Illinois set to become 1st state to eliminate cash bail

I wouldn't place stock in short term analysis during extraordinary times with less arrests, less filings/VOPs, decriminalization, etc. This will be something years in the making to analyze and I look forward to seeing better reflective analysis/literature reviews.

You won't lose the bail amount if you show for court, but the bond fee is just that, a fee; it's not a security deposit, merely the cost of a service from a private company. The same brush then can be applied for any custodial arrest upon probable cause before any trial or verdict.

Do you support custodial arrests? Or should it be reserved for extraordinary cases (specific felonies) with the rest being cite and release on scene? Even for those specific felonies, should they be afforded bail/bond opportunity even *before* a bail hearing/preliminary hearing? In California, it was a case by case basis because bail schedules were also determined also by criminal history and propensity for re-offense. COVID changed a lot though.

Remember comrade, "flight risk" doesn't only pertain to planes. lmao

You’re saying poor people has more resources to get away than rich people?

I stated all of your first points earlier myself: The data is light, the data is early, and certainly more information is warranted. I simply added that the early data looks promising - promising enough to warrant gathering it and seeing if the harm caused by bail is worth whatever, if any, gains we get from it. Don't you agree with that?

What does supporting custodial arrests have to do with paying to get out of jail once one occurs? Either they should have reason to keep you there, or they shouldn't. And that's the stance the law in the OP takes as well. Your argument above looks, to me, like a big strawman attempt.

Should we even take people to jail to begin with or is that also an "oppressive" tool meant to keep disadvantaged communities down?

Or should jail be reserved for only specific crimes?

It can be! If implement poorly or maliciously, obviously. And it has been used that way in the past.

But it isn't necessarily so. I'm a pragmatist at heart, and there's certainly reason to do so in some cases such as posing a danger or high flight risk.

We already do this.

@Stevo_the_gamer: The first seems like a fairly obvious yes. The second, I don't have the wherewithal to say. What's the cost/benefit analysis of doing so vs, say, how we treat speeding?

Do note that we are quite off topic even still. The law does not bar arresting people, nor does it say that no one can be retained.

So I'm reading about this crypto guy Sam Bankman-Fried who is sitting at home with his parents in California out on $2.5 million bail after allegedly stealing billions of dollars of peoples money. We are talking people's hard-earned cash, probably some retirements, livelihoods, etc..

I'd like to ask what is fair and just about some guy like this being able to live in luxury while we wait months/years for his trial to come to a close, while someone who took a brick and smashed a window to steal a TV has to sit in jail for weeks, months, and even over a year in some cases.

I'd like to hear the argument about why this should continue to be a thing. Why someone who steals from a single store maybe a few hundred or thousand dollars has to sit in jail while a white-collar guy who steals so much money from so many people it often drives the victims to homelessness, poverty, and even suicide.

And if you don't like the idea of eliminating cash for bail, then what is the middle ground?

*yes I know things like this are sensationalized and not the norm, but it still happens so let's just argue that it is the way things go.

I'm aware it's into the weeds a bit, but I was more curious of your thoughts on it since it was extending upon the idea of how the cash bail system ensnares a lot of alleged "innocent" people which by de-facto causes economic and social consequences. The ending here, and correct me if I'm wrong, being to transition away from taking people into custody entirely except for extraordinary cases.

...

Ah yes, good questions of "fairness" are raised every day. Is it fair that a judge can lower the bail and allow the release for a violent felon who was convicted of a third strike offense and allow him to continue to reck havoc on the streets by murdering a Riverside County Deputy? Was it fair that the Deputy didn't even have a chance to radio for help and citizens who witnessed the fallen Deputy had to wait a staggering 10 minutes to get through the clogged 911 system? Is it fair that a violent repeat felon can continue to be released and continue to commit unfathomable acts of violence in the great People's Republic of California?

But yes, let's ignore the sweeping impacts of property crime because of a singular white-collar crime incident which will undoubtedly send him to federal prison for a very long time. I only wish we could do the same to all thieves. Sometimes I forget how rose-tinted glasses can be in the bay area.

This is the very definition of a Strawman fallacy:

A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version.

I think the debate between what is lawful and what is just (or fair? Perhaps my word choice is wrong) is a good one to have and meeting somewhere between the two sides is where we should end up.

Sorry if I triggered you, and what happened to that deputy is unfortunate. I'm not going to let the worst-case scenarios of the world dictate my worldview, however, otherwise we just skew to one extreme. I wouldn't call those rose-tinted glasses, just being reasonable.

What am I distorting? Are you also saying it's an extreme view to believe custodial arrests should be reserved for only some crimes?

transition away from taking people into custody entirely except for extraordinary cases.

You are distorting the argument against cash bail as one to:

You've taken the argument which was made and taken it to an extreme - one which I didn't make, and I haven't seen anyone else here make. That's a strawman fallacy. Do you not see it? It's a textbook definition of one.

Interesting. No, I was asking for your input based on the logic you displayed in this very thread (a). To which now you are deflecting (b), relying on copying/pasting instead of expanding on your very thoughts c(c).

Do you view the assumed "no bail" system and limited-custodial arrest as similar application approach? If not, why do you view one is extreme and the other is not? (d)

a) What logic is that? You can just quote me to show me.

b) How is it deflecting to show you that you are using a fallacy and attempting to attribute an argument to me that I didn't make? As for that hypothetical you tried to get me to answer, I very clearly DID ANSWER it. I said "yes" to your first, and "we should weigh the benefits vs the risks" to the second. Why did that answer not satisfy you? Was it more nuanced than the strawman position you're trying to paint me with?

c) Are you referring to the copy/paste of the definition of the fallacy here? I'm not sure what else you'd be referring to.

(d) I do not view them as similar, no. Why would I? I'm not sure why you're making the leap from "we shouldn't require people to pay for their freedom when jailing them isn't viewed as necessary" to "we shouldn't jail anybody except for extreme circumstances."

The law that we're discussing certainly doesn't make that leap, and it outlines routine situations under which people would continue to be jailed.

Can you tell us why you are conflating the two as one?

Of course, it was based on your comment here: "and point out that this is well before a verdict or even a trial. The cash bail system ensnares a lot of innocent people, causing them to lose their bond fees, their freedom, their jobs, and their economic livelihoods." Again, like I said, my questions were in relation to loss of employment via detentions, and the societal/social stigma with being taken into custody. You didn't mention it, but the original post also highlights the bigger societal "equity" concerns in relation to socio-economic status and people of color.

Again, I asked for your thoughts on the matter--not that you were making the argument.

Yes, copying and pasting to avoid addressing content is an odd deflection. I know you (unlike many others here) can actually critically address things in your words without relying on others to think for you hence why I asked for your input.

The difference is only the custodial setting before the preliminary hearing. There is still a mandated court appearance and a promise to appear. The only difference is merely the "drain" on resources to keep an individual in jail prior to that arraignment. It's more inductive reasoning at this point to infer the end-game being pursued by social justice reformers.

How do you get, "no one should be jailed outside of extreme circumstances" from that quote?

If you don't like me copying and pasting a definition (LOL), I will put the definition in layman's terms - you are committing a fallacy in which you take a nuanced argument and distort it into an extreme, often black and white, version of itself that I did not make.

I trust at this point you understand the difference between "no one should be jailed outside of extreme circumstances" which I never argued and "we shouldn't require release payments from people whom we've decided that imprisonment isn't necessary."

If they need to be jailed, jail them. If they don't, then don't.

I think you're now misunderstanding the context and yourself going into the weeds a bit, but I'll reiterate it. Does the detention period (custodial arrest) until arraignment subject an perceived "innocent" individual to societal consequences which could include confiscation of licenses, loss of employment, "loss of freedom" until arraignment, or general societal consequences (embarrassment/status), etc. Doesn't even get into the "mental" aspects of being arrested and confined, especially for first-time offenders. Note: I'm playing devil's advocate on this because there's a lot of "equity" arguments out there especially in terms of socio-economic disadvantages and effects on people of color.

When that's the only rebuttal is a copy and paste, yes, it's lazy and equally deflective. Honestly, it's really odd. lol

I agree on that last occam's razor addressment, but I think we definitely would see differently on who should remain jailed. I see the California court's discretion time and time again, especially on repeat offenders on probation/parole/post release violations, and it's really concerning.