Rights of Miscreant Thief Supersede Public Protection - The Elimination of Cash Bail

Kalief Browder’s Suicide Inspired a Push to End Cash Bail. Now Lawmakers Have a Deal.

New York’s crime problem is less severe than decades ago; no question about it. The New York legislature seems on a suicide course to erase that progress, following the dubious leads of Illinois, California and other states. Kalief Browder is alleged to have stolen a backpack off another person in 2010, when he was 16. His family was unable or unwilling to raise the $3000 bail required and he spent the next three years in prison, much of it in solitary confinement. When his case came up for review or trial in 2013 the authorities could not find the alleged crime victim. He was released for “lack of evidence” and not because of innocence. He committed suicide a few years later.

According to the article “(f)or many left-leaning politicians, he is a symbol of the problems inherent in the bail system, which they argue discriminates against the poor.” Now I feel badly for the suicide. But the article did not discuss the following:

[ol]
[li]Why he was in solitary confinement much of the time;[/li][li] His prior juvenile or criminal record, if any;[/li][li] Why the judge set a cash bail; and[/li][li] Whether application was made to reduce or waive bail and whether those requests, if any, were denied.[/li][/ol]
In short, all we are presented with is a purported tragedy. People are not held in solitary confinement by accident. We do not know whether Kalief Browder was a violent person. We can only suspect he was.

Why the fate of the street toughs is of concern, and why the law enforcement efforts of New York are being spent on such immediate threats to New Yorkers as Paul Manafort, and Donald Trump </sarcasm>, to quote Led Zeppelin, “makes you wonder.” Priorities are a bit screwed up. While many New Yorkers can’t stand Trump, they are more worried about a 16 year old grabbing property off their person.

As somebody with extensive experience working in the New York prison system, the most likely explanation for why a sixteen year old petty thief was in solitary confinement was to separate him from other prisoners for his own protection.

You are, of course, free to suspect otherwise if you wish.

Ok, so in JBGUSA’s estimation, a petty thief deserves three years in solitary for stealing a $30 backpack, but Paul Manafort deserves to be free because he only deprived the treasury of millions of dollars from his illegal businesses.

Goes to credibility, Your Honor.

Maybe he was not a model prisoner? And how long was his rap sheet?

I can say confidently that Manafort’s is longer. ETA: I just did the math. Manafort has ten times more convictions than Browder. Literally.

That seems like the most likely scenario to me, also.

So a 16 year old served 3 years in prison for a charge so weak that it didn’t have enough evidence to bring to trial because the family didn’t have enough money to cover bail. And in your mind somehow this is an argument for requiring cash bail?

The problem with incarcerating non-violent criminals before trial is that the legal system is so backed up that it may be years before a case even comes to trial so, in effect, a person is being presumed guilty until such a time that he finally gets a chance to prove otherwise. That is against the spirit of our legal system, which is supposed to presume innocence before guilt.

Also, people are supposed to get a “timely” trial. I don’t consider years of waiting, “timely”.

For some reason I can’t fully understand, the prosecution was allowed to delay a trial on the case on 31 separate occasions, until on his 32nd court appearance, the prosecution told the judge that the victim was no longer in the country and they lost contact with the victim’s family.

Something to keep in mind about cash bail is that it is leverage the prosecutor uses to push for a plea bargain. The easiest way to avoid spending days, weeks, months, years in jail awaiting trial is to plead out – even if you could likely beat the charges at trial. (I’m avoiding using “innocent/guilty,” because that’s not the determinant of your fate.)
It strikes me as a source of extreme power imbalance in favor not just of the state but of individual prosecutors. I haven’t read Emily Bazelon’s forthcoming book Charged, but I gather from hearing her talk about it that this is addressed there. I’m waiting for my copy.

Sounds like someone in the prosecutors office ought to be going to jail, to me.

Many defendants are faced with a perverse incentive: Plead Guilty and go free for time served, or Plead Not Guilty and remain in jail. This is not a justice system to be proud of.

I hope that OP will answer this question: Where do you learn what you think you know about Paul Manafort? Is it from FoxNews or some similar source? I ask because OP has an impression completely different from mine. Manafort has been a criminal for decades, and may even be a traitor. That he has remained free to prosper for decades is a sign of how corrupt American politics are, and how difficult it is to prosecute white-collar crimes. Yet it sounds like OP would prefer this heinous criminal were free to “earn” more illicit millions, freeing up prison space to incarcerate … who? Blacks selling loosies?

What I don’t understand is why a 16 year old was in jail in the first place. In my state, the case would have been heard in Youth Court, and if convicted, he’d have faced maybe a few days in juvy and probation. Even if the value of the merchandise was over the threshold for a felony charge, it still would have been handled in Youth Court. I guess New York does things differently…

I have no idea what argument you are presenting for the continuance of the current bail practice.

It might just be “prominent Democrats don’t like it.” I’m not sure myself.

Kim Foxx provides an example of how prosecutors are perversely incentivized to play this game or take a bunch of shit for making the right call: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-kim-foxx-jussie-smollett-20190329-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

I think the assumptions about Kalief Browder that the OP has are the real arguments they’re making against cash bail. Along with some auxiliary assumptions about Manafort and Trump’s culpability in crimes. And who’s a “street tough.” And what people who think Manafort and Trump are criminals think. Etc.

I really dislike making criminal justice partisan, and the OP is – it seems to me – just pouring gasoline on a bunch of fires, hoping to have their side rule the ashes when all’s said and done.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s position on bail reform, which I support:

(Can’t quote OP…)

Rights of Miscreant Thief Supersede Public Protection…

This is not true.
From OP:

“We do not know whether Kalief Browder was a violent person. We can only suspect he was.”
You can. “We” can also suspect that he was not.

Sometimes politicians get it right. Cash bail is inherently prohibitive to poor people. The same way that regressive taxes are. And the accused are innocent until proven guilty. That we CAN suspect. And the innocent have rights that do not supersede jack fucking shit.

Maybe he had a history in the criminal justice system?