Comments
AceContinuum t1_jdyj0fv wrote
And as for the usual "millionaires will just move" "rejoinder," the wealthy want the prestigious NYC address. There's a reason why millionaires haven't flocked to Bayonne or Harrison, even though they'd certainly save a bundle on taxes.
Neoliberalism2024 t1_jdymmf8 wrote
The wealthy own multiple homes. They can have a NYC address and just live there less than 182 days and avoid NYS and NYC income taxes.
AceContinuum t1_jdynwb1 wrote
This idea is not new. There is an entire cottage industry of legal and accounting professionals dedicated to helping the wealthy prove that they haven't exceeded 182 days in NYS.
caspiam t1_jdyqyuv wrote
Ridicules the idea that higher taxes will chase away millionaires.
Agrees that it's commons for millionaires to be chased away for at least half a year from ny to avoid taxes.
Gold.
AceContinuum t1_jdysicy wrote
The wealthy folks who are already carefully tracking their days in NYS will continue doing that even if their taxes stay the same. And they will continue doing that even if NYC taxes fall dramatically. They will continue doing it unless NYC's taxes fall to Sioux Falls, SD levels, which is simply not realistic. So this group of people can be entirely discounted in any talk of income tax policy. They are not going to change their residency under any realistic income tax model.
The wealthy folks who are spending 183+ days per year in NYC now are going to keep doing that even if their taxes go up a few percent. This group of people wants to spend 183+ days per year in NYC and can afford to do so. These folks also aren't going to change their residency under any realistic income tax model.
The previous commenter suggested that there is a group of wealthy folks who will suddenly "discover" the 183-day rule if taxes go up a few percent. The idea that there is any sizable number of wealthy folks whose accountants and lawyers haven't told them about the 183-day rule years ago is ludicrous.
pigoath t1_jdz4wq9 wrote
This^
djdjddhdhdh t1_je10pr5 wrote
Well partially, your income tax is still paid on time you work in NY, not sure how it work on equity grants or bonuses though for non resident, knowing Ny tho, they’ll claw it back
Neoliberalism2024 t1_je138ae wrote
The very rich are generally business owners and their income is via capital gains. Capital gains state tax is based on your primary residence only.
djdjddhdhdh t1_je13ez7 wrote
Ye so guess it’s work same way with equity grants since those are capital gains I guess
Manwelio t1_je1js5t wrote
Millionaires don't want to smell Bayonne.
Armoogeddon t1_jecyd7j wrote
Dude they’re leaving in droves.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/23/nyregion/millionaires-new-york-taxes.html
Sure there’s still plenty, but the trend is negative and the net population loss is a problem too.
AceContinuum t1_jed0q9h wrote
There's no net loss of millionaires, though. From the article:
>The 1,453 departures in 2021 did not create a millionaire shortage. New York State still had more than 80,000 millionaire taxpayers in 2021, up from about 70,000 in 2020.
So New York actually gained a net of 10,000 millionaires from 2020 to 2021.
SleepyHobo t1_jdy87ey wrote
The millionaires will just move their residency to another state. Same thing happened with France except they moved to a different country. All that money affords them hyper-mobility.
mowotlarx t1_jdy8xdr wrote
France is #6 in the list of countries with the most millionaires.
But, sure, they're a third world country now because all the millionaires are gone because they're asked to pay their fair share.
SleepyHobo t1_jdybwen wrote
Before you start spouting hyperboles and crap you have no idea of what you're talking about. Try educating yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_tax_on_wealth
Europe tried a wealth tax. It didn't work and that's why only 3 European countries still have one. They share the same problem we have. Millionaires can just move to another state (or country in Europe).
France lost billions of dollars in potential tax revenue and the average family impacted by the tax paid a paltry sum of around 2,000 euros.
mdervin t1_jdyqa1l wrote
>France lost billions of dollars in potential tax revenue and the average family impacted by the tax paid a paltry sum of around 2,000 euros.
Does that make sense to you? You really think that a Billionaire is going to uproot his and his family's life for a 2K tax increase? I mean you can't even get a used Toyota corolla for 2k.
[deleted] t1_je03ksy wrote
You misunderstand their point. Assuming everything they said is accurate, the fact that the average tax is 2K is because those who would have been taxed higher already moved and were thus excluded from the tax.
With that being said I'm skeptical the average tax was 2K, because even a handful of ultrawealthy who stay would really distort the average. My guess is that they meant "most families would paid the tax paid only 2K"
SleepyHobo t1_jdyror7 wrote
> average
psychothumbs t1_jdzvoed wrote
The wealth tax worked fine, it was just abolished when a right wing government came to power.
Type_suspect t1_je6bt64 wrote
France is a country so like you’d have to gain citizenship somewhere else… where in this example they just move states.
Rottimer t1_jdyto2i wrote
NY and NYC is one of the highest taxed places to live in the U.S.. Billionaires and Millionaires can choose to move right now if they wanted to and yet, NYC has the highest number of billionaires, not just in the country, but in the world. Something tells me we have some leeway to tax them more.
TheAJx t1_jdylary wrote
Despite ever increasing taxes on the wealthy in California (now up to 12% on the top tax brackets), California has seen an influx of millionaires moving in . . despite population loss in general.
Millionaire tax probably won't be a good policy, but ultimately what matters most in NY and NYC is cost of living (housing prices, utility prices, and transportation prices). That determines everything and is far more important than the tax structure.
Neoliberalism2024 t1_jdymicl wrote
They dont have new millionaires moving in. They HAD new millionaires being MADE, because silicon valley had a shit ton of IPOs before the bubble crashed, and lots of people become millionaires thru their options. A large portion of those newly minted milionaires left. And silicon valley isnt going to minting many millionaires the next few years.
AnacharsisIV t1_je55jrj wrote
Not to mention the fact that housing prices in California are insane (much like NY) that over the last decade or so plenty of middle class homeowners who were able to get in when houses were affordable became millionaires simply because their house shot up hundreds of thousands of dollars in value.
Farrell-Mars t1_jdyazwt wrote
Those rich people are too smart to pay more just to stay home in the city they love! It’s gonna be a ghost town, I tell ya!
SleepyHobo t1_jdyc0lt wrote
Tax people enough and they'll leave.
Farrell-Mars t1_jdyhnls wrote
Suddenly it will no longer be the most interesting city. I get it!
Pool_Shark t1_je0frpf wrote
Good. Don’t let the door hit them on the way out.
BakedBread65 t1_jdy7u3g wrote
Whataboutism
mowotlarx t1_jdy8ful wrote
Like when a right wing news outlet picks and chooses which poll results to write about from the exact same poll, because one results doesn't meld with their world views?
BakedBread65 t1_jdyazqs wrote
No, that’s just choosing to write about one topic and not another. Whataboutism is you posting about an unrelated topic in the comments.
mowotlarx t1_jdyews3 wrote
It's not unrelated because it's from the same Siena poll and other news outlets have reported both of these statistics together - but the Post chose to ignore that.
KidAstoria t1_jdxsakw wrote
Wrong.
mowotlarx t1_jdxvc19 wrote
Poll: New Yorkers back bail changes, millionaires tax
It's literally the same poll. U mad?
iv2892 t1_jdy3sop wrote
I mean is obvious that this is a policy that most New Yorkers and liberals in general support. I don’t get the point of people being a contrarian on this
RepresentativeAge444 t1_jdy7mgk wrote
Most Americans in general. But bootlicker/I’ll be a millionaire one day really!!! types are going to do what they do.
[deleted] t1_jdyq4ft wrote
[deleted]
Pinkydoodle2 t1_jdxwvsj wrote
Obvious bot
1600hazenstreet t1_jdxrjft wrote
Gaslighting much?
mowotlarx t1_jdxs8sw wrote
What do you think gaslighting means? This article is referencing a single poll. The same poll also indicated a majority of voters support a larger tax in millionaires. They're cherry picking the information they want.
tyen0 t1_jdxyumu wrote
I don't think you know what that means.
shitthatmakesmelaugh t1_jdyrbj9 wrote
Progressives think you shouldn’t be able to pay your way out of jail. Progressives are right about this. Bail is stupid. Either you are a danger to those around you, or you aren’t. Whether you are able to pay or not, should have no bearing on whether you are a threat.
Not hard. If reforms need to be made around the edges, we are in favor of that. No such thing as a perfect justice system. Doesn’t mean New Yorkers think the old bail system made any fucking sense.
[deleted] t1_je03j7k wrote
[deleted]
shitthatmakesmelaugh t1_je06023 wrote
You already wrote this exact comment. You didn’t respond to me there. Your comment makes even less sense out-of-context than it does in-context.
It is obvious you can’t defend your position. Emerge from your safe space, bitch boy. Don’t just opine because your favorite baby-brained outrage daddies characterize progressive positions as “pro-crime”. Educate yourself.
It’s simple. If you are a flight risk, or a danger to others around you, a prosecutor should be able to make the case for, and a judge should remand the defendant to, pre-trial detention. Your ability to pay bail should have no bearing on this.
[deleted] t1_je09otx wrote
[deleted]
shitthatmakesmelaugh t1_je0arc2 wrote
Not only are you ignorant to the specifics of the issues you opine on, you don’t know how Reddit works. Your comment is still there. I can’t delete your comments, dumbfuck.
[deleted] t1_je0aygn wrote
[deleted]
shitthatmakesmelaugh t1_je0b6zs wrote
[deleted] t1_je0c0hj wrote
[deleted]
shitthatmakesmelaugh t1_je0ft1o wrote
Yet another thing you're wrong about. At least you're consistent.
[deleted] t1_jdzsv6y wrote
[deleted]
shitthatmakesmelaugh t1_jdztrg4 wrote
Explain, genius. Why do you think your wealth should have any bearing on the conditions of your life as you await trial?
Silentarrowz t1_jdzu13q wrote
Why? You think wealthy people should be able to pay their way out of jail?
[deleted] t1_jdzuh2r wrote
[deleted]
Silentarrowz t1_jdzump2 wrote
Then why is it one of the "stupidest takes i've ever seen?" Which part of it was stupid?
[deleted] t1_jdzuurd wrote
[deleted]
Silentarrowz t1_jdzuxz0 wrote
You're incorrect.
[deleted] t1_jdzv2gi wrote
[deleted]
Grass8989 OP t1_jdxe54r wrote
“An overwhelming majority of New Yorkers appear to want Albany Democrats to overhaul bail reform, a new poll shows — giving Gov. Kathy Hochul ammo for budget talks to try to force more change.
Seventy-two percent of Empire State residents support giving judges more discretion to set bail for those accused of serious crimes — with a breakdown of 76% of Democrats, 71% of independents and 69% of Republicans, according to the Siena College poll.
Related changes were supported across every demographic covered by the survey of 802 registered voters. The poll had a margin of error of 4.6%, including race, sex, religion, religion, and geography.
Almost all New Yorkers – 92% – believe crime is “very serious” or “somewhat serious” of a problem statewide, while 65% say the same about their own community.
The 65% of black New Yorkers who favor more judicial discretion were the smallest majority of any group.
“For more than a year, at least 90% of voters have said crime is a serious problem in the state, at least 60% say very serious,” Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg said.”
Neoliberalism2024 t1_jdxi92z wrote
Lmao democrats support this even more than republicans.
Sorry progressives, we tried it your way, and it was a huge failure, that got countless people hurt and murdered. Time to give control of the party back to the sane democrats.
Just4Kicks_Today t1_jdxxj5q wrote
You’ll see a huge shift in the Asian and Jewish vote soon. They are tired of seeing criminals on the streets. Just watch
BakedBread65 t1_jdy89iw wrote
Soon? It already happened. These “reforms” are a big reason republicans won so many house seats in NY.
Just4Kicks_Today t1_jdyo7h0 wrote
You will be glad to hear they haven’t come out in full force yet. It’s only the beginning. Liberal policies do nothing for the Asian American communities. They use to all campaign for blue. They haven’t openly come out to campaign red but they sure as hell will over the next couple of years
-
Crime on our elders and seeing the accused being let out even after countless footage being shared around. It is demoralizing to continually see
-
Specialized High Schools mean nothing now and more and more leave the city to go into Long Island
-
Jails and homeless shelters being built right in our Chinatown
We are all about mind your own business but now it’s affecting our business
Asians only care about education and safety. Each ethic group have their own agendas and the liberals definitely do not support the Asian community at all. The one good thing about America is the democracy and that each person gets the vote for what they believe in. I do not blame anyone for voting the way they do based off of what they believe and what benefits them. At the same time they can not ignore why Asians will stop supporting progressive reform. Majority wins and that’s how it should be. Either prove they care or watch the change
I hope liberal leaders read this or scroll through Reddit because this is on you guys for alienating our voice and vote. Be afraid our numbers are growing
Down voting me won’t change the sentiment. You’ll see us in full force coming soon. Numbers won’t lie
numba1cyberwarrior t1_jdz7b7u wrote
>Asians only care about education and safety. Each ethic group have their own agendas and the liberals definitely do not support the Asian community at all
Its funny how the biggest losses were in Southern Brooklyn which are also communities like Russians, Jews, etc that also care mostly about education and safety.
1600hazenstreet t1_jdxrs46 wrote
Only reason they care now, is the voters are fed up, and voting them out of office.
Peking_Meerschaum t1_jdy0ejz wrote
We had our chance with Zeldin. He came so close, but a majority of voters would rather continue living under more crime than potentially be called racist. Also he wouldn't be trying to take away our natural gas heating and stoves, as an added bonus.
iv2892 t1_jdy49y9 wrote
Violent Crime is down for the year , and mostly flat on all other stats . Zeldin had some good proposals but I don’t think he would have made a difference other than firing Bragg. If Albany makes these changes , they will avoid losing in the next election. Democrats are just doing the smart thing here , otherwise they will get wiped out if they can’t listen to the polls
BakedBread65 t1_jdy8fue wrote
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/05/nyregion/new-york-crime-stats.html
Certain crimes are up, it’s just shooting and homicides that are down
iv2892 t1_jdyj81z wrote
Rapes are also down , and the ones that are up are not up by that much .
casanovaelrey t1_jdxn363 wrote
We've tried the "tough on crime" and "War on Drugs" angle for 40+ years. Sooooooo yeah, I don't know that 2 years is enough to undo decades of terrible conservative policies. Plus bail IS NOT PUNISHMENT. That's LITERALLY a violation of several constitutional amendments to impose a punishment before a sentence has been given by a judge.
That being said, the revolving door of people with 10,000 charges being let back out on the street is wild. There should be a precondition that people released must not commit new crimes and that certain crimes go through a separate review process to determine whether that person can safely be allowed to be released pretrial.
And before ANYONE says "well *insert number" people support it", I don't care. Not everyone knows the law and most people operate based on what they think the law is. But I digress.
The current dynamic can't continue but it can't continue anymore than the one favored by the conservatives for the last several decades can continue. We need to sit down and come up with policy divorced of politics and pleasing "the other side of the aisle". Or else we will end up having this discussion again.
Curiosities t1_jdxsbg4 wrote
Yep. A lot of people don't even know what bail is, especially that it's not punitive, and opportunistic politicians and media like the Post capitalize on that. You'll hear the same talking points - 'no consequences for criminals', 'they'll be out in a few hours', 'no consequences for crimes', 'soft on crime' etc but if you ask the people parroting those lines they're fed, how many of them could tell you what bail is, what its function is, what charges qualify, (and importantly under bail reform, the MANY charges that don't qualify for no bail)?
As well as the facts that arraigned suspects need to be tried, that they are legally innocent until proven guilty, that punishment comes after a conviction (or plea deal, because that's where 90%+ of convictions happen).
Too many people think that an arrest means guilty, when that's not how the legal system works, and also, the wrong people are sometimes arrested. The cops are among those saying this misinformation loudly, saying their hands are tied, can't do their jobs, etc when they often slack off and refuse to do their job (a local chain that has had theft can't rely on the cops coming to take their reports), and part of their job is working to provide the DA with enough evidence to prove their cases.
casanovaelrey t1_jdxus9j wrote
Thank you. I have nothing to add. You're right on the money here.
AceContinuum t1_jdyjq9n wrote
>The cops are among those saying this misinformation loudly, saying their hands are tied, can't do their jobs, etc when they often slack off and refuse to do their job (a local chain that has had theft can't rely on the cops coming to take their reports)
The journalists are also complicit in this. Every time a cop claims their "hands are tied," the immediate response should be to ask the cop to explain how exactly the bail reform law "tied their hands." Which provision takes away cops' power to investigate? Which provision takes away cops' power to arrest? Which provision makes shoplifting "legal"?
The uncritical mainstream media narrative of bail reform "tying the hands of law enforcement" is one of the most in-your-face examples of propaganda - copaganda - I've ever seen.
mule_roany_mare t1_jdy1f9v wrote
We need to get rid of bail bondsmen
-
they inflate the amount of bail necessary by a ridiculous amount
-
they keep their fee no matter what
Just set bail to be a sufficient amount to keep a person from running & return it all in full when they show up to court. There is no reason a person should pay a bail bondsmen 10k to cover their 500k bail.
Bail bondsmen shouldn't be picking up bail-jumpers either. That should be law enforcement's job.
TLDR
Bail is just supposed to ensure people show up to court & make it too expensive onerous to run.
It's not a fee for the privilege to waiting for trial outside jail.
IRequirePants t1_jdxzehv wrote
> We've tried the "tough on crime" and "War on Drugs" angle for 40+ years
And all we got to show for it is the lowest murder rate in almost a century.
SuckMyBike t1_jdz3eym wrote
Every other developed country currently also has their lowest murder rate in a century. But they are locking up 10x fewer people than the US is.
In fact, despite by far having the highest prison population of any country (and it's not even close), the US still has the highest homicide rates of any developed country.
It's almost as if it's not working at all. If locking more people up was working, then the US should have the lowest crime rates of developed countries, not the highest.
IRequirePants t1_je0l9p9 wrote
>Every other developed country currently also has their lowest murder rate in a century. But they are locking up 10x fewer people than the US is
There is a million and a half reasons why this is. Edit: Since the comment was deleted - there are a million and half reasons why the US and other western countries have different circumstances
>It's almost as if it's not working at all.
The (until recently) record low homicide rate begs to differ.
SuckMyBike t1_je0li2b wrote
This post is pathetic. On the one hand you claim that there are a million reasons why crime rates are low in other countries, but then you go and claim that the US crime rate being low is thanks to putting people in prison.
Fucking pathetic.
fafalone t1_jdyt29l wrote
Computer technology got us the lowest murder rate in a century.
What, you can't just impute causation to whatever has a correlation?
Studied directly, the war on drugs has been an epic disaster, and crime fell entirely independent of it.
The murder rate fell despite the war on drugs funneling trillions to gangs and cartels, making them more powerful than ever.
IRequirePants t1_jdyux74 wrote
> Computer technology got us the lowest murder rate in a century.
COMPSTAT certainly helped.
I guess the difference here is that "War on Drugs" directly funneled money into police. It isn't tangential. It's directly related.
Now, if you want to say the War on Drugs had massive amounts of waste and other related societal harms, then sure. Over-incarceration, "stop-and-frisk" violations, etc.
RoozGol t1_jdxr3nd wrote
Failed? Has the crime not been constantly falling from the 80's? It started to pick up on again due to policy change. Data is clear
andydh96 t1_jdxsba5 wrote
Crime as a whole rose nationally during COVID. It's disingenuous (and incorrect) to imply that the increase in crime here is solely because of bail reform when crime also increased in non-bail reform states/cities.
mehkindaok t1_jdy20y8 wrote
Crime as a whole rose nationally when it got decriminalized.
TheAJx t1_jdymigp wrote
Okay, well COVID is over for most sane people now and has been for about a year. How do we address the issue of elevated levels of crime in this city?
SuckMyBike t1_jdz3tho wrote
>How do we address the issue of elevated levels of crime in this city?
Let's do that!
Criminologists have been in near uniform agreement for a while now: the biggest cause of crime is poverty.
So if you have any proposals on how to reduce poverty, I'd love to hear them
TheAJx t1_je08m0y wrote
How about this, can we address the proximate issues of crime, getting multiple time offenders off the streets, stopping shoplifters etc while we take on the huge task of reordering society to reduce poverty?
SuckMyBike t1_je0iht4 wrote
It sounds like you only want to do the first and not the second.
TheAJx t1_je0k68k wrote
I would like to do both, mainly because they are both important goals independent of each other.
I'm not particularly convinced about the povert -> crime argument in this case, given that poverty rates went down during COVID thanks to massive government cash infusions.
SuckMyBike t1_je0kwe5 wrote
How on earth can someone in 2023 still question the direct correlation between poverty and crime?!
What the fuck .. this is basic knowledge amongst criminologists. Have you never spoken to one?
TheAJx t1_je0oeiu wrote
Bangladesh and Ghana are pretty poor, but not particularly violent either.
Poverty went Down during COVID yet crime skyrocketed. Poverty went up significantly in 2008 but crime did not spike at nearly the same levels (and went down within a year or two).
> Have you never spoken to one?
You guys are all the same, thinking that sociology professors have all the answers to society's problems. Crimnologists have also found that hiring more police on the streets leads to less crime. Are you in favor of that?
SuckMyBike t1_je0oom1 wrote
>Crimnologists have also found that hiring more police on the streets leads to less crime.
Actually, criminologists concistently find that repression is a very weak correlator with reducing crime rates.
But what do you care. You just invent your own facts based on your gut feeling and then think you know everything. Fuck off
NetQuarterLatte t1_je0jz62 wrote
COVID happened worldwide, but crimes didn’t rise worldwide.
If your logic about the bail reform is right, then you must also conclude that COVID is not what caused crimes to rise.
andydh96 t1_je0ttky wrote
You either didn't ready my comment carefully or purposely misinterpreted it, so I'll make it easier for you.
I said bail reform is not the SOLE CAUSE of crime increase -- that's easy to see from crime stats nationally that likewise show increases in non-bail reform states and locales. But neither did I say that COVID was the sole cause -- that too would be disingenuous and an overly-simplistic conclusion (same as your stance which seems to be only blaming bail reform). Effects can have multiple causes -- this is why statistical analyses exist to calculate how much of the increase we can attribute to one factor versus another.
I would suggest against looking at global crime statistics, its like comparing apples and oranges (besides the fact that reported data for many countries are unreliable). Too many different variables across countries makes the comparison far less useful than comparing among states for making policy decisions based off those statistical trends.
NetQuarterLatte t1_je1oi53 wrote
The gist is that you were trying to associate covid and crimes.
I get that you’re saying it’s not the sole cause, but even if factually true (your statement would still be technically true if Covid was not a cause at all), it’s still misleading in the overarching context of the conversation.
Even in the US, Covid didn’t hit every city at the same time. The staggered manner in which Covid hit US locations can be used to show a causal relationship of Covid and Crimes, if that exists. However there’s basically no evidence of that.
In fact, NYC got Covid waves earlier than most cities. But even in 2022 we had crimes still rising in NYC faster than other big cities like LA, Chicago and Miami.
andydh96 t1_je26v7v wrote
I'm sorry but objectively speaking, what you are saying isn't fully accurate. COVID shut down the national economy. As is typically the case when the economy and employment rates decline, crime goes up and COVID and its short term effects were no exception. Making it sound like we should be beyond COVID is a bit of an over-simplification -- yes in theory we are beyond the pandemic stage but we are still suffering from indirect effects particularly with the economy, supply-chain issues, etc. I think sane minds can agree the economy still hasn't recovered fully. Just because we aren't dealing with something in our faces doesn't mean its effects aren't there. The timing of the COVID waves too isn't really relevant - neither NYC nor the rest of the country operates within its own bubble, just not how society or economies work. When NYC shut down first, it still had ripple effects across the country despite the virus not being nationally widespread yet.
On an aside, I also question the validity of your statement about our crime rates increasing at a larger rate compared to other large US cities but I don't have hard statistics to support my skepticism. Care to link for my own education?
NetQuarterLatte t1_je36b3j wrote
Here's a comparison of the increase in violent felonies across those cities during 2022 compared to 2021: https://imgur.com/a/YbvYifw
If your hypothesis linking of Covid to crimes depends on the economy, you can look at the economy directly. Poverty in the US dropped to 20-year lows (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPAAUS00000A156NCEN) during Covid. That puts a dent in the supposed link between economics and crimes nationwide.
But crimes, in NYC at least, climbed to 20-year highs for some crimes.
[deleted] t1_jdxui19 wrote
[deleted]
casanovaelrey t1_jdxulur wrote
I would answer this but the person right below you (above this answer) answered what I would have said.
TheAJx t1_jdymarc wrote
> We've tried the "tough on crime" and "War on Drugs" angle for 40+ years.
Not a fan of the war on drugs, but "tough on crime" over the last 40 years or so has been pretty effective. Homicide rate basically cut in half since the early 90s. Violent crime in cities like NYC and LA down like 80% off their peaks. It's so weird to see people act like the last few decades have been abject failures in policing. Crime rates are a many-decade lows. Incarceration rate is at its lowest point since the mid 90s.
SuckMyBike t1_jdz3ned wrote
Crime rates in all other countries dropped just like it did in the US. But they didn't use a "tough on crime" approach to achieve it.
The more likely explanation for why both the US and other countries saw declining crime rates is the banning of lead gasoline and improvements in economic prosperity.
To criminologists, it is also no surprise that crime has been up since the pandemic. Crime rates also saw an uptick during the 2008 financial crisis.
Bad economic times = more crime. Other countries are experiencing a similar uptick in crime without any "bail reform". Surely the recent uptick in crime in Finland isn't caused by NY bail reform, is it?
TheAJx t1_je0de7g wrote
I only call it "tough on crime" because that's the terminology you guys use and you guys continue to insist that it was some sort of failure. I think better policing over the last 30-40 years has been pretty effective.
>Crime rates also saw an uptick during the 2008 financial crisis.
The uptick in crime was nowhere near as bad as it was in the last few years. And it quickly waned, leading to continued lower crime rates.
>banning of lead gasoline and improvements in economic prosperity.
Was there a bunch of lead that entered the system in 2020?
Due to CARES ACT, PPP and stimulus checks, poverty rates and household debt decreased. Incomes actually rose (an unemployed person was earning a minimum of $600 / weekly).
>Bad economic times = more crime. Other countries are experiencing a similar uptick in crime without any "bail reform". Surely the recent uptick in crime in Finland isn't caused by NY bail reform, is it?
Did other countries see 20-30% increases in homicides like the US did? Maybe Finland did . . its hard to extrapolate based of one country with a population about the size of Brooklyn and Queens. TO my knowledge, no large countries experienced the surge in crime to the levels the US did.
SuckMyBike t1_je0l4ns wrote
>I think better policing over the last 30-40 years has been pretty effective. .
10x more people in prison per Capita than Germany and yet way higher crime rates?
You call that a success? Man, your parents must've put the bar for your achievements insanely low
TheAJx t1_je0o0ce wrote
>10x more people in prison per Capita than Germany and yet way higher crime rates?
We have far more guns on the streets than Europe.
>You call that a success? Man, your parents must've put the bar for your achievements insanely low
Like I said, violent crime in NYC fell by 80%. I'm happy for that. Maybe you're mad because more criminals went to jail.
SuckMyBike t1_je0otwe wrote
I'm mad because sad people like yourself are preventing the US from reforming the prison system to be in line with other developed countries.
.instead, you want to keep a prison system that dictators use.
frost5al t1_jdy3vzj wrote
>come up with a policy devoid of politics
>policy
>devoid
>of politics
lol
Peking_Meerschaum t1_jdxzked wrote
It's simple physics, though. If someone is locked in a secure box away from the general public, their ability to inflict injury upon said public drops to zero.
> I don't know that 2 years is enough to undo decades of terrible conservative policies.
We were never truly "tough on crime." It's time to try to Singapore model, enough is enough.
AceContinuum t1_jdym2ro wrote
>It's time to try to Singapore model, enough is enough.
You mean the "Singapore model" of having 80% of the city's population living in high-quality public housing, supported by a truly universal and affordable state-run healthcare system?
That could actually work. It would go a long way toward providing increased stability and, as a result, reducing crime.
But somehow I feel like you're referring more to things like putting people in jail for selling gum, downloading porn or criticizing the Mayor.
Peking_Meerschaum t1_jdyp90p wrote
Absolutely, I fully agree with this deal. Singapore's HDB Scheme of public housing is one of the most successful urban planning programs in modern history. But you should understand what you are suggesting, because it is probably different than how you're envisioning it.
It is important to understand that Singapore's HDB system is truly meritocratic, it isn't just a handout of free housing, but rather a form of lend-lease whereby Singapore citizens can apply for subsidized housing after meeting social criteria such as being married, and not having been convicted of a serious crime, and agreeing to abide by the rules and regulations of the housing program and the state, which are vigorously enforced by a network of community patrols and cameras. Also, married citizens who have more than two children are given priority.
If we couple this program with Singapore's robust and judicious use of corporal punishment (caning) for crimes such as vandalism and sexual assault, and the death penalty for drug dealing, then I really think we might be off to a good start. I would love to see NYCHA housing being as judiciously and equitably dispensed to good virtuous citizens as are Singapore's HDB flats, and I would love to see those who piss in and graffiti the NYCHA elevators and stairwells get the cane, and I would love to see those who deal drugs in the NYCHA halls get the death penalty.
SuckMyBike t1_jdz3yg5 wrote
> We were never truly "tough on crime."
-> US literally has a 10x higher incarceration rate than Germany
-> US was never tough on crime
You're insane
Peking_Meerschaum t1_je01cgn wrote
I didn't say incarceration
WickhamAkimbo t1_je0039l wrote
> Time to give control of the party back to the sane democrats.
Time to give it back to the adults. The NYU student progressives have no life experience, no sense of nuance, and laughably poor critical thinking skills and shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power for their own good and the good of everyone else.
poeticspider t1_jdy23le wrote
Put the adults back in charge.
huebomont t1_jdyfv7d wrote
There’s still not evidence tying a rise in crime to bail reform and people’s opinions are almost exclusively influenced by the media they consume which has been on a non-stop campaign to reverse bail reform for years.
But yeah, let’s go back to the system that didn’t work for 40 years because you think this one didn’t work for what, 2?
Grass8989 OP t1_jdyh9o6 wrote
Statistics came out that there has been more recidivism amongst violent offenders since bail reform.
“The one exception was for bail-eligible people who were released following recent violent felony arrests. The rate of rearrests for that cohort of offenders increased slightly.”
Rottimer t1_jdyu9sm wrote
Yep, those high murder states of Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, what with all their progressive bail reform. . .
oh wait. . .
Oisschez t1_jdym1qb wrote
Would you shut up man, we’ve done it your way too, for the 50 odd years preceding bail reform.
Shocking that bail reform doesn’t work in a vacuum, and we need a complete overhaul of our criminal justice system for it to truly work. The machine Democrats do not work for me or you or the “countless people hurt and murdered”, as if bail reform that has anything to do with the root causes of crime.
The same democrats you speak of are corporate stooges who do not give a shit about you
Oslopa t1_jdxjsu5 wrote
Sure, let’s jump into a tough on crime policy, despite the evidence not showing that bail reform has been the problem. It’s an emotional reaction leading to a knee jerk over-correction.
Elizasol t1_jdxlki9 wrote
When there are many people walking the streets with 100+ arrests, I think it's safe to conclude there is something wrong with bail
mehkindaok t1_jdy2tnj wrote
It’s all part of the green new deal - connect the revolving door of justice to a generator and it will power the entire state!
huebomont t1_jdyg14b wrote
Even though the rise in crime happened in states without bail reform too?
casanovaelrey t1_jdxnk3j wrote
Opposed to people consistently being wrongly convicted or held for YEARS on charges that are then dropped due to lack of evidence. Bail is NOT PUNISHMENT. We need to do something but we need an original idea.
Bma1500 t1_jdxpbzp wrote
New York grants the right to a speedy trial known as 180.80. You demand that the DA gather their evidence and indict you within 6 days or you walk free.
If you’re wrongfully arrested, invoke that and tell them to put up or shut up
casanovaelrey t1_jdxr5g8 wrote
I know about this. Unfortunately I think you misunderstand what "wrongfully arrested" means here. It means you were arrested and/or convicted for a cringe you did not commit. If the DA has evidence that they claim link you to the crime insert Central Park 5, Richard Rosario, etc then this law wouldn't apply. Also everyone doesn't know if this law (and often public defenders as agents of the state pressure innocent people to take deals). There are too many moving parts. The system is broken and running back to something that doesn't work is not the best move.
Oslopa t1_jdxr0xo wrote
When I make up whatever facts suit my predetermined conclusion, I also find that arguments are easy to win!
Elizasol t1_jdy8w6z wrote
Either you don't actually live here or you haven't been keeping up with the news over the past few years
Oslopa t1_jdyoi07 wrote
I live here and am familiar with the NYPost-type coverage, which usually cherry-picks examples and glosses over important details. You’re reacting, not thinking.
Elizasol t1_jdyop69 wrote
> When there are many people walking the streets with 100+ arrests, I think it's safe to conclude there is something wrong with bail
sternfan1523 t1_jdxn3sd wrote
you can't have bail reform but also not allow for them to have discretion on if they are likely to be a violent risk. It's one or the other.
ffzero58 t1_jdxn8pe wrote
Whoever implemented this version of bail reform did not do a thorough job of closing out some odd loopholes. However, bail reform did help a very high number of folks who were first time offenders to not lose their jobs and livelihood. I hope the next iteration of reforms will fix these issues - especially the career criminals and repeat offenders.
mehkindaok t1_jdy33g7 wrote
It showed the first time offenders there is zero consequence consequence and turns them into 100th time offenders.
SmurfsNeverDie t1_jdxn84g wrote
When its your family member that gets stabbed because someone with a violent record got off easily ill hear you out
[deleted] t1_jdxmj6h wrote
[deleted]
casanovaelrey t1_jdxncb9 wrote
EXACTLY. But that's what conservatives do best. Knee-jerk, fear monger, and overcorrect based on how many people of the "others" they can hurt in the process.
Grass8989 OP t1_jdxpdfh wrote
“with a breakdown of 76% of Democrats, 71% of independents and 69% of Republicans, according to the Siena College poll.”
Conservatives?
casanovaelrey t1_jdxqeka wrote
> And before ANYONE says "well *insert number" people support it", I don't care. Not everyone knows the law and most people operate based on what they think the law is. But I digress.
DEFINITELY must have missed this part in your quest to be right.
Also the "Tough on crime" and "War on Drugs" legacy conservative policies and a cornerstone of ANYTHING they talk about. So I stand by my comments.
Peking_Meerschaum t1_jdxzyzo wrote
You can't just hand-wave away the will of a significant majority of all voters because they don't have NYU law degrees. Luckily it doesn't matter if you don't care what the majority of residents of this state want, we still live in a democracy and the majority rules.
Misommar1246 t1_jdxh6f1 wrote
Finally something most of us agree on it seems: judges should have more discretion in bail sentencing. Criminals with violent crime records should not be allowed bail or if bail must be set, it should be set to a very high number.
Tobar_the_Gypsy t1_jdym1i4 wrote
Just make two options: no bail or no release. It’s not difficult.
Salt-Temperature-481 t1_jdykqvf wrote
Yet nothing will be done about. The only way politicians act on anything is when it hits them personally or close to home.
TheAJx t1_jdylls5 wrote
> Seventy-two percent of Empire State residents support giving judges more discretion to set bail for those accused of serious crimes — with a breakdown of 76% of Democrats, 71% of independents and 69% of Republicans, according to the Siena College poll.
Correct me if I' wrong, but didn't the evidence show that giving judges "discretion" actually leads to more violent criminals getting out on bail. Just make the rules tougher and have judges enforce them.
KaiDaiz t1_jdxh665 wrote
Bail reform is not the major issue. Speedy trial and discovery reform is what's really driving the work load and priority of cases at DA offices to work on and abandon for eventually dismissal by 30.30. Which contributes to the appearance of revolving door of perps and lack of priority to resolve the issue by police, courts, govt
Also Gov needs to revisit the Grieving Families Act that she veto due to special interest lobby - another massive failure that no one is talking about nor much in news
ephemeraljelly t1_jdxnisn wrote
the solution is paying city employees to do their jobs. a paralegal in the FOIL unit makes $38,000 in new york city, thats fucking absurd in 2023
[deleted] t1_je0ao79 wrote
[deleted]
ephemeraljelly t1_je1gb43 wrote
plus if you ask to be comped for subway fares they just take it out of your paycheck at a “slightly reduced” rate lol
Oslopa t1_jdxkbwz wrote
So… we shouldn’t ensure that defendants get the evidence against them in a timely manner, or get a speedy trial?
There may be some truth in noting that 30.30 is getting a lot of cases dismissed. But the solution to that is more resources for handling the process, not subjecting people to unjust processes as a form of extra-legal punishment. It’s the same thing with cashless bail. So much of the criticism isn’t about the law, it’s about how an overwhelmed prosecutorial system is dealing with the law. We need to find a better response than to just unwind the reforms so that our prosecutors can have the upper hand again to railroad defendants.
MeVersusShark t1_jdxnxa8 wrote
If a judge was allowed to make a determination as to the proper sanction against the state for a missing item of discovery instead of immediately imposing the draconian remedy of 30.30 dismissals, maybe we could have a fair process that doesn't require doubling the workforce of DA's offices. For example, preclude the state from calling a witness if they failed to provide discovery related to that witness.
CPL 245.80 actually appears to provide that framework, but hasn't been effectively utilized because 30.30 accrual has become the default remedy.
mowotlarx t1_jdxms43 wrote
No. Discovery is the correct, legal and ETHICAL thing to do. If it's an issue, fund the courts and more staff. Everyone on trial is entitled to ALL of the evidence against them. Period
"Grieving families" don't take priority over a fair trial. That could be your or any one of us railroaded at trial with an immoral prosecutor withholding evidence.
JayemmbeeEsq t1_jdxvys0 wrote
This is the problem that DAs have been screaming about. The legislature burdened the offices with discovery reforms that required significant staff and technology improvements and offered 0 dollars in assistance to implement it.
mowotlarx t1_jdy1z2u wrote
They should get the staff and funds. And keep discovery regardless because it's the right thing to do.
JayemmbeeEsq t1_jdy2sd7 wrote
I put my larger thoughts in a comment below. I’m not saying get rid of it, tweak it and make money available for it.
mowotlarx t1_jdy37yz wrote
I totally agree. Discovery needs to be kept, but it was a massive oversight to not provide the staffing and funding to make it feasible. Our court system has always been understaffed and underfunded and that alone has caused most of the delays and backlogs in the system. It's a shame.
BakedBread65 t1_jdya8k7 wrote
The system will always be flawed with this law. When you give a defendant the chance to dismiss a case because the prosecution didn’t turn over the memobook for the 6th officer who responded to a scene, the defense is going to file a motion to dismiss. Then that takes months to resolve, slowing down the case, and clogging the courts further. Now prosecutors are so busy all cases are being plead down, and nobody has time for trial, so tons of discovery is being shared so nobody goes to trial.
In the same way the bail law gives judges no discretion, the discovery law gives judges no discretion to weigh the importance/prejudice of any items not turned over.
Nobody is saying NY should go back to the old ways for discovery, but there are other states that have balanced criminal discovery in a way that doesn’t result in the dismissals NY has.
mowotlarx t1_jdyf5fb wrote
If a system required defendants to have one hand tied behind their backs for everything to work properly, it was always a broken justice system.
Discovery laws are just. The issue is funding the court system. We need to pump way more $$ for staffing to handle the work they always should have been doing
BakedBread65 t1_jdyhmya wrote
I don’t think you actually read what I wrote because you’re not responding to it.
Again, the problem is not requiring more discovery, but imposing a penalty completely disproportionate to the items not turned over, especially when those items aren’t in the people’s possession.
KaiDaiz t1_je0apag wrote
their mindset already set...if a paper is missing a dotted i -therefore entire paper must be tossed and failed
KaiDaiz t1_jdyb2wz wrote
Discovery of relevant information to the case is the right and ethnical thing to do vs right now chasing and bogging down the system chasing irrelevant info that don't matter/change the case but subject entire case to dismissal on a short arbitrary deadline that was setup to fail is insane
You telling me its important to cases to collect the log books and officer complaints/work history of cops that show up and left never saw anything/interacted with victim/perp/witness/anyone is relevant details to waste resources on? and the people not even calling them as a witness. All you creating is mindless paperwork for nothing. No staff/resource in the world can cover that waste of time
mowotlarx t1_jdyesbf wrote
Who gets to decide what is relevant? And why should it be the prosecution? Everyone deserves to see EVERY DETAIL in a case against them.
KaiDaiz t1_jdyfb0n wrote
judge, the jury....then let it go to trial....we arent even reaching that phase. we stuck arguing x is missing out of umpteen docs and want to toss entire case pretrial. you think that's fair? we are literally arguing at the pregame phase over someone the team don't even plan to put in the game
mowotlarx t1_jdyisxn wrote
>you think that's fair
Yes. Because defendants have a right to see evidence in a case against them. The courts shouldn't be a trial mill. These are people's lives we are judging. And I certainly don't think we should trust a prosecutor to judge what evidence is valuable or not to the defense.
KaiDaiz t1_jdyl1k5 wrote
what evidence used against them? said missing piece not even called as a witness/evidence against the accused....there's a reason why it wasn't collected the first place and presented to court in timely manner...no one care for it...it was not important to case and not plan to use against accused
mowotlarx t1_jdzklsh wrote
It was not important to the prosecution. That doesn't mean it's not important to the defense. Given the track record of prosecutors withholding evidence from the defense, I would never trust the word of a prosecutor on what is relevant or not.
KaiDaiz t1_je014a1 wrote
how is it important for the defense for statements for someone not even present at the crime/incident? seriously running circles...its only important bc they can claim failure to dot the I to toss entire case.
again...something like this shouldn't toss the entire case since entire prosecution not based on it. let it go to trial, let the jury decide? whats the fear? you get your day in court same with the people vs tossing things on technicality. just don't allow it as evidence against the accused...that's the fair approach. but nope...dolts like you think otherwise
ephemeraljelly t1_jdyj0nq wrote
the defense team should still have the opportunity to view it. again, as someone whose responsibility it was to collect logbooks, its not difficult. it takes like a minute at most to send
KaiDaiz t1_je03aon wrote
defense don't even use it. they only care its missing. its minutes x other cases and things folks have to do. its mindless busywork for nothing and simple things like this missed shouldn't tank the entire case since entire case not built on this one piece.
ephemeraljelly t1_je03q6q wrote
its not up for you to decide whether the information is useful or not. i now work in defense and every piece of information is important, even if you dont think so
KaiDaiz t1_je04i61 wrote
then let the jury and judge decide when case goes to trial...you as defense using it as a excuse to toss entire case before trial over things you know is useless
you simply afraid of it going to trial and using any excuse to prevent it. go to trial argue how important x was not turn over...go ahead lets see if you do
ephemeraljelly t1_jdycmze wrote
arent logbooks digital now? they were starting to be done digitally when i worked for the DA so im not seeing how that’s difficult. really the only difficult thing in my experience was repeatedly having to remind officers to email me their logbooks
Bma1500 t1_jdxpk5r wrote
Grieving families act was a horribly written bill and deserved to fail. It literally let anyone and their mother come out of nowhere and claim the death of their long lost aunt has irreparably harmed them and each of them deserve millions. It didn’t even have a cap on damages.
It would make every business operating in New York uninsurable for no reason.
KaiDaiz t1_jdynlc3 wrote
Yes bc every business carries the same risks causing untimely death to others. We aren't talking about suing any random innocent business for no reason....we are talking about a specific entities that caused the unjust death of someone
Bma1500 t1_jdz0fh9 wrote
We already have statues that compensate families for wrongful death. It’s a horribly written law that would let random cousins, uncles, nephews sue without limitation. And would dramatically increase the costs of litigation for every lawsuit, no matter how frivolous. We’re suddenly going to monetize grief for extended family when someone dies? The only people that would get rich from this are plaintiff’s attorneys.
Who is asking for this exactly?
KaiDaiz t1_je01wwc wrote
>We already have statues that compensate families for wrongful
Not enough especially since the laws written over 100 yrs ago
>Who is asking for this exactly? victim who are kids and elderly for one since current financial compensation reflects on their earning potential...which they have none
_oksure_ t1_jdyfnp8 wrote
Said like a true plaintiff’s lawyer! Maybe we throw a bunch of the no-fault mills and PI attorneys in jail that are clogging the courts with soft tissue BS cases.
JayemmbeeEsq t1_jdxw9l6 wrote
Bail reform and discovery reforms have been and will continue to be the right ideas.
But writing a whole new legal system into place on a midnight deadline at 11:58 is never a good idea.
I worked at a DAs office, I dealt with bail reform, discovery reform and even FOIL.
It all doesn’t matter if the laws are poorly written at the last minute and involve massive staffing and technological advancement with NO MONEY to make it happen.
LunacyNow t1_jdybjiv wrote
Why the hell can't they talk about this outside of budget negotiations? These idiots need to be voted out of office. The number one job of government, first and foremost, is to protect citizens and their property. If those in charge don't see that there are serious problems (that they've caused) and and need remediation then they shouldn't be in the job anymore.
lila-pink t1_jdxtki1 wrote
people especially women dont like surprise beatings? could've fooled me
NetQuarterLatte t1_jdxs25n wrote
Even the most radical left is not surprised by this anymore.
Let’s see if the politicians will dig in and continue defending the status quo.
Western_Past t1_jdxvehx wrote
I think people fail to realize the backlash against jails happened during covid. Sickness was spreading through the every correctional facility in the state and starting seeping into the police department, then the towns that were near them. NYS funding was being redirected from corrections to public health and people were suing the city and state. It became a legal issue and exposed all the cracks in already corrupt system. Prisons and jails were being closed down, prisoners, correction officers and legal staff were dying. It was a mess. I remember when they released thousands of criminals onto the streets they just didn't have the means to hold them. People would rather have this conversation because it diverts from the reality of mayhem that the pandemic caused.
TheAJx t1_jdylg0a wrote
Pandemic is over so we can start putting them back in jail.
Western_Past t1_jdyxdrs wrote
You didn't read all of what was written, did you?
TheAJx t1_je08vio wrote
We can start putting them back in jail right?
drpvn t1_jdxial8 wrote
Progressive legislators don’t give a shit.
TheBklynGuy t1_jdy6eof wrote
I have no faith anything will change. TPTB dont give a shit. They have no reason to. They are not traveling the subways, streets on thier own like us. It will never be thier problem. Most we get after a serious crime that makes the news is a PR statement about making change, that will never arrive. They continue to clown us all. Its sickening to think about really.
easyxtarget t1_jdz35ps wrote
I'm gonna just say it, bail reform is a good idea and we should backtrack on it. What we should do is have a conversation and legislation around holding people in jail based on recidivism and dangerousness. Obviously there were previous issues with those standards being racist but let's fix that and make them more clear-cut and not let people with multiple violent charges back in the street while awaiting trial.
Jimmy_kong253 t1_jdzb1o7 wrote
Bring back the 3 strike's law but adjust it for modern times
AutoModerator t1_jdxbl5c wrote
Users often report submissions from this site and ask us to ban it for sensationalized articles. At /r/nyc, we oppose blanket banning any news source. Readers have a >responsibility to be skeptical, check sources and comment on any flaws. You can help improve this thread by linking to media that verifies or questions this article's claims. Your link could help readers better understand this issue. If you do find >evidence that this article or its title are false or misleading, contact the moderators who will review it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_jdzjqya wrote
[removed]
Manwelio t1_je1kblv wrote
This isn't hard. If someone has murdered someone in the past or committed violent assaults, and they appear in court having done that SAME crime AGAIN, they should not get a little quick bail out and go moseying around the streets. This isn't hard.
Darth_JarJar300 t1_je6n137 wrote
Of course.
You took what was obviously a terrible system designed to fuck over poor people, and replaced it with this different obviously terrible system.
psychothumbs t1_jdzvupl wrote
Of course neither the article nor the survey even mention what chang they're advocating for, just "it's tough on crime!"
Die-Nacht t1_je026n6 wrote
Overwhelming majority of people do not know what bail is.
Motor_Pollution231 t1_jdxnsnp wrote
It’s funny because most of the overwhelming majority also voted in Bragg
ForeignWin9265 t1_jdxoxay wrote
Bragg was only voted in Manhattan, this is a NY State poll; btw he didn’t win the democratic primary by that much of a difference anyway
Motor_Pollution231 t1_jdxq3r1 wrote
Agreed but he did win and demographically NYC has a tad larger voting number than the rest of New York
Grass8989 OP t1_jdxpny7 wrote
Historically people vote down the party line for offices such as the DA. I’d imagine people are going to take these votes more seriously going forward.
Neoliberalism2024 t1_jdyn0ii wrote
I dont think most people realized what Braggs policies were. He wont be re-elected.
Motor_Pollution231 t1_jdzm9k8 wrote
I understand that, unfortunately he ran on those policies but since it’s easier to go dem all the way down the ticket instead of researching policies, this is where we are as a state.
Motor_Pollution231 t1_jdy6aof wrote
-4 lol soooooo majority didn’t vote them in? Huh
NatLawson t1_jdxq5ua wrote
Please. Bail is not to control suspects before sentencing. This governor's prescription to crime is to go back to a repressible guilty until proven innocent state.
Buffalo notwithstanding our colonial divisions are rude reminders of what not to do. Holding the accused until time served is not a criminal justice system. Bail reform brought us out of the septic system that is our denial of what we must do.
Our institutions promote safety and adherence to the law. Our schools and colleges educate reform practical ambition into success.
Our prisons only promote injustice and violence and are the lost causes of civilized rule. To put, in the hands of judges the exercise of prejudgements is to finish equality.
Bail only frightens and culls the entire population. We started the long walk towards an enabled democracy. Why stop now?
Mayor Adams and Kathy Hocul are uniquely disqualified to rein the potential of free and enabled electorate. Both are subject to rabbit holes and pitfalls.
Don't drink the Kool aid. It's spoiled.
mowotlarx t1_jdxmm8k wrote
They also support a larger tax in millionaires but you won't see the Post bragging about that.