Non-Profit bails out domestic abuser, he promptly beats wife to death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bleeding hearts only care about their feel good moment . Fiddling criminals won’t turn out well but liberals have made criminals into a darling group

I have a co-worker who has told me that she doesn't believe in incarceration, only in rehabilitation. She is active in a non-profit regarding this. I REALLY wanted to tell her that my kidnapper/rapist recently applied for parole and I'm terrified of him coming after me when he gets out. I really wanted to ask her if she would feel that way if she was in my position. I did not though, I kept quite and just listened to her talk about mass incarceration and using inmates as slave labor, etc.

Tell her that you’ll be happy to pass along her name and address when he comes after you. Since she just loves rehabilitated rapists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really does outline the problem with cash bail in general. If he had the money, he would have been out on bail regardless of this non-profit.

Pre-trail jail should be based on a risk assessment, not on the ability to pay or not.

+100

This is the only comment in this thread worthy of the 5 seconds it took to read it.

The $5000 was likely done on a risk assessment. Bail, in Virginia at least, is set to fit your financial circumstances. It's very unlikely this guy could have come up with $5000 cash. But along comes a nonprofit with deep pockets circumventing the "pain" associated with bonding out. I imagine they will be setting $50,000 bonds for all future cases. Whatever is out of reach of the nonprofit.

Pop
So why should bail be allowed at all in your view?

For domestic violence? No. But they likely to be released to court anyway. Then they proceed to browbeat the victim into dropping the charges. One way or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people who need to sit down and learn about cash bail in this thread.

So knowledgeable you can't explain it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of people who need to sit down and learn about cash bail in this thread.

So knowledgeable you can't explain it?

BTW, I will help you out. The point of bail, in Virginia, is to ensure than the bailee will return to court. That the penalty of forfeiting the bond would be worse than appearing in court. A bond is typical for most charges with some exceptions that require no bond. Magistrates are free to set whatever they like or revoke bail should they feel someone would not abide the conditions of release. Unofficially, bail is used to ensure a cooling off period while still meeting the requirements of setting a reasonable bond.

I can't comment on the other jurisdiction's usage of bail.

[Anonymous]

Do-gooders often don't know what's good and what's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really does outline the problem with cash bail in general. If he had the money, he would have been out on bail regardless of this non-profit.

Pre-trail jail should be based on a risk assessment, not on the ability to pay or not.

+100

This is the only comment in this thread worthy of the 5 seconds it took to read it.

The $5000 was likely done on a risk assessment. Bail, in Virginia at least, is set to fit your financial circumstances. It's very unlikely this guy could have come up with $5000 cash. But along comes a nonprofit with deep pockets circumventing the "pain" associated with bonding out. I imagine they will be setting $50,000 bonds for all future cases. Whatever is out of reach of the nonprofit.

Pop
So why should bail be allowed at all in your view?

For domestic violence? No. But they likely to be released to court anyway. Then they proceed to browbeat the victim into dropping the charges. One way or another.

So we should hold innocent (until proven guilty) people until their trials are over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really does outline the problem with cash bail in general. If he had the money, he would have been out on bail regardless of this non-profit.

Pre-trail jail should be based on a risk assessment, not on the ability to pay or not.

+100

This is the only comment in this thread worthy of the 5 seconds it took to read it.

The $5000 was likely done on a risk assessment. Bail, in Virginia at least, is set to fit your financial circumstances. It's very unlikely this guy could have come up with $5000 cash. But along comes a nonprofit with deep pockets circumventing the "pain" associated with bonding out. I imagine they will be setting $50,000 bonds for all future cases. Whatever is out of reach of the nonprofit.

Pop
So why should bail be allowed at all in your view?

For domestic violence? No. But they likely to be released to court anyway. Then they proceed to browbeat the victim into dropping the charges. One way or another.

So we should hold innocent (until proven guilty) people until their trials are over?

You know that is a strawman fallacy. Read what I wrote and ask a thoughtful question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bleeding hearts only care about their feel good moment . Fiddling criminals won’t turn out well but liberals have made criminals into a darling group

I have a co-worker who has told me that she doesn't believe in incarceration, only in rehabilitation. She is active in a non-profit regarding this. I REALLY wanted to tell her that my kidnapper/rapist recently applied for parole and I'm terrified of him coming after me when he gets out. I really wanted to ask her if she would feel that way if she was in my position. I did not though, I kept quite and just listened to her talk about mass incarceration and using inmates as slave labor, etc.

I'm far left but I don't believe in prison abolition precisely because I have a friend who survived a similar crime. I'm sorry that happened to you, pp. Obviously you have no obligation to share your story with your coworker, but I think stories like yours can push people to have a more nuanced view of the issue. I definitely think there are too many people in prison in the US but I also don't think we should have to live in communities with convicted rapists and murders. I find that people who grew up in violent communities tend to agree with that point, and people who have lived lives sheltered from violence are cool with letting everyone out.

Ok, but wait: "I don't think we should have to live . . . with convicted rapists and murderers". Which means you are calling for life without parole in all such cases, since they have to live somewhere. What is the underlying purpose here? Is it because such persons are so despicable they should not be allowed contact with anyone on the other side of prison bars ever again?Or is it because of concerns about future dangerousness? And is this the case regardless of the circumstances of the crime? And 18 year old is present with other people engaged in a robbery, nobody has a gun--except the store clerk who shoots one of the other robbers, who also happens to have a concealed knife. Now you have an 18 year old facing first degree murder charges because of a homicide committed in the act of an intentional felony. Life in prison? really? What about people who are unquestionably rehabilitated? What is exactly the purpose in lifetime incarceration, which is what you are talking about?

Better alternative is death penalty. Get rid of criminal before he costs more.

[Anonymous]

One failure doesn't mean the whole program is a failure. It just means they had a failure.

Besides, the woman was hospitalized for almost a week. Plenty of time for other factors to come into play. Could've been complications from hospital acquired infection, medical error, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One failure doesn't mean the whole program is a failure. It just means they had a failure.

Besides, the woman was hospitalized for almost a week. Plenty of time for other factors to come into play. Could've been complications from hospital acquired infection, medical error, etc.

Even if what ultimately killed her was a hospital infection, she wouldn’t have been in the hospital if her no good, dirty, rotten, wife beating husband hadn’t been out on bail.

That said, I wouldn’t have gone someplace he could find me. I’m saying that as someone whose sister was killed by an estranged husband during a court mandated visitation with their infant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She died FIVE days later. Obviously this is hospital malpractice. Case closed.

Just when I’m lulled into thinking that this forum was made up of reasonably educated individuals, along comes an azzhat like you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One failure doesn't mean the whole program is a failure. It just means they had a failure.

Besides, the woman was hospitalized for almost a week. Plenty of time for other factors to come into play. Could've been complications from hospital acquired infection, medical error, etc.

Wow, just wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She died FIVE days later. Obviously this is hospital malpractice. Case closed.

Just when I’m lulled into thinking that this forum was made up of reasonably educated individuals, along comes an azzhat like you

It was mostly in jest, but I suspect this will be the basis of his criminal defense. You only need to convince one juror that the hospital was inept. Then he can sue the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This really does outline the problem with cash bail in general. If he had the money, he would have been out on bail regardless of this non-profit.

Pre-trail jail should be based on a risk assessment, not on the ability to pay or not.

+100

I agree. If the guy was too dangerous to be out, he should have been detained on that ground, not based on his ability to pay a certain amount of money. Cash bail is a generally terrible idea--the only good purpose is to help ensure that someone shows up for all hearings.