It's wrong that poor people who aren't a threat to society are imprisoned because they can't afford bail, not that rich people aren't. Don't think that the way to get rid of the disparity of privilege is to take it away - it is to grant it to more.
I think society struggles with knowing who is a threat and who isn't. The consequences of being wrong is rape, death, and arson.
> released without bail and was arrested 10 hours later for arson
https://westseattleblog.com/2022/10/crime-watch-followup-ars...
> A judge released him [..] one week before this Monday’s murder.
https://westseattleblog.com/2022/06/crime-watch-followup-arr...
> Fulk is a convicted felon and was arrested just eight days earlier in neighboring Pierce County for threatening to kill a Pierce Transit public safety officer.
https://komonews.com/news/local/witness-describes-vicious-vi...
I’m pretty sure the rest of us think it should be 0… but maybe that is just me. 3 notable examples in the last 6 months in one area… not zero… not anywhere close.
edit: I think your edit made things a little clearer. I doubt we agree, but we've talked past each other here. The relevant statistic is [number of people who commit crimes on bail]/[number of people released on bail]. If we had Minority-Report-style precogs, we could have had 0 such cases in the last 6 months while denying only 3 more people bail. But we don't have that option- there's not much to be done about the sensitivity, so all we can do is crank the cutoff of doubt higher or lower.
With tens of thousands of people released on bail, and assuming that identifying the nth potential murderer roughly follows a power law distribution (a fairly reasonable assumption in a sensitivity/specificity situation like this) we're talking about jailing thousands of innocents to prevent one guilty man from going free. If look at violent crime in general the numbers are less skewed (around 2%), but I'd hope that most people balk at the idea of preemptively jailing ten people without trial to prevent just one from committing a crime. I mean, recidivism rates after prison are way higher than that- perhaps "the rest of us" would favor life sentences for every crime, but I doubt it.
People that are not functioning on any level (just because they're low-income doesn't mean they don't have friends or family to help) should be treated with caution, because they have nothing to lose.
They already are facing jail, so why should they try to function?
What level of rape/murder is acceptable from criminals who have not yet been charged with a crime?
The answer is the same as for your question, so unless we are going to preemptively detain everyone not yet charged with a crime, I don't see how the answer to your question can imply we should lock up people who are charged but not convicted.
Huh? What are you talking about? You don’t even get a bail hearing unless you've already been charged with a crime.
1. https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/clea...
More simply put: much more than 50% of people that have stolen 1 car will get caught before they have stolen their tenth car, and if someone has stolen a hundred cars then their chances of getting caught before stealing 110 are much less than 50%. Edit: note that my figures don’t match your numbers - they are only examples.
This is not likely true, and it is definitely not necessarily true.
There are quite likely people out on bail who have (1) committed at least one crime, (2) never been identified and arrested or charged for any crime that they have committed.
https://hachyderm.io/@mekkaokereke/109558870665603162
It notes that a Judge can still say that an offender should be remanded to pre-trial custody because they're a threat to the community.
Yes, and that happens with people released on cash bail as well as no-cash-bail; there's no evidence, despite the fact that large no-cash-bail jurisdictions have existed in the US for quite some time (D.C. has been essentially no-cash-bail for three decades, for instance) that having money in the mix for pretrial release protects against that.