Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

Bail System In Need Of Reform

March 5, 2013

One of the basic tenets of the American criminal justice system is a person is innocent until proven guilty. In New York, that might as well be guilty unless you have enough money to post bail....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Mar-05-13 8:21 AM

Start with a pinky...then take another finger for the next crime and the next one after that. The message that crime does not pay will become very clear.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 9:07 AM

As Hillary would say, "what's the difference?" If the DA is going to plea bargain the case anyway just to make his record look good, might as well let everyone go and save the expense.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 9:58 AM

People locked up for misdemeanors... it is as if we have learned nothing.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 12:11 PM

So are we supposed to let the nonviolent misdemeanors go with no bail? Simply because it costs us taxpayers $64 a day? I thought the incentive to not commit a crime in the first place was the idea of going to jail and having to pay fines, including bail. If it takes two to three weeks for the court to process the nonviolent misdemeanors, maybe the court system needs to be reformed.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 6:00 PM

Make them live in NYC on their own, punish them at the same time give them an idea what it is like to lose their freedom undr dictator Bloomberg.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 6:40 PM

People here seem to no longer believe in the Constitution. Remember that nasty little business about innocent until proven guilty? Trial by your peers? Oh, I forgot: if you no longer believe in the Constitution, you might be a conservative/tea party/Republican. Except,of course, for the Second Amendment.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 6:50 PM

Or you might be a whining commie democrat.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 7:58 PM

Hello, Seahole. We're not talking here about people CONVICTED of misdemeanors, but only ACCUSED of misdemeanors. Do you have the brains to understand the difference? Or could it be you might be a "conservative"?

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 8:37 PM

And further, Seahole, your example of car theft is a FELONY. Or are you even more simple minded than you appear?

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 8:40 PM

Anyone know what the other three states are?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 8:56 PM

No, Seahole, there's no need to hold those charged with minor misdemeanors in jail, unless there is a risk of flight or a history of other convictions which put the community at risk. Do you get it now?

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 9:01 PM

But wait, are you saying, Seahole, that an arrest is equivalent to a conviction? If yes, then you DON'T believe in the Constitution, do you? Or as I said before, except that the Second Amendment trumps everything. The stupidity of "conservatives" is breathtaking.

0 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-05-13 9:29 PM

Huh, Seahole? By "article" do you mean the editorial? If so, I (hold your breath) agree with the editorial, that there's no point holding non-violent people CHARGED with a misdemeanor. And so what do you mean, "read the article"?

0 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-07-13 6:34 AM

Is anyone surprised ? when we have a president that just appointed himself as judge,jury , executioner with drones killing Americans inside the U.S. without do process , a warrant , jury trial ect.and has purchased 2700 anti mine armored vehicle not for protecting boarders wile buying billions of rounds of ammo, just saying , tyranny is at hand and this president welcomes eagerly.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 11:22 AM

I think this statement says it all: "They are in the jail because they were given a break before and either committed a crime again or didn't appear in court in the first place. " So if they were given a prior opportunity and broke the law again, exactly why should they be free? Misdemeanor or not, they are now a habitual offender. Violent crime is not the only reason for incarceration.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 8:42 PM

just wondering jwhinny and anyone else out there who loves to quote the constitution. have u ever read the constitution. since the document was signed the system has worked like this, arrested, charged, tried, convicted. the process of posting bond prior to arraignment has also been the norm. flight risk is a very legitimate factor and ROR is for the first offense and normally given more than once if charges not in the same city

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Mar-09-13 8:47 PM

also u****liberals ok dont charge the criminal bail money instead because they are poor use my money to provide them with programs to help them fail their drug reform programs and create more democrat lead jobs for the aake of creating jobs. notice the only job growth under Obama has been in the public sector, hello who the **** is paying for this

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web