By how much would the crime rate be affected if bail were not available for those with previous criminal records?
It could go up because criminals would now have more incentive to kill all of the witnesses. :eek:
Actually, it sounds like he’s asking how many crimes are committed by people out on bail prior to trial. I don’t see how this increases one’s incentive to kill the witnesses. But I don’t have an answer to the question.
Not quite. Add in ‘by those who have prior convictions’.
I think it will be very hard to answer your exact question but here is an article indicating that 55,000 crimes ayear are committed in Scotland by criminals on bail.
I don’t see this one getting a definitive answer, so let’s try Great Debates.
samclem GQ moderator
What type of crimes are we talking about? Only felonies? Minor misdemeanors? Many people will receive more than one speeding ticket in their lifetime.
Speeding tickets are civil, not criminal, offences.
That’s just the data I’m looking for. That article says that there were over 600,000 offences per year, though that does include civil offences like speeding, which I’m trying to exclude. Still, it’s a significant percentage.
Then you may be interested in this from New Zealand which says in part:
*And 25.3% of violent offenders don’t even make it through their bail period before reoffending. The rate for those whose previous major offence was rape, unlawful sexual connection or attempted sexual violation was even higher; 27.4%, 30.4% and 31.2% respectively.
Worst of all were those whose previous major offence was robbery or attempted robbery. They had a rate of reoffending on bail of 36.4%. And the more previous violent offences committed, the greater the likelihood of reoffending on bail; 46.8% for those with 20 or more such previous offences. All this is from Those on Bail and their Offending 1994 Chapter 4. One has to wonder what the hell we are doing giving bail to such people in the first place.*
And in Ireland :
The Annual Report of the Garda Commissioner for 1995 showed that 5,440 offences were committed by people on bail. The Law Reform Commission reported in 1993 that more than a quarter of detected armed robberies were committed by people on bail. These figures refer to detected crime only so the number of crimes actually committed by people on bail is likely to be a multiple of those detected.
Since we’re now in GD…
It seems like only allowing bail for those without prior convictions would significantly positively impact the crime rate. However, would this not impact the presumption of innocence? After all, if 25.3% of violent offenders re-offend on bail, that’s 74.6% who don’t.
I’ve spoken with many prisoners about bail, the consensus among them seems to be that if you get bail but know you are likely to be convicted, then you might as well go on a crime spree and steal as much as you can, you’re going to jail anyway, may as well make it worth the while.
This mostly applies to car thieves and burglars and drug dealers, violent offenders seem to be the ones less likely to get bail, but they are also the ones who know that further ofences on bail could lead to life prison terms, plus there isn’t much materialistic reason to commit violent offences to the incentive is not really there.
Detention awaiting trial is very expensive, the adiministration is horrendous, as unconvicted persons have far more rights than convicted ones, for example detainnees have the right to visitors as often as they wish, they have the right to have more items in their possession in their cell, more rights to purchase goods, and it goes on and on.
They also have no inventive to behave themselves as they do not stand to prejudice their chances of parole, or early release, they cannot be made to work in prison, though some do volunteer, they cannot be compelled to take part in education, or any behavioural treatment programme.