Hacker News Reader

Comment by crumpusBaggins | Hacker News Reader

i think the obvious policy he the former attorney lists as causing more crime:

"Bond reform so no one stays in jail"

if every american suspected of shooting someone is held in jail rather than released, we have just removed the most likely population of people who cause future shootings. from the safety of the publics perspective, now the surviving victims/witnesses are more likely to be victims of more crimes because the suspected violent attackers are back on the street.

i dont really think there is room for debate on the "truthyness" of his statement, as if we kept more people in jail, less people would be out in public able to commit crime. how much is a good question tho.

View on HN

The bond reform statement really doesn't line up with the facts. They're no longer requesting pre-trial detention of those charged with low-level nonviolent offense. [1] That just doesn't line up with the claims being presented.

[1] https://theappeal.org/bail-reform-embraced-by-cook-county-st...

So it's a little more complicated than that with the electronic monitoring program where people charged with violent crimes can be electronically monitored at home. For example early last year, ~100 people charged with murder in Cook Country (where the prosecutor in the letter worked) were at home monitored. https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/cook-county-sheriff-tom...

my understanding is most cities lack resources to actually monitor the electronic things,

so usually its after a new crime is commited, the police stories read like:

"X suspected of serious crime violated his electoronic home monitoring Y amount of times, we rearrested him during the act of a seperate crime"

Is the cost of monitoring an inmate more, or less than the cost to monitor the electronic things?

i would assume tracking the electronic devices are cheaper

if both options arent funded/run appropriatly public safety is harmed either way

The vast majority of people in jail before trial are not suspected of shooting anyone. Many are low-level offenders waiting in jail for months despite still having the presumption of innocence. Often the time they spend in jail before trial exceeds the length of the sentence they would get if convicted. This can pressure people to falsely plead guilty since it's actually the fastest way to get out of jail.

The policies implemented in Chicago weren't exactly targeting jaywalkers - some 10 people get shot in Chicago every weekend for about a decade now with a huge asymmetry of how the justice system deals with people that shot and missed.

You have to consider the effects of allowing the state to hold whomever they want without a trial. States will lock kids up for years without trial on suspicion of stealing a backpack. That should never happen.

>i dont really think there is room for debate on the "truthyness" of his statement, as if we kept more people in jail, less people would be out in public able to commit crime.

Your assumption is contingent on the accuracy of the accusations to begin with, and doesn't account for deadweight loss, so this isn't straightforward. This deadweight loss also isn't going to be shouldered by just anybody, but especially the justice system itself. Especially considering the alternative being proposed here is not "total unconditional freedom" but "freedom unless imprisoned for violating bail conditions, and $$$ for the justice system if such a violation occurs". You can make bail conditions quite onerous if you want to but still cheaper than jail cells.

If on account of not making bail we have to put somebody in prison, police may be directed to make less arrests, DAs may be motivated to bring forward less charges, Judges may be inclined to give people lighter sentences, and parole boards may be motivated to release people earlier, as this will free up the limited resource of jail cells.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com