What’s the whole trend line? How many times was there a spike in crime with no explanation? I’ll believe it when I see this get reported with numerical literacy.
The reforms might be to blame or it might be exaggerated by reports on the subject. Surely letting out that murderer in November, here illegally, who brutalized that 91 year old woman was an outrage. Judges MUST have latitude to hold people deemed physically threatening and no doubt the law needs revisions. Of that I have no doubt.
4
Perhaps but I suspect the nyc housing crisis and enormous income inequality may have something to do with it.
It’s amazing to me how the PBA’s talking points have ended up, largely unquestioned, in all reporting about bail reform. At this point, though, I am no longer surprised that ordinary folks are advocating for punishment of the merely accused. A travesty.
3
Bail reform is not a free pass for criminals. The elimination of cash bails ensures that poor people aren’t sitting in prison while waiting for a court hearing solely because they don’t have Weinstein money.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is a tenet of the justice system for a reason. There’s no reason someone should be sitting in prison if the prosecution hasn’t proven a crime.
Also, you put a lot of faith in your cops and DAs...
2
the problem is aggravated by the long time it takes to actually bring charges to trial. we all remember cases is waits of several years for relatively minor offenses.
1
Is this a trick question? Of course it is to blame!
3
It's ridiculous to find the reason for all the recent spikes in crime, even though it would be easiest to blame it all on one thing.
But whatever it is, there's reason to doubt our economy is as good as this president says it is when people resort to crime instead of finding a job that pays a decent wage.
In short, it's not just the bail law -- which in many cases is a crime unto itself.
1
No one here is Jean Valjean imprisoned for stealing a loaf of bread.
Depression-era Americans were not out mugging one another. On the contrary, my mother-in-law's mother, poor as she was, fed hobos, sometimes several a day, from her back porch, and not one attempted theft or rape.
7
The "L&O" crowd or hellbent in their zeal to imprison the accused. Why is that you think?
Why do they have such a low opinion of our law enforcement and courts system to prosecute those who are accused of crimes in a timely manner?
I know if I had a strong belief in the cases that the police and the DA's offices charge many of those accused with, bail would be the least of my worries. But I suspect something else is in play. Maybe some enterprising journalist could provide us an analysis of what is really behind this contrived alarm.
2
New bail law is to blame, but we can’t utter the truth because of racial politics.
13
perhaps the reason for that is that, for too long, the bail laws were applied to grossly disadvantage people of color.
1
deblahsio - the worst mayor in the history of civilization ...
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 deemed 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.
11
@Daniel James McCabe
I agree with most of what you said, however you should also consider the impact of non-violent offenses on the community as well. For example:
Businesses victimized by thieves and vandals have no choice but to pass on the costs to their customers. This frequently results in higher costs for common goods, and often in poorer neighborhoods with higher crime, increasing the economic costs of crime on the poor. If the problem is bad enough, it leads to fewer businesses being open to service a community. Likewise, personal victims of fraud or theft often incur devastating losses to their finances and damage to their credit ratings. Again, it is very often people in poorer neighborhoods that suffer from these crimes the most.
Another example is vandalism and fare-beating on the subway, which leads to higher fares for the rest of us who do pay.
Etc. Etc.
Bail is an imperfect tool to protect the community and there are alternatives that may be more just and possibly more effective. New Jersey's bail reform is a good example. But regardless of how pre-trial detention is used, it cannot be limited to only acts of violence.
8
First, unless there is evidence that these additional crimes are being committed by defendants recently released, you cannot point at the bail reform as the cause.
Second, judges still have the ability to remand a defendant if the crime warrants it. What has changed is this unjust system that incarcerates the poor and releases the rich. Rich defendants who committed crimes were able to post bail and could be just a likely to recommit a crime as someone poor. The bail reform means someone charged (NOT convicted) can still go to work, raise their family, etc., and return to court, just like someone who is rich is able to do. I've had friends arrested for fare evasion because they didn't have money for the subway, then lose their job because they were held on bail. For the poor, it is a vicious, vicious cycle.
7
I get it that wealthy or well-connected people can pay bail and less well-off people cannot. That is unfair.
But judges deny bail for various reasons.
Any violent act -- I'm thinking even of random sucker-punches by laughing young people -- should be in the no-bail category. How violent does violent have to be? A punch can break a young woman's jaw. A mugging that leaves an old woman with a broken hip might as well be a murder.
A boyfriend who beats up his girlfriend will probably end up killing her.
In trying to be fair to criminals, our elected officials have been deeply unfair to the rest of us.
16
@B.
So everyone on bail is a criminal?
Here I am thinking all this time that being a criminal required one to have been convicted of a crime.
"You have been well brain-washed grasshopper!"
@B. - but bail is not related to trying to be fair to criminals, it's about trying to be fair to people who are accused of bring criminals. A person who is innocent can be accused just as easily as a person who is guilty.
Look at the instance of Jumaane Williams when someone unsealed a complaint by a lady friend the night before the election - The lady friend was so upset in the moment that even though it was purely verbal, she falsely accused him of physical violence.
Both you, AC, and Freddie are parsing words.
Given video surveillance, immediate detaining by police who arrive on a crime scene, and eyewitnesses who grab and hold assailants until the cops arrive, some people really are criminals, alleged until convicted, yes.
Many, however, are convicted criminals who have been let out and go back to their old bad habits. Denying bail to such is a good thing. We have a core of criminals who commit most crimes.
(Except, of course, abusive husbands and boyfriends, who seem varied and ubiquitous.)
Denying bail to some rich people would be a good thing too.
2
If some politicians want a preventative detention law they should propose one.
But they shouldn’t try and turn the bail statute into a preventive detention law. The purpose of bail is to insure that a defendant accused of a crime will stay in the jurisdiction and appear for trial.
Cash or property put up for bail is a strong incentive not to flee and a warrant for immediate arrest that would issue if one didn’t appear for trial is a stronger deterrent.
But the use of bail as preventative detention has turned the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty on its head.
There is no remedy for spending months in jail simply because you are poor except the current bail reform law.
There are no perfect laws or perfect solutions to crime. So until and unless this new law is shown to pose a significant risk to public safety it should remain in place.
And there will be cases that are exceptions, but exceptions don’t make the rules.
7
One month is too early to speak definitively about trends. However, that has nothing to do with the transparent flaws of this bail reform.
New York is now the only jurisdiction in the country that prohibits judges from considering dangerousness and public safety when determining whether to set bail. That is sheer lunacy. And now, since January, judges are prohibited from setting bail for any reason on a broad swath of crimes, including residential burglary and strong-arm robbery, regardless of criminal record, how many times the defendant has failed to appear in court in the past or the nature of the offense. Again, this is lunacy.
A system of bail that allows wealthy people of means to get out is certainly one that inherently punishes the poor. That system still exists in New York, just for fewer crimes, and in a severely compromised form that prevents judges from detaining dangerous people. This broad legislation with tremendous impact on public safety was promoted by criminal-defense advocates and enacted without debate or input from law enforcement or the general public. The voters should respond accordingly in November.
19
Think about this. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases historically have been disposed of by plea bargain, many because there is strong evidence of guilt, many because people needed to get out of jail to save their jobs, homes, or children.
The Bronx Freedom Fund found that before bail reform was enacted more than 90 percent of those who come not pay bail and stay locked up until their cases were concluded end up pleading guilty. When bailed out, more than half had their cases dismissed by prosecutors once they were released. In other words — they were junk cases to begin with.
Do we really want to return to a system where poverty=convictions? The costs - social, economic, and moral are high.
13
(1) if cashless bail is uniquely to blame, how does one explain other cities which still require cash, but also have the same uptick in crime?
(2) the intended purpose of bail is not to keep people who have not been convicted of crimes in jails .. it's a deposit to make sure they come back to their next court date
(3) there are other mechanisms to identify & avoid releasing high risk persons. start there.
14
Excellent comment. You think a reporter would have looked into that.
2
If you put out of control criminals back on the street they will do what they do best, commit more crimes. It’s not complicated.
26
Since January 1, robberies, felony assaults, grand larcenies, were all up. Shooting victims up 59.6%, shooting incidents up 40%.
Every day, multiple times a day, the police are called to remove unruly passengers from the subway.
There’s a general sense of increased lawlessness. People watch their backs more and take taxis in the evening.
The reform was passed in secret as part of the larger budget negotiation. Many who voted for it did not read the details. Crimes covered by the law include assaults, robberies, drug offenses, hate crimes, criminal sales of controlled substances. How can this be the direction we want to take?
This without mentioning the fact that in pushing to protect criminals the law endangers the victims, with rules such as requiring the release of names and addresses of victims within 15 days and giving robbers access to the very premises they robbed. It’s madness.
Yes, we need criminal justice reform. Yes, one should not be in jail for smoking a joint. But 6 career criminals caught with $7 million of fentanyl should be in jail, not out and about with a desk appearance ticket.
45
You forgot the word “alleged” multiple times there—“alleged” criminal, “alleged” victim. The responsibility is on the prosecution to prove a crime was done, and until then, you’re assumed innocent.
1
@C In NY
100% in agreement with this comment.
Feeling like the lunatics are running the asylum...and missing Bloomberg.
11