Not a nit. It confuse.

Yeah. Also they left out the square. My mental map crapped out since Madison Ave and Herald Square don’t meet.

Overall, but the quote I provided is pretty telling. Violent crimes are more impactful than non violent crimes.

When most New Yorkers care way more about violent repeat offenders overall ricidivism being down because misdemeanors rearrest deceased while violent felonies rearrest increase means little.

This is the second study in the past year that has claim “bail reform led to less rearrest” only for the numbers to clearly show that the overall decrease was driven solely by a drop in misdemeanor rearrest while felony rearrest rates increased.

Like I said, it's about economic insecurity. If people don't feel like they're at risk of going hungry or homeless they're far less likely to commit a crime. Part of it can be linked to desperation, but equally significant is the psychological effect of being or possibly becoming destitute. Stress greatly affects mental health, after all, and poor mental health also leads to crime.

thats a big ask for reddit

Ha its like saying majority of police interactions do not result in violent interaction if you talking about all races but if you zoom in on the cases folks protesting about - black and brown interactions with police. It tells a different story.

Same with this story - majority ok...zoom in part ppl care about - violent actors - different story.

He’s literally in the top .1% of 24 year olds. He’s going to be fine.

>once you group misdemeanor, pending case, and violent felonies together.

Yes, that's generally how studies and averages work.Overall ricidivism is down. Period.

What’s the proof of this? No one has ever eliminated poverty, so how can we know if that would eliminate the vast majority of crime?

It also depends on how you define poverty. Is it a specific income level? Is it the ability to afford the necessities but not the luxuries? The terminology needs to be explicitly defined.

Non-white collar crime is almost directly correlated to economic insecurity. Eliminate poverty and you also eliminate the vast majority crime.

Lol welcome to /r/nyc

You missed the point of the entire article dummy.

The point is that making $150k is no longer considered a bench mark upperclass goal as it once was.

$100k plus is the new middle class and even with that amount of money, it’s not a middle class cake walk like it was pitched to most of us throughout the 80’s/90’s/00’s.

Of course Chi will be fine but he’s using this as a jumping off point to discuss how fucked the economy is for people under the age of 50.

The two year rearrest rate is down once you group misdemeanor, pending case, and violent felonies together. Misdemeanor rearrest being down is what pulls the overall numbers down.

But a look at the chart of page 17 clearly shows that those in the bail/reform group who had a pending case or were arrested on violent felony were more likely to be rearrested.

I think people care way more about those with a pending case and/or a violent felony arrest being more likely to get rearrested even if the raw numbers are relatively low when compared to misdemeanors.

In that same IG story, the eyewitness said the attackers did not use any racist language. The person heard in the video yelling it was an uninvolved bystander who was Black himself, trying to be funny.

When and where did I say that?

It doesn't contradict the headline. They took data of all releases during ball reform and recidivism went down. Again, sorry that isn't what you wanted to hear but the numbers are the numbers.

Crime is not strongly related to poverty. Rich people commit crime too.

Crime comes down to upbringing and family structure. When the home is rotten, society becomes a little more rotten.

Lol on what authority do you think this man was a millionaire? Other than owning a home in park slope - which I gather they’ve owned for decades and bought when real estate in park slope was super cheap and the area was not its present yuppie playground - I see no signs of material wealth. He went on scholarship to school - not something that a wealthy family would have been offered and concrete evidence of his family’s income being well below what you’re representing.

He was a lawyer in the music industry - which he did for about 10 years until leaving in 2001. That’s a fine living, but not upper class. He probably was a salaried employee and not even a partner-level lawyer. He didn’t have his own firm. And big big money didn’t show up in hip hop until after he left the industry. So I don’t see his legal career as being something that would have hugely enriched him.

And the blog / podcast job almost certainly didn’t make him rich. Only very recently (last 5 years) have any podcasters started making real big money. And that’s only the biggest names. This guy ran a middling niche podcast that could never pay him any kind of big money. Same for blogging - journalism is notoriously not lucrative.

Living at home with your parents is the opposite of privilege. Privilege is having your parents pay for you to have your own apartment. Millions of Americans live at home into their 20s, usually because they can’t afford to move out. How is being too poor to move out of your parents house privilege? Or are we just saying anyone who doesn’t have two dead, destitute, homeless crack addicts parents is privileged?

So again I’ll ask where is the privilege?

Okay well the ones that ARE being released pretrial for violent crimes are being arrested at higher rates than before bail reform. Maybe we can have some common sense and change that portion?

And the disingenuous part was the headline not the study.

People have other financial obligations. Him making double doesn’t necessarily mean he has double. He still deserves to be competing with everyone else for that housing. Sucks but that’s what privilege is.

[deleted]

No one’s going to feel sorry for someone making $150k not being able to find the perfect apartment. Talk about being tone deaf.

It's not disingenuous, you just don't want to hear the fact that ricidivism went down. This study was by John Jay College - a criminal justice school - not by Gothamist.

>This new study found that the two-year rearrest rate for those released due to bail reform was 44%, compared to 50% for those with similar charges, criminal histories and demographics who were held in jail in the period before the reform.

Because most violent arrestees aren't released. They do not account for a significant percentage of those out. Given *all the data on all those released pre-trial"...the numbers went down. So who is being disingenuous here?

If the content of the article contradicts the headline, its misleading.