On average, and taking into account months, not weeks, of data, Christian Rogers is still alive!
Speak to the small store owners that are revisited by the same repeat shoplifters.
3
I was in Court last year in Stockton California. A 50ish women had been arrested for driving her boyfriend to a drug deal. She had one prior arrest 10 years or so ago. She worked at Pier One and rented a home where her daughter and granddaughter resided. They were both financially dependent on her. After a three minute bail hearing the judge set her bail, at the DA's insistence, at $350,000. The result was that she was going to lose her job and house and her daughter and granddaughter would become homeless.
I am sure that the community is safer having her locked up and her daughter homeless.
This is just one example of the utter stupidity of the cash bail system. There are thousand so of others.
This is a fine article as far as it goes, but it fails to explain the hugely significant and broader reform that was adopted simultaenously with the bail reform law, to wit, comprehensive reform of criminal pre-trial discovery. Let us hope that if there must be a roll-back of the bail reforms in the criminal courts of New York State, as seems to be the case, this does not unreasonably impact the revolutionary and very common-sensible changes that were adopted to pre-trial discovery reform by the Legislature. That would be an unfortunate side-effect and one to be avoided IMHO.
1
These are interesting and positive numbers, and I'm all for reforming a system in which punishment is influenced by wealth, rather than behavior.
One fundamental problem with bail is that it is based on flight risk, not recidivism risk. Both should be considered when bail is an option, and yes - judges should have more leeway. They are certainly the first blamed when a released defendant commits another violent crime.
And - why on earth would anyone charged with a violent crime be eligible for release at all? Give judges more options, and let's see what happens to that less than 3% recidivism rate - which is entirely too high.
24
The reason that under the bail reform law people will have no fear of committing a crime is because it provides for zero consequences for failure to appear. If a defendant fails to appear a bench warrant in issued for their arrest. However if and when that defendant is arrested the current law requires that when he is brought before the court he must be immediately released.
The law provides that "the court may impose new release conditions including bail and detention" only "for persistently and willfully failing to appear at scheduled court dates. And "in such cases the court must first hold a hearing".
And because the warrant squad has limited manpower there are always of hundreds of thousands of outstanding failure to appear warrants. And so except for those facing very serious charges the only way to get picked up is to have another encounter with the police which can take years.
So there is no consequence at all for failing to appear for the trial or to accept a plea and be taken into custody. The defendant will have fail to appear over and over, and to have the bad luck of getting arrested over over, till they "persistently failed to appear", at which point they can provide excuses for why their failure to appear was not "willful" and so they should be released once more.
And so because now to actually go to prison a criminal will be given chance after chance to elude rearrest the odds of doing time for doing a crime are drastically reduced to almost nil.
30
@Michael Stavsen To encourage those who have been arrested to show up in court, NYC is now offering tickets to sports events and gift cards. You really can’t make this up.
5
Another big benefit of reducing pretrial detention is reducing the number of innocent individuals convicted of crimes. As a public defender, I saw many clients plead guilty to crimes they did not commit because the district attorney was offering to let them out of jail that day if they did. The alternative was to wait in jail at least 30-60 more days for trial, which even the innocent were unwilling to do.
29
I was a public defender. Of the hundreds of cases I tried, I can think of maybe 5 innocent defendants.
Stop “dramatizing “for effect.
11
@Mark sounds like you’re lucky to have practiced in an area where police did sufficiently thorough investigations and DAs did not regularly overcharge defendants. My clients were not so lucky.
1
Are you sure your various clients “did not commit” the crimes they were charged with? Hard to know if you weren’t actually there, despite their claims of innocence.
The new law is totally a mess, and needs to be rolled back.
This is clear.
Judges need discretion to hold repeat offenders, violent criminals and those that are a flight risk.
37
Where to start. How about the thousands of people who struggle to make ends meet but are capable of going about their day without committing crimes? Cash bail creates a modicum of incentive for criminals to show up for court or at least stay out of trouble while awaiting judgment. Just letting people out is a slap on the face of the victims, who I’d argue deserve as much, if not more, protection as the criminals who have victimized them.
“New York is now the only state in the nation that requires judges to entirely disregard the threat to public safety posed by accused persons in determining whether to hold them pending trial or to impose conditions for their release. In addition, the new law constrains judges from holding repeat offenders with long records of both crime and absconding trial. It eliminates the possibility of detention for a wide array of offenses, including weapons possession, trafficking of fentanyl and other drugs, many hate-crime assaults, the promotion of child prostitution, serial arson, and certain burglaries and robberies.”
How can it be good public policy to let a person arrested for weapons possession back on the street? We’re not talking about stealing beer from CVS.
The law has gone too far and needs tweaking. At a minimum, judges should be given back their discretion.
99
@C In NY
Just because someone is arrested or accused does not mean they are guilty. Lots of people get wrongfully accused all the time, is it fair to keep them locked up, causing them to lose jobs, their apartments, etc. while awaiting weeks if not months for a trial?
Once someone has a fair trial and is convicted by a jury of their peers, then they can be sentenced and serve their time. Prior to that, they are presumed innocent. That is the law. That is the Constitution. And in the meantime, they should be allowed to work and pay their bills.
3
Leave bond alone, require prosecutors to bring cases to trial expeditiously. I think FL still has a law to do it in six months or let the guy go, of course, defense gets there client to waive that right so the guy sits in jail for 3 years. Remember FDR was shot at and the the Mayor of Chicago killed in January and the murderer executed in March.
This is absurd.
Since the New Year, there has been a 30% increase in robberies and a 31% increase in shooting victims.
Reap what you sow.
2
"For example, take the case of Tiffany Harris, who was arrested and charged with slapping three Orthodox Jewish women on the street in Brooklyn, released without bail, and then rearrested for hitting someone else. A judge could have ordered mental health counseling after the first incident that might have helped her instead of just letting her go."
The Left is living so deep in its social justice bubble that I doesn't hear how crazy it sounds to normal people. Sure, it's let's treat people like Tiffany Harris as the real victims here and get them mental health counseling, courtesy of the taxpayers, rather than locking them away where they can't engage in crimes of violence against law abiding citizens.
Sooner or later, someone is going to be murdered by someone who should have been locked up pending trial and this law will be rolled back.
1
“ But it has the potential to end mass incarceration as we know it in New York”
No one wants to talk about the precipitous drop in crime in NY over the past 30 years and the correlation with “mass incarceration” ?
Or the fact that NYC has without a doubt been getting more dangerous over the past couple of years with de blasio’s anything goes policies ?
5
How do we convince folks to stop committing crimes if we don't put them in jail? I'm genuinely curious. If I commit a crime, am arrested, and then my trial is in a year, why don't I keep committing crimes for the entire year?
5
I support bail reform, with reservations. The problem with this article is what the authors see as success--too many people don't see the release of suspects as a positive. Further, the definition of violent crime needs to change. Several years ago, a family of criminals down the street wreaked havoc for years on the neighborhood, culminating in an attack on a neighbor, the pulling of knives, etc. That gangster family went to jail for about 30 hours, long enough for the street to calm down, and orders of protection issued for all of us. The fact that they pulled knives put them in jail. Now? Nope, it wouldn't. I'm for balancing out the disparity for poor and wealthy defendants. I am not for turning loose people who immediately go out and attack people. And mental health counseling is very nice. But it wouldn't have prevented this particular woman's second, third or fourth attacks on people. Not very realistic at all.
4
The no bail for stalking offenses is insane, especially when there is a clear threat in play. If the law will stay, surely there need to be changes
6
The idea that a judge is powerless to set bail on a career burglar arrested again for a burglary is beyond preposterous.
Having seen the crime rate drop to a small fraction of what it was thirty years ago, do we really want to see it climb again?
4
The purpose of bail, since the concept of innocent Unless proven guilty was set down, at least for a few, in Magna Carta, British Common Law and the US and state constitutions: to insure the accused but innocent person shows up for trial.
It is not meant to “take dangerous people off the streets” because they’re not to be presumed dangerous.
Holding someone for 1-3 days to test their sanity, if in question, is not part of bail.
Setting bail to heights that accused persons cannot raise the money without resorting to the usurious fees of the bondsman - if even that, isn’t just unethical - it is against everything this country stands for.
On paper.
But, for too long, the people of the US, like those of the rest of the world, have really been into punishment.
For no other reason than they seem to like hurting people, but fear to do so without a legal veneer, least they be hurt themselves.
Pre-candidate Donald Trump called for extending state murders, in the case of five young men accused of committing a horrific crime in Central Park.
Never mind, as facts quickly proved, the five accused could not have committed the crime.
Not couldn’t be proved guilty - under the French system requiring the accused to prove innocence, they would have been freed.
And the real criminal(s) were out there while five innocent men were punished- a nice way of saying hurt by being kept in cages we consider “inhuman” for chimps.
We just like seeing people hurt - boxing, football, auto racing, “justice”.
1
IF the argument being made by most commentators is that the no bail reform is releasing criminals back into the streets, the answer should be no bail at all, even for the rich as the underlying point is that all arrested are guilty. Actually, I think that would be the best solution, as the rich would force the criminal justice system to resolve cases in a timely manner so they could get our of jail.
4
There's not a simple solution.
Some people won't go to court unless they have some skin in the game. After all, if there are no consequences, why not blow off the court date?
OTOH, the way bail is applied usually is unconstitutional: Bail is set according to the seriousness of the offense. In fact, that means it's punishment before trial.
Yet the public largely supports this – I've read accounts of outrage if someone gets out on bail if they're accused of doing something that people really don't like, regardless of the danger to the public or the likelihood of taking flight. And some of these accounts have been of Black people, just as much as white people, essentially demanding bail to be used as punishment.
Some jurisdictions have tried to use computer programs to help decide the danger and the likelihood of reoffending – but the databases have been called racist, because the results have not been to some people's likings.
So, where do we go from here? Yes, bail is a moneymaking racket (for the bondsmen) that doesn't accomplish its supposed purpose, and it needs to be used much less. The problem is, the proposed solutions either leave the public in danger or are offensive to some groups. And those who demand reform, change their opinions if the offender is unpopular with them.
3
This article is not very comforting. So if 3 percent of the 6000 people who are not in jail commit violent crime while they would have been in jail, that's 180 violent crimes that could have been prevented by requiring bail. And over what period of time is that? 30 days? it's sounds like we could prevent thousands of violent crimes every year by requiring bail. it's a pretty good argument for reinstituting the old system. I guess one of New York's biggest problems is that we don't have enough criminals on the street.
10
The answer is in the middle. Judges need discretion to remand accused villains with established records. Not allowing that discretion is an abdication of the critical duty to keep the public safe.
6
I’m so glad to see the NYT giving the proponents of bail reform a place to argue against the wall to wall negative coverage local media outlets have put forth as objective non partisan criticism of a law that hasn’t even been in effect for 30 days.
Bail reform is a win for all New Yorkers other than those who personally benefit from having potentially innocent poor people in jail.
The local officials who claim to be objective experts are anything but, the sheriff, the prosecutor and the politicians all benefit at least indirectly from the prison industrial complex. Recent articles in the Hudson Valley paper of record have bemoaned the empty cells and lost revenue and lamented sadly about a new county jail that probably won’t be built bc of the bail reform.
4
"30 days"
It doesn't take long for the perps to get back into action. Bail reform was nothing if not fast and efficient.
8
Judges should be allowed to judge. Otherwise they might as well just be replaced by Alexa speakers.
If someone is arrested 10 times in a month for burglary they shouldnt keep being released. If someone is arrested for assault they shouldn't get their victims contact information and addresses. If someone is here illegally and has a history of sexual assault offenses they should probably be deported.
Bail reform and justice reform is important, but like a pendulum we have swung too far to the opposite direction. What ever happened to balance? Everything has become too polarized, they didnt even let the justice system have input on the rule changes when it directly affects them. All stakeholders should have input when major changes are proposed.
17
Considering that upwards of 95 percent of convictions are due to plea bargaining. And people plea bargain for many of the same reasons outlined in this article and the fear of a stiffer penalty if the case goes to trial. This is because defendants are caught between a rock and a hard place. Even when a person knows s/he is innocent, having to either come up with bail (virtually impossible if poor) or sit in jail until an arraignment or trial means the potential loss employment, potential evictions (especially if the accused lives in public housing), separation from children and partners, delinquency on bills, etc. There is no justifiable reason to deny OR for minor charges as describe; the call for recall such reform are not based on reason, but something else that is more insidious. For more on this subject: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocence-is-irrelevant/534171/
3
I've been paying bails for people in my spare time the past 3 years, and I have family that have been in these people's positions tens of times. This article is the framing on this issue we sorely need. We should focus on increasing safety. Bail isn't a system that keeps us safe by any means. It's just one that says the amount of money you have should determine if you sit in a cage or not. Bail reform saves lives, and the fact of the matter is that the headlines we see about it aren't representative of the thousands of people who this law helped. They're written to inflate a fear of safety that's just not in line with the facts because a lot of people (the multi-billion dollar bail bond industry) want to see an unfair system back in place.
We need to get rid of bail completely, definitely not roll it back.
4
Readers should know that the judge cannot in practice order electronic monitoring, mandatory referrals, or similar conditions of release. Two big reasons: 1) There are no organizations providing electronic monitoring, and the legislature did not provide funding for such monitoring, and 2) Any order that a defendant attend treatment of some sort would be a toothless order, because there are no consequences for non-compliance. If a defendant blows off their caseworker, the best the judge can do is... issue another order to meet with the case worker.
Overall, some degree of bail reform was clearly necessary. But this bail reform has a few key features that were ill-informed, even if well-intentioned.
10
there is no case, you are putting dangerous people back on the street in a grand social experiment that will end badly for innocent bystanders
19
We need to take money out of the equation in many situations because obviously those who have it benefit.
Judges can ultimately make decisoins on how to handle a person accused of a violent crime.
There was recently a brutal murder in my city and the man acussed was the only one in the room with the victim when he was arrested. The judge deemed him a flight risk even though he lived in the poorest section of the city.
1
Who decides what a violent crime is? Slapping a woman is a violent crime. She may not have a physical injury, but the psychological injury makes her feel unsafe in her own neighborhood. I understand that black Americans suffer from discrimination and are arrested more frequently than whites, but the public still deserves protection. Judges should be able to use information from the person's past to discern future events.
Our laws about innocence until proven guilty are faulty. A person can be arrested with the murder weapon in his hand and he is still the alleged murderer. If you are the victim of theft or an unlicensed driver's smashing into you, it is not a petty crime. Do people believe that thieves or unlicensed drivers will stop because they were arrested? They will play the odds and continue to prey on their communities. Judges should be able to use past behavior to keep people incarcerated. The public deserves protection.
16
Unsaid is bail is often used to target innocent people where torture can be carried out in darkness. Almost on the floor hearing Dermot Shea say it is a danger to the public. For on Friday, September 7th, 2002, I was arrested riding my bicycle back from work as a Public Health Engineer and charged with Being a Felon in Possession of a Firearm, to wit an M-16, and Possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction by the NY Joint Terrorist T ask Force (name changed to protect the innocent). Since Friday could be held until Monday, when both charges had to be dismissed. Then I was charged with Sending a Threatening E-mail, and bail was set at $250,000. stThere was of course no threatening e-mail since there was no e-mail. Once I was able to recover my computer the only e-mail on the date in question was to my daughter seeking her new phone number. Avoided was the fact I had never been convicted of a felony, and at the time, the same as today, I was a Member of the NJ Bar and a NY Professional Engineer, and had lived in the same house for 17 years. Could not contact the attorney who I had not chosen since his provider was not the same as the Westchester County jail provider. This attorney without my knowledge doctored a deferred prosecution. When I got out on January 7 of the next year I discovered the approximately $4000 I had saved for my son's education was missing, along with several other important items.
Correction to my previous comment: If I could pose two points; first with a judges discretion on public safety combined with the chance of recidivism, there is the long held stigma of Black America as inherently being a threat, and sadly America as a whole is not yet past this oppressive lie. Many judges also still grapple with this.
Second, compared with New Jersey, mustn't we be mindful of their 10+ facilities of incarceration compared to NYS' 50+ facilities, and how that industry might influence rural perceived need of prisons, and influence their reception of racist stereotypes that lead us to fill them?
2
We live in a police state where the rich and guilty go free and the poor and innocent get locked up.... and get the bill for the cost as well. Beware of the police union trolls they are the ones propagating false stories of "criminals" being released and causing havoc that's been an ongoing lie for a long time.
5
This is, and should be, a complete loser. Wait (months, not years) until there are a few high profile murders because of this ridiculous liberalism run amuk, and sanity will return.
9
'The law is an ass...a idiot' from 'Oliver Twist' by Charles Dickens.
Cash bails marks and marginalizes black African Americans with the 'badges and incidences' of their enslavement along with their physically identifiable color aka race that inextricably intertwines their caste and class.
Being in jail/prison while presumed innocent but poor defiles and defies the equal and fair protection of the law for persons based wholly upon how many Benjamins they can produce from their or their family purse or wallet or bank account.
3
The highest ranking responsibility of an elected official is the safety and security of his/her constituents. Bail reform makes sense, but judges need the authority to help keep the public safe. Last year, NYPD stats disclosed that there were more than 30,000 violent (homicide, rape, assault, and robbery) City wide. Think of all those victims. We can do more to protect the general public and the bail reforms send a terrible message to the criminal element--do what you want and nothing will happen to you. The law must be fixed, or many law abiding citizens will become victims. Tom Burnett, President of the 24 Precinct Community Council
8
The reason cited by the supporters of the bail reform bill is that it is wrong to hold a person in jail simply because they are too poor to post bail. However this rational is not applicable to the part of the law that does not allow judges to take into account the danger the accused posses to the public, based both on the crime he is accused of committing and based upon his past record. And this is because prior to this law judges would deny bail if it was held the accused was a danger to the public, meaning the accused was held regardless of how rich they were.
Therefore this part of the law has nothing to do with the idea that bail is unfair to the poor. It is instead simply a means to lower the jail population, and the supporters of this law use the reduction of the jail population as proof of the law's success.
Instead the reason there are lawmakers who are so hellbent on lowering the jail population regardless of the consequences to public safety and against both the common sense sentiments expressed by everyone from the governor to the mayor of NYC to the public is because they have an ulterior motive.
And that is that they have finalized the plans to close Rikers and open a few smaller jails in its place that have a fraction of the capacity of Rikers. And so they passed this law, not because it is a good law as far as public safety is concerned. Instead their sole objective is to see their new plans go through.
7
The one area where the law needs reform, in my opinion, is with multiple bail jumpers. If a defendant has missed any court dates in the past, he should be judged not to be trusted to show up for trial and, therefore, not eligible for release.
Aside from that, the presumption of innocence should prevail, and a legally innocent person should not have to spend his pre-trial time in a cell.
3
I may or may not have spent a night in central booking once, and I can possibly attest to the fact that a lot of people get sent to Rikers Island, all because $5,000 bond is well beyond their means.
If recidivism is of any concern, then locking people up in pre-trial detention is a categorical mistake, except where those individuals would generally be denied bail in the first place.
2
We have a presumption of innocence in our criminal justice system. The poor should not have to spend months or years in jail just because they cannot afford to post bail. Time spent in jail, before being convicted of a crime, can have disastrous consequences on one’s personal and professional life.
A study that got some attention in the NYT last year suggested that awaiting trial in jail increased the likelihood that one would commit a subsequent crime. Another study found that, regardless of whether one posted bail or was released without bail, there was not a significant statistical difference in the rate defendants returned to trial.
So, if the bail system ruins lives of the poor, makes private companies rich, and in the aggregate has a deleterious effect on public safety (given the effect it has on future criminality for those who cannot afford bail), why does anyone support it?
My suspicion is that many favor a retributive view of criminal justice. However, our Founders held a different view. They favored the view of Blackstone, that, “It is better that ten guilty go free than one innocent person suffer.”
41
@Dale If ten guilty go free then crime will explode and this country will go so far to the right that even Trump won't recognize it. That has been the problem with some reform advocates, they don't want to deal with the consequences of their legislation.
10
The writers claim, "In 2017, according to state data, less than 3 percent of people released before trial were rearrested for a serious violent felony or for gun possession." Um, ask the victims of new crimes perpetrated by that oh-so-small, approximately three percent how they feel. I'm guessing they would not be arguing that these rearrested individuals are a small matter. The law needs to be tweaked. The pendulum has swung too far in one direction. Balance is needed.
95
@dc Bond is about returning defendants to court. Nobody does it at less cost to the state than professional bondsman. A service to the defendants, the victims, & the court. The innocent exist in the system but the problem is not fixed by the elimination of bond. Chicago tried this approach. Carjackings (deemed merely 'property crimes) doubled the first year this was attempted. The next year, it doubled again. And the next year, it doubled again. Finally, local officials are starting to admit that cashless bail isn't such a good idea.
It's one thing to release people on cashless bail when their crime is poverty-related. Driving without insurance, floating checks, stealing diapers. Holding people in jail for not having money when they obviously don't have money is essentially inflicting punishment without a trial. But for all others...then cash-free bail is a ridiculous idea. Judges have only two choices: keep a person in jail or release them. In most cases, it's a straightforward decision. For major crimes, keep the person in; and for minor ones, let the person go with a return to court. But it's those tough cases in the middle that cause problems, and a judge understandably does not want to be the one to release someone who re-offends or flees. So, they keep them in jail. Bail provides a third option. It's for some of those tough decisions when and why bail is appropriate because money or the fear of losing it - is a motivator. Let's give the judges all the tools possible.
4
While I am away from home, a person is arrested for having allegedly burglarized my house. Should he have to stay in jail while awaiting trial because he cannot make cash bail: no. But if that same person is arrested five more times in the next month for also allegedly burglarizing my neighbor’s properties, shouldn’t a judge have some recourse to protect the public? Do we have to wait for the sixth time, when someone is home and is injured when the burglary occurs? Bail reform is a good concept, so let’s not throw the baby out with bath water, but let’s also be willing to recognize that this law may have swung the pendulum a bit too far in the opposite direction.
119
The problem with letting judges judge is many local courts in New York are presided over by retired law enforcement officers or plumbers. Judges in New York are required to attend a 2 week conference before taking their seat behind the bench and the 2 week conference is more of a feeding trough than anything educational.
Judges have been removed from the bench for using a dart board to decide cases or flipping a coin and at least in those cases the accused has a chance. Judges take contributions and even free vacations masquerading as professional conferences from entities that have a financial interest in locking people up.
5
@IMS
You are confusing and conflating recidivism with bail reform.
Bail shouldn't depend upon color aka race nor ethnicity nor national origin nor socioeconomic status nor education.
You are confusing and conflating the types of crimes with bail reform.
All crimes and criminals should be treated alike regardless of color aka race, ethnicity,national origin, socioeconomic status and education.
2
@IMS
While prisons/jails remove criminals from society to prevent them from committing further crimes, another important purpose is to deter those who might be contemplating committing crimes.
This is yet another article in the NYT’s ongoing efforts to create sympathy for criminals and make it seem that criminals are actually victims.
To set the record straight, victims of crimes are the true victims; the perpetrators—and those who aid, abet and participate in crime with them—are criminals.
I hope all the progressive prosecutors--and Democratic Presidential candidates--will give serious thought to what it means to eliminate bail, reduce sentences and allow criminals to run loose in our communities.
Who is responsible for post-release crimes committed by those released early? An apology to their future victims will be of small consolation for those who are harmed; and how about compensation and restitution for the actual victims?
Early release or release without bail of thousands of criminals is a recipe for increased crime, and increased numbers of victims. (Check federal statistics of recidivism rates—very sobering.)
Why doesn't the NYT run a long series of articles about how victims' lives have been harmed--or shattered or taken--by criminals? Pretty easy to develop sympathy for victims, I should think.
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will. It's simple:
Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
4
This is just anecdotal, but I have noticed that when traditionally liberal NYT readers are opposed to a liberal policy (open borders, relaxing standard at Stuyvesant, repealing stop and frisk, which was highly successful, and bail reform) they are on the right side of history. In this day and age, it takes a lot to cut against the partisan grain, so it should be telling.
If generally more wealthy and liberal NYT readers are against bail reform for violent criminals, imagine what working class and moderate voters, who are more likely to be crime victims, think?
6
Is this before or after more innocent people are killed and maimed in the name of liberal arrogance? The rape and murder of a 92 year old woman was not enough? New York did not become safe until the quality of life offenses were taken seriously. We’re sliding back to the days of the squeezey man on the corner.
15
Among other fallacies, the authors indicate that the woman arrested for an attack on Orthodox Jews could have been referred for mental health counseling. Is that the preferred method for dealing with racist violence? Some things do not require population studies or patience while innocent citizens are terrorized. They only require common sense.
11
How soft on crime can we possibly become? We give them Metro Cards to encourage them to come back and face the consequences of their actions. How silly does that look?
9
Yes there is a strong case for bail reform if you don't let the ultra liberals like Cuomo write the bill.
Even an ultra liberal like our mayor was against Cuomo on this.
Anything that smacks of anything violent, felony etc. should not be including.
7
I live in Herkimer County. It has one of the lowest crime rates in the state (11th out of 62 by my count). People don’t even lock their doors up here, mostly because everyone knows if you break into someone’s house around here you’ll probably get shot (my favorite sign is the one with the handgun that says “We don’t dial 911”).
How about neighboring Oneida County? Where someone in Utica gets shot or stabbed to death almost nightly? How is crime there? A friend of mine is a judge there. The police won’t even let him go to crime scenes in broad daylight out of fear for his safety.
https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/indexcrimes/2018-county-index-rates.pdf
And I love the story about the lady who attacked three people, got let out, and attacked someone else. You’re saying all she needed was someone to talk to? Wow. Liberal idiocy at its finest.
9
The resources need to be available when a judge does order something for the defendant, such as counseling, monitoring, supervision, etc. Unfortunately the more I read about this it appear the judges are not bothering. It also appears many, including judges, are upset by the law.
If the law has gone too far it would helpful to see where it needs to be "tweaked" for the benefit of all. That can't happen if the tools being offered are not being used, or are not available.
The new bail-reform law is another reason why the (remaining) middle class will flee New York.
In the 1960s and 1970s, they went to Long Island and New Jersey.
Now they are going to flee to Florida and Texas.
I know I will......
8
Why is Ms. Harris's assault on three Jewish women considered a "non-violent" crime and thus eligible for no bail?
15
thanks for battling predudice with facts. I hope it makes a difference in the usual tide of antiblack racism
9
This paper reported that a man robbed 4 banks and then, within 4 hours after being released under this new bail law, went and robbed a FIFTH bank. He even said, “I can’t believe they let me out.” That is the problem with this new law in a nutshell. But hey, the authors of this piece think we should let this ride out for a few more months and then decide. What Could Go Wrong?
16
This article proves how people can disingenuously distort statistics to support their political goals. If the authors were victims of a violent crime perpetrated by someone who has been released because bail is not permitted, perhaps they would adopt a more reasonable view of society’s need to protect the public. Ironically, although the authors assert that the new laws are appropriate because poor minorities cannot afford bail and imply that those charged with crimes are innocent, they fail to note that it is poor minorities who are more often the victims of crimes.
10
What you don't get, that there are dangerous and not dangerous, not just rich and poor.
5
If I could pose two points; first with a judges discretion on public safety combined with the chance of recidivism, there is the long held stigma that Black America are integrally perceived as being a threat, and sadly America as a whole is not yet past this oppressive lie. Many judges also still grapple with this.
Second, compared with New Jersey, mustn't we be mindful of their 10+ facilities of incarceration compared to NYS' 50+ facilities, and how that industry might influence rural perceived need of prisons, and influence their reception of racist stereotypes that lead us to fill them?
While cash bail still exists in St. Louis, the courts routinely allow dangerous thugs arrested on gun charges to get our of jail on OR. And then, once they are convicted, these same courts give short sentences to the felons.
The result of this system is a city in which - already this year - nine children under the age of seventeen have been shot. Last year, fourteen youngsters were shot dead in the city. Public transportation has lost a large percentage of its ridership because of violent crime against law-abiding passengers and most people I know will only go downtown now for major events (Cardinals, Blues, concerts) because of a justified fear of being victimized.
I am sick to death of the crying for criminals. How about the pain inflicted by these miscreants on this area's civil society?
7
People need to look at data. There few sensationalized cases do not make up the entire story. There are many stories of people who have lousy jobs, even their children, because they were incarcerated awaiting trial for months over minor charges. A young man was jailed for years, and brutalized there, over the alleged theft of a backpack. Here ended up committing suicide.
Articles like this make me realise how little I know about the US. And what a very strange place it is. A rich man can be bailed even if he is likely to reoffend while a poor man who poses no risk stays in prison?
I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't read it here
The authors are not very convincing in establishing their thesis.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!
5
The majority of responders and growing public opinion realize that bail “reform” for FELONY crimes has swung the pendulum too far. Two examples from someone who works in the court system:
1) defendant is a career burglar, just out of prison with a history of felony parole violations and failures to return to court. He lives in apt 101 and burglarizes the home of the family in apt 104...... mandatory release (yes legislature carved out a no bail exception for that violent crime). Hope his neighbors dont forget to waive him goodbye on their way to school/work and make refreshments when he applies to “inspect” the scene of the alleged crime as part of his “discovery” rights.
2) defendant arson 3rd..... accused of setting a building on fire a class c nonviolent felony. Very long criminal history with 6 felony convictions, 3 of which are for failing to comply with his sex offender registration requirements. Mandatory release. Make sure to leave a number and address where we can remind you to come to court (since that’s the court’s responsibility) and your neighbors know they have a sex offender in their midst.
These examples can go on and on.......and the ongoing news reporting throughout the state doesn’t even capture a fraction of these types of cases......
5
I''m sure that with this "progressive" bail reform the crime rate will fall. Victims will no longer report thefts and assaults because they know that the police can not do anything about it since perpetrators will be back on the streets immediately if arrested.
2
If I could pose two points; first with a judges discretion on public safety combined with the chance of recidivism, there is the long held stigma that Black America are integrally perceived as being a threat, and sadly America as a whole is not yet past this oppressive lie. Many judges also still grapple with this.
Second, compared with New Jersey, mustn't we be mindful of their 10+ facilities of incarceration compared to NYS' 50+ facilities, and how that industry might influence rural perceived need of prisons, and influence their reception of racist stereotypes that lead us to fill them?
2
When someone does not appear or return to court as required on an outstanding charge how is that individual made to appear under this no bail policy? How many warrants will be issued and who will enforce them and at what cost? Please explain what should be done with recidivists who ignore required court dates? Who does one see when an innocent is injured or killed? Please explain how the recent arrests of Chilean nationals arrested for burglarizing residences and homes on Long Island should be handled now that the have reportedly fled the United States. What about the bank robber who was only stopped after multiple crimes when the FBI and US attorney’s office stepped ? Who will be responsible for the speedy trial provisions in NYS law when a defendant is on the loose?
NYS politicians were duly warned and proceeded anyway, ignoring police and prosecutors concerns.
The first priority of any government is to provide safety to its citizens. While bail reform might be needed this dismal attempt was just plain dumb.
4
Whatever happened to law and order? Do the crime....do the time.
I hear many stories of criminals being released that then commit another dreadful crime. Why?
Some people are just plain no good...and it has been that way for all human history. I have no compassion for violent offenders.
9
@g Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
4
@g
Whatever happened to due process? And why is it, when bail reform is brought up, those against it immediately jump to "violent offenders", as if people are arrested for only violent crimes? It's the same when criminal justice reform is brought up; those people immediately throw up "murderers".
As an outsider who still believes in the presumption of innocence it seems that in NYC every crime except anti Semitism still deserves the presumption of innocence.
For those crimes guilt is presumed and any bail is too little.
1
"take the case of Tiffany Harris, who was arrested and charged with slapping three Orthodox Jewish women ... released without bail, and then rearrested for hitting someone else. A judge could have ordered mental health counseling after the first incident that might have helped her instead of just letting her go."
Ok the judge might have ordered such counseling, but he still would have let her go without bail, and counseling would have been scheduled for when? And what would have guaranteed that she would have shown up? And how much counseling? And how many people would she have hit before that? If she showed up.
The definition of "violent" seems to be rather high. It would be more honest to admit that the system really can't solve the problem of Tiffany Harris and the system prefers her out rather than in. To say that mental health counseling will solve this problem is not serious.
7
While prisons and jails remove criminals from society to prevent them from committing further crimes, another important purpose is to deter those who might be contemplating committing crimes.
This is yet another article in the NYT’s ongoing efforts to develop sympathy for criminals and make it appear that criminals are actually victims.
To set the record straight, victims of crimes are the true victims, the perpetrators—and those who aid, abet and participate in crime with them—are criminals. I hope all the progressive prosecutors--and Democratic Presidential candidates--will give serious thought to what it means to eliminate bail, reduce sentences and allow criminals to run loose in our communities.
Who is responsible for post-release crimes committed by those released early? An apology to their future victims will be of small consolation for those who are harmed; and how about compensation and restitution for the actual victims?
Early release or release without bail of thousands of criminals is a recipe for increased crime, and increased numbers of victims. (Check federal statistics of recidivism rates—very sobering.)
Why doesn't the NYT run a long series of articles about how victims' lives have been harmed--or shattered--or taken--by criminals? Pretty easy to develop sympathy for victims, I should think.
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will. It's simple:
Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
6
A couple weeks ago, the usually liberal St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran an editorial saying that New York is "embarking on a dangerous new experiment in court reform" by denying judges the ability to use their own discretion on bail.
They took this position as a result of Samuel Lee Scott, who was released early from jail in 2019 by The Bail Project, one of the groups behind the new law in New York. Mr. Scott had been arrested in St. Louis for domestic assault. And what did he do within hours of having his bail paid? He tracked down his wife and killed her.
A side note: one of the authors of this piece is with the Vera Institute, another nonprofit with connections to St. Louis. They're big supporters of our "progressive" circuit attorney, Kim Gardner, who has a successful conviction rate of barely 20%. Meanwhile violent crime is skyrocketing here.
I don't know. I certainly don't think anyone should be in jail for marijuana or other minor offenses, but just neutering the laws altogether seems like a risky path.
7
@shstl So if the assailant had simply been rich enough to pay his own bail before murdering his wife, that would have been a more just outcome?
The New York law, as stated in this piece, already denies bail for a number of domestic violence charges. But simply holding people in jail based on whether they are rich or poor is clearly wrong.
I have the perfect solution: The authors and supporters of this legislation should offer paid work as caregivers for their small children, frail elderly parents, or disabled relatives to people charged with crimes and released without bail. This will help mitigate the poverty that is cited as the need for these reforms, and with a mere 3% rearrest rate for committing violent or gun-related felonies, I’m sure they will be completely confident that their loved ones’ health, safety and well-being will not be compromised.
Any takers? …No?
24
@MCW Wow great idea! why wait! So many people who have raised their own kids could be available to care for are preschooler and elderly parents right away "before" they get in trouble for driving without a license
NY needs a comprehensive pretrial release system that looks at risk of re offense as well as potential for failure to appear for future court appearances. On one end, the system would provide simple, unmonitored release on personal recognizance. At the other end, for high flight risks, or those with a history of violent crime, (i.e assault) where a higher level of monitoring needed, and intensive pretrial supervision model will work. The Portland, Oregon Close Street Supervision Unit is an intensive custody and supervision program that strives to provide exceptional service to the community by utilizing methods of supervision that support offender accountability while transitioning pretrial defendants out of jail beds. At the direction of the Court, Close Street Supervision provides intensive, individualized supervision and management of multiple need pretrial arrestees who would otherwise be ineligible for pretrial release. This program supports and enhances community safety by assessing a broader number of the in-custody population for program suitability, expanding case management and supervision, and providing immediate consequences for program violations. Caseloads are kept intentionally low at a ratio of 1 to 15 offenders, to insure that staff have the ability to provide a comprehensive level of service.Even so, once stabilized the person can be considered for release from jail again, pending adjudication of all charges.
1
Beware of claims these type of reforms don't increase crime rates. In many cases petty theft,breaking into cars,vandalism and such are no longer counted in crime statistics. Officials can claim success but citizens are inclined not to waste time to file reports knowing nothing will result from it. Quality of life diminishes.
13
@Lane This is a good point that does not get made often enough... Because the logical endpoint of lower-on-paper crime rates is reduced funding/cutbacks for law enforcement agencies. And with fewer officers forced to prioritize their responses, citizens will only be further dissuaded from reporting criminal activity.
2
well we could always direct the saved policing funds to a program that offers sensitivity/bias training for the citizens so there will be even lower crime rates!
2
The author writes that the true "success" of this bill has been in the great reduction of the jail populations. However the true purpose of this bill is a major reduction in the prison population as well. And this will be achieved because the bill allows defendants to fail to appear in court even for trial or to accept a plea and be taken into custody and sent to prison, with no consequence at all.
According to the bill the court may set new release conditions, "including money bail and detention" for "persistently and willfully failing to appear at scheduled court dates", This means that a defendant, even if charged with a serious felony that carries years in prison has no reason to appear because there is no consequence for not doing so.
So the bill is designed so that defendants should be allowed to fail to appear, and if they are arrested on a bench warrant to be released again. And even after a defendant has "persistently" failed to appear he is entitled to a hearing where he can offer excuses as to why his failure to appear was not "willful", so that he should be released without bail once more.
And because criminals will fail to appear, and even if they are arrested repeatedly for failing to appear they must be released over and over, the result of the bill is that a majority of criminals will remain out on the streets. This will achieve their goal of reducing the prison population, while allowing the criminals to be out on the streets to commit more crimes.
7
@Michael Stavsen I agree that the claims of crimes going down need further review. But I wonder what percentage of people arrested play the rules in this way to skip appearing and how many really just cant afford the bail but will do the right thing.
1
You are misreading the law - the clause you quote says the opposite of what you seem to think it does. You are also ignoring evidence from other jurisdictions that have abolished cash bail (or like most of the world, typically with much lower crime and incarceration rates than the US, never had cash bail in the first place).
The shortcomings of the bail statute are self-evident in the news every day. What's getting less attention is the discovery reform's failures.
The article's comparisons to the statutes in North Carolina and Texas are misleading. In Texas, discovery has a built in "Attorney's Possession Only" requirement forbidding the defendant from having physical copies of the discovery. It must be turned over "as soon as practicable." The contact information of witnesses must be redacted.
In North Carolina, there is no set deadline for when discovery must be provided, and there are additional protections for people who assist law enforcement but are not witnesses, such as confidential informants and people who call crime stoppers lines.
In New York, prosecutors have just 15 days to turn over vast quantities of discovery that includes absolutely everything the defense attorneys who wrote the law could think of, not just the evidence in the case. While an extension of 30 days can be granted, its not automatic and requesting one is onerous. Moreover, what is most insane about New York's law is that discovery violations, which will be inevitable, now result in dismissal for violating the statute of limitations. In other words, a minor, technical, inadvertent violation of the statute results in dismissal of the case, regardless of the actual evidence.
These laws were written by one-sided criminal defense advocates. They are not "reforms," so much as they are dismantlement.
11
@PE The discovery provisions will impact on going police investigations with participants in criminal enterprises getting almost real time information about the investigation when one of the enterprise’s participants is arrested. Police informants and even undercover police officers could potentially be identified and put in great danger.
These changes were brought about with no police or prosecutorial input.
It’s important to assign ownership of this law to the legislators, governor and “reformers” who brought it about. They’ve severely handicapped prosecutors and police with the new discovery provisions.
You got what you want. You own it and you own the outcome.
2
@PE Obviously, you are very well-...misinformed about the realities of discovery reforms. The discovery laws are informed by and the result of decades of Brady violations (Google it) committed by prosecutors. If you are serious about having a discussion you should research the issues at the center of all the wrongful convictions in New York State along in the past 20 years. If you do the research, you will find "discovery" violations were a key causal factor in an "innocent" person spending decades in prison. But that doesn't matter, right. Please stop fearmongering. Finally, prosecutors do not "inadvertently" forget to turn over Brady materials. And with the new law, it will actually stop what you think about "minor, technical, inadvertent violations" because now prosecutors will be in the habit of turning everything over sooner. Which makes for a fairer criminal justice system. Unless, that is not what the People of the State of New York want?
@PE2
I am all in favor of sensible reform. New York's discovery laws were outdated, and of course there are well known instances of failures in the criminal justice system and innocent people going to jail. Nobody ever claimed its a perfect system.
But there is a right way to reform the system and then there is wholesale rejection of its legitimacy. Prosecutors do not routinely commit Brady violations nor do they routinely wrongfully prosecute people. There are thousands of prosecutors across the state doing good work protecting the public while ensuring fairness to the accused. To act as if the whole system is rotten, as you appear to believe, is wrong.
Regardless of what you believe, the plain reality is that the new laws are impossible to comply with. Either the laws will be changed, or thousands of cases, including shootings, stabbings, arsons, rapes, etc., will be dismissed because a prosecutor couldn't get paperwork in on time. Ongoing investigations and the safety of witnesses will be compromised. No rational system would allow that.
The author writes that the true "success" of this bill has been in the great reduction of the jail populations. However the true purpose of this bill is a major reduction in the prison population as well. And this is will be achieved because the bill allows defendants to fail to appear in court for even for trial or when they are set to be taken into custody and sent to prison, with no consequence at all.
According to the bill the court may set new release conditions, "including money bail and detention" for "persistently and willfully failing to appear at scheduled court dates", This means that a defendant, even of charged with a serious felony that carries years in prison has no reason to appear because there is no consequence for not doing so.
So the bill is designed so that defendants, even those charged with felonies that carry years in prison, should be allowed to fail to appear, and if they are arrested on a bench warrant to be released again. And even after a defendant has "persistently" failed to appear he is entitled to a hearing where he can offer excuses as to why his failure to appear was not "willful", so that he should be released without bail once more.
And because criminals will not show up to be taken into custody, and because even if they are arrested repeatedly for failing to appear they must be released over and over, the result of the bill is that a majority of criminals will remain out on the streets to keep committing more crimes.
5
The public perception of the bail reform law is that New York elites, personified by Mayor De Blasio, is more concerned with criminals than with public safety.
And unless that is confronted directly, one of two things will happen: either a law-and-order mayor, along the lines of Rudy Giuliani, will be elected next, or the middle class will simply flee New York.
Or both.
19
We should get away from cash bail entirely.
What should be substituted is a system that asks two questions: (1) is the person charged likely to flee to avoid prosecution and (2) is the person charged likely to commit additional offenses while awaiting trial?
If the answer to both is no, then the person should be immediately released.
If the answer to the first is yes, then the Court should impose some reasonable condition to ensure appearance or to prevent additional offenses from being committed (such as requiring an ankle monitor or travel restrictions). In some cases no conditions other than confinement will be sufficient.
If the answer to the second is yes, then the Court should detain the person charged unless there is some alternative to prevent future offenses (home confinement, for example).
4
There is a very simple political reality here and bail reform advocates are in denial about it. If bail reform is done in a way that results in more violent crime, the electorate will be furious, Republicans will win control of Albany, and bail reform will be repealed in a matter of hours.
People can defend the New York law till they're blue in the face, but the reality is, this absolutely must be done in a way that does not release dangerous people to commit more crimes while they're awaiting trial. Or it will not be sustainable politically. Just 1 percent more assaults or robberies or rapes is not something the electorate will stand for.
14
@Tom B. well i completely agree. we will certainly hear about failures of the new policy, so let's hear about the successes of the policy as well
1
One overlooked piece of this is that the law applies to offenses charged as hate crimes.
While bail should not be used for or allowed to result in unnecessary pre-trial detention, it does send an essential message to defendants, victims and society in general: hate crimes are special, even when there Is no serious injury; they impact not just the victim, but all of us.
But that’s exactly what the new law does not do. It treats a push or shove accompanied by vicious racial, ethnic or religious verbal assault as just an ordinary push or shove. It sends no message to anyone regarding the societal values that hate crime designations exist to protect.
Bail or not, the non-violent hate crime defendant will likely be released. But imposing reasonable bail tells all stakeholders - and that’s all of us - that a special line has been crossed.
5
This comment sounds reasonable - and that is exactly the problem. Like almost all support for pretrial detention, it proceeds from an assumption of guilt that has become ingrained in our culture through decades of TV shows and propaganda where the cops invariably get the right guy. But we need to keep in mind that jailing the innocent will not actually send any message except that the system is arbitrary and capricious.
@Gregg Mashberg The notion of hate crimes is nonsense, and they are unconstitutional. Killing someone of a different race should not have any different result than killing someone of your own race. Anything else is racism.
I am basically in agreement with this article. There is, however, an elephant in the room. It is the employment of many in the policing and correctional systems. Without large and surging numbers, the demands for these workers (and, maybe some private prisons) disappear.
This is often the consequence of hyperbole and vitriolic responses; similarity to three strikes and post reconstruction laws that jailed black and poor men for vagrancy.
3
Sure, there may be a case for bail reform. But the case against the current reforms staying in place is much stronger — as evident by public opinion polling, facts on the ground, and the overwhelming sentiment among commenters on this left-leaning site.
The authors display the weakness of their position by trotting out the canard that even politicians and public defenders (the only true partisans for this new law) have abandoned: that the NY law mirrors that of NJ. It doesn’t.
First, NJ uses a risk assessment to allow judges to detain defendants based on criminal history and public safety threat. Not so in NY. Commit five bank robberies? No problem! You’re released to go commit a sixth.
Second, in NJ, offenders who commit crimes like burglary and robbery are presumptively detained pretrial. In NY, those crimes (without a weapon) are mandatory release.
The early results are in: reported burglaries, robberies, transit crimes, auto theft, and shootings all are skyrocketing in NYC year to date. If this keeps up, reforming the reforms will be a matter of political survival.
22
@zigmund it appears that most of the crimes you are using as examples are felonies so how are they relavent or related to this specific bail reform project?
1
It is of course simply false that bail cannot he set for someone accused of a bank robbery - or five - under the reformed NY law. Staggeringly dishonest like much of the pro-jail commentary.
2
Prospective criminals respond to short-term incentives. Take away the threat of any jail time in the immediate future, and the cost of committing burglaries, robberies, and car thefts goes way down.
Also, most criminals don’t specialize. Low-level offenders can just as easily commit more serious crimes.
The authors cite that there are thousands of success stories where defendants are released and able to stay with their families, and therefore bail reform is working. We're also told that it needs more time, it's only just come on the books and we need to give it a chance; we should overlook the few bad cases that have been in the press.
What's being overlooked in their assessment is the mood of the public-at-large. People are concerned. There is a giant loophole that lets individuals accused of serious crimes back on the streets. Maybe my street, maybe your street, or maybe the authors' streets. The authors fail to present a case for why reasonable changes to the new law should not be pursued, and that the rights of the accused, and their families, are greater than those of the general public's need for safety.
It's time for these "progressive" activists to wake up and be reasonable. You've achieved bail reform, now it's time to amend the loophole in the new laws and stand up for public safety.
41
Whatever happened to innocent until proven quilty? Presumably an innocent person would would be motivated to prove his innocence. If a person has a history of convictions for serious offenses then bail would seem reasonable. Jailing a person for misdemeanors or petty crimes seems ridiculous.
Ron Fish
14 Tilford A
Deerfield Beach Fl 33442
9544205896
Thee consequences of bail reform are simple and straightforward. And this piece misses the mark.
The new law applies mostly to property crimes, like the theft of packages delivered to your front door.
The most important package theft cases cases involve serial offenders. Used to be that if you called the police and they caught a serial offender they’d arrest him and bring him downtown. And more often than not, the judge wold set bail and the suspect would be held.
Now that has changed and the suspect is released, which changes everything.
In the eyes of cops, the release of serial offenders undermines the whole effort. Cops believe that serial offenders don’t show when ordered to appear. So they believe catch and release is a waste of time. And when it comes to stolen packages, arrests now seem futile. Why bother bringing someone downtown if he’s back on the streets in an hour?
If you call In a package theft these days the cop will take your statement, put it in a file and move on to bigger and better things. The cops will effectively abandon package theft crime, leaving it to you to monitor.
Bottom line, enforcement of crimes where catch and release is the rule will be abandoned by the cops, who will focus on better things. You may oppose this or think it’s a good idea. Either way you need to understand that when you pass bail reform, enforcement of the offenses it applies to is pretty much out the window.
14
@michjas But under cash bail, thieves with money could still get back out on the streets... so what's the benefit of that?
Also, have you considered the finding cited in this article that spending more time incarcerated actually increases recidivism rates?
6
@Joanna Hoyt
"Thieves with money" is a pretty small group of people. The people committing street robberies, petit larcenies, burglaries of houses and businesses, etc., typically do not have money. When they are bailed out, it's usually by someone in their family who can put up substantial sums or substantial collateral, like a house, that will ensure major consequences for the defendant's loved ones should he not appear in court. While we can debate the merits of bail and whether it unfairly penalizes the poor, the argument that rich criminals can always bail out misses the point entirely. The simple fact is that most petty criminals are not people of means.
2
@michjas The new law does not just apply to property crimes. It also applies to major drug traffickers.These are people who routinely use violence to further their ends. Porch pirates are the least of our problems.
4
If I have $2500 to make a $2500 bail, then I’m not a danger? But, if I only have $2499, then I am a danger?
14
@Midwest bail is held in escrow and returned if you show up. In many areas if a professional bondsman thinks you are a good risk he will charge you a non-refundable 10% to guarantee your bail. Most of the incarcerated can't even afford the 10%.
5
There’s a stronger case for reforming bail reform.
The results of the the well-intentioned, but dreadfully-executed law are totally predictable.
Why any sane person would resist fixing this calamity is perplexing.
10
No problem predicting that bail reform, though well intentioned, will bite the hand that feeds it. Too many defendants, during the pre bail reform era, failed to appear in court, when required, and under current, their numbers will increase exponentially. No, they don't run to foreign jurisdiction; rather, they remain an=in place, and likely as not, return to court only when arrested on a new offense. Best to lock 'em up, and keep them there, until justice is served.
13
Our City is descending into Chaos as the Progressives do away with any standards of personal discipline. Yes it is unfair to detain folks due to race or economic status but breaking the law has consequences.
This Law was poorly written and rushed to passage and now it’s become about race not common sense.
The Mayor and the City Council have basically taking a position of no enforcement or incarceration except for the most serious felonies.
29
@HPS violent crime continues to fall to levels not seen in almost a hundred years, but it's the progressives who are destroying the city.
1
@Al
I live in NYC and I consider myself a progressive person, but sadly your retort looks at the general statistics and not specific events. It's also incorrect. Murder rates in NYC are up almost 9% in 2019 alone.
The law should allow judges to look at specific events and weigh whether bail and how much is appropriate---with the idea of keeping possible/probably offenders in jail. The quality of life issues in NYC are getting worse and worse again -- all under a "progressive" mayor. Homelessness is up. Panhandling is up. There are subway stations that I don't dare walk through again. A girl was just murdered in Morningside Park in cold blood. The Progressive seem to look at the broad swath of things and not at specific issues. Progressives seem incapable of being pragmatic. NYC is eroding under "progressive" leadership because of ideological good intentions. Good intentions are paving the way to Hades.
2
Judicial discretion is the problem. For decades our elected judges had almost limitless discretion to set bail. On the whole they exercised this discretion by setting impossibly high bail, usually at the urging of prosecutors. Pious calls for the return of judicial discretion are plainly calls to smother reform in its cradle.
8
Bail puts people in jail because they are poor, not because they are dangerous. Bail for Non-violent crimes turns peoples lives upside down. They often loose jobs and income and never recover. It punishes them severely without proving guilt. Often the time spent waiting in jail for trial is a more severe sentence than the one they receive for being found guilty.
Cash bail also encourages people to plead guilty rather than spend months in jail waiting for trial.
Overall, cash bail is unjust and unneeded for non-violent crimes.
13
@MikeC Please read the four page list of crimes that are committed in NY which will no longer require bail. Many of them are violent. If someone beats me as they are robbing me, I consider that violent. But the state of New York does not.
66
NY is one of only three states in the country where judges are not permitted to consider whether or not a person charged with a crime is a danger to the community. That has to change.
48
Cherry picking the worst cases and using them to represent the whole forms a picture of felons and criminals coming before a judge, being released and committing another crime before the day is done. The metaphorical revolving door.
Generally there are no statistic accompanying these stories telling us how many people were released and came to court without committing another crime, and how many did in fact just go on committing crimes while waiting for trial.
Is it 1 in 100? 1 in 1000? 1 in 10,000? And is the rate of violent crime while on bail high?
It is hard to take a side in a debate in which no empirical evidence is published. Of course, feelings are fact now, and everyone has his or her own facts, so that should surprise no one.
5
@Cathy The rate of violent crime should not have to be high while on bail to not offer bail - if it saves a violent assault on just one person it’s justifiable and warranted.
18
@Olivia I can understand why people are so fearful and angry about violent crime. It is horrifying to think of being assaulted or a loved one hurt. Having said this, even with an issue of violent crime, we should never make public policy based on "even one" person. Life is complex and scary and sometimes violent. It is the price we pay for being alive and living in a society with others. Bad things happen. It is simply wrong that large numbers of people are jailed simply because they don't have the money to pay for bail. If a violent assault is the price paid for justice for large numbers of people who deserve better than we, as a society, must accept the bargain. Pretty much like we accept that way more than one person is going to be killed or hurt in car crashes yet we don't keep all young people, or old people, from driving. It's the price we pay.
3
@DaisyTwoSixteen “Bad things happen.” Yes, they do if we allow them to by not taking measures to protect innocent people. One person assaulted is one too many because it could be a loved one, a neighbor, you or me. The car crash analogy doesn’t fit.
3
A judge should have discretion over bail with any crime where there is a victim. Or many victims. Or a pattern of victimizing. If Weinstein is being prosecuted on a theory of predatory rape involving a pattern why can’t a judge consider pattern behavior for bail? For public safety. For a start.
The authors’ assertion that the judge could have referred the woman who assaulted the various orthodox women to counseling is disingenuous. Yes, the judge could have. But are the authors suggesting some type of psychological detention? Do we want to limit judges to mental health detentions as the only alternative to bail? Or are the authors implying that this woman would have diligently kept her court appointed counseling appointments?
If the authors and the legislature do not trust judges enough to assign bail what do we do when we get to trial? Eliminate them also?
There are many, many good reasons to have enacted bail reform but we have thrown the baby out on this one.
15
Bond is about returning defendants to court. Nobody does it at less cost to the state than professional bondsman. A service to the defendants, the victims, & the court. The innocent exist in the system but the problem is not fixed by the elimination of bond. Chicago tried this approach. Carjackings (deemed merely 'property crimes) doubled the first year this was attempted. The next year, it doubled again. And the next year, it doubled again. Finally, local officials are starting to admit that cashless bail isn't such a good idea.
It's one thing to release people on cashless bail when their crime is poverty-related. Driving without insurance, floating checks, stealing diapers. Holding people in jail for not having money when they obviously don't have money is essentially inflicting punishment without a trial. But for all others...then cash-free bail is a ridiculous idea. Judges have only two choices: keep a person in jail or release them. In most cases, it's a straightforward decision. For major crimes, keep the person in; and for minor ones, let the person go with a return to court. But it's those tough cases in the middle that cause problems, and a judge understandably does not want to be the one to release someone who re-offends or flees. So, they keep them in jail. Bail provides a third option. It's for some of those tough decisions when and why bail is appropriate because money - or the fear of losing it - is a motivator. Let's give the judges all the tools possible.
18
Have the authors and/or their family members been victims of a crime ? Have they proded thru the legal system bureaucracy looking for assistance when they were victims? Have they been a victim of witness intimidation? Have the authors interviewed victims since bail reform has been adopted on January 1 ? Reform is necessary but not at the public's expense.
47
@Alfred Dreyfus My family has, and I fully support bail reform.
The problem with the system is that it treats all criminals similarly. That's a mistake. Criminals with profound mental illnesses re-offend while awaiting trial because they have poor insight and judgment into their behaviors. It starts with the view that being homeless and defecating on the streets is a human right. If someone is arrested they should not be allowed to live on the street. Period. They must be in a shelter or living with family. Not doing so should result in incarceration until trial. Moreover, arraignment and mental health courts need to coordinate. Sometimes the mentally ill offend as part of a broader dempensation in their functioning, which is often accompanied with non-compliance with treatment, including not taking their meds. Address serious mental illness and homelessness, and almost all the problems with the new law goes away.
22
I support bail reform for NON-VIOLENT FIRST offenses.
I consider burglary and gun violations violent crimes.
If bail is imposed the prosecution must be ready to go to trial within 30 days.
29
I support bail reform for NON-VIOLENT FIRST offenses.
I consider burglary and gun violations violent crimes.
If bail is imposed the prosecution must be ready to go to trial within 30 days.
4
Why does the bail system make people feel safer? Are poor people inherently more dangerous than those who have the resources to make bail?
The purpose of bail is to make it more likely that an accused person will show up for trial. I don't believe it was ever intended to try to preemptively lock up poor people before they are found guilty. Maybe we need more resources to tip the scales toward justice rather than just locking people up by demanding bail they can't pay.
18
What the writers fail to mention is that in New Jersey judges can take dangerousness into account when deciding to set bail. In regards to discovery the writer also fails to mention that In Texas, hearsay is allowed in the grand jury so that often times the only witness in the grand jury is a police officer that would testify as to what the victims and witnesses said. The law in New York requires the prosecutors to turn over the names, addresses and phone numbers of all witnesses and victims to the defendant within 15 days. Last year there was a gang murder on the 7 train in broad daylight. How many of the dozens of people on that train would agree to be a witness if they knew their identity would be turned over to the gang members within 15 days. You can’t say that these laws are working in other states without taking account the major differences in the New York laws.
58
There is an obvious reason to end cash bail, it leads innocent people who can't make bail to plead guilty to something they didn't do. Prosecutors know that better than anyone. It means the guilty stay free and can commit other crimes. If the press wished to do so they could find many such examples and report on them.
10
The authors generally make good points and I agree the law should be tweaked on the available data over time. But I caution them not to be idealogical and ignore counter evidence and views. The success will be when both sides compromise.
22
It's just common sense to not wreck someone's life (and burn through taxpayer money) putting someone in jail for smoking pot or any other victimless crime. But it's also just common sense to not release people who have victimized others and will almost certainly do so again.
Bail reform was urgently needed, but the reformers overshot their mark.
94
@Green Tea
The true agenda of the bail reformers is to reduce the prison population. And they intend to achieve this by allowing even felons to fail to appear repeatedly with no consequences. And because criminals will he released again and again most criminals will remain out on the streets, thus reducing the prison population.
5
@Green Tea
While prisons and jails remove criminals from society to prevent them from committing further crimes, another important purpose is to deter those who might be contemplating committing crimes.
This is yet another article in the NYT’s ongoing efforts to develop sympathy for criminals and make it appear that criminals are actually victims.
The victims of crimes are the true victims; the perpetrators—and those who aid, abet and participate in crime with them—are criminals. I hope all the progressive prosecutors--and Democratic Presidential candidates--will give serious thought to what it means to eliminate bail, reduce sentences and allow criminals to run loose in our communities.
Who is responsible for post-release crimes committed by those released early? An apology to their future victims will be of small consolation for those who are harmed; and how about compensation and restitution for the actual victims?
Early release or release without bail of thousands of criminals is a recipe for increased crime, and increased numbers of victims. (Check federal statistics of recidivism rates—very sobering.)
Why doesn't the NYT run a long series of articles about how victims' lives have been harmed--or shattered--or taken--by criminals? Pretty easy to develop sympathy for victims, I should think.
Virtually no criminals are forced to commit their crimes; there is such a thing as free will. It's simple:
Just don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
4
Herkimer County? Is the author studying the recidivist rate amongst cows? I urge people to find and read the full list of what is now considered nonviolent felony and misdemeanor and ask yourselves if you’d wish for you or your loved ones to be on the receiving end of any of them. I am all for bail reform, but the law abiding public certainly deserves a modicum of protection and respect, as well.
85
@Elena M Bail is not an innocence test nor a public safety measure. It is a poverty test. Dangerous, and probably guilty, people make bail all the time.
The authors have done an excellent job of pointing out the fallacy of bail as a public safety measure.
8
@Ted Pikul Bail is intended to assure appearance in court of the accused - and presumed innocent - individual. There are other mechanisms for pretrial detention for persons deemed a public risk.
4
@Dave - Bail assures both appearance in court AND public safety. That's criminal law 101.
1
I'm grateful for this article. I live in the district represented by the Assembly minority leader, who has been vehemently denouncing bail reform as a threat to law-abiding citizens everywhere. I do see that for certain charges there may be a delicate trade-off between protecting public safety and protecting the rights of the accused (who is legally innocent and may well be actually innocent, and who continues to have human and civil rights even if guilty), so I can see valid arguments for and against remand... but I can't see any justice or validity in money bail.
I hadn't been aware of the data showing that incarceration increases recidivism. That is useful to know.
I wonder how much opposition to reform comes from economic fears of prison closure. My state senator is vehement on the evils of closing prisons because they provide such good employment. But surely there is much work that needs to be done that is more apt to support people than to brutalize them.
10
@Joanna Hoyt
"My state senator is vehement on the evils of closing prisons because they provide such good employment. "
And here we see one of the major driving forces behind the sky high incarceration rate in the US.
The so-called "criminal justice" system is no longer about justice and crime control. It has devolved into a jobs program for politicians, police, prosecutors, judges, administrators, and the like.
Maybe many of the people swept up into the system actually have done something wrong. But a large percentage really have not, were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
There are some very telling elephants in the room concerning this.
First, is a plea bargaining system where the prosecutor knows the defendant didn't do anything but he wants the conviction anyway. What with charge stacking, "generous" plea offers, and lengthy waits before trial even the most innocent will cop a plea.
There is also the attitude of police who openly state that what with crime rates dropping they have to "dig deeper" to keep up their arrest numbers.
I could go on.
It's an industry, folks, and it feeds upon not just the incarcerated but you too.
Crime rates are in fact dropping. So ... what WILL you do when they come for you?
7