Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[FearlessF]

“We’re charge agnostic,” McFarland added. “We are operating off the presumption of innocence.”

“I think that we are forthright. We’re very clear whenever we’re asked that we don’t make distinctions based on charge,” said Sharlyn Grace, executive director of the Chicago Community Bond Fund.

_________________________________________________ _

are they also race agnostic?

if not, they are racist

[SFBadger96]

A cop buddy of mine--a very good friend--has this to say: "of course they are guilty. Why else would they have been arrested?"

And there is a grain of truth to it. But government by, of, and for the people recognizes the abuse inherent in power, and attempts to constrain that abuse by making the powerful answer to the people. One of the fundamental constraints on our government's power is the requirement that before it fundamentally takes away someone's personal liberty (in the form of prison), it must prove its case to a group of "the people."

Of course, the real world is so much more complicated than that, but it's a pretty cool ideal, actually.

Still waiting to be selected for jury duty (at a time when I actually have the flexibility for it, of course).  

[SFBadger96]

“We’re charge agnostic,” McFarland added. “We are operating off the presumption of innocence.”

“I think that we are forthright. We’re very clear whenever we’re asked that we don’t make distinctions based on charge,” said Sharlyn Grace, executive director of the Chicago Community Bond Fund.

_________________________________________________ _

are they also race agnostic?

if not, they are racist

It was the judge that set the bail, not the non-profit. 

[Cincydawg]

I sat on two juries in my life, back to back.  Nine of the folks in the second jury were on the first.  I was foreman both times (because nobody else wanted to do it, and there isn't much to it of course).  The first case was four counts of child rape.  That was unpleasant.  The second case was armed robbery and we were 11-1 to convict, one lady claimed he didn't look guilty to her.

[FearlessF]

It was the judge that set the bail, not the non-profit.

we know that all cases had bail set, regardless of race

where you inquiring about the race of the judge?

[SFBadger96]

The suggestion is that the non-profit, that paid a relatively small bail in every one of the cases cited in that article, somehow created the risk to the community is false. The judge set a small bail, which--again--presumed the relative danger of the accused, determined that person was appropriate for release, and set a cash amount designed to deter flight from the process. So the "threat" was determined by the judge, not the non-profit. 

I'm not entirely sure why you introduced race into this. Nonetheless, there is lots of evidence that the criminal justice system acts in disproportionate ways against racial minorities. Acting in ways designed to try to reduce that racial bias does not make someone (or an organization) a racist. 

This concept that focusing on race makes someone racist is absurd in a society in which racism has been not only widespread, but had full-throated government endorsement for literally hundreds of years. One cannot flip a switch and make that kind of institutional memory disappear. The only way to combat it is to address it. How to best combat racism and its lasting impact on our society raises all kinds of interesting and worthy conversations, but wishing it away is naive.

[847badgerfan]

So, bail needs to be set based on the crime, but should also be based on the record of the individual charged.

I'd think just about any charge involving the use of a gun should (whether discharged or not) should be without bail. I mean, if you stick a gun in my face during an attempted robbery, you are willing to discharge it and kill me. That's enough for me - just being willing to kill.

Rape (including against children), murder, attempted murder, etc. go without saying in my mind. No bail.

Now, what also needs to happen is that these cases get heard faster. That is a big problem around here.

[SFBadger96]

Absolutely. Bail should be about risk, not wealth.

[FearlessF]

the non-profit introduced race into this unless they are agnostic to race

yes, the judge should set higher bail for more dangerous offenders or more likely to refuse to show up in court

I understand your reference to the judge now

the Judge should be making distinctions based on charge.

I'm not sure why why the non-profit shouldn't do the same.

“I think that we are forthright. We’re very clear whenever we’re asked that we don’t make distinctions based on charge,” said Sharlyn Grace, executive director of the Chicago Community Bond Fund.

They proclaim they are presuming innocence.  Perhaps they should check into the case before they presume? 

[847badgerfan]

Absolutely. Bail should be about risk, not wealth.

I think it pretty much is, in theory, but there a lot of judges out there who set ridiculously low bails for very dangerous people. One of their gang buddies comes, throws down $100, and the gang bangers are bang bangin' the next day.

[SFBadger96]

I understand your reference to the judge now

the Judge should be making distinctions based on charge.

I'm not sure why why the non-profit shouldn't do the same.

What about the bail bondsman? Its responsibility, too?

Part of the issue here is that accused criminals, released on bond, sometimes commit other crimes. There is nothing surprising about that. The judge who makes the bail decision takes that into account, and attempts to set an appropriate bond. Is there any research here indicating what percentage of the time something awful like this happened? Is that number an appropriate number? Is there any discussion of that percentage compared to the percentage of people the non-profit paid the bond for who did something horrible? Is there any connection between the overall number and the non-profit number? 

But that doesn't make for a juicy story. I think elsewhere we've been discussing the media and what makes it tick/pays its bills. Unsurprisingly, there is more to this story than the article tells. Much more.

[847badgerfan]

But that doesn't make for a juicy story. I think elsewhere we've been discussing the media and what makes it tick/pays its bills. Unsurprisingly, there is more to this story than the article tells. Much more.

There is definitely much more to it. Bails have been going lower and lower over the past 3.5 years - this is proven and true. It starts with the Crook County States Attorney's office. It's a very complicated subject, and a key issue that should be talked about a whole lot more than it is. But, talking about it is not a comfortable subject, and people don't like to be uncomfortable. Know what I'm saying?

[Mdot21]

Won't get specific into politics, but is anybody else worried about someone with dementia winning the presidency?

A) how is a party even allowed to run someone that might have dementia.
B) how easily will this person be too heavily influenced or be over-ruled by the many advisors a President has.

How come you need to take tests to drive a car, become a lawyer or doctor- but to become leader of the free world- nada. You're good bro.

I really think there needs to be rounds of testing done on all politicians, not only presidents. They should have to take IQ tests, competency tests, and go through mental & physical evaluations- and this stuff needs to be made public knowledge. Just my two cents.

[Cincydawg]

All of us MIGHT HAVE dementia at an early stage.  It's not easy to spot casually.  By the time a man passes 70, the odds obviously start to climb.  And we could elect some 70 year old President who was fine and 2 years later ....

We do have the 25th Amendment, which some wanted to employ with the current President a year or so back.  

That Amendment is not the clearest thing in the world, to me.