> Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

The system as it is has an unconstitutional and illegal bias against the poor. On equal charges, the very rich can always make bail and the very poor almost never can. The rights of the poor are being violated by this disparity. So the government should be required to post bail for the poor or indigent accused and a subsidy for the middle class, like in Obama's landmark healthcare law. There should be no lifetime maximum, of course, on legalcare. Since the very rich can make bail even on murder charges, the very poor should be able to also, even if it costs the government millions of dollars to provide the poor with this legalcare.

Psst - the solution is to remove the rich privilege instead of legitimizing the poor people’s trash behavior.

legalcare lol

Bagz?

As the other dot said, bail is not bias against the poor.
It was bias for the rich.
It allowed rich people to prepare a defense or at least wrap up their life until jail/prison time.

The obvious solution is obvious.

Remove all bail

wrote:
As the other dot said, bail is not bias against the poor.
It was bias for the rich.
It allowed rich people to prepare a defense or at least wrap up their life until jail/prison time.

The obvious solution is obvious.

Remove all bail

hmmm

But with more people in custody pretrial, there will be stronger pressure to speed up trials or increase plea bargaining.

wrote:

But with more people in custody pretrial, there will be stronger pressure to speed up trials or increase plea bargaining.

Plea bargaining is another tool of the wealthy.

Mandatory minimums are the answer.

Billionaires don’t have time to pay tax!
It’s hard enough switching between the yacht and the golf club.

richscum

Nobody should spend a single minute in jail for a misdemeanor pre-trial with one exception: people who have skipped on bail three times before.

Most felonies should be free on signature bond as well. Exceptions for violent crimes, repeat convicted felons, one time skippers, and judicial discretion.

Having money should be considered MORE of a risk for skipping than not having money. Right now it is reversed.

In all cases, I support electronic monitoring at judicial discretion.

Sockpuppet wrote:
Nobody should spend a single minute in jail for a misdemeanor pre-trial with one exception: people who have skipped on bail three times before.

Most felonies should be free on signature bond as well. Exceptions for violent crimes, repeat convicted felons, one time skippers, and judicial discretion.

Having money should be considered MORE of a risk for skipping than not having money. Right now it is reversed.

In all cases, I support electronic monitoring at judicial discretion.

Fortunately, nobody cares about your mentally defective enemy opinion.

The concept of bail is horseshyt. If a crime is so trivial that you can buy your way out of prison time, why even prosecute?

Prisons as reformatories, at least for adults, is a load of wank too.

Bring back corporal punishment and make prison what it used to be, a holding area for people under trial.

Tom Leykis wrote:
Fortunately, nobody cares about your mentally defective enemy opinion.

I look forward to the day you are imprisoned for your crimes against America.

Sockpuppet wrote:
Nobody should spend a single minute in jail for a misdemeanor pre-trial with one exception: people who have skipped on bail three times before.

Most felonies should be free on signature bond as well. Exceptions for violent crimes, repeat convicted felons, one time skippers, and judicial discretion.

Having money should be considered MORE of a risk for skipping than not having money. Right now it is reversed.

In all cases, I support electronic monitoring at judicial discretion.

And you dont mind that 2% of all adults cut off their monitoring?

Do you also not care that as much as 10% of juvenile offenders cut off ankle monitors and then re-offend?

Whose rights should the system prioritize? The offender or the next victim?

Please answer clearly.

AI Overview

Several high-profile cases have involved killers or rapists who were under surveillance with electronic ankle monitors at the time they committed their crimes.

Steven Dean Gordon and Franc Cano (2014): These California sex offenders were suspected of raping and killing at least four (possibly five) women in Orange County while wearing GPS tracking bracelets. They were registered sex offenders required to check in with police every 30 days. Despite this, they used a paint and body shop van to lure victims, with Cano wearing a state-issued bracelet and Gordon wearing a federal GPS device during their killing spree.

David Renz (2013): Renz, a convicted murderer and rapist, was wearing an ankle monitor while awaiting trial on child pornography charges. He was able to tamper with and disable the device, then reassemble it to hide his actions while he kidnapped, raped a 10-year-old girl, and murdered a school librarian in New York. An investigation later revealed he had tampered with the device 46 times in nine weeks without intervention.

Franklin Jose Peña Ramos (2024): An undocumented immigrant accused of murdering 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray in Texas was reportedly wearing an ICE-issued ankle monitor at the time of the crime.

Henry Hauser Jr. (2014 & 2024): A Tacoma-area sex offender who let his GPS monitor die to commit a rape in 2014. He later cut his monitor in 2024 to commit another rape.

Christopher Block (2019): A convicted rapist and kidnapper in New York who cut off his ankle bracelet while on conditional release, prompting a manhunt.

https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/defen … 4aca5ea915

Defendants aren't just cutting off ankle monitors; they're letting the batteries die

As the number of people who've cut off ankle monitors is on pace to exceed last year, we've learned other defendants are letting their devices die.

It's especially concerning to people like Lucille Puckett. We recently discovered one out of every four people wearing an ankle monitor is charged with a violent crime. Of the more than 400 defendants taking part in the program last month, on a given day, more than 20 of them faced murder charges, including the man accused of killing Puckett's son.

So far this year, 80 defendants have cut their electronic monitoring devices, according to CMPD, which is slightly more than the number this time last year.

"This device can only tell us where they were, not what they're going to do," he said.

wrote:
And you dont mind that 2% of all adults cut off their monitoring?

Do you also not care that as much as 10% of juvenile offenders cut off ankle monitors and then re-offend?

Whose rights should the system prioritize? The offender or the next victim?

Please answer clearly.

No, I don't care about that.

2% and 10% are nothing compared to 98% and 90%.

The system should prioritize the rights of the ACCUSED offender.

Spanky wrote:
No, I don't care about that.

2% and 10% are nothing compared to 98% and 90%.

The system should prioritize the rights of the ACCUSED offender.

Thats exactly what I expected from the guy who laughed at the 32,000 murdered civilians in Iran.

You are, at least, consistent about siding with murderers.

> Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

wrote:

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

wrote:

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Sockpuppet wrote:

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Tom Leykis wrote:

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Sockpuppet wrote:

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

wrote:

Re: Why should the poor rot in jail because of lack of bail money? Shouldn't the government provide this for the poor?

Spanky wrote: