Locally, it's a somewhat significant problem that people are getting caught for violent crimes and getting released immediately and reoffending.
Locally, it's a somewhat significant problem that people are getting caught for violent crimes and getting released immediately and reoffending.
* Not allowing bail for people at high risk of reoffending or flight is already allowed
* Reoffending while waiting on trial or out on bail is rare
On the other hand there seems to be a huge problem in the US of people being detained for long times without a trial.
Do they get bail a second time?
Do you think they wouldn't reoffend if they weren't released until after they are punished?
If they do two crimes and get two sentences, does it matter if that's AABB or ABAB?
If it doesn't, then it's two crimes either way, just timed differently. And after the policy settled in it would have negligible impact on the crime rate.
Also if you're doing sentencing for two crimes at once you can give a longer punishment for the first crime and get them off the street longer.
But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender; also, some people die during the sentence... the probability does go down, for many small reasons compounded together.
Not unless I'm a robot programmed to prevent recidivism at all costs. Why are you even asking this?
> But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender
...and not everyone released before their trial becomes a repeat offender.
> some people die during the sentence
Is that a significant effect? I don't think most sentences are long enough for that to make a big difference, and I don't think preventing a single crime per lifetime, at most, is enough reason to keep people locked up for the lengthy pre-trial process.
Because otherwise we're talking about completely different scenarios.
But if there is still a trial I don't see how "why bother" makes sense...