God you're insufferable.

[deleted]

[deleted]

You forgot the beating, but I guess they determined that that wasn't severe enough. What a joke.

The “overall” part is extremely disingenuous.

Because it counts things like petty theft or disorder conduct as if they are the same as felony violence.

They are very different and shouldn’t be lumped together.

Not quite. Overall, violent felony re-arrest did not change - or might have slightly decreased - for people who judges can no longer set bail for or detain (see bar chart on p.13 and the table below on the same page).

Doesn't change the fact that there is certainly room for improvement, but the doomsday stories about the effects of bail reform on violent crime increases are certainly BS.

It’s not only misleading, it’s extremely disingenuous to pretend that a reoffense on a petty theft is the same as a reoffense on a felony violence crime.

It's weird how we've allowed this to be normal for all electeds. Bloomberg and de Blasio both had similar issues with few to no consequences.

If a city worker misappropriated 5-6 figures in funds they'd be fired and prosecuted. If they had this on their record before applying for a city job or while being onboarded, they wouldn't be hired.

>So great, those that were a part of the bail/reform group who were initially arrested on a misdemeanor are less likely to be arrested while those on the bail/reform group who had pending case or arrested on a violent felony were more likely to be arrested.

Not quite. Those are people with *prior* violent felony arrests, not people whose *current* charge is a violent felony (since almost all of them would still be bail eligible).

I guess the headline tried to address the a very common criticism of bail reform, which is that it increased crime in NYC overall. Few critics make the distinction between different offender cohorts.

Also, the article itself does point out that there were re-arrest increases for certain cohorts.

Crime is correlated with what we categorize as immoral behavior.

At one point sex outside of marriage was immoral and criminal.

We could eliminate crime if we wanted by accepting more cultural differences. The vast majority of crime in our laws is just that.

You sound incredibly bitter and resentful lol

[deleted]

Not quite. The table on p.17 shows that people with a *prior* violent felony re-arrest who were released were more likely to be re-arrested. There is no section in that table that shows stats for people with *current* violent felony charges, since almost all of them are still legally eligible for bail.

And FWIW, the authors of the actual study suggest potential changes to the existing law where they do make those distinctions:

​

>Preventing re-arrest in the future could potentially involve careful, targeted policy changes based on these results. For example, future legislation or policy might make fewer “high risk” individuals (e.g., people with a prior violent felony) subject to mandatory release, allowing for wider judicial discretion in considering bail; or might enhance the range of non-monetary conditions for supporting “high risk” individuals. (To avoid misinterpretation, we are not embracing weaker decision-making standards that might compromise due process, undermine the presumption of innocence, or contradict legal precedents concerning when bail or pretrial detention are permissible.)

> On the other end of the spectrum, it could benefit public safety if legislation or policy encouraged the release of more bail-eligible people charged with relatively low-level offenses or with no or only minor criminal history, given that the incapacitation effects of incarceration (most people who face bail end up in pretrial detention) appear to be outweighed by its adverse “criminogenic” effects for these subgroups.

> Alternatively, armed with the knowledge that, in totality, the bail elimination provisions of the original reforms reduced recidivism, and reducing the use of bail in cases legally eligible for it had little net effect in either direction, policymakers would be justified on public safety grounds in avoiding further legislative or policy changes while awaiting additional rigorous studies over longer tracking periods.

That’s false, upbringing and family structure failure is related to poverty all the same and correlates with crime

Which is why we need new housing at all price points.

I mean, to be fair to him, the wealthy absolutely do murder, rape, and steal, they just have socialists and journalists murdered by others and steal from the people who made them wealthy in the first place.

Violent felony or firearm re-arrest didn't increase; it didn't change at all due to bail reform. Look at the bar chart on page 13 of the report.

Violent felony re-arrest didn't increase though; it didn't change at all due to bail reform (or might have been gone down). Look at the bar chart on page 13 and the table below.

Rich people do shootings, rapes and street robberies?

You didn’t. I did.

It’s always the people who are the loudest about “law and order” that don’t actually care about either.

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

I mean, crime is incredibly related to poverty. Sure things like access to quality education or stable housing also help, but to say there isn't a strong relationship is ignoring a lot of studies and data on the subject.

[deleted]

Yes, I care about the shoplifting recidivist just as much as I care about someone committing violent crimes or having an illegal gun 🙄🙄🙄