OT: Sens Lounge -The four seasons edition

[mysens]

Did I say 2nd time offenders were presumed guilty? If a person has been convicted of a violent crime in their past and they have been arrested for a 2nd time with the same charge you don't think that should be grounds to lose the ability to be out on the street? If someone robs a bank with a gun and within a year of getting out do it again, you think they should be allowed to sit at home until they go to trial? It's one thing if there was a large gap in time between offences, its another if the person is a repeat offender. Marginalized groups or not breaking the law in a serious way should come with serious restrictions. This is about repeat offenders.

I agree with you on this.....finally

 

[Micklebot]

Did I say 2nd time offenders were presumed guilty? If a person has been convicted of a violent crime in their past and they have been arrested for a 2nd time with the same charge you don't think that should be grounds to lose the ability to be out on the street? If someone robs a bank with a gun and within a year of getting out do it again, you think they should be allowed to sit at home until they go to trial? It's one thing if there was a large gap in time between offences, its another if the person is a repeat offender. Marginalized groups or not breaking the law in a serious way should come with serious restrictions. This is about repeat offenders.

Oh, so when you said "first time offenders you have that right of presumption of innocence", you actually meant everyone had that right and weren't highlighted one group to create a contrast? Odd when it was in response to me already pointing out that right.

As for your examples, in cases like that prior to the change, the prosecution could use that history to show why bail should be revoked. Reverse onus just changes who the burden of proof is on. Your examples are the ones that would, or at least should, have already been revoked. The change means people with more nuanced situations get caught up too, and if they can't afford a good lawyer, might not be able to effectively make the case that they shouldn't have their bail revoked.

And again, if there is data to show this will be effective, and appropriate guardrails in place to ensure it doesn't disproportionately impact marginalized groups, I don't really have an issue. But, stuff like this is often done for political reasons, drive up the fear, blame the government in power then you end up with regulations based on emotional reactions instead of evidence based. I haven't dug into the supporting evidence for the change, so I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I do see the potential for issues with it, so I'm not at all surprised there is some push back. If the people pushing back are doing so based on the evidence, and not emotional anecdotes like you have presented, then I don't really see how they are part of the problem. In fact, having a challenge function, even if it challenges policy I support, is not something I would generally consider part of the problem, in fact, I'd call it a necessity, so long as it's done in good faith.

 

[coladin]

Media really has been on a campaign to make things look bleak, the actual statistics though are more muted than the hysteria would suggest.


View attachment 917321

Reported.

 

[Stylizer1]

Oh, so when you said "first time offenders you have that right of presumption of innocence", you actually meant everyone had that right and weren't highlighted one group to create a contrast? Odd when it was in response to me already pointing out that right.

As for your examples, in cases like that prior to the change, the prosecution could use that history to show why bail should be revoked. Reverse onus just changes who the burden of proof is on. Your examples are the ones that would, or at least should, have already been revoked. The change means people with more nuanced situations get caught up too, and if they can't afford a good lawyer, might not be able to effectively make the case that they shouldn't have their bail revoked.

And again, if there is data to show this will be effective, and appropriate guardrails in place to ensure it doesn't disproportionately impact marginalized groups, I don't really have an issue. But, stuff like this is often done for political reasons, drive up the fear, blame the government in power then you end up with regulations based on emotional reactions instead of evidence based. I haven't dug into the supporting evidence for the change, so I don't have a strong opinion on it, but I do see the potential for issues with it, so I'm not at all surprised there is some push back. If the people pushing back are doing so based on the evidence, and not emotional anecdotes like you have presented, then I don't really see how they are part of the problem. In fact, having a challenge function, even if it challenges policy I support, is not something I would generally consider part of the problem, in fact, I'd call it a necessity, so long as it's done in good faith.

If marginalized groups are doing the crime then you have to fix the system that puts them in that situation. You can't solve the problem going backwards. Repeat offenders is the issue not who is committing the crime.

 

[StoicSensFan]

Reported.

 

[Micklebot]

If marginalized groups are doing the crime then you have to fix the system that puts them in that situation. You can't solve the problem going backwards. Repeat offenders is the issue not who is committing the crime.

The problem I am referring to is that when two people, one from a marginalized group, and one not from that group, are in the same situation (both committed the same crime with similar histories), policies such as this have a tendency to impact the marginalized group more. You can look at things like traffic stops, stop and frisk, drug offences ect, and see different outcomes for similar cases, this is no different. The reason is sometimes the marginalized groups don't have the same resources available to "fight" the charges, or sometimes there's other issues at play like racism.

Having a bail reform that is evidence based and includes guard rails so that it doesn't disproportionately affect marginalized communities doesn't mean you can't also work to address systemic issues that result in people getting into these situations in the first place, in fact, I'd argue the later is far more important and impactful, which is why if we are going to "toughen up" bail with reform, it better be evidence based because imo we have better things to do with our tax dollars than to pay for people's incarceration unless there is a valid reason they shouldn't be out on bail.

 

[jbeck5]

I like turtles.