When the public discovered that Clayton Garzon, who allegedly badly beat Mikey Partida just six months after being charged with assault with a deadly weapon for actions in the early morning hours of September 11, 2012 in Dixon, had been free after posting bail, the public was outraged.
A $75,000 bail to Mr. Garzon’s family was nothing. He was free in a matter of hours, his family reportedly posting the bail in cash. The public, already angered at the brutal beating that seemed to be motivated by animus for the victim’s sexual orientation, was outraged.
On the one side, advocates were angry because many people sit in custody for far lesser crimes because they lack the ability that Mr. Garzon’s family had to post bail, even at 10 percent. On the other side, the DA’s office was rightly concerned about public safety.
Supervising Deputy DA Garrett Hamilton filed a motion to raise bail, arguing “changed circumstances.” He argued, “The initial setting of bail failed to include the fact that the defendant’s acts constitute a ‘hate crime.’ “
Mr. Hamilton’s motion argued that Mr. Garzon “poses a risk to the public, given that the offense committed in Yolo County occurred while the defendant was on release from Solano County.”
“He is clearly a danger to our county, and therefore his bail should reflect that circumstance,” Mr. Hamilton’s motion argued.
In Solano County, Mr. Garzon was out on his “own recognizance” for his charges from last September. After the Yolo County incident, he was briefly remanded and bail was set at $100,000, which he promptly posted.
The fact of the matter is that, even at $500,000, most likely his family will be able to afford to bail him out, in addition to providing Mr. Garzon with top-notched defense attorney Linda Parisi.
Last Tuesday in San Francisco, the Public Defender’s office held a discussion on the fiftieth anniversary of the Gideon v. Wainwright landmark Supreme Court Decision that guaranteed all criminal defendants the right to counsel.
Paramount to that right to that counsel is the idea that the indigent and the poor should have the same access to competent criminal defense as their wealthy counterparts.
Within that presentation was a discussion on bail which remarkably and perhaps unexpectedly fits. One of the assembled discussions was a panel on bail reform. While Berkeley Law Professor Jonathan Simon acknowledged that the subject of bail reform is not the most sexy of topics, part of the puzzle to the system of mass incarceration is the notion that some people do not need to be locked up, and yet are.
He cited the failure of the reform effort in the 1960s and the fact that the 8th Amendment of the Constitution has become the forgotten stepchild. In the place of excessive bail comes the birth of preventive detention which was once viewed as unconstitutional, and now, he says, is the hallmark of the system where the assessment of risk becomes the way out of the dilemma.
But he points out if you look closely at the rationale, the risk is based on a race and class assessment, since the wealthy Clayton Garzon somehow in this system presents less of a risk than a less affluent defendant.
It was San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón who articulated the justification for the current system of bail.
There are three assessments, he said: (1) the risk of violence, (2) the risk of re-offending, and (3) a flight risk.
If we assess Mr. Garzon’s case, it becomes clear that, while he is not a flight risk and should be certain to appear in court, certainly in light of his previous offense he has a risk of violence and a risk of re-offending.
In that light, we can argue quite credibly that the $75,000 bail initially set was far too low. There are questions about why the Yolo County Sheriff’s Office would set the bail that low. And certainly the Yolo County DA’s office acted appropriately in asking for bail to be increased.
But we still come to the fact of the matter – Mr. Garzon would probably make bail even if it were set for $1 million, maybe even more. Does the fact that he is able to post a far larger amount of bail deal with either his risk of violence or his risk of re-offending?
The San Francisco DA argued that perhaps the entire system needs to be revised so that, if the assessment is that the person presents a risk of re-offending, of being a danger to the community, or of not showing up in court, then perhaps a high bail is not sufficient and we should simply amend the system to create two alternatives.
He suggests we either have a no bail option for those individuals who are judged as too risky on any of the three factors, or release them on OR (own recognizance) if they are deemed likely to show up in court.
He argued that risk and risk alone, rather than finances for the family, should be the sole basis for custody.
As San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi indicated, in San Francisco nearly 75% of the county jail population is in the pretrial stage. That means that these people are accused but have not been convicted of any crimes.
Many of these people will end up ultimately serving no meaningful prison time, which means they will be released either with time-served or into some sort of program.
Naturally, there are two problems here. The first is that we are wasting jail space and capacity on these people, while inmates transferred from prison are being released because of lack of space in county jails. Now, San Francisco is not one of those counties, but this problem is not limited to San Francisco.
In October 2011, the Sacramento Bee noted, “Only one-third of the county’s 4,100 jail inmates are serving a sentence imposed by a court. The rest are suspects who have been arrested and accused of a crime but who are awaiting trial.”
Wrote the Bee, “Sacramento Superior Court had a ‘pretrial program’ from 1983 to 2009 to determine which people were of low risk to commit a new crime or not appear in court and could be released pending trial. Low-risk defendants could go back to their jobs and families while awaiting trial – checking in or being monitored with an ankle bracelet rather than losing income and jobs.”
“The program was a casualty of underuse and budget cuts,” they wrote.
However, they believe reviving that program would shave 10 to 15 percent of the pretrial population, which in Sacramento County, at least, frees up 274 to 410 jail beds.
The cost, they believe, is a tremendous savings, $100 a day for incarceration versus about $2.50 a day for pretrial screening and supervision.
They write, “The most promising avenue for reducing jail population while maintaining public safety is to look closely at people who have been arrested and accused of a crime, but who are awaiting trial. In the past, jails were roughly evenly divided between pretrial detainees and people who had been convicted and sentenced to a jail term. Now, sentenced offenders are a shrinking minority – 40 percent – of the Sacramento County jail population.”
Here is what Sacramento is spending money on: “In Sacramento County, 31 percent of the pretrial population has had no previous arrests, or only one arrest. Forty-three percent have had no prior convictions. Sixty-three percent were arrested for nonviolent property, drug or alcohol crimes. Most are local people and are not a flight risk.”
But as San Francisco Sheriff Mirkarimi notes, there is an additional component to this – it is the poor and the minorities who end up in custody. 56 percent in jail in San Francisco are African-American, 21% are white and 16% Latino.
As Catherine McCracken, the director of policy and development for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, said on Tuesday, the current bail policies do not ensure public safety and end up discriminating against those who can’t afford to post bail.
There is a presumption of guilt associated with those in custody. In pretrial matters, those in custody in Yolo County are paraded through the courthouse in a most undignified manner – chained to each other, wearing bright jail-issued jumpsuits.
They sit chained together for hours in the jury box during their hearings.
During trial, they are escorted through the jailhouse in chains and full shackles, then they change into a suit for the trial; but with the looming presence of the Sheriff’s Deputy, it is fairly easy for the jurors to figure out that they are in custody.
Those released on OR or bail are able to sleep in their own beds, and can wait patiently for the long trial process to take place, allowing their attorney and investigators the full time they need to put on the best defense possible.
On Monday, the Yolo County DA’s office will ask for a $500,000 bail. But we all know that Mr. Garzon will be released, regardless, after his family posts the bail. We may think this buys us additional public safety, but the reality remains the same.
A better system would be to assess the three risk factors and determine whether Mr. Garzon represents a danger to the community. If he does, keep him in custody on no bail. If he does not represent a danger, then release him on OR.
There is no reason, other than our presumption that people with the financial wherewithal are less risky, that Mr. Garzon should be out of custody, while scores of others are locked up on relatively minor pretrial charges that will never result in prison time.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“Many of these people will end up ultimately serving no meaningful prison time, which means they will be released either with time-served or into some sort of program.”
To say nothing of having been unjustifiably incarcerated if they are ultimately determined to be innocent !
This article misses a very important part of the equation. A 2002 study showed that 66% of detainees in county jails regularly used alcohol and 69% regularly used illicit drugs. Other studies showed that 35% of male and 31% of female convicted inmates were drunk when they committed their crime. A California Watch report stated that “[i]nearly 70% of convicts with 3rd strikes show a high need for substance abuse treatment[/i]” In addition to this approx 10-15% are deemed to be mentally ill.
The reality is that count jails have become a part of public health. Once the substance abusing detainee is in jail, they can be monitored and stabilized by medical professionals while they detox if necessary. Mental health staff can assess them for underlying mental health issues. Detainees can also be referred to community resources for substance abuse programs, supportive housing programs, and other appropriate community programs. Getting the person through withdrawal, evaluated for other medical problems, assessed by mental health professionals, and introduced to representatives from the community agencies does not happen in the 1st 48 hours after arrest. If the person has had a chance to detox and get stabilized, and have had time to reflect on how their life has become a mess they are much more likely to be receptive to some sort of treatment.
Despite the word “hate” in the headline, I saw no proposed ‘enhancement’ on the subject of bail. I appreciated the focus on the brutality of the Davis attack, and the fact that it isn’t the first time the suspect has been involved in a violent attack, and in such a short period of time.
One hopes that being on bail, the suspect doesn’t get involved with a third before he is even tried on the other two.
Wesley: while you make a fair point, there was some discussion of that issue and the feeling was that freeing up jail space could free up resources for better treatment programs.
“Despite the word “hate” in the headline, I saw no proposed ‘enhancement’ on the subject of bail.”
Someone told me that a hate crime enhancement can add about $20,000 to the bail. The DA is clearly going beyond that in their request.
I’m a little confused here. Did we drop the presumption of innocence for Mr. Garzon at some point?
The remark was made that bail amount was the product of race and class.
Where is the race element in this instance? The defendant’s family is presumed to be wealthy and thus could post the required bail with relative ease. That’s a class (wealth) distinction–understood–but it not against the law to be wealthy. While wealth is found more often in the “white class,” that’s a general supposition and has no bearing in this particular case. Wealthy people regardless of ethnicity will always have an advantage in going up against the criminal justice system, and most other societal systems for that matter.
Also, the statement is made that the Yolo Sheriff sets bail. Please confirm this. In the past, bail amounts were determined by the Yolo Courts and published in a “bail schedule” and given to the Sheriff to follow. I believe the courts still set and adjust bail amounts, not a sheriff.
“I’m a little confused here. Did we drop the presumption of innocence for Mr. Garzon at some point? “
I’m confused by your comment, we are talking about bail and pretrial custody, is it your view that everyone arrested but awaiting trial should be out on OR? Otherwise, I’m not sure of either your point or your confusion.
“Where is the race element in this instance?”
There is not an issue of race in this case, the issue is class.
“The defendant’s family is presumed to be wealthy and thus could post the required bail with relative ease.”
I believe it’s more accurate that they are known to be wealthy.
“That’s a class (wealth) distinction–understood–but it not against the law to be wealthy.”
That is correct it is not against the law to be wealthy, but being wealthy gives them a huge advantage in that they can bail Mr. Garzon whereas most other defendants in Mr. Garzon’s position would be awaiting trial in custody.
The question posed here is how does Mr. Garzon’s wealth mitigate the risk to the community of his release? I don’t think from your comment you really understood that point. If we are going to say that Mr. Garzon is a danger in the community, why are we allowing him out at $500,000 but not $70,000, how does that extra money prevent him from committing a third crime?
Justice of course should be applied equally, not being able to be have its process mitigated by wealth or anything else. I think it makes complete sense for release to be based on risks, not money.
And yes, as medwoman points out, it is unfair for people to serve time if innocent. There is just one issue there and that is when suspicions of dangerous/violent actions turn out to be against the innocent but there was no way to know who was innocent before trial or more information came to light.
Be good to be clear about “innocence”, and “not guilty”. Innocence, to me, is mistaken identity, or otherwise not involved with a crime. Not guilty goes more to the letter of the law, and how the jury weighs the evidence. An innocent man can be found “guilty”, and a person who had great culpability may be found “not guilty”.
The two words are far from synonymous.
I can’t remember reading a more slanted opinion on bail that fundamentally misapprehends our justice system. It is as if the writer is wholly unaware of centuries of abuses by King’s (Goverments) that ruined lives and stole freedom with unilateral, untested accusations. Or perhaps he is a reactionary yearning for the past where governments went unquestioned and freedom and rights were something only Royalty were permitted.
The fact is bail is a Constitutional right in response to those abuses by government. Duh. This blogger clearly sides with those who think Goverment can do no wrong. The fact is, a person who sits in jail, unconvicted and pre trial , is not only more likely to be convicted even though he is innocent (for many reasons, but also because he is severely impaired in assisting in his defense), but his income and employment are lost or threatened, his family is injured and his reputation damaged. Also, jail is a harsh , dangerous, drug infested place where a person sitting in without bail is truly suffering and being punished on the basis of mere allegations.
Resentment of wealth permeates this writers malformed opinion and should not be a basis for denying a person his rights and the best possible defense. If he is guilty , although the blogger didn’t see fit to mention it, the defendant will serve an additional two years in prison for committing an offense while on bail. Hopefully his lawyer told him this.
E Duree: You’ve made some interesting leaps based on a very narrow set of expressed beliefs.
“This blogger clearly sides with those who think Goverment can do no wrong. “
You clearly haven’t read anything else I have written. I suggest you do so.
“The fact is, a person who sits in jail, unconvicted and pre trial , is not only more likely to be convicted even though he is innocent (for many reasons, but also because he is severely impaired in assisting in his defense), but his income and employment are lost or threatened, his family is injured and his reputation damaged. “
I clearly also question whether you read the full article.
Here I basically agree on your point:
“As Catherine McCracken, the director of policy and development for the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, said on Tuesday, the current bail policies do not ensure public safety and end up discriminating against those who can’t afford to post bail. […]
There is a presumption of guilt associated with those in custody.”
So I’m not sure what your point is, mine is that the bail system allows for wealthy individuals to bail out while leaving lower economic people in custody.
There is no resentment of wealth, the concern is not with those who can bail out but rather those cannot. That’s not an issue of resentment, but rather one of equity for those who cannot bail.
If the purpose of bail is as suggested by the SF DA, then how does money intervene into that scenario?
“If he is guilty , although the blogger didn’t see fit to mention it, the defendant will serve an additional two years in prison for committing an offense while on bail. Hopefully his lawyer told him this. “
He was charged with committing an offense while on bail, so you are correct. Then again, I am not precisely sure how that negates my main point.
“This blogger clearly sides with those who think Goverment can do no wrong. ”
Ironic considering my piece expressing concern with the treatment of Bradley manning and the threat to watchdogs and whistle blowers.
[quote]“This blogger clearly sides with those who think Goverment can do no wrong. ”
[/quote]
Also ironic given how often David is criticized for being unduly critical of the policy and prosecutors.
“So I’m not sure what your point is, mine is that the bail system allows for wealthy individuals to bail out while leaving lower economic people in custody. “
Right, so to correct the problem you would put everyone in pre trial detention? Hurt more people to equalize the pain and dehumanization? If your point is the disparity in treatment by the system of the least powerful citizens compared to the relatively more powerful,l you should explore how bail schedules are created in each county and why less wealthy people, the least powerful, are unjustly jailed pre trial. Apparently that perception escaped your scrutiny. Instead, you begrudge a person’s exercise of his rights in a system stacked against most who go through it and advocate stomping on everyone’s rights instead of vindicating the rights of the least powerful in society.
Regarding my point about the bail enhancement which you profess not to understand, he will be punished more harshly if he committed a crime while on bail. That is a disincentive to commit crimes on bail and will remove a dangerous person from society longer than his pretrial detention typically.
Finally, your blog is anecdotal. You advocate an egregious anti-individual rights policy on the basis of one perceived injustice, and I would emphasize perceived. While it undoubtedly appeals to the passions of your more ignorant and personally interested readers, it does a disservice to those wrongly accused of crimes. The injustice is not that Grazon successfully exercised his rights, it is that the system prevents the less powerful from doing so.
“Right, so to correct the problem you would put everyone in pre trial detention? “
On the contrary, I would put most people on some form of OR and I stated that in the piece. I think you continue to either mischaracterize or misrepresent what I wrote.
“why less wealthy people, the least powerful, are unjustly jailed pre trial.”
That was part of my point actually.
” Instead, you begrudge a person’s exercise of his rights in a system stacked against most who go through it and advocate stomping on everyone’s rights instead of vindicating the rights of the least powerful in society. “
You still have my view backwards. I don’t begrudge the wealthy, I begrudge the least powerful filling up jail cells on pretrial, I believe unnecessarily.
” The injustice is not that Grazon successfully exercised his rights, it is that the system prevents the less powerful from doing so. “
Partly the case I was trying to make. The other part being that I believe instead of imposing a $500,000 bail, you create a system where people are either released or held without bail depending on your assessment of risk. I suspect this is the point where you and I disagree. But I think most people who are held on bail, should be released on OR – supervised or not. There are some who should be held without bail, Garzon being in that category. His two extra years of prison failed to stop him last time and he quite nearly almost killed a man.
“Finally, your blog is anecdotal. You advocate an egregious anti-individual rights policy on the basis of one perceived injustice, and I would emphasize perceived.”
I disagree with this as well. My view on bail is independent of Garzon – I simply have used him here as a ready example. My view may be anecdotal but it was actually more heavily influenced by the views of the advocates I watched in San Francisco Tuesday looking into bail reform because so many people are held in custody because of their lack of wealth. There is a nexus to Garzon and that is that really no amount of bail would keep him in custody and I think we are kidding ourselves if we believe we are safer at $500,000 than we were at $70,000.
“The other part being that I believe instead of imposing a $500,000 bail, you create a system where people are either released or held without bail depending on your assessment of risk. I suspect this is the point where you and I disagree.”
The sole purpose of bail is to ensure the return of a defendant, not to have a career minded government official pretend to accurately assess a person’s potential danger to society based upon another government official’s untested allegations. First ORs are generally fine for minor felonies, more serious charges create an. Incentive to start a new life elsewhere. That is why there is bail. Your program vests a power to detain based upon speculation and one-sided facts. Do you believe a judge or prosecutor who both must run for re-election, and will rarely be scrutinized for detaining a powerless safe person, will err on the side of detention or freedom? If he detains, no one will know he was wrong. If he releases a defendant, that is the only possible way he could be exposed for making a mistake, even if he was right a thousand times before. The incentives of your proposal run against those falsely accused.
Furthermore, what study have you read that suggest judges and prosecutors are able to accurately predict violent behavior while on bail? I don’t suppose you have given thought to the issues raised in Minority Report? But even then, we don’t have Pre-Cogs to rely on.
As with many rights acknowledged in the Bill, government progressively seeks to undermine them, as we are witnessing with the Patriot Act and NDAA and Obama’s secret program assassinating citizen’s without due process and in violation of federal criminal law. Your suggestion would only accomplish more of the same regarding a Constitutional right that has already been weakened by sophistic reasoning.
E. Duree,
I appreciate your reminder about the Constitutional right to bail, but I do not see how David’s article conflicts with that – unless you are saying that no one should ever be in pre-trial detention? Even if they qualify for “no bail” due to risk/danger factors?
I too was at the Justice Summit in SF on Tuesday, and I concur with David that part of the discussion related to the inequity of allowing “money bail” – because not everyone has the money. The proposals that we heard were for assessing bail based on evidence – evidence of being a danger/committing a violent act on self or others, evidence of the probability of re-offending, or evidence of the possibility of a failure to appear. So the options would be bail (with no money required), or no bail…and would be evenly applied, regardless of wealth, class, race, etc. Hopefully.
He argued, “The initial setting of bail failed to include the fact that the defendant’s acts constitute a ‘hate crime.’ “
Does a person who has severely beaten a gay or minority while saying something group-ist pose a greater risk to the community? He may pose a greater risk to a segment of the community if indeed he has bias. If he beat the crap out of a Davis WASP, he deserves a lower bail? The logic is lacking. It is still a human being that was severely injured either way.
The fact he was on bail elsewhere would enhance the bail does make sense, although I would think he would be automatically placed back in custody for violating his terms of bail, but I guess that is not how it works.
I do believe people of the group targeted, should they believe that was the reason, have reason to be upset and rally. Were the person to target a Jew and yell anti-Jewish speech, I would certainly like awareness of that brought to light. What I do not see is that a minority or a majority having the crap beaten out of them is any more or less vial and deserves a $20,000 average enhancement to bail. What a strange system and what an odd judgement to make.
It isn’t even minority or majority, it is perceived color of skin representing the ruling class (‘whites’ may be a minority in California soon), whether individual members of that skin color actually have anything to do with ‘rule’ or not. As well, too often ‘hate crime’ seems to be based on the ‘evidence’ of whether they yelled something anti-group when committing the act. I submit someone who is angry or full of adrenalin may yell something group-ist even if they aren’t particularly hateful normally, while someone else who is hateful could commit the crime while keeping their mouth shut. I do not see how this is proven or disproven in most cases.
There is no doubt there are haters. A crime against a single human being should be equal no matter the human targeted.
He argued, “The initial setting of bail failed to include the fact that the defendant’s acts constitute a ‘hate crime.’ “
Does a person who has severely beaten a gay or minority while saying something group-ist pose a greater risk to the community? He may pose a greater risk to a segment of the community if indeed he has bias. If he beat the crap out of a Davis WASP, he deserves a lower bail? The logic is lacking. It is still a human being that was severely injured either way.
The fact he was on bail elsewhere would enhance the bail does make sense, although I would think he would be automatically placed back in custody for violating his terms of bail, but I guess that is not how it works.
I do believe people of the group targeted, should they believe that was the reason, have reason to be upset and rally. Were the person to target a Jew and yell anti-Jewish speech, I would certainly like awareness of that brought to light. What I do not see is that a minority or a majority having the crap beaten out of them is any more or less vial and deserves a $20,000 average enhancement to bail. What a strange system and what an odd judgement to make.
It isn’t even minority or majority, it is perceived color of skin representing the ruling class (‘whites’ may be a minority in California soon), whether individual members of that skin color actually have anything to do with ‘rule’ or not. As well, too often ‘hate crime’ seems to be based on the ‘evidence’ of whether they yelled something anti-group when committing the act. I submit someone who is angry or full of adrenalin may yell something group-ist even if they aren’t particularly hateful normally, while someone else who is hateful could commit the crime while keeping their mouth shut. I do not see how this is proven or disproven in most cases.
There is no doubt there are haters. A crime against a single human being should be equal no matter the human targeted.
Interesting thought: if it’s a ‘simple assault’, I get why there would be a hate crime enhancement, if the person was found guilty… but if someone brutally murdered two people, where, if convicted they probably face LWOP anyway, what would be the point of an “enhancement”?
” what would be the point of an “enhancement”?”
No different than adding the gang enhancements to Topete’s murder.
I have a comment about “Hate crime”.
From my perspective (with no knowledge of the actual legal definition, which may or may not be the same as what I explain below), a “hate crime” is a crime committed out of the [b]preferential dislike[/b] of other people due to their race or sexual orientation, instead of other reasons such as their behavior or the context of the situation.
A hate crime has a property where the incident is “unprovoked”. The offender has an innate intention to hurt any one of a certain race or sexual orientation regardless their behavior or context. Offenders of hate crime could be more unstable than those who only beat up people out of frustration and anger from a situation, such as when they were verbally provoked, stressed out, etc.
[quote]There are three assessments, he said: (1) the risk of violence, (2) the risk of re-offending, and (3) a flight risk.[/quote]
The timeline of our crime response is roughly this:
1. Incident – The moment(s) when the crime occurs
2. Arrest – The moment when the justice system has a handle on the suspect
3. Trial – The period when the responsibility of the suspect is being determined
4. Judgement – The moment when the responsibility of the suspect is determined
The purpose of bail is to establish a notion of accountability and security insurance between Arrest and the start of Trial. The implementation of bail (or other accountability and security insurance), can be evaluated based on the risk and harm that they do not address for the stakeholders, which includes every one in the community.
By listing all of the risks and harms, it is possible to compare various insurance measures, and select the measure that minimizes risks and harms. It is also possible to intentionally design an insurance measure, based on the evaluation scheme, [b]the measure[/b] that will score the lowest in terms of unaddressed risks and harms.
Given an evaluation scheme, the [b]perfect[/b] plan can be designed. For this reason, the intention to account for all risks, concerns, and harms, and the objective quantification of the evaluation process are fundamental assets to the justice system.
We can get that perfect measure if people start evaluating and admit that the current measure is not perfect. Once people can admit that the current measure is not perfect, their intellectual mode can switch from that of evaluating to creating an improved measure. More precision leads to more improvement, and the measure approaches perfection.
The first step of improvement, is to have an objective evaluation scheme. And the first step of that is to correctly account for the unresolved risks, unfairness, and harm of the current measure. Without a stable and objective evaluation scheme, the community is prone to over compensation due to rational or irrational reasons, or under compensation due to reluctant to change to status quo. Both of these result in unfairness by the system. Quantification gives the precision to minimize unfairness.
The result of quantification allows the community to evaluate not just the “bail” process, but the entire justice system. It answers the question, “How do you know whether our justice system is ‘correct’?”
The community should be equipped with the knowledge to evaluate whether their justice system is correct, and the promote the creativity to conceptualize a system that improves on the current system. Without the evaluation scheme, the ideas only qualify as changes. With the evaluation scheme, the changes qualify as progress.
[url]and he quite nearly almost killed a man.[/url]
This is the kind of statement I refer to when I ask what happened to the presumption of innocence.
He is alleged to have committed a crime, but at this point we do not know if Garzon is guilty or innocent. If you are a journalist, you have an ethical duty to keep that point clear until a conviction occurs.
If this were a news story I would agree, but as an opinion piece, I can state my opinion. Do you believe his defense is going to be that it wasn’t him or that there were extenuating factors that precipitated the attack?
[quote]A hate crime has a property where the incident is “unprovoked”. [/quote]BS. [b]Many[/b] incidents (which are not ‘hate crimes’) are “unprovked”, or at least by the victim… have been a victim of a couple (considered that the perpetrator had no responsibility because he was black, I was white, and MLJK was killed by a white – I I didn’t kill MLK, I actually grieved, but my attacker was excused), and there is a mother who had two teenage punks shoot and killed her toddler in the head, killing him instantly, in his stroller, because she didn’t have the money they demanded from her… is that a “hate crime”? Or could it be that the perpetrator is just a sick and/or ‘bad’ person?
At what level of ethical operation are the perpetrators at. Mr Wai?
[quote]If this were a news story I would agree, but as an opinion piece,[/quote]Then why do you end your piece with “reporting” rather than “opining”? Artistic license as an opinionator?
You, in my humble opinion, David, say you are a journalist and/or reporter, then you can’t claim your opinions, unless you identify those opinions as such. But I’m sure I’m not knowledgeable or smart as you.
” Instead, you begrudge a person’s exercise of his rights in a system stacked against most who go through it and advocate stomping on everyone’s rights instead of vindicating the rights of the least powerful in society.”
I agree with this assessment of David’s article. The problem isn’t that the rich have resources available its that the poor don’t.
I’m also shocked that people think that higher bail isn’t a burden on the perps family. Maybe they are that rich and have no problem defending the accused but the difference in amounts makes me think that his family would much prefer lower bail.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has been quite effective over the years by making hate crimes too expensive for the perps. High bail may aid deterrence it certainly is worth trying in my humble opinion.
“Then why do you end your piece with “reporting” rather than “opining”? Artistic license as an opinionator? “
It is a type of reporting, I don’t see why the second sarcastic comment was really necessary.
“The problem isn’t that the rich have resources available its that the poor don’t. “
Except that this is the exact point I’m making. So the question is how do you equalize the field and my suggestion, which is what I pulled from the advocates is to OR those people who are not a threat to public safety and likely would either not spend time in prison or minimal time in prison. That would free up resources for substance abuse and other tratment.
Those who are a treat would be held without bail.
“I’m also shocked that people think that higher bail isn’t a burden on the perps family. Maybe they are that rich and have no problem defending the accused but the difference in amounts makes me think that his family would much prefer lower bail. “
I never said anything about it being or not being a burden on the family of the accused, what I said is that they were able to bail him out and he has shown himself to be a threat.
” High bail may aid deterrence it certainly is worth trying in my humble opinion. “
Why do you think high bail rather than long prison terms would be a deterrence? It seems to me that nothing was going to deter these actions in this case, so then the question becomes not of deterrence but public safety.
1. “Reporting” YOUR opinion = hilarious.
2. Attempting to justify the ends of your leftist lay opinion, with these means (opinion piece) = typical
3. Citing one of the most liberal jurisdictions, San Francisco = lol
4. Lack of “Own Recognizance” statistics = typical means storytelling
5. Lack of substantive “Own Recognizance” analysis = typical DMG (educate yourself on the subject matter and you will find that “OR” considerations may be similar.
Let me give you a tip/resource updated 2013 – [PDF]
CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES – State of California
www2.courtinfo.ca.gov/protem/pubs/bg55.pdf
6. Citing convicted SF Sheriff as credible = laughable at best
7. Less than adequate grasp of the subject matter = same ol’ same ol’
8. No reference/understanding to CA PENAL CODE – SECTIONS 1268-1276.5
9. Mis-characterizing US/CA Constitution(s)Bail statutes rationale is based on race/affluence = unsubstantiated (at best you are speculating that a potential byproduct MAY exist).
10. No discussion of annual Judge created (with consensus of local jurists) “Bail Schedules” that enumerate dollar figures associated with offenses = typical (law enforcement affixes set Bail Schedule amount).
Note: PC 1275 “(a) In setting, reducing, or denying bail, the judge or magistrate shall take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or hearing of the case. The public safety shall be the primary consideration. In considering the seriousness of the offense charged, the judge or magistrate shall include consideration of the alleged injury to the victim, and alleged threats to the victim or a witness to the crime charged, the alleged use of a firearm or other deadly weapon in the commission of the crime charged, and the alleged use or possession of controlled substances by the defendant….”
Ergo, bail can be reduced – perhaps you merely forgot to mention that?
nuff said, for now…
AdRemmer, reporting (aka: opining)
“Why do you think high bail rather than long prison terms would be a deterrence? It seems to me that nothing was going to deter these actions in this case, so then the question becomes not of deterrence but public safety”
You harbor many assumptions that are simply false. Have you read any studies that tract crime rates and increased penalties? Do you know that European equivalent countries have penalties, oftentimes half as harsh, yet have lower violent crime rates and similar property crime rates. Do you know that with the politically popular draconian punishments implemented the last 30 to 40 years, it has not reduced crime rates?
I recommend that you read Glenn Greenwald’s book, “And Liberty and Justice for Some”. It addresses the problems you have identified but actually provides facts instead of hackneyed armchair slogans and naive assumptions. You can also read his work in the Guardian. You would probably like it.
“Do you know that with the politically popular draconian punishments implemented the last 30 to 40 years, it has not reduced crime rates? “
You really need to read the rest of this site, I’ve been writing about this point for several years now.
Ok. I’ll peruse.
Re: ([url]http://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6238:my-view-hate-crime-attack-shines-light-on-broken-bail-system&catid=74:court-watch&Itemid=100#comment-179220[/url])
[quote][quote]A hate crime has a property where the incident is “unprovoked”.[/quote]
BS. Many incidents (which are not ‘hate crimes’) are “unprovked”, or at least by the victim… have been a victim of a couple (considered that the perpetrator had no responsibility because he was black, I was white, and MLJK was killed by a white – I I didn’t kill MLK, I actually grieved, but my attacker was excused), and there is a mother who had two teenage punks shoot and killed her toddler in the head, killing him instantly, in his stroller, because she didn’t have the money they demanded from her… is that a “hate crime”? Or could it be that the perpetrator is just a sick and/or ‘bad’ person?
At what level of ethical operation are the perpetrators at. Mr Wai? [/quote]
The fundamental purpose of laws is accountability and security. Evaluating the intention of the offender is a subsidiary of the evaluation of re-offense. When the law acts toward people who committed a crime with ill-intention, the primary reason is not that the intention was bad, but the likelihood that the offender would commit further crime.
Among other factors, a threat can be ranked based on the probability and severity of the offense. A person who only becomes violent when provoked is less dangerous than a person who is violent without provocation. The actual assessment is not categorical. The following shows a list of threats in decreasing order to show that the actual assessment has more than one dimension.
1. The suspect methodically tries to kill everyone without getting caught.
2. The suspect tries to kill [i]anyone[/i] in sight.
3. The suspect tries to kill [i]anyone[/i] who impedes their business.
4. The suspect tries to kill [i]anyone[/i] who tries to hurt him.
Typically when we talk about hate crime, we are comparing a rank 2 incident against a rank 3 incident. In your reply, the teenager who shot the toddler belongs to rank 3. If the teenager just go about shooting all toddlers, then it would be rank 2.
In this ranking, if the keyword [i]anyone[/i] is replaced by a sub-population, the probability decreases, so the threat [b]decreases[/b]. The racist or sexist version of these crimes are [b]less threatening[/b]. For the same exact offense, if the offender only commit it against a subpopulation, the threat is reduced. It doesn’t sound politically right, but that is the correct logic.