Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Bail is allowed for those awaiting trial if it appears that they will not be a danger to society if allowed out on the street while they wait. It is not unusual in hotspots like Chicago for a person arrested for a shooting crime to be arrested for another one a few days later. I believe the record is three times in a week.
Every violent offender who doesn't plead guilty to the crime with which he was charged.
The accused have been admitting guilt and throwing themselves on the mercy of the court since before stylus first pressed into soft clay. This is no different.
Off the top of my head.
Which was the basis of my point. If you can't give the accused a speedy and public trial then in the end you have often to let him off. The critical path issue is not the police, it's the courts. What do you do if you know you can't bring a man to trial for two or three years or more? Let him out on bail even though you suspect he might shoot somebody else in the meantime? Let him plead guilty to a lesser offence both he and you know he didn't actually commit? And, no, the delay is not often due to defendant stalling, it's due to underfunding of the court system. So, two or three years ago by, evidence is lost, witnesses' memories fade or they die or move away, even the arresting officer may no longer be available and the case falls apart anyway. No. The way we do it now won't work no matter how good the police are. No bail for violent offenders, no plea deals and the right to a speedy and public trial guaranteed to them by the Constitution.Off the top of my head.
1) Increase police training and salary to attract better candidates.
2) Implement nationwide policing standards group.
3) Deal with the legacy of qualified immunity.
4) Ensure prosecutors are charging based on crime level not one political ambitions.
5) Make prisons a place of rehabilitation, not punishment.
All of which requires money we are not willing to spend.
Maybe so but it does not change the fact that 90+% of cases are resolved by plea deals. There are literally not enough courtrooms, judges layers (on either side) for there to not be plea deals. The DA does the deal, BUT the defendant is the one who can waive time. Without plea deals there would be NO way that the state could get all of the case to trial within the usually six months they are required to do so under the law. If the state denies the speedy trial right then they are forced to release the person It does not matter the crime the state follows the speedy trial requirement or they release them (unless the DEFENDANT waives time.) Now, once the defendant waives time it becomes a little easier, but the state have to be ready to go they generally cannot waive time like the defendant can.
funny thing is it saves money in the long run.Off the top of my head.
1) Increase police training and salary to attract better candidates.
2) Implement nationwide policing standards group.
3) Deal with the legacy of qualified immunity.
4) Ensure prosecutors are charging based on crime level not one's political ambitions.
5) Make prisons a place of rehabilitation, not punishment.
All of which requires money we are not willing to spend.
Eeehhhh, that does not strike me as a good resolution. We need to get rid of qualified immunity as a concept and replace it with situational immunity. Basically an immunity for lawful actions and an exception process if there is something blatantly illegal or obviously against good governance.
Yes, but as a government employee I can tell you "in the long run" is very rarely a metric.
We may have gone around on this before but I think this would be the most effective way to end police closing ranks around bad actors or shuffling them off to other departments.
I thought my ideas were expensive. While I don't disagree with your points you are talking about a massive build up of our current legal infrastructure. Both on the prosecution and the public defense sides along with increased need for courts.
