I'd do away with bail as its very arbitrary.
Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm
Then make it less arbitrary, not do away with it. Eric Adams just said and the country seems to agree with him, that what New York has done is INSANE and I agree.
Finally the media decided to point out the elephant in the room ( having nothing to do with the Republican party ) that LITERALLY the same people are committing the majority of crimes and it is because they continue to be released on bail and if they ever do show up in court, are released to go right back to what they were doing, hurting people and hurting businesses.
So, new rule number 1. Violent criminals shall be treated different than non violent criminals. Who could argue with that? Well, anybody who has a different definition than I, as to what violence means I guess.
Right now, New York and other similar jurisdictions have decided that merely wielding a gun in a robbery is not violent because nobody was shot or if they were they didn't die.
That is insane and is at the heart of the debate IMHO.
If you bring a gun or a knife for that matter, to a crime, you are displaying intent to commit harm, period. That makes it a violent crime by merely possessing a weapon, any weapon that can cause deadly harm in the commission of a crime, any crime.
What the fuck is so hard to understand and accept about that?
Of those like the guy in New York who has has committed over 100 crimes himself and 10 persons all together committed almost 500 non violent crimes, we most decide "how much is enough of this" since the criminals have displayed "intent" not to stop. We can see after 2 or 3 times, that this person has no intention of stopping and yet we what, hope they will someday?
This is where a 3 strikes law should come into play. I'd prefer to 2 but I'm a compromising kinda guy, so I'll accept 3. The law should say IMHO, that when you display "intent" not to stop what you are doing, committing a non-violent criminal act, you to will then have to be removed from society for a lengthy period of time.
Why, as a reasonably sane people do we allow ourselves to put up with people intent on making the whole worse? Why, because we are compassionate? To who, the criminal or the victims? I choose victims in any and all cases.
Right now, Gov. Abbott is showing the hypocrites for what they are, "not in my backyard" Liberals. New York says they are proud of being a Sanctuary city but when presented with the results of such a pronouncement, that illegal migrants will want to go to such a place, those hypocrites fold like a cheap suit and say, "not in my back yard".
We can choose to elect people who care more about the criminals or more about the victims. It isn't a hard choice for me, not even close. Democrats have become a party of those that care more about the criminals, like Soros and company and Republicans care more about the victems.
