If someone is going to skip, they pay the 10% to a bondsman. So overtime bonds increased to 10x what they should be. Except now you don’t get anything back.
For most Americans it’s a flat fee to get out of jail.
Especially with how long cases go, not many can afford to wait a year for that money to come back after trial. Or to spend the year in jail waiting.
Even CBS does clickbait now. First sentence in article:
<pre style="background-color:#ffffff;">
<span style="color:#323232;">AAA will not renew the auto and home insurance policies for some customers in Florida, joining a growing list of insurers dialing back their presence in the Sunshine State amid a growing risk of natural disasters.
</span>
Some customers. Will that be dozens, thousands, millions?
I bet even they don’t know the specific number. But certain conditions like being in a hurricane-prone area or zones not performing the maintenance on structures that help deal with natural disasters would probably cause those people to no longer be insurable as it predictable that they would pay out more money to more people when things go sideways. This is information for their stockholders, so they don’t get sued for not maximizing profit.
“Who from society” would be people like the child’s teachers, counselors, friends, relatives, mentors, etc.
Funny you mention red-herrings and extremes and then go on to talk about how we’ll all be living under a Saudi-like dictatorship if teachers don’t snitch on kids to their parents about something like personal identity.
This only appears to just be ramping up now. I really do think this is not a policy that any political party should be pushing, lest they find themselves the target of like minded people like myself. People wonder why homeschooling is becoming more prevalent. It's shit like this.
I get the feeling I’m talking to a bot with these canned responses that don’t address my comments nor the OP. Thanks for making yourself easy to identify. See ya later!
This only appears to be ramping up now is my response to you saying how many times has it landed you in jail. I admit the nuance of conversation can sometimes not translate to written message very well.
My response to OP was that I'm not even open to conversation when it comes to my child. No one is invited to deliberate on my child's life or the decisions I make raising them.
This only appears to be ramping up now is my response to you saying how many times has it landed you in jail. I admit the nuance of conversation can sometimes not translate to written message very well.
My response to OP was that I'm not even open to conversation when it comes to my child. No one is invited to deliberate on my child's life or the decisions I make raising them.
This only appears to be ramping up now is my response to you saying how many times has it landed you in jail. I admit the nuance of conversation can sometimes not translate to written message very well.
My response to OP was that I'm not even open to conversation when it comes to my child. No one is invited to deliberate on my child's life or the decisions I make raising them.
What decisions exactly? And if you so desperate to be involved in your child’s life, why do you need to rely on a third party to inform you about your own child?
What does this have to do with “parents making decisions about their children?” What decision are they being deprived of if a teacher doesn’t report everything a child expresses at school to the parent?
For a parallel, what if the law was instead about race rather than gender? “Teachers must report white children expressing interest in talking to black children”
You: “Well what’s wrong with that? It’s muh right!”
Except that in many circumstances they get influenced to think they’re trans, and then you want your benevolent teachers to authorize cutting their junk and destroying their future just because they like pink.
And this is absolutely not an exaggeration. Don’t bullshit a bullshitter. Your issue is that you defend an ideal principle to do something extreme. Plausible deniability. Never gonna happen. People will never trust you until you stop treating trans as a protected class and more treat them like responsible adults. I’ve seen enough.
I don’t understand how you have reached this conclusion. As someone who is a member of the trans community none of these decisions you talked about are made lightly. I understand as a parent wanting to know what is going on with your child but the child’s mental state should be priority above anytime else. No one in the trans community wants convince anyone they are trans. That is something they must find on their own.
“No one in the trans community wants to convince anyone they’re trans”.
That’s the part where you’re either lying or simply wrong. This is so prevalent it’s nuts. Want examples? See Lauren Southern videos about Sarah and the teacher. Links below. Tim Pool also gives examples on grooming all the time.
This might surprise you, but we’re not stupid. We know what’s going on, and plausible deniability isn’t gonna cut it anymore. I’d die before anything bad touches my children.
I’m sorry, but I gave that video am honest listen and still can’t understand how this relates to what I’m saying. There may be instances of these incidents happening and they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. But this is an overreach of the child’s privacy which is why we’re here. One of the first thing young women victims of sexual assault say is “don’t tell me dad,” for fear of what that would mean for them at home. If a child says they’ve been having feelings that they don’t understand themselves yet and they don’t want to have their parents know, they have a reason. Not every home is safe and something like this will lead to children killing themselves. Not every parent can be trusted to make that decision to do what’s best in these situations, so we must create institutions that can at least recognize when that is necessary for the safety of the child. We are not advocating for parents to not be a part of the discussion. We want the safety of every child to be considered in this decision.
We have the same goal here of safety for children. Let’s tackle grooming wherever it is, but this won’t make the situation any better for the children who need this safety. This won’t work the way you believe it will, and we have evidence. I have way too much going on in my life at the moment to do a real deep dive to get the information you need. But I’m hopeful we can make this country better for everyone.
That is very valid. And I understand why you’d want to know anytime you can do to help your child. A hardline approach isn’t the way though. Coming out is a very personal experience and as long as your doing your job as a parent they should be willing to do that when they are ready. Another part of being a parent is allowing your child to grow no matter what that means. Instead of a beautiful tree that can provide happiness and joy for themselves and everyone around them as well, they may end up as a sad houseplant in a pot that’s too small. At the end of the day I think we have two different philosophies on life and being parents but we can find something that is more beneficial than harmful, and from a personal place this is going to have terrible consequences.
I love that they find a slide that dropped out of a plane, then shortly after they find a plane that’s missing its slide, and they say “it appears to be the slide in question.” Yeah, I’d say that’s a pretty good bet.
I’m almost certain that any part large enough to be serialized is, so that it can be traced back to manufacture. They could definitely tell which plane that came from, and the serial number(s) of the missing slide. Bet you $5 they’re the same. (And any parts too small to be serialized are recorded in maintenance logs or something, and can still be traced.)
“Well I’m sure it did but it ain’t no meteor. It’s a big ol’ frozen chunk o’ shit. See them airplanes they dump their toilets 36,000 feet. The stuff freezes and falls to earth. We call 'em Boeing bombs.”
You can only do so much to encourage gun safety, but when you get to this point I think it’s only fitting to charge the gun owner with a felony and forbid them from ever owning a firearm again.
The average American is too dumb to own guns and I say this from a household with several guns. Seriously would rather not have them if that means idiots and the mentally unstable don’t either.
Every gun I've bought came with a cable lock. They are a waste though as would be a required trigger lock. I prefer different and more reliable storage methods.
And just because something came in the box doesn't mean it is going to be used correctly. Especially if someone doesn't like that way of securing a firearm. A better way is probably just some PSAs and tax breaks for security/storage devices to encourage proper storage. If there are going to be these things in every box give me a way to return them or something.
Cash bonds unfairly affect people with lower incomes. Eliminating cash bonds makes it so people will be released unless they are a risk to the public or are a flight risk from trial. This should reduce the inequality in treatment by the justice system based on income.
That’s correct. It’s just going to increase petty crime as opposed to solving any problems. The crime in this state is already bad, I can’t fathom what it’s going to be like this time next year.
Police will enforce the law because that’s what police do. Locking up poor people without a trial is a bad idea. Book them into the system, then see them at their court date. If the don’t show up, they become a fugitive. It just means these seedy bail bond companies charging huge rates will have fewer poor people to prey on. I think only the richest should have to pay bail.
when they know they will see that same person back on the street within a day?
The blame for that lies squarely with the judge's decision to release them. The only factor should be whether they're likely to be a social harm, not whether or not they happen to have money for bail, which is a completely unrelated matter.
Why would police enforce laws when they know they will see that same person back on the street within a day?
Because they’ll eventually be convicted? Or are you asking why police will bother arresting people they don’t think will be convicted? Because the answer to that is really simple: they absolutely should not, because we’re not living in a police state (in theory, anyway).
Where I live they ended cash bail for any non-felony offense and it's led to repeat offenders being picked up, released and they'd offend again, where they get picked up and then released again.
It's a complex issue, many of these people need mental health help, and putting them in jail isn't the solution, but allowing them to continue to walk free when they're known re-offenders isn't helping either.
Is the problem that they are just releasing all non-felony offenses instead of evaluating them in place of the cash bail process?
Because using cash bail was just evaluating and adding a layer that costs the accused money based on their risk, and without it they should still be taking the same steps to determine the risk.
I’m in… Uh… Not Chicago…ill say that. Crime downstate is running pretty rampant right now. There’s a lot of gang violence, and we are at a record clip for gun violence.
What kept a lot of that in check in the early 00s was the people committing the harder crimes were getting picked off by lower level stuff.
However, after being pretty intimately involved in our justice system as of late, that’s stopped. The cops just aren’t interested in dealing with the fallout of picking up people for petty / low level felonies. It both political and resources keeping them from getting involved.
The result is, unless there’s a gun involved, the cops aren’t coming.
Combine that with the few times they do get someone, and said person is immediately released, we are in trouble.
The really interesting case that’s going to happen… Trespassing. Let’s say I’m pissed and go sit on my ex’s porch. The cops pick me up for Tresspassing, I get released and go sit right back on her porch. If I’m not threatening or being violent, that’s a completely plausible situation.
In short, the people who want cashless bail have never been around criminals. For those of us that actually need protected, we are fucked.
The cops just aren’t interested in dealing with the fallout of picking up people for petty / low level felonies. It both political and resources keeping them from getting involved.
That sounds like a police oversight problem, not a bail problem.
Let’s say I’m pissed and go sit on my ex’s porch. The cops pick me up for Tresspassing, I get released and go sit right back on her porch. If I’m not threatening or being violent, that’s a completely plausible situation.
If you’re not threatening anyone but you do it again, that’s a violation of your bail conditions (presumably they would have told you to stay away from her and her house/work/whatever), and you’d sit in jail until your hearing.
When you can pay for your freedom pending trial, it means that arrests will result in extended pre-trial incarceration disproportionately for poor people. Which further means that police can use the power of arrest - not conviction - to imprison people they find undesirable, based on specific officer biases. Pre-trial incarceration impacts the lives of poor people disproportionately, too, as they are more likely to lose employment, or lose enough work that they can't pay rent or a car payment, lose custody of children, etc. Not to mention that Illinois has never had bail bonds, so if a judge sets bail at $1000, you have to fork over $1000. I have that money available to me; plenty of people simply do not. Depending on the charges, it's also an incentive for poor people to plead guilty even if they know they are not, in order to get a shorter sentence or probation. Edit: And doing so means they now probably have a felony on their record, which will impact their employment opportunities and child custody for the rest of their lives.
Cash bail disproportionately punishes poorer people who have not been convicted of a crime.
Is this a catch and release program except for those that pose a risk to the public?
As an ELI answer: If you’re rich, you can afford infinite bail already so for the rich its already “catch and release”. So the only ones it was preventing from being the same is the poor that don’t have infinite money.
This change makes it equal to both groups now. Whether we should allow release at all and under what circumstance are different and valid questions to ask, but we shouldn’t be treating groups to different sets of rules.
General Assembly had the authority to eliminate cash bail and replace it with a system in which people are detained pending trial only if they pose a threat to the public or are a flight risk.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.