California passes bill eliminating bail?

[DEAD7]

anyway, any change that relies on judges to exercise discretion will fail because they are inherently racist. instead of needing a good reason to deny someone bail, they just need to "feel" a certain way about releasing you. you'll basically have a system where minorities are kept in jail because a judge feels they are a risk and whites can go free because they come from a good family and aren't a risk and i can see a relative of mine in you so take all my compassion

I was at brunch with a couple of judges and they were commenting on this reform saying it will ensure everyone stays in jail.
No judge is going to risk re-election by releasing someone only to have them commit a crime... especially when there is no personal cost to keeping them locked up.

Simply giving your opponent the “so and so puts criminals back on the street” is enough for most judges... and as you pointed out most of them are racist anyway.

It’s just another dumb idea.
I hope it’s repealed.

 

[hashmander]

I was at brunch with a couple of judges and they were commenting on this reform saying it will ensure everyone stays in jail.
No judge is going to risk re-election by releasing someone only to have them commit a crime... especially when there is no personal cost to keeping them locked up.

Simply giving your opponent the “so and so puts criminals back on the street” is enough for most judges... and as you pointed out most of them are racist anyway.

It’s just another dumb idea.
I hope it’s repealed.

figures you mingle with scum (the ones who proudly acknowledge that they're going to keep people locked up are exactly that because we know who the people are they'll keep locked up). have some shame man.

anyway back to your previous post, how has so called reform that hasn't even gone into effect yet "face planted and been terrible"? were you just trying to be misleading again?

it probably won't work because people like your friends won't allow it to work. but i use a word like probably and not doesn't because it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Strapped]

Wp are posted up everywhere asking for signatures to overturn this

 

[DEAD7]

figures you mingle with scum (the ones who proudly acknowledge that they're going to keep people locked up are exactly that because we know who the people are they'll keep locked up). have some shame man.

anyway back to your previous post, how has so called reform that hasn't even gone into effect yet "face planted and been terrible"? were you just trying to be misleading again?

it probably won't work because people like your friends won't allow it to work. but i use a word like probably and not doesn't because it hasn't happened yet.

From the conversation I guessed it had been enacted, I see now they were foreshadowing.

... and @ acting in one’s own best interest or in the interest of self preservation making you “scum”

 

[hashmander]

From the conversation I guessed it had been enacted, I see now they were foreshadowing.

... and @ acting in one’s own best interest or in the interest of self preservation making you “scum”

they are projecting bad behavior onto voters. oh i'm not racist or heartless scum, my constituents are so i have to beat them to the punch. as judges they should only have justice's best interest in mind and it's not justice to strong arm poor people into guilty pleas because they are locked up without being convicted of anything.

 

[DEAD7]

they are projecting bad behavior onto voters. oh i'm not racist or heartless scum, my constituents are so i have to beat them to the punch. as judges they should only have justice's best interest in mind and it's not justice to strong arm poor people into guilty pleas because they are locked up without being convicted of anything.

You aren’t wrong but as you stated any reform that relies on the discretion of judges will fail black people.
It was(or will be) a failed attempt at reform by the state.

 

[ROLLTIDE4EVER]

Check cashing, payday loans, Bail bonds are all usurious, filthy businesses. The recent book Carceral Capitalism, by Jackie Wang, lays out how these industries rope in Black populations into the debt economy in a cycle of exploitation. Unlike in the sixties and earlier, poor black folks role in the economy isn't based on the exploitation of their labor so much as it's based on the exploitation of their debt.

Folks been complaining about loans with high interest rates since the middle ages. AG Gaston used to charge 30% on loans. If you have good credit, you'll have better options.

 

[hashmander]

You aren’t wrong but as you stated any reform that relies on the discretion of judges will fail black people.
It was(or will be) a failed attempt at reform by the state.

my problem with you is that you seem to have more problem with the state's attempt at reform and less with the judges who would be the bad guys and the cause of the failure, but you make excuses for them.

 

[DEAD7]

my problem with you is that you seem to have more problem with the state's attempt at reform and less with the judges who would be the bad guys and the cause of the failure, but you make excuses for them.

I don’t believe we can legislate away bias/racism... which makes legistlation like this not only a waste of resources(imo) but a waste that can potentially compound the problem(s).
I fear systemic racism/barriers/waste etc. much more than I do bad actors.
It has nothing to do with supporting or turning a blind eye to the bad actors.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Folks been complaining about loans with high interest rates since the middle ages. AG Gaston used to charge 30% on loans. If you have good credit, you'll have better options.

The fact that people have recognized something is bad for a long time is an argument in favor of it?

And people have actually been complaining about loans with high interest rates since Old Testament times. For most of human history it was illegal to charge interest rates that were too high. Greek, Roman, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and other moral systems all either limited how much interest you could charge or banned it completely. In Roman times the legal limit was 12%, and most people considered that exploitative, the Christians and Muslims argued that you shouldn't be allowed to charge interest at all. It's only been in the last few hundred years that the capitalist age has taken the moral stain away from interest (and greed, and a lot of other things that used to be universally wrong).

 

[hashmander]

I don’t believe we can legislate away bias/racism... which makes legistlation like this not only a waste of resources(imo) but a waste that can potentially compound the problem(s).
I fear systemic racism/barriers/waste etc. much more than I do bad actors.
It has nothing to do with supporting or turning a blind eye to the bad actors.

in this case the bad actors and the system are the same. who carries out america's systemic racism more than judges and law enforcement? systemic racism needs actors to carry it out. as you can see with this situation the big bad state govt says one thing and the soldiers on the front line say fukk that, we'll do it our way.

 

[Orbital-Fetus]

Check cashing, payday loans, Bail bonds are all usurious, filthy businesses. The recent book Carceral Capitalism, by Jackie Wang, lays out how these industries rope in Black populations into the debt economy in a cycle of exploitation. Unlike in the sixties and earlier, poor black folks role in the economy isn't based on the exploitation of their labor so much as it's based on the exploitation of their debt.

pretty much.

 

[ROLLTIDE4EVER]

Nah, high interest rates became legit when Jacob Fugger urged the Catholic Church to change its stance. Interest rates match risk levels, so it makes sense. Even in the mid-east, there are ways around this predicament.

The fact that people have recognized something is bad for a long time is an argument in favor of it?

And people have actually been complaining about loans with high interest rates since Old Testament times. For most of human history it was illegal to charge interest rates that were too high. Greek, Roman, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and other moral systems all either limited how much interest you could charge or banned it completely. In Roman times the legal limit was 12%, and most people considered that exploitative, the Christians and Muslims argued that you shouldn't be allowed to charge interest at all. It's only been in the last few hundred years that the capitalist age has taken the moral stain away from interest (and greed, and a lot of other things that used to be universally wrong).

 

[BigMoneyGrip]

Good get them bails bondsmen the fukk up out of here

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Nah, high interest rates became legit when Jacob Fugger urged the Catholic Church to change its stance.

No, the process was more drawn out and complex than that.

Fugger is actually the perfect example of the kind of person I am talking about though. Born into one of the wealthiest families in Germany, he became even more obscenely wealthy by giving out loans which he used to leverage ownership and gain power over other people's work until he owned so much that he was lending to the king, via which he gained political power, swung elections, and was eventually given lordship over dozens of villages. All through other people's labor - his "virtue" was solely the ownership of money.

Fugger's wealth and influence may have been partially responsible for the Fifth Lateran Council's failure to condemn interest, after previous counsels had. But the issue wasn't settled in 1517. As late as 1745, Pope Benedict XIV wrote the Papal Encyclical "Vix pervenit: On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit" which absolutely condemned usury, and the Holy Office of the Catholic Church declared that this encyclical applied to the entire Church in 1836. Less than 200 years ago, the church was still absolutely condemning it. Even in the 20th century you had secular, Muslim, and Christian economists who condemned interest not only as exploitative but as at the center of economic inequality, environmental destruction, and even war.

Interest rates match risk levels, so it makes sense.

And no, interest rates do not match risk levels, if they did then money would flow to and from lenders and lendees at an equal flow. But the system is designed so that MORE money flows to the lenders than will ever go to the lendees, that's why the rich continuously get richer. Even government-insured demand deposits and short-term risk-free government securities bear interest despite having no risk to them at all, in fact ALL new money that enters our system enters bearing interest, which is a profit premium absorbed into every other loan. Even if you account for inflation AND a risk premium AND the cost of making the loan, there is always an additional usurious component which ensures that wealth will concentrate into the hands of the wealthy.