opinion of NYC congestion charges

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

Let the politicians reinstate cash bail.

There is no good argument for cash bail.

If someone is dangerous, then they shouldn't be eligible for bail at all.

If someone is not dangerous, then there is no reason why their financial background should determine whether or not they can be free pre-trail.

All cash bail does is punish poorer people accused of a crime.

If someone is charged with a violent crime, there is probable cause to show that the person has committed a violent act and is a danger to society.  That is not the standard for conviction, but it is a standard of proof an officer or a Grand Jury must meet to charge someone. 

Cash bail provides protection to witnesses to crimes from witness intimidation.  A defendant in custody has less ability to effectively intimidate a witness.  A defendant on bail has their activities more closely monitored by their bail bondsman, who has the ability to take them into custody should they violate their terms of bail, attempt to abscond, etc.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter if cash bail "punishes poor people".  The response to that is that poor people shouldn't commit crimes because they can't afford bail.  That's a snarky response and I don't mean it that way, but it's true at a real world level.  Abolishing cash bail equalizes the opportunity of the poor to intimidate witnesses and abscond that rich people have.  That's not my idea of justice and it's definitely not my idea of maintaining public safety.  The Constitution prohibits EXCESSIVE bail, so there are a slew of violent offenders that are entitled to SOME bail under the Constitution.  For myself, I am more concerned with the safety of the victims of criminals and the witnesses to their crimes than I am with empowering criminals beyond the level of Constitutional protections they currently possess. 

[Ferguson97]

If someone is charged with a violent crime, there is probable cause to show that the person has committed a violent act and is a danger to society.  That is not the standard for conviction, but it is a standard of proof an officer or a Grand Jury must meet to charge someone. 

Cash bail provides protection to witnesses to crimes from witness intimidation.  A defendant in custody has less ability to effectively intimidate a witness.  A defendant on bail has their activities more closely monitored by their bail bondsman, who has the ability to take them into custody should they violate their terms of bail, attempt to abscond, etc.

There is no reason why we can't continue to monitor their activities without tying it to an ability to pay.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter if cash bail "punishes poor people".  The response to that is that poor people shouldn't commit crimes because they can't afford bail.  That's a snarky response and I don't mean it that way, but it's true at a real world level.  Abolishing cash bail equalizes the opportunity of the poor to intimidate witnesses and abscond that rich people have.  That's not my idea of justice and it's definitely not my idea of maintaining public safety.  The Constitution prohibits EXCESSIVE bail, so there are a slew of violent offenders that are entitled to SOME bail under the Constitution.  For myself, I am more concerned with the safety of the victims of criminals and the witnesses to their crimes than I am with empowering criminals beyond the level of Constitutional protections they currently possess. 

So why not just go with my plan, and eliminate bail for violent crimes and get rid of it for nonviolent crimes?

Like I said, if someone is a danger to the public, there is no reason to make them eligible for bail at all. Rich or poor, if there is a chance they will intimidate witnesses or hurt somebody, then just detain them without bail until their trial.

You're acting as if I am arguing to get rid of bail altogether, but I'm actually doing the opposite. I'm more than happy to keep dangerous people detained pretrial, I just think that tying their bail to ability to pay is ridiculous.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

If someone is charged with a violent crime, there is probable cause to show that the person has committed a violent act and is a danger to society.  That is not the standard for conviction, but it is a standard of proof an officer or a Grand Jury must meet to charge someone. 

Cash bail provides protection to witnesses to crimes from witness intimidation.  A defendant in custody has less ability to effectively intimidate a witness.  A defendant on bail has their activities more closely monitored by their bail bondsman, who has the ability to take them into custody should they violate their terms of bail, attempt to abscond, etc.

There is no reason why we can't continue to monitor their activities without tying it to an ability to pay.

At a certain point, it doesn't matter if cash bail "punishes poor people".  The response to that is that poor people shouldn't commit crimes because they can't afford bail.  That's a snarky response and I don't mean it that way, but it's true at a real world level.  Abolishing cash bail equalizes the opportunity of the poor to intimidate witnesses and abscond that rich people have.  That's not my idea of justice and it's definitely not my idea of maintaining public safety.  The Constitution prohibits EXCESSIVE bail, so there are a slew of violent offenders that are entitled to SOME bail under the Constitution.  For myself, I am more concerned with the safety of the victims of criminals and the witnesses to their crimes than I am with empowering criminals beyond the level of Constitutional protections they currently possess. 

So why not just go with my plan, and eliminate bail for violent crimes and get rid of it for nonviolent crimes?

Like I said, if someone is a danger to the public, there is no reason to make them eligible for bail at all. Rich or poor, if there is a chance they will intimidate witnesses or hurt somebody, then just detain them without bail until their trial.

You're acting as if I am arguing to get rid of bail altogether, but I'm actually doing the opposite. I'm more than happy to keep dangerous people detained pretrial, I just think that tying their bail to ability to pay is ridiculous.

The eighth (8th) amendment would knock out the part of your plan I would most agree with.  Some sort of bail would have to be set, even for violent criminals.  In most cases, that would be $1 million or some kind of figure like that, but dangerous people would still be able to bond out.

Many municipalities have pretrial supervision programs that require some monies to pay for electronic monitoring services, but the more violent offenders are not well deterred.  I know that there are devices by which you can find out where a person is, but how to know what a person is doing is another matter.  They are much freer to intimidate witnesses, and the witnesses automatically feel more threatened and unsafe when the perpetrator is free on bond, and certainly if they simply released on their own recognizance.

I am by no means a "lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key" advocate.  I believe in reforms in sentencing, dialing back overcriminalization, restoring voting rights at a minimum once someone has completed their jail sentences, and other reforms.  I AM, however, opposed to reforms that empower criminals to evade a just conviction for an actual wrong.  And I believe that the "threat" that the police pose to individuals in the minority community is, for the most part, exaggerated (at best) and made up out of whole cloth (at worst).  The elimination of cash bail empowers criminals to intimidate witnesses and abscond, and commit more crimes while trying to stay free.  There's a lot of room for discussion here, but the elimination of cash bail makes society less safe, and that includes (perhaps, especially so) the poorest and most underserved communities and the persons living there that ARE law-abiding.