothing to do with criminals in prison. It only involved presumed-innocent people accused of crimes who are stuck in jail (not prison) because they can’t cut a check to the bail bond industry.
6
@SH. Oh yes, our jails are filled with nothing but innocent people arbitrarily arrested. Democrat humanitarianism: help the poor by emptying the jails. The poorer neighborhoods will thank Albany for higher crime rates.
9
In theory, this is an equitable measure. It's a clear economic injustice to have a system in place that allows the wealthy to walk while the poor sit in jail awaiting trial for the same crimes.
In practice, it's already problematic. Anyone who can't see that is either willfully ignorant or painfully naive.
Sadly, it is the communities already suffering the most from street crime and a sub-standard quality of life that will be most adversely affected. The coming year will see the trend of an already clear increase in lawlessness and violent crime continue, and peaceful citizens will live in fear of emboldened, antisocial opportunists who are well aware that the system will prioritize their rights over those of their victims.
Our local leadership continues to vilify the police, while just last month activists in BK staged a thousand person #FTP march advocating the indiscriminate, unprovoked use of violence against anyone in a cop's uniform. The NYPD is far from perfect, but such unchallenged hatred and provocation cannot and will not come to good.
More people will suffer. Those riding this anarchic wave to power and profit will continue to enjoy the protection their positions afford them, while those of us on the ground will once again be left to clean up the mess on our own.
There will be a political backlash, then a new administration, likely to overcorrect in the opposite direction.
And so the cycle of mismanagement continues...
43
@Daniel James McCabe I surprised that there has not been a "pull back" on enforcement in those places that are becoming more hostile to police.
They might get their wish of less law enforcement.
1
Yet another reason to add to the plethora of reasons why my family (moderate liberals, all) are finished with the Democratic Party...whose maxim appears to be ‘anything goes and nothing matters’...but only so long as you subscribe to their disordered agenda (at best) and seditious malfeasance at worst.
So sick and tired of this nonsense. We’re done.
90
It sounds like the bail bondsmen are hard at work here. This sounds like it's worth a try. They can always go back to the old system should this one prove ineffective.
2
Yes but if one of the freed rapes, robs or murders while awaiting his text message to show up to court how can that victim get their well being, property or life back?
Translation: “Even though the law requires judges only to consider flight risk, New York judges routinely and intentionally violate the soon-to-be old law to consider other factors.”
“Still, prosecutors and law enforcement officials say the law takes a critical decision away from judges. Even though under the old law judges were supposed to consider only the risk of flight in setting bail, as a practical matter judges still had the discretion to set a higher bail for people with long arrest records or who showed other signs they might commit another crime.”
3
Democrats making it easier to commit crime and avoid punishment. What else is new? Does eliminating bail really help the poor, or does it encourage criminal activity and make victims of us all? Trying to fix a problem, misleadingly labelled as mass-incarceration by the politically correct set, Democrats just weaken the laws designed to protect people from crime and strengthen the defenses of criminals.
42
Even violent offenders don’t seem to get much jail time for serious crimes like strangling a wife or girlfriend. Domestic violence is often a repeat offense and the violence escalates, sometimes while the assailant is out on bond or on probation. Sometimes it escalates to murder. No way should stalking or misdemeanor domestic violence be included among the crimes for which bail cannot be set.
44
I'd rather wait and see what happens. Not because I agree with all of this but because this country tends to go out of its way to be extremely punitive and that attitude hurts those who can't raise the money for bail the most. Wealthy people can be every bit as dangerous as poor or middle class people.
3
"nonviolent felonies, including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses, and even some kinds of arson and robbery."
Who made up the definition of non-violent crime and from whose point of view? If you are the victim in any of these offenses, it is a violent crime. Even if a person is not injured severely, and who makes that call, the victim has still been injured emotionally. Stalkers have killed people who have an order of protection. The police won't do anything until the victim is killed. Stealing people's possessions makes them fearful in the street or their homes. I am tired of bleeding hearts making these rules to protect the poor little criminal. It is the public who needs protection.
89
@S.L. Anyone that breaks into another person's home should be included as a violent crime. The chance for a really bad outcome is simply if someone just happens to be home at the time.
3
under what system is assault or arson not violent?
88
Of course it will be the poorer neighborhoods that will be negatively impacted by these ’poor’ criminals who will be returning to the scene of their crimes.
39
@Arch Stanton
So the gold is next to your spot ?
1
I’m not sure how setting a cash bail protects the public. If a person is a threat to the public, why would it matter how much money they have?
7
Revolving door justice that leaves criminals on the street is going to hurt people of all economic strata.
24
sort of funny, most forget presumption of innocence.
4
Does anyone remember NYC in the '70s and '80s, when it was scary to just walk down the street to buy a newspaper? Well, we do not need to buy newspapers anymore, but we still need to walk down the street. And it is getting very scary again. DeBlasio and company have pushed the rights of criminals far ahead of the rights of victims. And we are all paying for it.
81
@Ny Surgeon I certainly remember it and I’m feeling it again. I’m no snowflake- born and raised in the city at a time when children rode the subways without an adult - but I no longer feel safe in NYC. I’ve significantly curtailed my use of the subway and feel conspicuous if I’m too put together. And it’s especially nerving with all the empty storefronts and mentally ill people camping out on the street. I miss Mayor Bloomberg and can’t wait for deBlasio to be gone. And don’t get me started on AOC!
31
How is assault not a violent crime?
57
The head of the Anti Defamation League of Bnai Brith, the largest organization devoted to fighting hate, has denounced the new bail law.
He rightly says that it will only exacerbate the anti-Semitic assaults we have seen recently in NYC.
Already, Tiffany Harris, a woman who has assaulted several Jewish women has been released according to the law.
Shortly after her release she was again arrested and released for slugging a Jewish woman in Brooklyn.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/anti-semitic-attackers-could-walk-free-under-new-ny-bail-law-adl-head-warns/
63
@Simon Sez
Excellent comment! We need that woman put away for a long time.
13
@Dave D On the other hand presumably vigilante justice will also be OK under this law. No 'serious' assaults though. Just what NY needs.
It’s “appropriate” bail. “Ability to pay”. So what does that mean? A guy in a 1972 Vega gets a DWI he has to surrender the car. If a guy in a 2020 Porsche gets a DWI he does the same. If he’s in a a jet, that too. Simple. Proportionate.
5
This is going to be a disaster. It is just a matter of time
28
The solution is to give judges the power to preventively detain defendants who pose a threat to the public, whether rich or not. Simply letting everyone out is not a good answer. Some people, such as the recent group who committed anti-Semitic attacks, are dangerous and should remain behind bars.
8
Bail is not supposed to keep criminals off the streets.
Convictions are supposed to do that.
Bail is just to ensure they show up for trial. It has been misused to remove people from the streets without need of conviction, and in many cases to coerce them into confession as the price of getting out.
12
The real problem is that it takes years to bring a case to trial and verdict. Until that is remedied I don't see why rich offenders should walk freely around while poorer ones rot in jail.
To all those protesting this new law, would you approve of a law saying "no bail at all, everyone stays in jail until they can have their day in court"?
7
Saying “change is scary, change is hard” never comes off as anything other than patronizing, does it? I would never say that in a meeting unless my intention was to set people on edge and make them even more resentful.
In any case, I wouldn’t really say fear is the issue. On the one side you have people who realize the bail system is being abused and violates the rights of the accused. On the other side you have profiteering bail bondsmen, corrupt cops, and elected officials pandering to racist voters.
12
@sedanchair Funny — “patronizing” was legitimately the first thing that came to my mind when I read that too. Surprisingly tone-dead for someone who’s been in office as long as she has.
9
Perhaps if the judge who releases a defendant without bail can be personally sued by the victim should the accused commit another crime while out, the new law will be applied appropriately.
The failure of our system is that too many people who make and enforce our laws have no skin in the game when it comes to their mistakes.
6
I think it is a good law. Use the money saved to have speedier trials.
Or--just have speedier trials.
Being falsely accused a non violent crime and sent to jail for a year to await trial could ruin someone's life. I bet it happens all the time. What if it happened to you?
5
This is a disaster not waiting to happen, but already in full progress. It is quite parallel to the closing of the large mental institutions that were closed or the concept of least restrictive environment for troubled children. Capitalist society does not seek improvements to the criminal justice system or the health care system, or housing or transportation. It merely seeks to cover its rear end and pretend that it is actively seeking remedies for the ills that plague our society. With regard to Rikers Island, the remedy is not in recruiting Frank Gehry to design fashionable buildings to house criminals, it is to devote the requisite resources to treat the sources of crime in our society. The abandonment of the two traditional political parties by the masses of Americans is just beginning. Unless a more wholesome solution is offered, we will soon be seeking dictators with armed militias surrounding them.
14
Being a bail bondsman is illegal in virtually every other country but the US and the Philippines. How is this so? In other countries there is little use of cash bail. People are released in their own recognizance in most cases. If they could be a flight risk, there may be monitoring, or moderate bail, which no one is allowed to make a profit on providing. Cash bail penalizes the poor. States that have ended it, or limited it (such as CT) have seen no increase in crime, and the accused can continue to work and be with family. The cash bail system is part of a philosophy that poverty is an immoral act itself. The incarceration of staggering numbers of poor people and people of color is a major component of American exceptionalism, but one that needs to change.
12
Sounds like a situation of why react when you can overreact? There were many people needlessly denied bail. But stalking and assault are not nonviolent crimes. I was afraid this was a poorly thought out reform.
16
I support reducing mass incarceration. If you look at incarceration rates in the United States vs. other developed countries, even in liberal states like New York, the difference is staggering. These countries also have much lower crime rates than we do. But until we do something to address the actual causes of crime here - absurd economic inequality and lax firearms regulations - these reforms are going to backfire badly. The law should have allowed judges to consider if the suspect is a serious threat to public safety and set bail in those cases.
5
Bail is not legally tied to dangerousness, although all these DA’s are pretending it is. If a judge finds the person to be a danger to the community, the inquiry is supposed to end there. Bail is tied to flight risk, the likelihood that a person will show up to future hearings. So if someone is found not dangerous to the community, the next step should be to figure out what conditions need to be in place to ensure attendance at future hearings, and there are many ways to do that without requiring payment.
3
Someone who knows who you are and lives near you
commits a violent crime against you.
It seems under this new system of Bail
that you could see that person in your neighborhood
two days after they were arrested and they may be
very interested in "convincing" you to drop the charges.
If you don't agree they attack you, or your family or your
house etc, perhaps their are witnesses perhaps there are not,
perhaps the police find the felon, perhaps they do not.
The degree of violence of the crime and the likelihood that the person committed the crime and will continue to commit crimes is why you should not get bail.
New York State should have gone slower and listened to experts on Crime instead of trying to be overly progressive.
31
@John Brown
There is a hole in your argument that someone arrested and then out on bail can threaten you not to testify. The hole is that the person in jail simply can have an associate (or associates) threaten you instead. The argument that a person who commits a crime is likely to commit another in the future may have validity (and is partially supported in statistics). But in our system of justice, as flawed as it might be, a person cannot be incarcerated on the idea that he or she might, sometime in the future, commit another crime. Then again, that is part of the reason some are currently denied bail, not because they are a flight risk.
@Mark Shyres
There is no hole in the argument.
Why should anyone have to face a violent felon
after the crime has been committed because that
person "should be given bail". If the person is a member of a gang that is another problem.
By your reasoning a person who committed a mass shooting should have as much right to bail as a person who killed one person, as, after all, who knows if he will got get his hands on another semi-automatic rifle and start shooting any and all.
2
“Critics” are worried that no-bail release will put criminals back on the streets. They seem unaware that the bail system puts criminals back on the streets as well. The difference is that it is criminals who have the means to post bail who get out under the current bail system. Who doesn’t make bail? Black men.
3
We have a similar problem in Dallas now. Our DA refuses to prosecute what he considered to be small crimes, such as personal property thefts under $750 and marijuana possession. Now our crime and homicide rates are the highest they’ve been in 30 years. Good luck NYC.
74
so where is the connection between $750 property come and homicide?
3
Each person that voted for this fiasco should be held criminally accountable for the crimes that result from it. They are accomplices.
60
@BC Organize to recall and/or vote them out of office;
2
@BC Wishful thinking. Legislators have immunity from prosecution for their legislative speech and actions. Who do you think writes the laws?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
Here in Australia, for small crimes like shoplifting, the police officers do not even take the offender to jail. They are given a ticket to appear at court and in court a lot of these crimes are dealt in ways to not make the life of the offender impossible. Often, the conviction is also not recorded so that the person does not face secondary consequences at jobs etc.
And, I believe, it works in a similar manner in Canada as well.
However, in the USA, the attitude is absolutely different. Crazy attitude. Someone taking a piece of chewing gum is going to end up spending a night in jail and then there will be other consequences for work etc. And along the way the bail bondsman is going to be enriched. The entire system is corrupt.
14
@ANM
Sir. Here's what you don't understand about the American system. It is not designed to dispense justice. It is designed to guarantee the employment of a large and growing number of players, and to make wealthy the manufacturers of equipment used in incarceration. It has been finely tuned so that it works spectacularly well for the operators of the system.
As for the people flushed through the system? Some - probably a proportion of the population similar to that in Australia - are true criminals, but the rest are simply the working fluid of the system.
That this gratuitously ruins lives is not the problem of those who are benefiting from its operation.
Welcome to America.
2
@ANM
The criminals in America are completely different than the criminals in Australia and Canada.
11
Maybe it’s just the manifestation of the new “Boeing Model” approach to public safety.
3
Between this change and the rising anti-Semitism, NYC could be looking like the 70s and 80s very quickly.
And a Republican landslide in the next local and state elections.
48
The important part is that the Democrats own the reform - if the crime picks up, it's because the criminals were set free by the Dem party. If it does not, and the criminals miraculously become productive members of the society, it will be a landmark Democrat accomplishment.
Being cynical about human nature, I cannot see how taking away the stick without bringing the carrot closer can help. I hope i am wrong.
29
The crimes that those that who’ve been forced to stay in jail pending resolution are the same crimes that those with the wherewithal have always been able to leave jail.
3
Minor theft, possession of a small amount of drugs, good, armed robbers and sex offenders, maybe not so good.
16
The purpose of bail is to ensure people show up for their court dates. Eliminating bail means more people will just skip out on legal proceedings.
Completely idiotic policy.
42
Do you have statistics to back you up? The statistics from other states that have eliminated cash bail would tend to disprove your point.
1
I wonder what section the Met's tickets will be?
4
All this talk, pro and con, about what to do at the eleventh hour. Nobody is talking about youth centers where at risk youth can get mentored in school subjects, engage in supervised athletics and be exposed to positive role models (likely lacking at home). Can you imagine people talking exclusively about how to mop a wet floor from an overflowing tub without mentioning that they should also turn off the faucet?
6
This is very scary, and not in a small way, NYC is already a declining city, this will only contribute to crimes that no one is talking about enough such as robbery, mugging, rape, stalking.
While politicians keep talking about how low the shooting rate is, the rest of Rome is burning so to speak
35
Robbery, mugging, and rape would still qualify for requiring bail. Please explain to me how a dude with a bag of weed goes from that to rapist! I’ll wait.
3
@Historyprof069 From the article: Under the new law, judges will no longer be able to set bail for a long list of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses, and even some kinds of arson and robbery.
5
Typical bloody-shirt-waving by right-wing authoritarians. Bail never did keep dangerous criminals off the streets... as long as they had money.
2
Let’s the law work...Stop allowing the fearmongers to paint a good law as not good only because someone is not going to get rich....
1
Awesome! A win for the criminals! The streets are talking, and now know what they can get away with! NYC 1970’s all over again. Happy New Year!1
40
What is the NEW definition of crime?
3
By all means, let's coddle the criminals.
6
The naïveté of our is astounding.
10
@Joe : Especially the "our"!
How any reporter could write this story without mentioning the release without bail of suspects in the assault on Jews in New York is shockingly poor journalism. It's also lazy, in that theories are always more attractive when you don't look at individual cases that challenge them, based on common sense. One of the suspects who slapped three Orthodox women was let out of jail without bail, and then promptly punched another woman. She was then promptly released without bail a second time. Democrats were blaming Trump's rhetoric for all of the anti-semitic attacks but there can be no doubt that NYS Democrats bear responsibility for the woman's second attack and failing to protect the public. Bail reform, as was done in New Jersey, is needed but it has to allow for a judge's common sense.
48
No, the woman who committed the crimes is responsible. No one else.
4
@Alexander
This is another such incident, filmed by surveillance camera, that shows a group of teens beating up a Jewish boy on his way home.
These things are now happening daily. The boy said that there was no sense to report it since the attackers would only be released and never voluntarily show up for trial.
And the cops are not going to run to bring them to stand trial since again they will just be released.
This is a recipe for lawlessness and crime courtesy of the friends of the poor, downtrodden criminals who can't afford bail.
What nonsense.
Do these politicians realize that they are reelecting Trump with these crazy laws?
https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/orthodox-jewish-man-attacked-on-brooklyn-street-in-another-anti-semitic-assault/
7
@Historyprof069
If she kills someone after being released for the second time, is she the only responsible for it happening?
1
...and for years we believed that taking ‘Bob the burglar’, ‘Rick the robber’, ‘Charles the car thief’ ‘Ron the con man’, ‘Dave the drug dealer’ , ect., ect., ... off the streets, would bring about a reduction of burglary, robbery, grand larceny, drug violence and use, ect., ect., who knew?
3
Remember, as a good member of the wokerati, you asked for it
9
STALKING????
They finally arrest the guy who's been stalking you and five minutes later they let him go?
50
It's interesting that Conservatives will blame the victims for crimes committed against them, but then also want to cage every teenage black boy caught with a dime bag of cannabis.
1
It's back to the future folks ... where's David Dinkins?
15
The barbarians are at the gates, and the Times is swinging them open. This is the stuff of Trump’s re-election.
42
As the old saying goes: "The road to Hell...."
9
Our national government is run by crooks and cops are concerned about petty criminals on the street? LOL!!! Talk about screwed up priorities. Yeah gotta keep poor people under the boot, but rich crooks get to run the country.
2
As long as they haven't been convicted, in the eyes of the law, they are only "alleged" criminals. Unless they're a flight risk or committed some particularly heinous offense that their release would be a real danger to the public, then they should be released until their court date. Pre-trial detention is not punishment - it's to make sure people show up for their trial.
3
I am a registered Democrat, but I swing my vote, esp. in locals. In the last election I voted Dem all down the line (including every local office) as a statement in reaction to Trump's affront to common decency, etc. However, Democrats are hardly immune from bad decisions, and in my opinion, the idea of releasing certain types of criminals seems truly senseless. Frankly, this decision makes me regret my vote.
232
@Ken
You do realize what the purpose of bail is, don’t you? Obviously not. It would be proportionally higher for a person with more financial means. Bail is not punitive, it is to ensure the defendant shows up for court.
19
@David
Vote Republican.
You will sleep better at night.
The Dems have betrayed us and deserve to lose big time.
58
@David Do you favor releasing only wealthy violent criminals?
15
Before the new law, the only factor legally available for consideration was risk of flight, not risk to public safety. That means that any Judge who intentionally set bail just out of reach for a defendant deemed to be a risk to public safety was violating the law and their oath of office.
All who could afford the bail, whether they too were a risk to public safety or not, were set free. The rest sat in jail with no recourse. This disparity in treatment suggests that leaving judges with discretion means that the discretion will be abused in an effectively unreviewable way--only the rare appellate court would ever overturn a trial judge's discretionary bail setting.
The only solution is to remove the discretion that enabled unfair treatment. The new law has the ancillary benefit of saving State resources for violent offenders and for pre-trial programming for nonviolent offenders, such as community monitoring and electronic tracking. In other words, the new bail law is both more equitable, humane, and economically responsible.
Change is hard and scary, but change that promotes fairness and encourages use of more effective pre-trial monitoring is change for good.
78
@J.H,
A judge should be able to consider both flight risk and public safety.
102
Exactly. (I think I might consider excluding some non-violent crimes that often are precursors to a violent crime in the near future - in particular, stalking - from the purview of this reform. Otherwise I agree completely.)
7
@J.H,
The new law is horrible. It will enable the criminals released to commit rape and murder. Throw the Dems out.
26
I’m not an alarmist. But I am seeing more and more violence come through my workplace- er- somewhere in nyc. Violence that I have not seen ten years ago. I do not feel safe walking two blocks to get my citibike to ride home, I do not feel safe even walking into my apartment on 80th street. The rise is palpable.
217
@Esther
Can you get a coworker to walk you to the bike? Or take the bus or subway? Or share a cab?
Do something.
6
@Esther The rise is also unsupported by statistics or evidence. Bleating that you don’t feel safe just makes you a mark for pandering elected officials who will tell you they’re being “tough on crime.”
Try being less weak, and more rational.
15
@Butterfly
I guess if she doesn't "do something," she's just another woman asking for whatever happens, right? How dare a productive citizen expect her city to maintain safety and order.
60
Assuming people are innocent until proven guilty the notion that poor people should spend time in jail before a trial while people of means are able to get out seems wrong. Locking up people because they MIGHT commit a crime is unconstitutional unless they have indicated that they will.
Using the bail system to enforce law is just laziness on the part of our lawmakers, prosecutors, judges and police.
103
@Scott
This comment misses the key point that the vast majority of persons arrested by the police for crimes are found either by a jury or a guilty plea. It is not unconstitutional to require that bail be paid by persons whom a judge deems a threat to the community or to hold such persons until trial.
50
@Dave D
Your comment misses the well documented fact that most guilty pleas are entered under threat of a far more serious charge, often unjustified by facts, being taken to trial.
19
@Dave D
From the article "Since the 1970s, New York judges could consider only the risk of flight in setting bail, not public safety."
You only forfeit bail if you fail to show up at your court date, not if you commit more crimes.
5
I am concerned about bail reform. My son was attacked in his home by the adult son of a neighbor. He opened the door for the man because he recognized him and thought he needed help. Instead he was threatened with a hammer and escaped through the back door. When the police came they found two knives in the man's possession and told my son that he was known in the area for threats and petty crimes. He was given a low bail and his parents paid it. A few days later he was back harassing my son's tenant and looking for my son.
He was eventually re arrested and given a high bail that kept him in jail, but under these new guidelines he would probably have been released again.
Public safety should be the first priority when deciding about bail. It should be a tool detain those who threaten and attack others, whether the attack results in injury or not. My son sold his home and moved away rather than live in a place where he felt the man might return. Other victims, such as in domestic violence cases might not have the resources to get away, thus having to live under a constant threat.
323
@s
I think you have a legitimate concern. On the other hand ... You assume everyone who is arrested is guilty and dangerous. Usually, they are not guilty or not dangerous. Locking up those people before even trying them has been very harmful.
I think there is no perfect solution. (Surprise?)
17
maybe another system should be set for those considered dangerous...bail doesn't seem to be the balanced approach needed
16
Exactly, Thomas. Which is why we need a qualified professional- the judge- to make those judgment calls.
33
Not every misdemeanor is non-violent. For example: simple assault. Disorderly conduct often means threatening and even violent behavior.
What is appropriate for shoplifting or marijuana possession is not appropriate for conduct that menaces other people.
26
I have a colleague in one of the NYC D.A.’s office saying to me that he knows of a number of folks currently in Rivers Island who were incarcerated after going off of their psychiatric medication and then engaging in very disturbing behavior. While they were assigned low cash bail, their families were not willing to post it because they wanted the respite and safety, as well as giving the facility time to put the individual on medications so that they might be more stabilized before release. That opportunity might now be lost and I wonder how that protects or serves anyone.
36
It should be pointed out that a judge can still order someone to be held without bail, just like before. The law does not say that’s ALL people awaiting trial for certain crimes must be released, if someone poses a risk they can still be held.
3
How will you force these people to show up for trial? Asking nicely?
It’s a matter of time before someone gets murdered by someone who should have been behind bars and isn’t as a result of this law.
38
The detractors of eliminating cash for bail say many defendants who aren't required to post wont return for pre-trial hearings because they'll see no reason to return. This is often not true. When a defendant doesn't show up for a hearing, a judge will often issue a warrant for their arrest. Most defendants know this. And most know if they don't show and they're later arrested; they'll be held w/o bail or a much higher bail. Not one criminal defendant wants a judge to ask, “So why did you fail to appear for your hearing?”
7
Yes, but many people ignore warrants until they are stopped by law enforcement fo minor infractions. They often do not have the funds to pay fines that they know that they must pay to clear up their records.
6
Here in California we have the ideal system. There is no cash bail, meaning no one is held simply for an inability to pay. Instead a judge will decide whether or not someone poses a risk to the public, and whether or not someone remains in jail will be based upon how much of a risk someone poses. I am deeply concerned by this New York system, which I feel will result in a lot more people being a lot less safe.
47
This debate seems to suggest that if there is bail, then dangerous criminals will be kept in jail until trial. But under the current system people with money can still get out, so the difference is not the threat they pose to society, but their wealth. If they are a danger to society then they should stay in jail (and not be allowed to post bail), if not, they should remain free until trial. The test of the bail system is whether it makes a difference in their showing up to trial without the threat of losing cash.
4
The old law was bad enough, assessing flight risk alone without an analysis of public safety, but to have legislators imagine that stalkers, arsonists, and robbers should be immune to bail requirements is a disaster. So is the general notion of substituting broad legislative fiat for judicial discretion in all these matters.
21
What will really happen is more people who could have otherwise bailed out will remain in jail because the DA and the Judge think they are dangerous. This will force the innocent and folks who are over-charged to plead guilty simply to get out of jail. Abolishing bail will lead to further injustice against the poor and minorities.
1
The purpose of bail was to insure that the accused showed up for trial. It had the incidental effect of keeping some criminals, including some violent criminals, off the street.
We can now see how effective bail really is at both. If we see a rise in crime committed by those out on bail—and we most likely will—and if we see a rise in accused skipping their court dates—and we probably will—then we can judge whether the changes were a good idea. If the data show this to be a bad idea, then change the law back. Maybe even toughen bail.
If this happens, the Democrats may suffer incremental election losses. That too is fine; this is what elections are for.
I do feel badly for those assaulted or raped or murdered or robbed who might otherwise have avoided being victims but for these changes. As a general rule, I favor the presumption of innocence that bail reform embodies, but I also favor increasingly severe penalties for those who perpetrate violent crimes.
34
@Alberto
If you are truly worried, then advocate for eliminating release on bail altogether. As it is, making bail isn’t about anything other than class and race.
2
Seems that pragmatically, "innocent until proven guilty" isn't an absolute, or at least, we aren't treating it as an absolute. That may well be realistically acceptable.
But it also seems clear that, if there are people that we have reason to say shouldn't be released before trial, then money bail isn't the way to accomplish that. The judge is left to make calculations that shouldn't even be made, about how much to ask that will keep a person in jail, or how much to ask that will guarantee they will show up for trial.
It sounds like maybe we need some kind of pretrial parole system to keep track of people, which will be expensive, but the system we have now is expensive...
4
Burglary is considered a non-violent crime. The trouble is that some burglars enjoy having the power to burgle occupied dwellings for the fun of it. They enjoy invading others safe spaces and having the power to harm them. Most people who stalk and assault others are people who are inclined to harm others to satisfy their own profound insecurities. Predators start with small crimes and escalate their violence as they succeed in getting away with more and more risky behaviors.
What seems to be going on is in order to reduce prison populations, the need to separate dangerous people from others is being trivialized or dismissed.
70
@Casual Observer What you are asserting has no basis in fact. Most commonly property crimes are crimes of opportunity driven by the need to secure money to buy drugs. In my many years of dealing with crime and criminals it is extraordinary to meet the type of offender you describe.
5
Well, the very first habitual criminal who I met did exactly what I described here, burgling occupied homes. In addition, Manson had his people burgle occupied residences to mold their ani-social attitude.
5
@Martin Jones I’m having serious doubts about your objectivity, despite your line of work.
3
For those people getting all worked up about how stalkers and arsonists now go out without having to make bail, consider that they probably already were out of jail while awaiting trial, assuming that they were rich.
The point of bail is supposed to be that people are free to live life before being convicted of a crime, but with a hold to prevent them from fleeing the country. It's not supposed to be a way to force people to remain in jail while they wait for a trial that may be years down the line.
If we need to use the cash bail system to keep so-called dangerous people off the street before trial, something is wrong. The rich escape and cause more crimes, and the poor are held forever before establishing that they are dangers to society.
8
@David Weintraub exactly what percentage of stalkers and arsonists do you presume to be “rich”?
6
Kalief Browder anyone?
The law isn't perfect, but it's a necessary step. We can not continue to jail people who have not been found guilty of a serious crime. I don't even want to get into the racist/classist nitty gritty of it. Let's keep it at that.
As a society, we must deal with mass incarceration and bail reform is a good place to start. Will this be perfect, no, and people will slip through the cracks. But many more people will be granted the opportunity, or should I say the right, to fight their cases from the outside.
All of these comments on public safety. I get it. But where does public safety and justice come into play for the innocent but accused? And even for those guilty of petty misdemeanors? We have to start somewhere.
11
I don't understand why everyone cares so much about criminals these days, instead of the victims they harm? It is just sad.
84
@Frank They are not criminals until they are found guilty.The people being discussed here have not yet been found guilty of a crime.
2
It seems to me that one way "reforms" would be unnecessary is to not abuse the system so blatantly and repetitively as some district attorneys have done. They have habitually overcharged defendants, they have habitually not been prepared for trial forcing inmates to languish in local jails for years, they have not turned over to defense attorneys exculpatory evidence.
District attorneys (with the blessing of the Courts) are virtually immune from the consequences of their conduct. As I recall, Justice Thomas feels that an adequate consequence for a rogue district attorney is loss of their law license. Wonder how that feels to be an ex-inmate who learns he/she was railroaded by a DA only to learn they might lose their law license.
14
I am all for criminal justice reform. I agree that the current system is unfair to the poor, and that people of color are disproportionately held in jail awaiting trial. That is a serious problem.
I am also aware that most murder, rapes, and serious assaults are not committed by first time offenders. I am aware that poor people and people of color or disproportionately victimized by criminals.
Some people will get arrested, appear before a judge, gain release and conclude that they need to behave themselves until their trial. Other people will go through the process and conclude that they can continue, and even escalate their criminal activity. This too is a real problem.
The question is, what are we willing to be bet that those arrested will take home the right message?
13
I think the issue seems to be the fact that anything that does not result in serious injury to a person is being considered to be "non-violent".
Property crimes still have major negative consequences for the victims, as does "assault without serious injury". Arson is certain violent to the structure being destroyed.
And all assaults are by definition "violent", even if they don't result in serious injury.
130
@Matt
So is securities fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering somewhere down the line.
5
@Matt: Stalking was mentioned, also...
2
What's a "serious injury"? To a 70-year-old, a broken wrist is serious. A broken nose, a ruptured eye socket?
An injured kidney? A good kick will do it.
A broken hip can be a death sentence for a 75-year-old woman with osteoporosis.
What's a serious injury? Anything short of a deep knife wound, a bullet wound precariously close to an artery?
Any injury is serious when deliberately caused by another person.
49
"Even though under the old law judges were supposed to consider only the risk of flight in setting bail, as a practical matter judges still had the discretion to set a higher bail for people with long arrest records or who showed other signs they might commit another crime." Thus the old law was being fraudulently applied by judges in any case. So of course Republicans, in their rank hypocrisy, want to return to that demonstrably corrupt and arbitrary system, instead of fixing it. The old system punished defendants, disproportionately the poor, BEFORE they had been convicted of anything, encouraged cronyism and enriched the corrupt bail industry.
10
Alleged violent felon out on bail reasonably expecting eventual hard time able to settle old scores committing more violent crimes knowing most likely watered down plea bargain meaning multiple sentences served concurrently.
29
@Sean This wouldn't apply to violent felons. It specifically allows judges to set bail in cases of violent felonies.
2
Why would we listen to the people who are enabling a system that is ineffective in its purpose? All those enablers have is fear and no solutions to the deep disfunction that our carceral system purports to address. #Abolition.
6
Paragraph one's reference to "nonviolent defendants" conjures up images of vandals, shoplifters, and cow tippers. Fast forward to paragraph seven, where the specific crimes now immune to bail are referenced, including stalking, assault (without "serious" injury, however that is defined), arson, burglary, and robbery. I'm a Democrat, and I say that yes, the Democrats who voted for this are soft on crime.
251
@Kathy McAdam Hahn I’m a Democrat too, and I say get out of my party and join your natural allies on the right. Join them at a Trump rally where you can frame everyone in the criminal justice system as the other.
Hurry up and join them! We don’t need you polluting the Democratic primary with your abiding love of favoring rich accused over poor accused.
3
@sedanchair Absolutely, because purity tests are a great way to win elections. I wish I could see the look on your face when the president wins reelection next year in part because of that attitude.
25
@sedanchair
Seattle now has become a hotbed of anti-Semitism which your city council and mayor refuse to condemn.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/why-are-seattles-leaders-silent-about-anti-semitism/
9
I would paint the same prosecutors judges and law enforcement as soft on justice.
With all the dirty tricks they have used over many decades on those least able to defend themselves, they have become the antithesis of agents if justice. Many are quick to forget that municipalities have paid out many tens of millions of dollars for convictions of the wrong people.
9
An insane law. Only the dysfunctional state government could have come up with it. The logical next step for them will be to abolish the police. It could get them a few votes these days.
112
This is happening in California too.
4
The quickest way for NYC to emulate Chicago with regard to crime and murders is to make it easier for criminals to get back into the street. This change in the bail bond process will do just that.
122
ADAs will quickly stop plea bargaining violent crimes down to non-violent crimes and working the charge to adapt to the new rules.
2
@RG Let us hope
@RG
As it should be.
@RG
If only.. More likely, ADA's will be pressured to accept plea deals which significantly downgrade the charges in order to maintain current conviction levels.
Mark my words, crime will increase exponentially.
1
There’s a difference between someone who has broken a criminal statute (and isolated event) and a criminal (a quality of the person). It seems that the former is the motivation underlying this policy change. And for those reasons alone, this policy is good!
2
If the purpose of bail were only to prevent likely repetition of truly dangerous behavior, and that were its only use in practice, this law would be dubious. But none of that is true. The purpose of this law is to stop punishing people without money more than those with money, by making them lose jobs, homes, or families while detained before any attempt to prove them guilty. Thus, the issue raised by the opponents is mainly a red herring.
12
Let’s assume one of these “poor” criminals commits a similar even more serious crime while awaiting trial for a previous charge. A previous charge that would’ve allowed for a judge to set bail. Is there a limit?
Who do I sue?
8
Nobody. The practice of using high bail in order to “keep criminals off the street” (that is, imprison people accused of crimes but not yet convicted of them) contravenes current state law and arguably conflicts with the 8th Amendement.
8
"One of only a handful of prosecutors who fully support the legislation, Mr. Gonzalez said in an interview that limiting cash bail has led to lower crime rates in other jurisdictions."
"While New Jersey, California, Illinois and other states have limited the use of bail, New York is one of the few states to abolish bail for many crimes without also giving state judges the discretion to consider whether a person poses a threat to public safety in deciding whether to hold them.”
How can Mr. Gonzalez compare New York’s law to other jurisdictions, if the latter give judges the discretion to hold defendants whom they fear could pose a threat to public safety?
56
The public is only beginning to understand the full extent to which the bail reform and discovery reform statutes will endanger public safety. In addition to the bail "reform" that this article talks about, the discovery law abolishes prosecutors' discretion to keep witnesses confidential and mandates disclosure of grand jury testimony, absent a court order which cannot be guaranteed. Witnesses' safety will be compromised and cooperation with law enforcement will decline as a result.
Moreover, the statute of limitations is now tied to discovery being provided to defense, and the amount of materials that comprises "discovery" has drastically increased. For major crimes such as shootings, the volume of material that has to be provided to defense before the prosecutor can state "ready for trial" is immense and includes many things that will not be used as evidence at trial. Inevitably, materials will slip through the cracks and cases will get dismissed on discovery technicalities, regardless of whether the undisclosed material was of any importance to the case.
The cost of the reforms will also be enormous. It is unclear where the money to pay for supervised release and the explosion in discovery litigation will come from. Courts are not prepared at this time.
Lastly, because the law largely prohibits defendants from pleading guilty before discovery is provided, the backlog in the court system will also greatly increase.
The law must be changed and fast.
94
@PE
Prosecutors sometimes unethically withhold exculpatory evidence from defendants even after discovery, without being punished. This law addresses that problem.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/nyregion/ny-prosecutors-cuomo.html
It's hard for me to understand why a prosecutor could be so malicious as to send someone to prison for 20 or more years even when there's evidence that he may be innocent.
And these prosecutors are not just a few bad apples. There seem to be quite a few, and when they're caught, they're kept on the job.
You're treating this like a war in which you're trying to get an advantage for the prosecution.
That's not the way it works. We're trying to get an advantage for justice.
11
@PE
Yup. Eliminate release on bail altogether. Be accused of a crime, stay in jail until trial. Rich or poor, black or white. Burglary, shoplifting, tax evasion, securities fraud, operating a fraudulent university, charities fraud, serial sexual assault, and so on.
3
@PE
Excellent summary and analysis of the trouble we're about to experience in the next few years. The judicial system will soon be overwhelmed and recidivist criminals will quickly learn that there is little to no consequences to their crimes. Plus, the release of witness information will serve as an added bonus to those who wish to intimidate their way into acquittal.
4
"Under the new law, judges will no longer be able to set bail for a long list of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses, and even some kinds of arson and robbery."
This is lunacy. Just like giving financial incentives (i.e. gift cards, sport and movie tickets) to accused offenders to ensure they show up for trial...
143
@Bowden
This is a terrible law. It's time to throw the Dems out of the state senate in 2020 and make NY safe again by revising the law to make it tougher.
67
@Bowden So your all for letting someone arrested for possession of cocaine sit in jail for a year— without a trial— because he can’t afford bail, but doesn’t bother you that a rich man charged with murder or rape gets to go home. What? Rich men are not a threat?
7
@Kb If you think that individuals charged with cocaine possession sit in jail for a a year while others charged with murder or rape are released because they are rich, you no nothing about America's criminal justice system. The nation's prisons are filled mostly with violent offenders.
3
Bail has always put criminals back on the street. It just only did it if they had money. There is an enormous amount of misinformation about bail reform that's being spread by opponents of criminal justice reform. It is possible that bail reform needs tweaks. It's also true that it was desperately needed.
Right now, people are condemning it based on no actual data at all. Sadly, what's likely to happen is that incidents like Larissa Williams--who was released without bail and arrested again in advance of the law--will receive disproportionate publicity.
22
It seems like democrats are no longer listening to their own voters. Many of us oppose this change and are rightfully fearful for our safety, yet our lawmakers keep in pushing this. Shouldn’t the fact that criminal justice experts such as judges and prosecutors—along with their own voters—disagree with this law tell them that there is something fundamentally wrong with this?
178
@Hi
Many of us support this change, though not necessarily all the details, and are rightly (not "rightfully") not as fearful as we are pleased that fewer people will spend time in jail learning to be violent and depressed while losing their jobs and families -- before even a trial.
11
@Hi
Many of us respect the Bill of Rights:
Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9
Democrats in ny are no different than trumpites. Why else would they vote for deblasio
3
"Democrats pushed through a law last spring that sharply curtailed cash bail for nonviolent defendants".
"A backlash has arisen among numerous district attorneys, judges, county legislators and law enforcement officials, who are sounding alarms and raising the specter of dangerous criminals on the loose."
I don't get it: No bail for nonviolent offenders" but GOP backlashes about "dangerous criminals"?!
2
@LEFisher
The list of ‘nonviolent felonies’ that no longer require bail is very broad and includes stalking, ‘assault without serious injury’ (so no bail required for a mild beating), burglary, and some kinds of arson and robbery.
This isn’t a law that lets non-violent weed delivery guys or shoplifters get out without bail.
40
@LEFisher
Violent offenders are already being released under this law such a a woman who has been repeatedly arrested and released after she has illegally slapped Orthodox Jews in their faces because of their religion.
2
I am a liberal Democrat however this change doesn’t feel right.
154
Perhaps stop feeling and educate yourself about our carceral system. It’s not working in its intended purpose. We can do better.
4
For poor families, the costs of criminal justice upon the whole family due to the arrest and prosecution of any member for any reason are devastating. The families cannot easily afford such costs and even small children will be affected poorly. The families may want to live in a safe environment, free of crime, but they will oppose the arrest and prosecution of family members just to preserve themselves.
The social purpose of bail, to assure that those facing prosecution will not flee the jurisdiction to avoid trial, becomes a threat to the well being of the families. The alternative becomes keeping people in custody or allowing them to flee without any disincentives. Not good alternatives.
8
You missed the point. People have to consider how they are affected by public policies as well as how public policies are intended to address public concerns.
Capitalism is nothing but a topic of discussion, not a natural force which all must consider in addressing life.
@Casual Observer
Oh, how I feel your pain.
Yes, years of racial and capitalist oppression have forced these poor people to commit crimes.
Makes me want to vote Republican ASAP.
But I won't. Instead I will vote out any fool who supports such inane laws.
6
Why would stalking be included in this list? This law will cost women’s lives. I hope they make changes to the law before that happens.
224
@Elle Under the NY Penal Code, stalking can include repeatedly texting someone on the phone after they've been told to stop. That's an entirely different offense category from murder, or even attempted murder, and covers far more than you're likely thinking it covers. In any event, the solution to violence against women is not to lock away thousands of poor, nonviolent offenders. Doing that hasn't worked since the 1970s; it's time to try something different.
8
@Elle
What about stalkers that can afford bail? Are they more or less dangerous than poor stalkers?
14
@Elle isnt it a little hyperbolic to state that this "will cost women's lives'? Do you have data on how many women were killed as a result of stalking ?
3