chargeorge t1_jcb74x4 wrote
Reply to comment by Grass8989 in Study shows those released under NY's bail reform laws are less likely to get rearrested by mowotlarx
No, that's not really how you should read that.
If violent felony re-arrests drops among the entire group, even if it went up slightly in one cohort, that's still a net drop. The recently had violent arrests groups is a small overall group.
So if you take this study at face value (Which, statistical studies like this are always going to be tough, and this is happening in the middle of a massive upheaval that makes any kind of data hard to parse) bail reform would suggest a lower number of re-arrests for crimes in total, and that bail reform dropped crime overall.
EITHER WAY, even the studies I've had that are more more critical of bail reform show very small effects. In terms of overall crime rates, bail reform is mostly just an emotional issue.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcbkyhn wrote
>In terms of overall crime rates, bail reform is mostly just an emotional issue.
That's not quite accurate (emphasis mine).
What's typically measured is not the quantity of crimes (via re-offenses).
They count the quantity of individuals that reoffend: if a single individual commits 50 crimes, that is counted as only 1.
That's a tangible difference on the streets, because most people care about "how many crimes are committed" a lot more than "how many reoffending criminals are out there".
matzoh_ball t1_jccd06f wrote
The 2020 amendments that took effect in July 2020 made some cases bail eligible again, including so-called "harm-harm" cases, aka cases that involve the harm to person or property where the defendant has an open case that also falls under that category. This basically takes care of a large swath of these repeat offenders that you are rightly concerned about.
So for example, if someone is arrested for petit larceny and released without bail, and then they're arrested again while their first case is still open, the judge is allowed to set bail or detain that person.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jccpv4x wrote
There's a loophole here though. First, trials don't happen in a timely manner when the defendant is on the street.
Second, if the defendant never shows up for trial, they can never get convicted.
So a person committing petty theft, for example, can do that forever as long as they never show up for trial, under the current laws.
A person committing misdemeanor violence (like playing the knockout game) can also do that forever as long as they never show up for trial.
chargeorge t1_jccqflx wrote
Rates of missed appearances were down in another study I saw. So more cope
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcd5bv7 wrote
The ones who appear are not an issue.
The ones who never appear are.
chargeorge t1_jcd96gs wrote
I feel like you are confusing arraignment and a trial here
matzoh_ball t1_jccss66 wrote
No, that would be to their disadvantage. The harm-harm rule doesn’t have anything to do with convictions, it’s about being arrested while having an open case, aka a case that did not yet lead to conviction, acquittal, or dismissal.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcd4ubh wrote
The harm to harm rule only applies when the defendant is being charged with a felony, no?
Anyone being charged with a misdemeanor cannot be held under the harm-harm rule.
matzoh_ball t1_jcdh8tm wrote
No, it doesn’t. While the harm-harm rule is kinda imprecise, the basic idea is that every crime is a “harm” crime except for “victimless crimes” such as prostitution or drug crimes (though some judges may consider the sale of meth as a harm crime while other judges may not, so there’s still room for discretion). In any case, for example petit larceny (a misdemeanor) is a harm to property crime and would thus be a harm-harm crime. The same is true for many other misdemeanors.
chargeorge t1_jcbn7bb wrote
I mean if you have some research that shows these people are committing extra crimes in a way that distorts the numbers sure of love to see it.
There are some numbers in the study that suggest the opposite, that those who do re offend in the bail reform group go longer before re offending.
If you have some data I’m happy to see it, but tbh that point sounds like cope.
Brokeliner t1_jcf7bmd wrote
> If violent felony re-arrests drops among the entire group, even if it went up slightly in one cohort, that's still a net drop.
Imagine the overall effect if we didn’t apply the law to violent felony arrests? The net drop would be so stupefyingly obvious it would be impossible to deny the law’s benefits. We should try it.
chargeorge t1_jcf7fvl wrote
We don’t, automatic bail reduction law doesn’t apply to vfo. Could we target "People who have had recent VFO arrests better, sure that seems like a good path
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments