NJ passed bail reform in 2017,* now lawmakers have amended bail laws for gun crimes

[bnew]

how does doing away with cash bail benefit Society?

by not throwing people deeper into poverty.







when someone can't afford bail, they miss work, lose their job, apartment and their family household is in disarray when little to no income comes in. this doesn't benefit society because now that person is is statistically more likely to commit a crime.

 

[bnew]

 

[CrimsonTider]

You ignored the very next line:

"Fundamentally, we found that eliminating bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies reduced recidivism in New York City, while there was no clear effect in either direction for cases remaining bail eligible,” said Michael Rempel, director of John Jay College’s Data Collaborative for Justice, in a statement."


You ignored literally the entire study in order to focus on a single exception with an impact so small that it wasn't even relevant.

This is like when you accidentally posted the guy who killed someone cause he got out on cash bail as your defense of cash bail. You have no idea what you're reading, you're just a hard-right reactionary when it comes to police unless your sports rooting allegiances are in the way.

Reread my post and tell did ignore the entire story?

No one cares about bail for misdemeanors

People committing violent crimes should not be granted bail so easily

And your dumbass article shows that those people are committing more crime when they’re released

 

[CrimsonTider]

by not throwing people deeper into poverty.







when someone can't afford bail, they miss work, loos their job, apartment and their family household is in dissarayy when little to no income is comes in. this doesn't benefit society because now that person is is statistically more likely to commit a crime.

I’m always talking about violent crime.

 

[bnew]

I’m always talking about violent crime.

what violent crime did you have in mind?

 

[CrimsonTider]

what violent crime did you have in mind?

 

[DEAD7]

Studies are in. Turns out that bail reform actually reduced crime in New York because people with minor offenses became less-likely to get rearrested:

“Fundamentally, we found that eliminating bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies reduced recidivism in New York City, while there was no clear effect in either direction for cases remaining bail eligible,” said Michael Rempel, director of John Jay College’s Data Collaborative for Justice, in a statement.

The study did not delve into the reasons behind the relative lack of recidivism among those who were released without having to pay bail. But experts have said that even temporary incarceration can lead to termination from jobs, family disruption and housing loss, which can incentivize further criminal activity.

Study shows those released under NY's bail reform laws are less likely to get rearrested

The two-year rearrest rate for people released due to bail reform was 44%, compared to 50% before the reform.

gothamist.com

What a surprise! It turns out that spending time in the system makes you more likely to commit crimes, not less.

I didn’t read the article…just the study.
From the study itself:

• “Across multiple outcomes, the reform’s mandatory release provisions significantly reduced re-arrest for people charged with misdemeanors; without a recent prior arrest; without a recent violent felony arrest; and without a pending case. Conversely, mandatory release significantly increased re-arrest across multiple outcomes for people with a recent violent arrest and with a pending case at the time of the current arraignment."

"Study shows rearrest rates lower for non-violent offenders released under NY's bail reform laws" would seemingly have been a more accurate title and better representation of the data.
The study also states, fewer people being arrested overall due to the pandemic and very lax policing from 2020-2022 may have affected the statistics.

Either way, I hope lawmakers tailor these laws around the data going forward.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I didn’t read the article…just the study.
From the study itself:

• “Across multiple outcomes, the reform’s mandatory release provisions significantly reduced re-arrest for people charged with misdemeanors; without a recent prior arrest; without a recent violent felony arrest; and without a pending case. Conversely, mandatory release significantly increased re-arrest across multiple outcomes for people with a recent violent arrest and with a pending case at the time of the current arraignment."

"Study shows rearrest rates lower for non-violent offenders released under NY's bail reform laws" would seemingly have been a more accurate title and better representation of the data.
The study also states, fewer people being arrested overall due to the pandemic and very lax policing from 2020-2022 may have affected the statistics.

Either way, I hope lawmakers tailor these laws around the data going forward.

You're being misleading by taking a minor side note of the study and quoting it like it's a main finding. This is the summary of the study findings by the study authors themselves:

Does New York's Bail Reform Law Impact Recidivism? A Quasi-Experimental Test in New York City - Data Collaborative for Justice

This report examines the impact of New York’s bail reform law on recidivism in New York City. We sought to produce a credible analysis of

datacollaborativeforjustice.org

Key Findings:​

• Eliminating bail for most misdemeanor and nonviolent felony charges reduced recidivism. There were reductions for any re-arrest (44% vs. 50%) and felony re-arrest (24% vs. 27%) over two years.
  
  
• For people remaining legally eligible for bail (most of whom were charged with violent felony offenses), reducing the use of bail through measures such as supervised release expansion or requiring judges to set the least restrictive condition did not affect recidivism in either direction.
  
• The 2020 amendments targeted a specific subgroup of people whose re-arrest rates had increased under the original reforms.
  
  
• Beyond the aforementioned overall takeaways, bail reform had varying recidivism effects depending on people’s charges and recent criminal history.

The paper makes clear that the overall takeaway is that the reforms reduced recidivism. That was the overall result. Yes, there was a very small subset for which recidivism increased, but it wasn't near large enough to outweigh the main impact.

https://datacollaborativeforjustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/RecidivismReport-2.pdf

"Study shows rearrest rates lower for non-violent offenders released under NY's bail reform laws" would seemingly have been a more accurate title and better representation of the data.

But the bail reform laws primarily applied to non-violent offenders. Again, from the study authors themselves:

Passed April 1, 2019, bail reform went into effect statewide on January 1, 2020. These changes to the bail law made the vast majority of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies subject to mandatory release. Arraignment judges could release people with these charges on their own recognizance, order non-monetary conditions such as supervised release, or in limited circumstances order electronic monitoring. But judges could no longer set bail or detain people.

Key exceptions to mandatory release included virtually all violent felonies; sex offenses; domestic violence cases in which the individual was accused of violating an order of protection; select offenses against children; and witness tampering and intimidation. These charges remained “bail eligible,” meaning eligible for money bail as a pretrial condition, and thereby, detention.

These were the #'s for total people impacted:

Charges: The charges were 72% misdemeanors, 24% nonviolent felonies, and 4% violent felonies. (The reform made few violent felonies subject to mandatory release.) The most common charges were assault in the third degree (35%), drug offenses (13%), burglary (10%), and petit larceny (7%).

Criminal History: The sample included 50% with a recent prior arrest, 10% with a recent violent felony arrest,47 15% with a pending case at the time of the current arraignment, and 20% with a prior warrant from an earlier case.

And these were the results by subgroup:

Misdemeanors. For people charged with misdemeanors, eliminating bail was associated with a significant reduction in two-year re-arrest rates for any charge (43% vs. 52%) and for a new felony (21% vs. 26%). While favoring bail reform, the difference was substantively negligible (one percentage point) for VFO re-arrest and not statistically significant for firearm re-arrest. Survival analyses extending the tracking period for up to 30 months showed that release was associated with a reduced re-arrest risk across all four outcomes.

Felonies. For people charged with felonies, eliminating bail was associated with an increase in VFO re-arrest (17% vs. 14%), though there were no differences across the three other outcomes. Survival analyses that extended tracking for up to 30 months did not detect a change in re-arrest risk across any of the four outcomes, including VFO re-arrest.

So across the longest study period, the bail reform policy reduced rearrest for ALL categories for misdemeanor arrests, and had NO increase in re-arrest risk for felony arrests. That's a win across the board.



Now, the part you quoted was solely from when they started breaking it down into finer subgroups. This was the finding:

Estimated Recidivism Impact by Criminal History

Prior Arrest or Not. Eliminating bail was associated with a statistically significant reduction in re-arrest on all four outcomes for people without a recent prior, while the analysis detected minimal effects in any direction for people with a prior.

• No Prior Arrest: Release was associated with lower rates of overall re-arrest (26% vs. 38%), felony re-arrest (12% vs. 20%), and VFO re-arrest (6% vs. 10%); and a modestly lower firearm re-arrest rate (1.3% vs. 2.2%). The survival analyses confirmed the benefits of release across all four outcomes— with the relative risk reduction ranging from 40% (any re-arrest) to 47% (firearm re-arrest).

• Recent Prior Arrest: Release was associated with a higher VFO re-arrest rate (22% vs. 18%), though there were no differences across the two groups in overall, felony, or firearm re-arrest. None of the results across any of the four outcomes were different in the survival analyses (including for VFO re-arrest).

Pending Case or Not. Eliminating bail for people without pending cases was associated with a statistically significant reduction in overall, felony, and VFO re-arrest, whereas the opposite was true for people with a pending case. There were no differences for firearm re-arrest. Results for the two-year re-arrest rates (see just below) were echoed in the survival analyses.

• No Pending Case: Release of people with no pending cases was associated with lower rates of overall re-arrest (39% vs. 48%), felony re-arrest (20% vs. 26%), and VFO re-arrest (12% vs. 14%).

• Pending Case: In contrast, releasing people with a pending case was associated with higher rates of overall re-arrest (69% vs. 63%), felony re-arrest (44% vs. 34%), and VFO re-arrest (27% vs. 17%).

Prior VFO Arrest or Not. Eliminating bail for people without a recent prior VFO arrest was associated with a reduction in overall, felony, and VFO re-arrest, whereas the opposite was true for people with a prior VFO arrest. There were no differences for firearm re-arrest. Results for the two-year re-arrest rates (see just below) were echoed in the survival analyses.

• No Prior VFO Arrest: The release of people with no prior VFOs was associated with lower rates of overall re-arrest (41% vs. 49%) and felony re-arrest (21% vs. 26%), and a marginal association with VFO re-arrest (12% vs. 13%).

• Prior VFO Arrest: Releasing people with a recent VFO arrest was associated with higher rates of overall re-arrest (72% vs. 62%), felony re-arrest (50% vs. 38%), and VFO re-arrest (36% vs. 24%).

So the only people for whom the policy increased recidivism were those who had a pending case or recent violent felony that was unrelated to the case the bail reform policy actually applied to. If you want to tailor policy to them, then you would have to give judges much more latitude to decide whether to grant bail or not on a case-by-case basis (and it shouldn't be cash bail). But @CrimsonTider, the one I was arguing with, wants the exact opposite. He thinks that judges shouldn't get the latitude to make judgment calls and he's against eliminating cash bail. How that would actually help, he's never explained.

If you don't like the fact that part of the study came during the pandemic, the authors point out 3 other studies of different cities that eliminated cash bail before this, and recidivism didn't increase in any of those cities either.

 

[get these nets]

Will track and update A2426

N.J. bail law makes it easier to detain people charged with gun crimes​

CBS New York
July 11, 2023
Mayors of the biggest cities in New Jersey hope to see a decrease in gun crime because of a change in the state's bail law, CBS2's Tony Aiello reports

NJ Legislature

The New Jersey State Legislature

www.njleg.state.nj.us

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This breh is pro-police. One of the most right-wing black dudes on this forum.

you talking about get these nets?

I thought he was indian

He Indian?

Pretty sure he's Haitian not Indian, though he could be mixed. There's a lot of conservative Haitians on this board which isn't surprising if you know the class structure there. To me his background is irrelevant, it's the elitist policies he pushes that bother me.

 

[DEAD7]

So the only people for whom the policy increased recidivism were those who had a pending case or recent violent felony that was unrelated to the case the bail reform policy actually applied to. If you want to tailor policy to them, then you would have to give judges much more latitude to decide whether to grant bail or not on a case-by-case basis (and it shouldn't be cash bail). But @CrimsonTider, the one I was arguing with, wants the exact opposite. He thinks that judges shouldn't get the latitude to make judgment calls and he's against eliminating cash bail. How that would actually help, he's never explained.

The data is clear, @CrimsonTider is arguing just to argue at this point.
In his defense though, the small increase will be more than enough for many to object. We simply aren’t rational actors, and negativity always outweighs the positive… a few bad apples and what not.


I would like to see a racial breakdown, because I believe leaving it in the hands of judges could lead to worse outcomes for black men.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

The data is clear, @CrimsonTider is arguing just to argue at this point.

I would like to see a racial breakdown, because I believe leaving it in the hands of judges could lead to worse outcomes for black men.

Unfortunately, the tough part is that the algorithm-based options are as or more biased than the judges:

Opinion | When an Algorithm Helps Send You to Prison (Published 2017)

Giving a computer program responsibility over sentences doesn’t eliminate bias.

www.nytimes.com

Analysis of racial bias in Northpointe's COMPAS algorithm | Tulane University Digital Library

digitallibrary.tulane.edu

Predictive policing algorithms are racist. They need to be dismantled.

Lack of transparency and biased training data mean these tools are not fit for purpose. If we can’t fix them, we should ditch them.

www.technologyreview.com

 

[OfTheCross]

@CrimsonTider is right...

Violent criminals should stay locked up.

I don't even understand why that's a debate

 

[Professor Emeritus]

@CrimsonTider is right...

Violent criminals should stay locked up.

I don't even understand why that's a debate

There is no debate. That's just something @CrimsonTider starts shouting whenever he loses the actual debate about reforming cash bail. Y'all are making up narratives.

Bail reform was to remove cash bail for misdemeanors and non-violent felonies and replace it with a risk assessment instead. It makes FAR more sense than cash bail, which allows risky offenders out just because they can pay cash, while keeping nonviolent offenders in solely because they're poor. It has worked perfectly well, the only problem is that when crime increased in 2021 (just like it increased EVERYWHERE), reactionary idiots blamed an 8-year-old bail reform law instead of noticing that crime went up all the places that hadn't changed bail too.



"Prior to bail reform, around 15,000 New Jerseyans were incarcerated on any given day, with more than 75% just awaiting trial or sentencing. Moreover, 5,000 of these people were being detained solely because they could not afford to post cash bail. At the same time, more affluent people who posed a danger to the community could buy their way out of jail. In essence, the state was running a debtor’s prison, as Republican former Gov. Chris Christie put it.

Following bipartisan legislation and a constitutional amendment supported by 62% of voters, New Jersey essentially eliminated cash bail and instituted a risk assessment approach in which judges consider community safety and other factors before deciding whether to detain or release someone before trial.

Because of these reforms, the pretrial jail population decreased by 20% between 2015 and 2022. Over roughly the same period, the state saw a decrease in overall crime and a decrease in violent crime steeper than the national average. Moreover, the percent of people charged with a serious offense while on pretrial release remains extremely low, even amid a national rise in violence since the Covid-19 pandemic."

Arnold Ventures | The Facts on New Jersey Bail Reform

A new fact sheet released by AV shows that bail reform in New Jersey has been successful and is a national model of how to balance community safety with…

www.arnoldventures.org

https://craftmediabucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/AV-New-Jersey-Bail-Reform-Fact-Sheet.pdf

 

[Professor Emeritus]

This entire issue is a perfect example of how reactionary, ill-informed, and pro-violence the average White Moderate is.



2021 - crime goes up EVERYWHERE in the midst of an unprecedented pandemic with schools and businesses closed down.

* places that had reduced police funding * - "It must have gone up because we defunded the police!"

* places that had increased police funding * - "It must have gone up because we haven't militarized the police enough yet!"

* places that had eliminated cash bail years earlier * - "It must be cause we didn't lock enough people up!"

* places that never changed bail laws at all * - "Look at those awful liberal cities! Don't look at our own crime rates, look away, look away!"



There's literally zero correlation between places that stopped cash bail and any increase in crime rates. There's literally zero correlation between places that did "defund the police" and the increases in crime. But moderate White Americans and their sympathizers are so reactionary that ANY increase in crime is automatically met by a response of "We must need more police, more guns, more prisons, more time", even though that doesn't work anywhere else in the developed world.