I've come across something interesting I'd like to share with this group. As you all probably know, New York gubernatorial candidate Lee Zeldin was attacked as he was giving a speech last week. Some things I want to make clear before this thread: 1. Attacking anyone, especially politicians, should always be condemned and this is no exception. 2. I do not believe that this was staged or a false flag, I believe it was a drunk man who legitimately tried to attack Zeldin. Okay, now the interesting part. Check out this article by the New York Post, I've quoted and highlighted some key parts: https://nypost.com/2022/07/22/zeldin-attack-proof-that-nys-laws-dont-protect-the-public/ Attack a gov candidate, then walk free: Perfect proof that New York’s laws don’t protect the public I've also noted people on this forum and in the conservative media decrying bail reform as a problem here, but the New York Post and likely other outlets are leaving out a key detail. Who is DA Sandra Doorley? DA Sandra Doorley has been notorious in New York for high jail times and poises herself as the tough on crime alternative in her district. She campaigns as the alternative to "Soros backed" candidates. The New York Post critisizes her for not picking a higher charge, and indeed he was later charged by the feds with a greater crime that did require bail. So why did she decide to give such a low charge? If you look at Zeldin's campaign website, it becomes quite obvious: DA Doorley is a leading member of Zeldin's campaign. Funny this isn't mentioned, she had a massive conflict of interest politically, and I thoroughly believe (given her sentencing track record) that she took advantage of it. What's incredible is how the New York Post piece is written, throwing journalism to wind in favor of partisan hackery. Ending their editorial with an appeal to vote for Zeldin is just the cherry on top. In any case, I thought it was interesting to see how an especially egregious piece of propaganda is crafted.
Hum. At what paragraph did the grey lady ( paper of record that just recently admitted to the Hunter laptop from hell and gave us this information?). I’ll save you the trouble, paragraph 22/23. That was their news feed, not an editorial. And? Would you like to discuss no bail NY policies? Oh, please!!!!!!
Personally, I’m surprised you didn’t mention what I think is the most plausible reason for her lighter-than-typical treatment of Jakubonis . . . Her likely concern over the appearance of favoritism toward Zeldin, and prejudicial treatment of the attacker. In retrospect, if Jakubonis was indeed drunk, Doorley may have made the right choice, especially since the attacker seems to have been a threat to Zeldin in particular, and not toward others in society at large. She could have asked one of her underlings to handle it, but if the decision was seemingly too harsh, it may have appeared an impropriety as well. Tough nut to crack.
You do make a good counterpoint there, but I still tend to think it was an attempt to win political points by taking advantage of the situation. The biggest evidence I have is that Zeldin himself wasted no time spinning this as a failure of the system rather than an undercharge by his campaign chair.
I think that this incident is a soulless attempt to spin a situation for political advantage and has nothing to do with either the laws around bail or some other perceived social shock-value it is being blown up into by all of the vocally reflexive talking heads. This drunken slob didn't even know where he was and spent the rest of the day sobering up in some drunk tank until he was sober enough to return to the community. If he had done the same thing to another patron in the bar he probably got drunk in, what do you think the odds are that we'd even know about this guy? Once the spin starts lapping up a considerable amount of free publicity, all the real truths disappear, and it is pointless to even consider what is being said any longer. The gullible or maybe just the well-seasoned partisans will live or die on every detail of this story long after the truth was buried under a mountain of false characterizations. Next, we'll find out that this guy voted republican in the last election. Or that he once was seen at a Cuomo event. Or he registered a democrat in 2008. I mean, it all means literally nothing in the end but we file it away and convince ourselves that we were right all along. No thanks.
Another of your feeble attempts to divert from the focus of the thread. If he had done the same thing to a democrat politician, what do you think the odds are that we'd not know about this guy?
Oh, that shows just how balanced your perspective truly is . . . Now I'm reminscing about FlyDiddles . . . that ain't a good thing JN.
Agreed….. However had he lunged at AOC with his weapon….. I would bet a dollar to a bucket of mud that he wouldn’t have been out the same day on cashless bail.
My opinion is that cashless bail should be only for people that do not commit crimes involving violence. 97% of the cashless bail recipients do not commit other crimes while awaiting their day in court. That is a strong indication that the vast, vast majority of people deserve the cashless bail option.
Mayor Adams disagrees with your assertion. Is he lying? “Mayor Eric Adams — who’s been demanding that state legislators roll back the bail-reform law to crack down on repeat offenders — expressed outrage Wednesday while discussing the findings during an afternoon news conference at One Police Plaza. “Our criminal justice system is insane,” he said. “It is dangerous, it is harmful and it’s destroying the fabric of our city.” Adams added: “Time and time again, our police officers make an arrest, and then the person who is arrested for assault, felonious assaults, robberies and gun possessions, they’re finding themselves back on the street within days– if not hours — after the arrest.”
You are wrong. Depending on the various reported sources of such data ( cities / states ) violent crimes committed while out on cashless bail appears to average about 3%. Nearly 20% commit additional crimes, violent and not, while out on cashless bail.
Why don't you post when you actually have something other than your opinion for a change. Cashless bail has been around for a long time. This is nothing new. Violent crime in the United States shot up last year as the pandemic raged. Major cities across the country saw a more than 30% jump in homicides as well as increases in aggravated assaults, according to a January report from the National Commission on Covid-19 and Criminal Justice. Experts, politicians and pundits have provided different theories as to why, after decades of a downward trend in overall crime, certain violent crimes are on the rise in cities across the country. While many point to the pandemic and the economic collapse that followed, some have focused on more specific aspects of the criminal justice system, and in particular some recent efforts to reform it. Bail reforms -- which generally focus on removing or limiting the use of cash bail against defendants who are accused of misdemeanors or nonviolent offenses -- aim at making sure most defendants are not held in jail while awaiting trial solely because they cannot afford cash bail. During a congressional hearing in late June, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, suggested reforms eliminating cash bail could partially be to blame for the recent spike in crime. Graham asked FBI Director Christopher Wray if he believed "one of the reasons crime is on the rise is that certain jurisdictions have basically eliminated bail?" "You catch them on Monday morning and they're out on the streets Monday afternoon," Graham said. While Wray did not directly answer Graham's question, he suggested that "one of the causes of the violent crime spike are certain kinds of prosecution practices," adding that "there's nothing more disheartening to a law enforcement officer to see somebody that you worked hard to arrest promptly back out committing a crime again." Facts First: There's no clear evidence linking bail reforms -- which have been in place for years in some cities -- to the recent rise in violent crimes. In fact, the majority of cities that have seen increases in crime have not eliminated cash bail. Many variables have contributed to the increases Graham is referencing but CNN has seen no evidence to suggest that bail reform is a major factor. Several states and jurisdictions have passed bail reform to varying degrees for misdemeanor offenses. Washington, DC, removed cash bail in most cases in 1992. New Mexico largely eliminated it in 2016. In 2017, Cook County, Illinois, passed significant bail reform. The state of Illinois eliminated the practice in February but the change won't go into effect until 2023. New Jersey largely removed cash bail in 2017 and Alaska largely ended its cash bail system in 2018. New York state passed legislation in 2019 on bail reform, making "release before trial automatic for most people accused of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies," according to the Vera Institute of Justice. Three months after the law went into effect it was amended to allow judges more situations to institute cash bail. In March, the California Supreme Court ruled that defendants could not be jailed before their trials simply because they cannot afford their set bail. However, the increase in crime has occurred in cities across the country, not just those with bail reform measures. According to a report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, out of the 66 largest police jurisdictions, 63 saw an increase in at least one category of violent crimes in 2020, CNN reported. The vast majority of these cities have not passed reforms eliminating bail. Experts have noted that the increases in crime during the pandemic are not due to a single factor but rather to a "perfect storm" of events and changes including the subsequent economic collapse, changes in policing and more. Studies on bail reform There have been very few studies analyzing the effects of bail reform on crime rates during the pandemic era and studies done prior to the pandemic have come to different conclusions as to the effects these reforms have had. In a November 2020 report, the left-leaning Prison Policy Initiative, a criminal justice reform think tank, reviewed 13 jurisdictions that have instituted pretrial reforms -- including Washington, DC, New Jersey and Kentucky -- and found that "All but one of these jurisdictions saw decreases or negligible increases in crime after implementing reforms." "The one exception is New York State," the report says, "where the reform law existed for just a few months before it was largely rolled back." In July of last year, the New York Post investigated NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shea's claim that bail reform played a role in the rise in shootings. The Post reported that, according to data from the NYPD, bail reform did not play a role in the increase in shootings. Out of the 528 shootings from January 2020 through June 2020, only one person charged with a shooting had been released under the state's bail reform, according to the Post. One study conducted prior to the pandemic contradicts the implication that bail reforms lead to a significant increase in violent crime. An October 2019 report from the University of New Mexico indicated that after the state's bail reforms were implemented, a majority of individuals released pretrial did not commit other crimes. According to the report, "While approximately one-quarter of the defendants released were arrested for a new offense during the pretrial period, very few defendants released pretrial were arrested for a new violent crime." Studies on certain jurisdictions, such as Cook County, disagree on whether cash bail can be linked to any increase in crime. Two studies from the University of Utah and Loyola University Chicago came to opposite conclusions on whether the bail reform in Cook County led to an increase in crime in the county. These studies of Cook County are a clear example of how researchers disagree on methodology in studying the effects of bail reform and increases in crime. Despite these disagreements, CNN has seen no clear evidence to support Graham's insinuation that the small number of bail reforms in the US have played a role in the increase in violent crimes throughout major cities in the country. CNN's Christina Carrega contributed to this report.
Powerful claim, if you can back it up with proof, versus the following: . . . I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours. Get your mind out of the gutter JN . . . you may be that sort of guy, but I'm not.
