Triumphs in Criminal Bail Reform and Restorative Justice
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
25 responses to “Triumphs in Criminal Bail Reform and Restorative Justice”
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/06/27/yesli-vega-abortion-rape/
Todd Aken Lives!
Sex Ed. Important stuff.
-
Certainly the topic of this article. Just getting up?
-
Oh? There’s a topic? Who knew? Seemed just to be a complaint about something that doesn’t really affect you.
-
-
-
First of all, you, and we, do not know all the facts behind the plea agreement for Brevard. Perhaps, the Descanos and his staff did not feel they had a strong enough case to get a conviction on the more serious charges. It is not uncommon for police to “overcharge” those arrested .
Second, all the criticism of the bail reform in New York is just that–bail reform in New York. How does it apply to Virginia and laws passed in the last couple of years? Only one of the new laws in the link you provided are applicable to this topic and that is a mild reform, at best.
You imply that the list of new laws passed by the Democrats is harmful to society. What are your objections to them?
The bail reforms proposed by Justice Forward Virginia seem reasonable. What specific objections do you have to them?
-
Only one of the new laws in the link you provided are applicable to this topic and that is a mild reform, at best.
Yes, but Justice Forward Virginia makes it abundantly clear that this year’s “pretrial reform” included only a portion of their ultimate goal, which is to do away with cash bail.
From the link (emphasis mine):
Pretrial reform – Ending presumptions against bail, SB 1266 [C. Deeds]: For the third year in a row, Justice Forward Virginia joined the Pretrial Justice Coalition in recommending reforms as groundwork for replacing our current system of cash bail.
-
Only one of the new laws in the link you provided are applicable to this topic and that is a mild reform, at best.
Yes, but Justice Forward Virginia makes it abundantly clear that this year’s “pretrial reform” included only a portion of their ultimate goal, which is to do away with cash bail.
From the link (emphasis mine):
Pretrial reform – Ending presumptions against bail, SB 1266 [C. Deeds]: For the third year in a row, Justice Forward Virginia joined the Pretrial Justice Coalition in recommending reforms as groundwork for replacing our current system of cash bail.
-
I would advocate abolishing cash bail. Evidence shows that cash bail is not any more effective at ensuring a defendant shows up for trial or does not commit another crime in the interim than releasing a defendant under the supervision of a local pretrial program. Requiring cash bail discriminates against poor folks who have little money.
Someday, I plan to post a whole article on pretrial supervision and cash bail.
-
Evidence shows that cash bail is not any more effective at ensuring…
1) Will you please post a link to some of this evidence?
2) What do you recommend we do to replace cash bail?
-
The issue of pretrial services and bonds is a complicated one. Virginia has 33 local pretrial services agencies serving 100 of the state’s 133 counties and cities. These entities funded with state and local funds. They use a risk assessment tool developed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services to make recommendations regarding release of defendants pending trial.
Courts may release defendants to supervision of pretrial services agencies with or without requiring the defendant to provide some security. While under the jurisdiction of pretrial services agencies, defendants must comply with conditions set by the courts and the agencies.
The Virginia State Crime Commission conducted a multi-year study of the pretrial services agency program.
In one of Commission’s recent reports on the study, a staff analysis of a large trove of data revealed that the outcomes (failure to appear and new arrests) were about the same for those released on personal recognize/unsecured bond and those released on bond. The
only exception was in the failure to appear category, in which the best results were had with those released on secured bond and pretrial supervision, but the difference was not much.The results discussed here are on pages 6 and 7 of the following report: http://vscc.virginia.gov/images/VSCC%20Pre-Trial%20Data%20Project%20Preliminary%20Findings.pdf -
Thank you. The data are quite interesting.
-
I have removed this and made it the subject of an upcoming article.
-
The criteria of “arrested” was used instead of “committed” because it could not be said that someone “committed” a crime until there was a conviction. A trial would have occurred outside the time frame used for the study.
As for the remainder of your comments, “FTA” means simply failure to appear in court on the trial date. It does not imply the commission of another crime, therefore these would not be recidivists.
The purpose of the data is to demonstrate that there is not a significant difference in outcomes for those who had to post a secured bond (money or property) and for those who were released without a secured bond.
-
I have removed my comment and made it the subject of an upcoming article.
-
-
-
-
-
I too would like to see that evidence, Dick.
-
See reply above.
-
See mine.
-
My personal favorite is this change made in 2020 SPECIAL SESSION I. It is a special bill written for and at the request of Descano, Biberaj and their fellow members of the Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice.
Subsection A below is entirely new. It empowers prosecutors to dismiss any charges they wish without any standards or consideration by a court or consultation with the victim.
“§ 19.2-265.6. Dismissal of criminal charges on Commonwealth’s motion; effect of dismissal of criminal charges.”
“A. Upon motion of the Commonwealth to dismiss a charge, whether with or without prejudice, and with the consent of the defendant, a court shall grant the motion unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the motion was made as the result of (i) bribery or (ii) bias or prejudice toward a victim as defined in § 19.2-11.01 because of the race, religious conviction, gender, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, color, or national origin of the victim.”
You good with that?
-
I am not comfortable with it. It is part of a pattern over may years of Commonwealth’s attorneys taking over more of the control of judicial procedure, usually at the expense of judges. The CAs had a distinct advantage in this game–they could lobby the legislature and judges were bound by judicial ethics not to comment on any pending legislation.
In this case, the judges did it to themselves. Prosecutors had routinely moved to dismiss cases and judges seldom questioned those motions before granting them. This bill was in reaction to the Arlington circuit court judges reacting to a liberal prosecutor and requiring her to submit detailed briefs with each motion to dismiss. This may have been within the judges’ authority (the Va. Supreme Court sidestepped the issue), but it definitely was an unreasonable exercise.
-
I agree. But I am more than uncomfortable with it.
The change in § 19.2-265.6 was in response to a direct and specific request to the General Assembly from the Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice (VPPFJ)
It enables them to act on their criminal justice reform principles of which they are quite proud without having to change the laws or justify their choices before the courts.
It puts police in the untenable position of making cases that prosecutors refuse to charge.
Why do we need lawmakers or courts?
-
Virginia Progressive Prosecutors for Justice (VPPFJ) also seeks “automated, automatic, and free expungement of criminal records for formerly system-involved community members”. http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2021/jan/07/opinion-letter-editor-virginia-progressive-prosecu/
Seems to me that will obviate criminal background checks for gun purchases. Pretty big step, don’t you think?
-
-
1) What defendant would not consent to a dismissal?
2) This kind of horseshit could ultimately lead to victims taking things into their own hands – vigilante justice.
Also: (ii) bias or prejudice toward a victim as defined in § 19.2-11.01 because of…
§ 19.2-11.01 does not contain a definition of “victim”. Vague grammar being a specialty amongst those who write our laws, I also looked for a definition of “bias”. The word “bias” does not appear at all in § 19.2-11.01.
How does the fact that the definition they cite does not exist affect the law?
When ya got a bully pulpit, BULLY!!!! Soros and his efforts have become ordinary targets of some. The same some who ignore his struggles against Hungary’s Victor Orban.
-
You are the first perceptive enough to discover this article is about Orban.
-
The same some who ignore his struggles against Hungary’s Victor Orban.
What struggles? Mr. Soros has been a U.S. citizen since before Victor Orban was born. If he is ‘struggling’ with Orban then he is doing so entirely by choice.
No private individual should be allowed to hire or otherwise use an armed bodyguard or face a mandatory 10-year term in a federal penitentiary. Maybe, if the ultra-wealthy woke spent their lives unprotected by firearms and, in some cases, a potential target for robbery or home burglary, they might take a different look at our criminal justice system.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.