Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dante662 t1_ixugehj wrote

Reply to comment by Intrepid-Hunter-5813 in Three arrested with 100 pounds of fentanyl in Mattapan apartment, DA says by FuriousAlbino

​

Robbery is a violent crime against a person. So taking "only $116" doesn't matter, it's the fact you robbed a human being and put them in fear of their life. It's a felony (probably more than one since most robberies use a weapon or have assault/battery charges to go along with it).

​

If anything, $100k is too little. Violent crimes like that should have no bail whatsoever.

114

riski_click t1_ixuowye wrote

>If anything, $100k is too little. Violent crimes like that should have no bail whatsoever.

Nor should these guys who were keeping fentanyl in a child's bedroom.

73

Effective_Golf_3311 t1_ixuvtm5 wrote

Half of Reddit would like a word with you

3

fillymandee t1_ixwk4pp wrote

Which half?

2

shaqrock t1_ixwtam5 wrote

The half (or more than half) that think the war on drugs is fucking dumb

−2

fillymandee t1_ixwtusd wrote

The war on drugs is dumb. So is allowing street dealers to possess an amount of fentanyl that can kill an entire population.

17

streetbum t1_ixx4q5p wrote

The war on drugs is the only reason this situation even exists.

4

9Z7EErh9Et0y0Yjt98A4 t1_iy3a53i wrote

Indeed. Very few drug users are specifically seeking out fentanyl. It's used as a cheap and potent adulterant that is passed off as more desirable drugs, like prescription opiates, heroin, or even non-opiate type drugs like cocaine. Users are asking for all kinds of drugs and getting fentanyl of variable quantities, either adulterated into or straight up substituted for their intended product, which makes overdosing a real hazard.

Fentanyl adulteration is entirely a black market phenomena.

2

pup5581 t1_ixx8ea9 wrote

...it's why this shit is happening.

The war on drugs will never be won all while we waste billions a year. Fucking stupid country thinking the war on drugs is worth it and doesn't make it 10x worse

2

HebrewHammer14 t1_ixxa2nz wrote

What would you suggest as an alternative to fix the current situation?

2

pup5581 t1_ixxewdd wrote

What Portugal did in 2001 and the Netherlands and other countries are doing. Legalize all drugs for personnel use Portugal had a massive HIV and overall addict rate. After legalized it dropped significantly compared to the rest of the EU.

All the money that was spent to combat drugs and drug arrests when to rehab progams and they are now the leaders when it comes to getting people healty again.

Imagine billions going to treatment facilities vs tactical gear for police or Jail overhead? It's proven to work and helps lower drug use in general thus it hurts drug dealers.

Building a wall or hiring more police officers will make the issue worse and worse as we see. As no money goes to rehab...

2

cedarapple t1_ixxrmgp wrote

Portugal decriminalized drug use but dealers and distributors are sent to prison there, contrary to popular opinion. They also don’t tolerate open air drug markets.

2

HebrewHammer14 t1_ixy6nax wrote

I personally don’t hate the idea of legalization. However it’s hard to ignore a state like Oregon and a city like Portland where homelessness and drug use is out of control. Not to mention there are needles everywhere. They have jobs for ppl that are dedicated to just picking up discarded needles that are just left in the street. How do you think seeing that everyday would effect a child or what if they stepped on them ?

2

Intrepid-Hunter-5813 t1_ixv3adw wrote

You have zero understanding of how the bail system is supposed to work. Bail is not to be used as a punishment, the purpose is to help ensure the defendant shows up in court. Yes, the severity of the crime is to be considered, but so are other key factors as well: Previous record (which I did not have), a history of defaulting (which I did not have), and a determination whether an individual is a flight risk (which I wasn’t). I was not in any way trying to justify my actions or downplay the severity of my crime, but rather just shed light on the fact that our cash bail system is wildly inconsistent and caters to those with large amounts of cash at their disposal (i.e. alleged high-level drug traffickers with millions of dollars worth of fentanyl). When all was said and done a judge agreed that my bail had been set far too high and knocked it down to $10k. Still a sum that a homeless drug addict can’t just pull out of their back pocket, but much more fair given the situation. Anyway, I plead out, did my time, made amends, started a business within the recovery field, and have the privilege of being of service and support to individuals who are going through the same difficulties that I once was.

47

NeptuneFrost t1_ixv56hw wrote

The internet is not the most compassionate, nor subtle place. Glad to hear you are in long term recovery. Addiction is horrible.

20

tomatuvm t1_ixukw8a wrote

So just put people in jail indefinitely on the word of the police?

That seems problematic.

42

iamheero t1_ixuyikx wrote

No, not indefinitely. In a felony trial, you have to have a preliminary hearing early on in the process. The purpose of the preliminary hearing is to determine (by putting on a mini-trial) if there's probable cause to believe the person accused actually did the crime so that you're not holding someone indefinitely. This is determined by a judge, and the defendant has an attorney to challenge the witnesses and evidence presented. Prosecutors need to prove (admittedly to a lower standard than at trial, again, probable cause) every element of the crimes. Typically these are set to occur within like 10 days of being charged, so that people aren't wrongfully held. This is in most states, if not all of them (Louisiana may be an exception, for example).

Now, practically speaking many defendants waive their own rights so that their attorney has more time to prepare, there are sometimes benefits to resolving a case before that hearing, but that's their choice. If they really were held in custody with no evidence, they'd do the hearing ASAP and they'd have their cases dismissed. The thing is, that almost never happens.

18

tomatuvm t1_ixv4kg4 wrote

Thank you for the info! Correct me if I'm wrong (genuinely asking here):

In Massachusetts bail is based on the ability and means to pay and the risk of flight, not on the severity of the crime. If the crime is severe enough, they have dangerousness/evidence hearings to determine if bail should be an option or not, correct? If there's risk/threat, they just don't have bail, right? Because bail isn't set up to be a mechanism to hold people and not everyone charged with a violent crime is denied bail, correct?

Basing it off my understanding of reading articles on the SJC ruling a few years ago, and not on any actual legal experience (hence why these are all questions more than statements)

https://www.molarilaw.com/blog/massachusetts-supreme-judicial-court-bail-must-be-affordable-defendants

5

iamheero t1_ixv619x wrote

So to preface: I am barred (inactive) in Mass, but I don't practice criminal law there so treat this like I'm a layperson. I do practice criminal defense and was a prosecutor in California, and they have a similar rule, so I'll just answer based on the laws there.

That's pretty much correct, at least in CA. The way it works in CA is if bail is set, it must be at a level that's affordable to the individual (ie not set on a schedule sheet) but still be an incentive to return to court. There can be additional requirements for bail like an ankle monitor, but that's not always needed. However, as you mentioned, depending on the severity of the crime, there's a strong possibility that bail will just not be set. Like robbery, for example, which is a violent crime (and counts as a 'strike' for CA sentencing purposes). It's very serious and so the judge may decide that the danger to the community and the risk of flight outweighs the accused's right to bail. They weigh a number of factors, but they're also basing the seriousness on how the DA charged the case, not on a hearing with evidence presented. For example, I have a client right now accused of a very serious crime and was given no bail, but the violent crime he's charged with was done in self-defense, which isn't in the police report or the complaint, so the judge can't really consider it.

So simply put, the judge first determines SHOULD they get bail, and then determines how much based on their income/resources.

6

tomatuvm t1_ixva77m wrote

Thank you for the info! The last paragraph sums up my layperson's understanding.

Hopefully it won't ever gain first hand experience on this one 😂

3

dante662 t1_ixungxz wrote

By the court.

Violent crimes, no bail, remanded until trial.

Non violent, released on own recognizance.

−12

tomatuvm t1_ixuotln wrote

You're proposing that someone lose their freedom over an accusation of a crime. Surely you can see the issue with that?

The purpose of bail, per the Constitution, is to ensure people show up to trial. Not punish them pre-trial. My understanding is there is a dangerousness hearing process to determine if the circumstances warrant not providing bail at all, based on the seriousness of the crime and evidence. But if you get bail, it has to be affordable but also expensive enough to make sure they show up to court*

  • I am definitely not a lawyer so all corrections are welcome
28

Sometimes_cleaver t1_ixuqvvk wrote

You're commenting to people who's only understanding of the criminal justice system is from Law and Order.

18

DRZ36 t1_ixv2z07 wrote

Bail generally isn’t to keep people off the streets. It’s to ensure they show up in court, because the criminal process is really slow. When bail has been set, the state hasn’t proved anything, other than that they had probable cause to make an arrest, which is a really low bar. Your position is basically “if the police accuse someone of a violent crime, they should sit in jail indefinitely.”

33

Robobvious t1_ixx40sf wrote

And your position is if the police accuse someone of a violent crime, they should sit in jail indefinitely unless they pay the government a bribe?

−1

DRZ36 t1_ixx4m84 wrote

First of all, it’s not a payment to the government. It’s returned if you show up to court. Second, bail is an imperfect system and there are better alternatives that work in some circumstances, but it’s certainly better than locking up everyone until trial

2

smedlap t1_ixuyi72 wrote

Pressing fake pills that contain fentanyl is also a violent crime against a person.

13

killd1 t1_ixwtn5j wrote

Bail is not punitive. All people are innocent until proven guilty in court so they shouldn't be held in jail. Bail is a means to allow them out but with incentive to go to their trial and not flee. They get their bail money back. So bail is mostly set based on flight risk and how much money they have.

5