“replacing it with a risk-based system will enhance justice and safety”
Actually, I think this makes some sense.
“replacing it with a risk-based system will enhance justice and safety”
Actually, I think this makes some sense.
—
The comment/quote is in fact a lie.
If there’s a risk, there’s no bail, no matter how wealthy a defendant may be.
This is simply allowing the government carte Blanche to decide whom they deem worthy of holding.
It sounds good, but it will turn out to be just another cover story.
As others have mentioned, that "risk-based system" will almost certainly put Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, and registered Democrats at the low end of the ranking. No bail required. They are the favored groups.
The White male types are gonna be rated "high-risk" and required to post bail no matter what the crime.
Somebody has to keep the bail bondsmen in business...
It’s gobledy gook..... that is what judges already use
It sounds like it makes sense. Since they started it in NM though it has become another way for criminals to be out on the street doing more crime. I think the issue is who the judge thinks is a “risk”...and if the judge is a lefty, then it means everyone walks.
It SEEMS like a good idea. Who will be asessing the risks. Bet it will be people living 30 miles and a lot of buffer zones from the “accused”.
Actually, I think this makes some sense.
The people making those decisions will be the same social justice warriors who would sit on Death Panels. Don't think they would have your best interests at heart. This decision today was largely to allow illegal immigrants to exit captivity and be released back into the shadows. They will never show up to court.
Actually it makes 0 sense. California is in the midst of a prison crisis where they are forced to release hardened criminals to the streets long before serving out their sentences. If you think there is space available in county lockups to house those awaiting trial you may need to re-think that. This is nothing more than catch and release.