"The police recorded a total of 7,215 serious crimes in January, compared to 8,437 in January 2019."
How is this a spike in crime?
11
@PD you got it backwards.
2
@PD "The police recorded a total of 8,437 serious crimes in January, compared to 7,215 in January 2019."
This is the line in the article...the numbers you wrote are incorrect.
10
@PD
The original version of the article reversed the numbers. It has since been corrected.
7
shades of barcelona where pickpockets are rampart and as long as the crime is not violent and under a certain amount the pickpocket pays a fine and is out the same day. the cost of doing business and nice work if you can find it. no wonder americans are so gun crazy. fun city all over again!
9
I would like to know the demographics of the people who skip bail, and those who flee the country before their trial. Is there any data?
9
Cash bail laws in NYC, while clearly economically unjust, were ostensibly enforced to address flight risks while awaiting trial. In the grey area of reality though, many judges used cash bail laws to address threats to public safety, and to detain those repeat violent offenders who they deemed likely to cause further harm upon release.
So now we’ve brought in new laws to level the economic field in the courts, and in doing so we’ve exposed other important factors that have nothing to do with income per se, and everything to do with an individual’s demonstrable propensity to commit further violence.
The answer is simple: we retain the economic equality aspect of the bail reform laws while implementing new laws that would afford judges the discretion they need to detain repeat violent offenders, on a case by case basis, if they deem such individuals likely to resume violent behavior (especially toward previous victims or potential trial witnesses) should they be released while awaiting trial.
As violent crime spikes in the wake of these new laws, our understanding of the issue must continue to evolve in the interest of public safety, which, despite all recent arguments to the contrary, should be the very first consideration in a criminal courtroom.
17
What this is really about:
Developers want Rikers shut down.
In order to do this, the prison population must be reduced substantially.
Didn't DeBasio get a lot of realtor money for his travels around the country during his presidential bid?
So if you're mugged, you know who to thank.
25
What a surprise! Muggers, drug dealers, robbers, and burglars are committing the same crimes when they're allowed to go free. I get that the bail system discriminates against the poor but they will continue to commit crimes because they are desperate. I don't know what the answer is I'm afraid.
17
de Blasio is the absolute worst.
25
Law mandating alleged defendant while out on bail committing further offenses leading to eventual convictions meaning consecutive not concurrent sentences ideally fair compromise. / Defense attorneys no doubt squawking.
5
Any lawyers want to weigh in: if suspect released and harm another victim... can that victim or their family Institute a lawsuit against the state?
17
It would not surprise me to see this backfire by prosecutors up-charging people that they know are dangerous.
Also, like most pieces on the issues, this piece references "misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies" which is literally true but misleading to the average citizen who would be surprised by the large number of violent and other disturbing misdemeanors that are on the immediate release list.
The debate is "inflamed" is because crimes like arson are on the immediate release list.
20
Carl Heastie is being an obtuse fool. The NY Cash Bail law is obviously flawed and nearly everyone agrees except for him - the one person holding up any changes to the law. You don’t need a PhD to realize that such a large increase in crime, especially robberies, right after the law went into effect is obviously a result of the new law. Unfortunately it looks like it’s going to take a horrible situation to come up as a result of this law before it is changed. I hope Mr Heastie has a good explanation for the victims when that time comes.
26
@Mike L
Read the article again, Mike. There are NO facts to support your erroneous claim that the increase in crime January 2020 over January 2019 is due to the new bail law. None. Nada.
The article mentioned a possible cause of the theft/robbery numbers to spike : more kids seem to have been stealing smartphones from each other. I have a child in this age demographic, and even though she has the latest iPhone her attitude about securing it is at best cavalier.
Another possible cause of relatively low level crimes to spike is the warmer weather this January over last. There is a scientifically established correlation between temperature and crime rates.
The thing to remember Mike is that coincidence doesn’t mean correlation or causation. And for the record, I am a PhD, in statistics, from an Ivy League university!
5
@DA
"No facts" apart from, you know, the fact that the bail law is releasing criminals onto the streets.
That's like saying there are "no facts" supporting the notion that daylight is caused by the sun rising each morning.
23
It isn't merely crime that's up under Mayor Bill de Blasio, there's also a failed subway system, increased traffic congestion, litter everywhere, falling grades in many elementary and high schools, and block after block of empty storefronts in all five boroughs.
De Blasio has done nothing good for New York City. His biggest accomplishment is banning foie gras. This tells you all you need to know about his lack of leadership and utter incompetence.
51
The real story the Times should be reporting is that multiple precincts don't allow citizens to report crimes so they can keep their numbers low. Three incidents I was in: getting robbed at gunpoint in Brooklyn, a homeless guy pulling a knife on our group near Central Park and an incident with a crazy guy in the West 4th all had the police saying I didn't need to file a report. After one incident the detectives DROVE ME HOME so I wouldn't stay at the station to file. All a bunch of liars and thieves...
37
But AOC likes the new bail law. It's very progressive. The criminals can commit more crimes while waiting for their trial date. Go AOC!
35
Reinstitute stop and frisk... Enforce broken windows policing... Prosecute low level criminality. And yes, hold criminals without bail based upon recidivism/flee review.
36
Unseasonably mild winter contributing crime spiking factor.
6
@Sean -- I can't wait to see what happens in the spring then.
13
Wait till summer!
9
I hate to obsess over grammar and style but sometimes facts and intelligibility matter. “The number of murders was down from 29 to 23 and the number of rapes were dropped.” Dropped by whom? What are you trying to say? Were there fewer rapes or were the numbers omitted? Why not mention the numbers like you did for murders? Giving the actual numbers is important, particularly when they are relatively small. A change from 29 thousand to 23 thousand instances could be significant. A change from 29 to 23 is likely to be statistical “noise”.
10
Shocking: if you let dangerous people back onto the street, crime will go up.
45
If mugging returns in huge numbers as it was in our city back in the late 1970's & early 1980's we all shall know if this no jail after arrest is working. One NYPD in Queens NY has an 85% increase in robberies. Time will tell.
On the other hand .....& etc.
17
@Carlyle T.
Sorry this should have been written "One NYPD precinct in Queens ..
4
People should go see what the county jail looks like on any given evening. You won’t be so eager to quickly release them.
This is another undoing of the quality of life gains NYC has made over the past 20 years. Have you been near the west side highway in midtown lately? The windshield wiper guys are back!
27
Any increase in racial bias, bigotry or crime should be laid at the feet of the current president who has never avoided an opportunity to engage in bigoted or violent rhetoric.
1
@HT
Give it a rest. I realize liberals get up every morning trying to think of things to blame on President Trump and climate change, but blaming an uptick in robberies in NYC on Trump is a stretch.
18
The comments section of every Times article has a reader blaming trump for something unrelated to the presidency.
19
Is not only crime, the amount of homeless on the streets has skyrocketed, people seriously ill are on the streets, I see them doing their necessities openly, the smell in trains, the showing off their privates everywhere. I don't know if to blame Trump or Deblasio, but the city is getting more dirty, more nasty and more undesirable to live in.
21
Let me get this straight. The mandated release of nearly all arrestees statewide, except for those charged with a subset of legally defied “violent felonies” (nowhere near the set of felonies actually involving violence), was necessary because activists cited the example of Kalief Browder (who committed a robbery while on probation and wasn’t even bail-eligible).
But now horrific story after horrific story of violent criminals released under this law are mere “anecdotes” and “fearmongering” and also somehow “racist” (that one is truly puzzling). And overall statistical increases in major crimes that wipe out a decade’s worth of safety gains are “inconclusive” or “insignificant.”
Also, the law was touted as being just like NJ’s reforms, but the architects of NJ’s reforms — and anyone with reading comprehension — have debunked that falsehood. So, allowing risk-based detention of suspects (as in NJ) now also is “racist” and “fearmongering”.
Just lay it bare: this legislation is a gift to criminal defendants, societal costs be damned. Legislators will lost their seats over this, and New York will suffer, unless necessary changes are made.
27
@zigmund No, this law was necessary because accused criminals, some of whom are innocent, were languishing in jail for months, if not years; because either the judge refused bail or because they did not have the money to pay it. If you believe in either innocent until proven guilty, or that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent to be punished, then this should be an intolerable situation.
@michaelscody until you are mugged by someone out without bail
11
Mores/Ways/Folkways regarding politically empowered subalterns evidently including tolerating petty repeat "alleged" crim
1
One month's stats are not meaningful, but if they continue it will be compelling: if crimes where people are freed with no bail are rising while those where bail is imposed is declining (like murders), it's hard to interpret that another way.
The issue for me is that while this has been, and still is, sold to the public as abolishing bail for minor things, nuisance type stuff... that is not the case. Most people mistakenly think all misdemeanors are non violent or non serious crimes.
There are many violent crimes that are on the list, and other disturbing, non-violent crimes. The list is available easily with a quick search, so i won't list it all here, but it includes things that would shock most people including certain degrees of manslaughter, reckless assault of a child (?), stalking involving sexual assault, 2d degree burglary as a hate crime, aggravated vehicular manslaughter, killing a police dog or horse (not common, but really?), and bribing jurors. . . there are dozens more crimes on the list that most people would not put in the "minor" category.
Doesn't it make more sense to have bail reform for non-violent crimes, while giving judges discretion on violent crimes?
20
You didn't say where you got "the list." Please share as it appears inaccurate to me.
1
Do people care about facts anymore? Some apparently do not. Otherwise how could a number of the commentators to this article seemingly ignore the following (par.10): "Neither the mayor nor the commissioner offered data or analysis to support their contention that the law was behind the increase."
Fear, not facts, is what cynical public officials use to undermine any criminal justice reform that might make the process more equitable and fair for those accused of crime, i.e., mostly poor persons of color. These cynics know that the public is easily frightened and thus public opinion can be manipulated by the specter of victimization.
While it is legitimate to urge the legislature to adopt preventive detention for dangerousness in N.Y. bail laws, which is clearly the objective of the new law's opponents, it is illegitimate and dishonest to, without any factual basis, drum up support for their cause by manipulating statistics and demonizing the one-month-old bail reform that has taken almost 50 years to achieve. One hopes that cooler heads will prevail and that the reforms will be evaluated on the facts rather than on fears cynically generated by public officials who want public support for their positions.
2
True, but logic dictates that crime will go up if you release people accused of crime whether misdemeanor or more serious.
7
@Alex Are you saying that if we want to prevent crime everyone accused of a crime should be detained pending trial? That we should abolish pretrial release? That's where your "logic" leads. Pretty scary.
1
But crime isn't the only urban indicator that is rising. The number of fires, especially in the Bronx and Manhattan, the ambulance calls per unit time, the pedestrian fatalities, and the rates of homelessness are all rising. This means that something other than the policy of bail reform is forcing a general deterioration in urban systems. If the city and state don't figure this puzzle out, we could be in for a long period of serious problems. It may also mean that our essential services are not up to the immense population increase since the 1990's.
The number of fire companies has not increased; the EMT resources have not increased much. Of course, housing for low- and middle-income families has declined. All these factors work in synergism and can produce contagious urban decay like that of the 1970's. See my book: A Plague on Your Houses: How New York City Was Burned Down and National Public Health Crumbled. It is used in college and public health courses around the country. Contagious urban decay can destroy huge proportions of many neighborhoods in the blink of an eye.
7
So of the increased thefts 26% are under 18-year-olds accused of stealing electronics. Isn't it time we remember Kalief Browder in jail without bail for over two years leading to his suicide? Nobody should be put in jail simply because they are charged with a crime. That is giving the police way too much power. Judges should be able to provide additional oversight and support (especially mental health support) to some people charged with crimes but the new bail and discovery law should stay in place and the police and the mayor (what a disappointment DeBlasio is) should stop trying to undermine it without trustworthy data.
1
@DaisyTwoSixteen
Envious teen aged thief politely requesting victim hand over $1000 iPhone ?
7
@DaisyTwoSixteen
Yet Browder’s family, “supporters “ refusing to raise relatively puny bail more easily manageable than their iPhone.
7
The bail overhaul just poured some more gasoline on what already was a blazing fire. Simple observation should tell anyone that since de Blasio became mayor that the lunatics have been running the asylum for most of his time in office. From people sleeping on sidewalks to commuters who have to run the gauntlet of mentally ill people residing on mass transit, the policies that put this environment in place have many employers and businesses voting with their feet or planning their move. The antidote is not another political hack that will continue the current failed policies, but getting someone competent enough to restore the quality of life and civic pride that NYers previously enjoyed.
39
The Trump administration is very much to blame. Police are more threatening to certain groups of people, just for their existence, and those without money are more desperate (they have less and less relative to what a person needs to survive). And the Republican administration (and really most wealthy Democrats as well) has made it clear that poor people have no right to life.
1
@Rose Anne Then why do we not see the same trend in other places?
12
Based on the facts presented in the article, we simply don’t know that the additional crimes reported in January 2020 over January 2019 were committed, or are likely to have been committed by those suspects released from jail because of the new bail law. What the police critics of the new law, and many commenters here have done is made an erroneous assumption not supported by facts.
And let us all remember that in this country all suspects are innocent until proven guilty.
3
It's not statistically proven that there is an increase in crime, based on this data. Furthermore, law enforcement is pushing back very hard on bail reform, perhaps out of concern for their jobs. Imprisoning people is big business - especially upstate where you can go to the town of Catskill, NY, and see signs that read, "Jobs - Yes. Prison Reform - No."
Bail reform was much needed in NY because it has been used to keep poor people imprisoned even before they were found to be guilty. Similar bail reform measures were enacted in NJ with no problems.
People need to read the facts about this law and think for themselves, and think compassionately about others.
The pushback on this law is from the law enforcement industry which is worried that getting rid of the "schools to prison" pipeline will cost jobs, overtime and other perks.
3
The NJ measures were not “similar”, not by a long shot. I suggest you read up on the subject if you truly believe that!
7
Do the author's know what standard deviation is? The monthly data can be analyzed in just a few minutes by anyone who has taken high school statistics. The result will give you some indication as to whether this is just the expected variation, or the beginning of a significant change.
11
@Teal Would that same high school statistics class teach you about the need of an appropriate sample size or would you have to wait for college statistics for that?
4
"Judges are no longer allowed to set bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses and some kinds of arson and robbery."
What about stalking, assault, arson and robbery (at the very least) are "non-violent"? As a husband to a woman who was stalked by a deranged man, I can tell you, it was worse than violent. It was terrifying, for her primarily, but for me as well.
Anyone who voted to support this is insane. Truly. The fact that crime has jumped shouldn't surprise anyone.
59
@Mike
What about "assault without serious injury" Does mean if you only have your finger broken instead of your leg, then there's no bail set?
This city is starting to feel like the 70's again, except it's more expensive.
21
@Mike
The designation of an offense being "non-violent" is not solely dependent on whether physical force is involved, or injury incurred. It is a legal term of art...a determination made by policy makers that certain criminal acts should not punished as severely as others.
This is a significant shortcoming of the statute; this type of paint-by-numbers scheme lacks the flexibility often needed to achieve the best outcomes.
2
The police don't worry about crime. They worry about their jobs. If they thought crime was an issue they would have arrested Trump long ago. No, the police selectively enforce so that they have enough people in the system to keep themselves employed and to give the impression that they are trying, but we know that many people are above the law, and are never punished for their criminality.
At this time, in this country, there is no moral reason to obey the laws. If your a serfs then you need to obey the laws because you will be punished if caught. If your wealthy then disregard the laws at your will. The cops will protect you, because they are criminals too.
6
@Chris Best summary yet!
@Chris come to SF where theft under $950 is a no-bail misdemeanor. Great way to reallocate assets- unless it’s your computer/phone/bag stolen.
6
"He said the new law forces judges to release people even if they are believed to pose a risk to others."
Well, does it? What kind of journalism is this? You know the answer, you've read the law and have legal experts on your staff, tell us!
To my understanding, all the law did was make it so people no longer had to pay bail to get out. Which means all these people could have been let out before. Nothing really changed, as long as you had money.
But it has been strangely difficult to find out if I'm correct in my understanding. The media seems unable to just break down what the law actually says, and I don't know why that is.
6
@Daniel
Under the new law, courts will be required to release individuals unless they are charged with a “qualifying offense” and the court makes an individualized determination that the defendant poses a flight risk.
A qualifying offense is defined as:
1. Violent felonies, excluding certain types of Burglary in the 2nd Degree and Robbery in the 2nd Degree
2. A crime involving witness intimidation
3. A crime involving witness tampering
4. A class A felony, excluding drug felonies defined under Article 220 of the Penal Law (with the exception of a person charged as an A-1 trafficker under PL 220.77)
5. A felony sex offense, a crime involving incest, or a misdemeanor sex offense
6. Conspiracy to commit murder
7. Money laundering in support of terrorism, or the crime of terrorism
8. Criminal contempt in the 1st or 2nd degree where the underlying act is a violation of an order of protection where the protected party is a family member
9. Facilitation and promotion of child in a sexual performance
In all other cases, judges are required by the statute to release defendants upon their own recognizance or the least restrictive non-monetary conditions.
Judges may not consider the defendant's potential threat to public safety--even if they've committed a qualifying offense--only the likelihood that they will abscond.
4
@Alex But is that any different than it used to be? Could all those people (not charged with a qualifying offense) previously get bail? Because if they could, then it isn't really any different. That is what I can't find.
1
@Daniel
Previously, a person charged with any crime could have bail set against them, provided it was not so excessive as to violation the 8th Amendment. Judges could set bail on anything from murder to petty larceny.
Now judges may only set bail on qualifying offenses. The issue that the statute ostensibly sought to address isn't that certain defendant's couldn't "get bail." It was that they were being assessed bail in amounts they couldn't afford, for crimes the legislature determined to be not requiring of bail all.
So the law prohibits judges from even levying bail at all for that subset of crimes now deemed non-qualifying offenses.
2
Balance this with the fact that Kaleef Browder at 16 years old, went to and stayed on Riker's for 3 years pre-trial over a false accusation of stealing a backpack and eventually committed suicide. There were thousands of other Kaleef's he is just one example.
6
The rationale that those who favor the recent change in the laws for bail can be paraphrased as:
"In our country a citizen's right to be free is equal to the right of other individuals to not be murdered - unless the citizen has bee convicted of a crime.
The unjustified death of innocent people is the price we pay for liberty."
I would like to hear a response to this brief observation.
1
While weather is only one factor, there were 11 days with temperatures below freezing in January 2020, as opposed to 23 days in January 2019. Some studies (I don't have citations) show less criminal activity in adverse weather conditions. But snowfall was minimal in both Januarys.
My point is lots of variables need to be accounted for before a particular cause-and-effect can be discerned.
Data: NWS NYC Central Park Monthly Weather Summary https://w2.weather.gov/climate/index.php?wfo=okx
6
A material number of the crimes involved here are related to necessity, and a person is in the same boat after being released as they were when they committed the initial offense in the first place. Addicts, the poorest of the poor, the mentally ill, etc have the same hobson's choice after being released without bail that they faced in the first place.
Doesn't justify anything, just the reality we are all facing here.
3
I suspect the milder weather has something to do with it.
13
"Opponents have pointed to a string of crimes committed by people who were released before trial as anecdotal evidence that the law needs to be rolled back."
So, totally avoidable crimes. These are crimes that would not have been committed if these "alleged" criminals were behind bars awaiting trial on the initial charge. I can hear the typical ambulance chasing lawyers lining up now, and I don't blame them one bit.
13
Let's go over it again gang, what history has taught us.
The top three reasons crime rates go up or down are:
1-Demographics.
2-Ditto.
3-Ditto.
While the change in bail laws is a legit issue on the good and bad with it, it has very little to do with crime rates over time.
However, the demagogues and perverters on the left and right will abuse the issue like Rudy G did with his shoot first, ask questions later policies or the opposite extreme bleeding heart liberals will say giving murderers a second chance is the answer for lower crime rates.
Things like the aging of the boomer pop and gentrification greatly aided the crime rate going down under Rudy G and afterwards and the opposite during the regimes pre Rudy G.
However demagogues will be demagogues.
5
The fallout from the new bail laws is the flip-side of the problem created by mandatory sentencing laws. Both limit judicial discretion. This one-size-fits-all approach fails to strike the tight balance between ensuring public safety and reforming criminal justice.
8
Nothing to see here folks. There is absolutely no connection between letting criminals walk the streets and an increase in violent crime. Now, let's get some "restorative justice" to the victims and loved ones of the shootings and robberies.
23
@Greg I know you only mean to make fun of restorative justice but restorative justice is an arduous process for both the victim and the agressor it is not something easily achieved and it is not the same concept of bail reform.
2
@maria5553
Because forcing the victim of a crime to submit to an "arduous process" with the criminal who hurt them should be the point of the criminal justice sustem, right? In lieu of, say, simply punishing the criminal? Makes sense.
7
The ripple effect -- income lost, children left alone at home -- of keeping people in jail simply because they don't have money to post bail, is a cancer on our society. These people -- and especially their children --need a hand up, not someone stomping on their fingers.
7
Sure, but aren’t factors like gainful and employment and number of dependents — hardly universal traits among common criminals, especially hardened offenders and transients — things for a judge to consider on an individual basis?
9
@wills11111 Well, okay...but when do we start? Judges are not all sage old wise men. They come to the job with histories, attitudes, prejudices (no pun intended) like anyone else. Witness the appointment of "crazy conservative" judges to the federal bench by McConnell &Co. They're working hard at it because they know the right judges will give them the outcomes they want.
Judges need occasionally to be bound by rules that iron out their personal proclivities. It doesn't always work: Mandatory Minimum Sentences was an attempt at this that created far more problems than it solved. There will no doubt be a Willie Horton moment out of this attempt to lessen the harm inflicted by cash bail -- but dammit, we need to try.
1
No, Trump is to blame. He said in his SOTU that crime is down, implying that he made that happen. So if crime is up, he must have made that happen as well.
6
Is anyone surprised? What did they think would happen?
35
When you need federal prosecutors to come in, be the adult in the room and detain a serial bank robber (see the story of the gentleman from S.C.) in order to circumvent a poorly-thought-out state bail law, it obviously needs fixing. Same for the Tiffany Harris, the serial anti-Semite slapper: a psychiatrist was brought in to do what a judge cannot (get this dangerous person off the streets). The statistics need time to tell their story. For now, we have these very obvious stories telling a very clear story: the law is having unintended consequences and there are already victims.
It’s madness.
22
As much as I don’t want to see this happen, bail reform is going to end up turning this city red meat Republican.
10
maybe allow the accused the option of staying in jail until sentenced
@theproducer
The statute actually does allow this. Defendants may request that the court set nominal bail, even for non-qualifying offenses. This gives the defendant the option to begin accruing time-served to offset what they anticipate will be lengthy prison sentence.
"Judges are no longer allowed to set bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, including stalking, assault without serious injury, burglary, many drug offenses and some kinds of arson and robbery."
I would like to know how assault without serious injury, burglary and some kinds of arson and robbery are not deemed worthy of setting bail. Does this clueless mayor stop to think about the victims of these crimes? Does he really think criminals let out on the streets won't repeat these acts??
Can't wait for de Blasio to be gone as mayor!
28
Easy to say "too early to draw any conclusions" if you weren't one of the victims.
28
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.
62
You mean the “accused” not “criminals”.
1
"I can't believe they let me out...what were they thinking?"
-Gerod Woodberry, after robbing four banks in NYC, and being released each time.
25
What percentage of crimes are from 1) repeat offenders, versus 2) first time offenders? If the rise is from repeat offenders, then yes easy bail would likely increase crime. I suspect you've got this criminal set of people who commit most crimes, and not locking them up will result in more crime. But you need some statistics to prove this.
11
The "reformed" bail law is one drop in the steady drip, drip, drip of erosion of public safety in this City. Fare beating, an increase in aggressive panhandling bordering on assault, public urination with impunity, bike riding on the sidewalk with impunity, the return of "squeegee men". The texture of enforcement becomes increasingly threadbare and eventually unravels entirely. Welcome back to the 1970s, New York City.
57
@Elliot Fare-jumpers, panhandlers, squeegee men, oh my!
@Terrence
Fare beaters cost the MTA $215 million a year. Congestion pricing will make up some of that shortfall. Thanks for helping out NJ drivers!
2
Well said, though you forgot the carefree act is smoking marijuana openly, everywhere, including in public parks with children.
3
Bail reform is certainly needed. Non-violent, low-level criminals who pose no threat to public shouldn't be held in jail on the taxpayer dime simply because they can't post a $1000 bond. The public is on the hook for their medical care, mental health treatment, room and board, etc., etc. Bail reform, from a fiscal perspective, just makes sense, assuming you have sufficient law enforcement resources to replicate the job that bounty hunters have traditionally done. That said, bail reform is currently being marketed as a panacea that's going to cure all kinds of social ills. It won't. It can't. The notion that millions of hard working, responsible parents are caught up in the bail system is a complete and total fallacy. So, enjoy your savings, but I wouldn't expect much beyond that.
11
The question as always when it comes to criminal justice and statistics, is how do we know the cops aren't juking the stats?
1
@Locho -- How do we know the NY Times isn't "juking the stats"?
3
"...giving low-income New Yorkers the same privileges as wealthier people is somehow linked to crime.”
Wealthy people simply do not commit violent street crimes - and no one is afraid to go out at night because of dishonest stockbrokers and overly-clever landlords.
88
@Jonathan Yeah they're afraid of getting their retirements looted by them!
@Jonathan thank you. You took the words out of my mouth.
3
@Terrence - Many people think they are worldly-wise enough to detect and avoid dishonest financial schemes. However, if a violent criminal decides to knock you over the head with a crowbar and run off with your wallet, there is little you can do in the way of defense.
7
As a former prosecutor with 30 years experience in NYC the argument that the spike in crime is related to bail is pure nonsense. Nothing in one month since the law proves otherwise. The Willie Horton argument is being perpetrated by cops for their own good. For every person that gets out and commits another crime while having an open case pails in comparison to defendants who are released with no bail or bail and commits no crimes dwarfs the former. The system has favored prosecutors and cops for over 50 years. Law enforcement is angling for more money as are prosecutors. Crime is at an all time low here in NYC. Serious criminals committing serious crimes will still be remanded and or high bail set. I’ve never heard of such malarkey in 30 years of prosecuting cases.
26
@Unbelievable
So I guess you're ok with having your apt. broken into or mugged and only having your finger broken in the process and then letting the perpetrator back on the streets with no consequences.
13
Reading the article might help - a 14.5% DECREASE in serious crimes in Jan 2020 compared to Jan 2019. Yet the commish blames bail reform for the several categories where there was an increase.
But how does this correlate to bail reform which went into effect Jan 1, 2020? Of the more than 7,200 serious crimes in Jan 2020 how many were committed by people released under the new bail law?
The new bail law affects people accused of most misdemeanors and non-violent felonies? How many of those people have committed new crimes?
Predict dangerousness based on being arrested for a minor crime? Who were the most 'dangerous' people in the recent past - those who committed minor street crimes, or those who were entrusted with caring for and teaching children ethical behavoir? Priests, scout leaders, teachers? Are they the most dangerous? Multiple victims each. Or their institutions which covered up the crimes and allowed the perpetrators to continue their criminal conduct - but hey, let's have a judge decide if the poor, non-white person accused of a minor crime is dangerous simply because they were arrested for a non-violent crime.
Facts, not fear.
7
I read the article. Stop lying. It specifically said a large increase in serious crimes, just not murder or rape.
8
@Greg I believe you read that wrong. Jan 2020 had 8,437 serious crimes, versus "7,215 in January 2019" - so there was indeed an increase YoY.
2
@Greg
The original version of the story reversed the numbers; it has subsequently been corrected.
Serious Crimes in January 2029 were 8,437, and increase of about 1,200 or 16.9% over the same period the prior year.
3
The bail reform law makes sense. No law is perfect, and bad apples will always fall through the crack. It’s irresponsible for elected or appointed officials to point to 30 days of data and claim they have discovered a pattern linking a hand full of individuals to a nominal increase in crime. The NYPD, citizens, and community leaders should focus on community policing, and collaboratively addressing the underlying drivers of crime. People don’t commit crime for fun, it’s usually born out of economic necessity.
This bail law is the wrong way to fix a serious and legitimate problem. Accused people should not have to sit in jail for years- sometimes for longer than a conviction would actually bring- before trial.
New York should guarantee the right to a speedy trial- say within three months of arrest- making this bail reform law unnecessary.
2
@Neil - They should make the trial fit the crime. If the punishment is a month in jail, then the trial should last for one hour. Small, certain punishments are a far better deterrent than one chance in a hundred of a five-year sentence.
One of the reasons that crime dropped so significantly in the early and mid 90’s was the NYPD’ s COM STAT approach which highlighted specific’s in criminal activity but most particularly centering more on the effects of acts of individuals than a broader generalization (however necessary) about crime and it’s causes. When ‘Bob the burglar’ , ‘Mark the mugger’ and so on, were identified and then taken off the street, these crimes predictably decreased. The down side of course was/is the effect of mass incarcerations and failure to reform or even deter future criminal acts.
Our cops are placed in the difficult position of dealing with our countries social and even historical ills without needed comprehensive reform; community policing is a start but the acts of individuals are still at the heart of the problem and we need to accept that reality.
13
“manipulating statistics to fit their misguided narrative that giving low-income..."
This is a really simple counterfactual - if you are in jail and not out on bail then you would not have committed the crime.
So the question is - and what we have actual data to assess it - how many people on revised bail terms were out and committing additional crimes.
36
@SteveRR
You are correct. Can I put you into jail so that you do not commit a crime? This is brilliant. We will have perfect security while sacrificing all liberty.
3
@Fernando
Thanks for the reply but I fear that you may have been reading a different comment - that is not even close to my question... and it was a question.
6
Judges should have the option of holding people who they believe are likely to commit more crimes while they wait for trial.
78
@Phil
That's a bit too much discretion unless the factors the Judge can take into consideration are specifically enumerated by statute and backed up by research.
Otherwise, you will just have judges ruling how they feel and those feelings will likely incorporate pre-existing biases.
2
@EDM
"Otherwise, you will just have judges ruling how they feel and those feelings will likely incorporate pre-existing biases."
Then they are bad judges that should be replaced. If you don't trust them to make pretrial release decisions, do you trust them to make trial judgements?
5
So life imitates art again, in this case a recent episode of Blue Bloods. And I will side with the police on this one. 1+1 does equal 2.
35