New York’s latest criminal justice reform plan

Babagounj

Strength through joy
The state’s series of bail reforms, set to go into effect January 2020, will ensure that suspects accused of crimes deemed “non-violent” are not jailed before their trial dates and do not have to post bail.

The list of crimes where suspects will be freed from prison before trial includes:

  • Second-degree manslaughter
  • Aggravated vehicular assault
  • Third-degree assault
  • Promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child
  • Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child
  • Promoting a sexual performance by a child
  • Failure to register as a sex offender
  • Making terroristic threats
  • Criminally negligent homicide
  • Aggravated vehicular homicide
 

Box Ox

Well-Known Member
Also:

New York City gifting alleged criminals baseball tickets, gift cards as part of $12M perk program

“New York City will be gifting accused criminals tickets to a museum and baseball games, and up to $25 gift cards to restaurants and stores, like Target, in a bid to keep them from skipping their court dates, the New York Post reported.

The Big Apple’s $12 million supervised-release plan will take effect on Jan. 1, 2020, with the city’s new bail reform program, which was reportedly a contributing factor for the New York City Police commissioner's recently announced decision to step down.

The array of gifts, which will be offered to alleged criminals to convince them to show up to court, include cellphones, New York Mets tickets and passes to the Intrepid Sea, Air & Space Museum in Manhattan, as well as gift cards to restaurants and stores, including Target, Applebee’s, McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts, according to the report.“
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
I see Baba is still posting misleading headlines without providing the backstory:

These changes were made based on the premise that our current cash bail system is unfairly burdensome to poor people, who often spend more time in jail that their more affluent cell mates for the same offense simply because they cannot afford the bail. They are often forced to miss work and some even lose their jobs, which means if they have little to begin with they will have even less when all is said and done.

Does it make sense to lock up a perv who jerks off to child porn when they could simply put him on house arrest?
 

DriveInDriveOut

Inordinately Right
Let's assume that it costs $100/day to house him and that it takes the full 90 days (speedy trial rules) to try him. $9K as opposed to a $50 ankle bracelet with 24/7 monitoring.
Apparently you think 9k is too much money to keep a child predator in jail.

We need stricter crime laws and harsher punishments across the board. Liberal nonsense like this is just dumb.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
I see Baba is still posting misleading headlines without providing the backstory:

These changes were made based on the premise that our current cash bail system is unfairly burdensome to poor people, who often spend more time in jail that their more affluent cell mates for the same offense simply because they cannot afford the bail. They are often forced to miss work and some even lose their jobs, which means if they have little to begin with they will have even less when all is said and done.

Does it make sense to lock up a perv who jerks off to child porn when they could simply put him on house arrest?
If there's a chance he may act on those urges then he should be behind bars. Child porn is illegal because it involves exploited children, not consenting adults. Anyone possessing such is encouraging the continued exploitation of children. Not enough that they get to enjoy the comfort of their own futon. And a small price to pay to remove them from society.
 

UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)

Well-Known Member
You're wrong.

I am enjoying watching you defend child predators. Please, carry on.

I am not defending them and would beat the crap out of anyone who tried to do anything to any of my grandchildren; that being said, unless they have decided to satisfy their urges outside of the home, they are not a danger to society and do not need to be confined before trial.
 

Operational needs

Virescit Vulnere Virtus
I am not defending them and would beat the crap out of anyone who tried to do anything to any of my grandchildren; that being said, unless they have decided to satisfy their urges outside of the home, they are not a danger to society and do not need to be confined before trial.
You realize they also satisfy their urges at home with child porn, don’t you?
 

Fred's Myth

Nonhyphenated American
I am not defending them and would beat the crap out of anyone who tried to do anything to any of my grandchildren; that being said, unless they have decided to satisfy their urges outside of the home, they are not a danger to society and do not need to be confined before trial.
Wow. Just, wow.

As long as it was someone else’s child(ren), you’re okay with it.

You’re as sick a bastard as they are.
 
Top