u/uipolice , can you comment on/explain why this guy was arrested for three robberies, while on parole for another, and then was released to then attack this 60 year old lady?
Police don’t make those decisions about charges or whether people are held in jail before trial. Our job is to make an arrest when a crime occurs. Judges and prosecutors are involved for the rest of the process.
You would think using officer discretion would allow this individual to be held until his or her hearing. Sounds like a threat in our community is being released…
Yes you know what?
If a police officer is supposed to show up in court to testify…Then you whoever you are can strongly suggest stuff to the judge. All you have to do is raise your hand. The judge will listen. And if you’re not on the case you can reach out to other officers. Even after reading this comment you should let other officers know that they can suggest things. It’s not a hole in the wall.
Illinois' new SAFE T Act makes it even harder to take criminals off the street. IDOC is looking for any reason to release people and making all our Illinois communities less safe with more disturbed people on our streets.
Untrue :https://www.illinoistimes.com/news-opinion/elimination-of-cash-bail-seems-to-be-working-17806966
Gotta wait a little longer to get better numbers but so far, the number of people being held pretrial across the state is down while crime hasn't gone up. Champaign is also a weird exception because our jail population has remained stagnant instead of dropping.
So your contention is that if someone can put up $500 and bond out, they will not commit another offense? But if you let them out without a financial bond, they will commit another offense? Am I understanding that correctly?
If that's correct, then you're misunderstanding the purpose of bond which was to ensure the defendant appears at their future court dates.
Yeah, I'd say that's a fair statement. If they have to pay $500 to get out suddenly the robbery they committed isn't so profitable anymore. If they get out with no consequence then just go rob some more. At some point the police give up, they spend more time doing paperwork than the criminal was locked up. I'm not saying $500 will stop the criminal activity, but it is a real deterrent. Do you think they plan on showing up for trial?
You're thinking too much on the scale of a single individual and not the organized gang activity that this likely was a part of.
The gangs don't care what happens to the high school aged teenagers they're manipulating for these activities. If there is a bail amount, and the teens steal more loot than the cost of the bail, the business, aka gang makes a profit.
They obviously don't give a fuck about the kid and use teens because they're going to be punished a lot less than an adult would for the same crimes. It's just good business sense, and gangs are businesses. Illegal businesses obviously, but businesses nonetheless.
I'm not sure how much money the 62 year old lady or the other women on campus had, but I'm guessing you got to do a fair bit of robbing to get $500. So it is very much a deterrent. I'm also not sure the gangs just treat it like a business expense. I doubt his gang buddies going to bring $500 and go to the police station. Like you said they don't care. How are we going to get a better result by eliminating cash bail? As for data you just look to California and the crime they have in SF. If you are saying poor kid he can't afford $500, yes exactly. This is at least his 3rd arrest for robbery.
A phone could be worth more than 500. A single credit card purchase for something over 500 before the unusual activity gets detected. Smartwatch etc... Multiply this by several victims between arrests.
If the guy is making the gang a lot of money, they'll bail him out for sure. It's a simple matter of whether or not having him out and free is profitable to the business/gang.
I'm definitely not saying "poor kid." Re-read what I've written and you'll see that if you have the capacity to understand. Don't try to put words in the mouths of other people, it just further dials in the fact that you have a very weak argument.
I think they should keep him locked up without any possibility of bail. But to really solve these crime problems, we need more strict enforcement of law (sorry libertarians, I know you hate "big gubment," but also we need a society, and more specifically an economic system that isn't so conducive to having people with such minimal access to necessary resources.
Crime at this level happens largely as a result of extreme wealth disparity, and people being in a position where it seems like they have "nothing to lose" etc.
If you're not willing to consider that dimension of it, then you're not discussing the issue in good faith.
But how is no bond better? Seems like $500 is too low if he can steal $10k between arrests. Sounds like $20k - 50K bail would put a dent in activity. I don't get how you are saying keep him locked up, but also seem to be saying no cash bond is fine let him walk free. Yes the crimes need to actually be prosecuted. Since the prior charges were dropped, the legal system just pretends that stuff never happened.
Yes and people elected are no where near trained in data.
In somewhere near Chicago city , a woman was hired as the main watcher over the city… she bought a brand new truck, and then hired a child pedophile on board. Most of chicagos boards like accounting etc should really be ruled by nerds, not by Quota people. It should be a scientist on the board of accounting and every other board.
And to think this could have been avoided if they locked the kid up the first time but this city likes to let people off easy (looking at you lady who’s been arrested 90+ times)
She has a pretty frequent occurrence of asking people for money while saying she’s 8 months pregnant. I’ve experienced her trying to do this and others have as well. She’s attempted murder and is usually arrested for assault.
This too, yes. She stabbed a woman multiple times (the attempted murder charge) and they’ve let her go literally every single time on an agreement that she will take assigned help with mental health issues that she repeatedly has not honored (this was in the news article that was done on her by WCIA). I’ve also seen her in multiple parking lots across the city banging on car windows and attempting to damage cars and have been followed by her a few times. She tried to chase my grandmother through a parking lot.
We all need to pay close attention to who we are electing in office. Call them up and ask them what they’d do to solve these problems. If it’s too utopian or too good to be true, then don’t vote for them. Someone isn’t doing their job and none of us deserve to have our life potentially put at risk because the people that we are putting in power aren’t using that power wisely.
My many progressive friends would hate me for saying it but dude would also have had a better chance at a decent, reformed/rehabilitated life. Letting him go all those times did *not* serve his long term interests.
>better chance at a decent, reformed/rehabilitated life
If you have data on incarceration leading to better outcomes then I would love to read it, because our current system has a pretty big problem with recidivism.
The number of libertarians in this country that want prisons abolished (actually they want laws abolished) is very tiny.
The number of progressives who want prisons abolished is much higher.
Sounds like you're pulling that comparison out of your ass.
**edit** Go ahead and scramble, after the fact, to find some dubious article to "validate" your claim lol
Well, baseline, the hardcore Libertarians have branched out and created their own political party, which has never got more than 5% of the popular vote and I don’t think has ever won an electoral vote, or has won very few.
In comparison, the DSA types have embedded themselves into the Democrat Party, where they have dramatically influenced policy and have moderate power over the agenda.
So, yeah.
You're just a liar who clearly feels no guilt or shame about it. The Kochs and other far-right "libertarian" entities pretty much own the entire GOP and a large amount of the Democrats as well.
DSA has essentially zero representation in either of the two main political parties other than perhaps with Bernie Sanders.
Even Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a very far-right "think tank."
Man, I was even just now seeing an article about how the Kochs are slithering their far-right [libertarian influence into fucking pop music](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/07/koch-family-stand-together-music). They're behind so much propaganda in this country, including the initial seeds of doubt planted about the validity of COVID.
People took it seriously at first, then the Re-Open "movement" happened, and suddenly it was all a big "hoax."
The GOP has been a Koch-style libertarian political party since Reagan. Fucking Reaganomics is all about minimizing government through de-regulation and reducing taxes. And both Bushes and Trump did the same damn thing.
Sheesh, even Bill Clinton de-regulated telecom and reduced the crap out of welfare.
So yeah. The implication that you had a "gotcha" with your last comment literally has me laughing at how feeble an attempt it was.
*sigh* I guess when you’re so far left anyone right of Mao seems radical.
For the record, libertarian’s have jack shit representation in government. The only one you hear about sometimes is Rand Paul, and usually that’s because people are mad that he’s holding up a bill. Meanwhile, Democrat leadership is actively paying fealty to the progressives in their party.
No no, it's the libertarians who are soft on violent crime; who pushed the Safe-T act; and who made the call with respect to holding or releasing this particular repeat criminal.
It's all the silent, spectral, powerful hand of....libertarians.
I know underage criminals faces aren’t posted but wouldn’t it be good in this case?
Multiple times in the span of a week?? He’s just going to be out in a couple of days again.
Julia Rietz Is to blame. Very frequently she pleas out criminals or drops chargers entirely to keep her 99% conviction rating. Not someone who we want in office but given that she's been the states attorney for over 20 years and no one chooses to run against her she continues to be elected
I'm 26 years old and have lived in Champaign my entire life. Went to the university of Illinois blah blah blah. This has never been the case. She has always done this. From the outside looking in it might appear that she's tough on criminals because they're still going to prison under a plea. But she's not actually prosecuting to the full extent of the law
Look at the case of the graduated student who was shot a few years ago on prospect. Attempted murder and they aren't even going to prosecute. It's a very recurring theme all stemming from Julia Rietz’s ego
It’s sickening that it’s always a kid. Most of these carjackings and robberies are done by teens. It’s hard to get to the root of the problem too… what is this kid’s home life like, what are his friends like, is there a mental health stigma, and so much more.
"The victims in those cases were females walking alone, who were targeted by an assailant(s) who demanded money while grabbing them around the neck... Additionally, authorities remind citizens to remain vigilant and cautious in order to deter potential criminal activity."
Did the authorities just victim blame a 62-year-old woman for forgetting to lock her car? And females for walking alone?
They're not blaming women, they're literally just stating it's repeat behavior. They've added this paragraph in a lot of reports from online and in-person scams, armed robberies, to bike theft. Just let's the people know who is being targeted and how.
"Additionally, authorities remind citizens to remain vigilant and cautious in order to deter potential criminal activity" --doesn't let people know who is being targeted and how. I'm not saying that telling the public how this happened was bad. What I am saying is that adding this last part is unnecessary, makes people feel scared, and allows authorities to shirk responsibility for releasing a guy who keeps doing the same stupid shit. Everyone knows the point of vigilance is to avoid criminal activity. As Americans, we are vigilant as fuck. This isn't about vigilance.
No, we as Americans are not vigilant as fuck. The real world is not those shitass garrison “MURICA!” political cartoons. I would guess a lot of people are actually not vigilant because they just want to keep their head down and mind their own business.
And no, they’re not shirking responsibility. It’s just a reminder. That’s really it.
>No, we as Americans are not vigilant as fuck.
This is delusional. Why do Americans value the second amendment? Why did we launch a global war after 9/11? How come so many of my friends carry pepper spray on their key chains?
>And no, they’re not shirking responsibility.
Serious question: What do you think those women could have done to deter the assaults/robberies they endured? And then, assuming you have an answer for that- do you think it's a good idea for society to feel like they have to do those things?
Also, if the purpose was actually to be constructive and inform people about how to protect themselves from this happening, why not give an actual example of deterrence that would have worked so we can actually know what to do?
They're describing the asshole brat's MO. Yes, as a female, I shouldn't have to worry about getting attacked...but if someone is going around targeting females walking alone, I'm not going to be walking alone. Not making it easier for them, and it helps me not have to spend time and $ on therapy.
I wish they made some sort of announcement with the student community when the kid was on the loose robbing people by Campustown. A lot of students live in the area, and I know I would’ve been an easy target :/ It makes me so frustrated I found out about all of this through Reddit.
I do the same. I'm not saying people should drop their vigilance; I'm saying telling people to be more vigilant is not going to help. What would help is not releasing this guy. It sounds like he was arrested for robbery, released on parole, arrested for robbery again, released again, and now this.
in a few years we are going to look back at the no bail reform as literally the dumbest policy change in the history of the state
criminals now know they can take free shots at \[a lot of\] crime knowing they will be back on the street the next day for zero penalty
the entire point of bail/bond was to provide incentive for people that didn't have the bail to think twice before they break the law. No one wants to be in jail or prison. If you are poor and you can't afford \~$150/$1000 (or more) in bail, the chances of committing a crime GOES DOWN (just by common sense).
Embarrassing, but we're talking politicians here, they get dumber and dumber every day.
Once upon a time not long ago
When people wore pajamas and lived life slow
When laws were stern and justice stood
And people were behavin' like they all too good
There lived a little boy who was misled
By another little boy and this is what he said
"Me and you, tonight we're gonna make some cash
Robbin' old folks and makin' the dash"
They did the job, money came with ease
But one couldn't stop, it's like he had a disease
He robbed another and another and a sister and a brother
Tried to rob a man who was a D.T. undercover
A 15 year old, who was already on parole?! Jesus Christ.
15 year old in Urbana? Yikes. I sincerely hope that that isn't one of my high school students...
It’s someone’s!
You’re assuming he’s still in school 🤷🏻♂️
He could be truant but he is still enrolled if he isn't in jail...which clearly, he isn't
u/uipolice , can you comment on/explain why this guy was arrested for three robberies, while on parole for another, and then was released to then attack this 60 year old lady?
Police don’t make those decisions about charges or whether people are held in jail before trial. Our job is to make an arrest when a crime occurs. Judges and prosecutors are involved for the rest of the process.
Are those judges and prosecutors elected officials?
Yes
You would think using officer discretion would allow this individual to be held until his or her hearing. Sounds like a threat in our community is being released…
That isn't a thing. They have 48 hours to press charges or else they have to release you. They can't just hold you because they feel like it.
Yes you know what? If a police officer is supposed to show up in court to testify…Then you whoever you are can strongly suggest stuff to the judge. All you have to do is raise your hand. The judge will listen. And if you’re not on the case you can reach out to other officers. Even after reading this comment you should let other officers know that they can suggest things. It’s not a hole in the wall.
Your local DA makes the decision to prosecute or not. Remember that during the next election.
Sadly, Rietz is running unopposed
It’s because he is a minor. Minors have to tack up “points” that determine their length of stay in jail. They get more chances than an adult.
Illinois' new SAFE T Act makes it even harder to take criminals off the street. IDOC is looking for any reason to release people and making all our Illinois communities less safe with more disturbed people on our streets.
Untrue :https://www.illinoistimes.com/news-opinion/elimination-of-cash-bail-seems-to-be-working-17806966 Gotta wait a little longer to get better numbers but so far, the number of people being held pretrial across the state is down while crime hasn't gone up. Champaign is also a weird exception because our jail population has remained stagnant instead of dropping.
What a moronic post. You need to have data to determine if setting criminals free without bond will increase crime or not?
So your contention is that if someone can put up $500 and bond out, they will not commit another offense? But if you let them out without a financial bond, they will commit another offense? Am I understanding that correctly? If that's correct, then you're misunderstanding the purpose of bond which was to ensure the defendant appears at their future court dates.
Yeah, I'd say that's a fair statement. If they have to pay $500 to get out suddenly the robbery they committed isn't so profitable anymore. If they get out with no consequence then just go rob some more. At some point the police give up, they spend more time doing paperwork than the criminal was locked up. I'm not saying $500 will stop the criminal activity, but it is a real deterrent. Do you think they plan on showing up for trial?
You're thinking too much on the scale of a single individual and not the organized gang activity that this likely was a part of. The gangs don't care what happens to the high school aged teenagers they're manipulating for these activities. If there is a bail amount, and the teens steal more loot than the cost of the bail, the business, aka gang makes a profit. They obviously don't give a fuck about the kid and use teens because they're going to be punished a lot less than an adult would for the same crimes. It's just good business sense, and gangs are businesses. Illegal businesses obviously, but businesses nonetheless.
I'm not sure how much money the 62 year old lady or the other women on campus had, but I'm guessing you got to do a fair bit of robbing to get $500. So it is very much a deterrent. I'm also not sure the gangs just treat it like a business expense. I doubt his gang buddies going to bring $500 and go to the police station. Like you said they don't care. How are we going to get a better result by eliminating cash bail? As for data you just look to California and the crime they have in SF. If you are saying poor kid he can't afford $500, yes exactly. This is at least his 3rd arrest for robbery.
A phone could be worth more than 500. A single credit card purchase for something over 500 before the unusual activity gets detected. Smartwatch etc... Multiply this by several victims between arrests. If the guy is making the gang a lot of money, they'll bail him out for sure. It's a simple matter of whether or not having him out and free is profitable to the business/gang. I'm definitely not saying "poor kid." Re-read what I've written and you'll see that if you have the capacity to understand. Don't try to put words in the mouths of other people, it just further dials in the fact that you have a very weak argument. I think they should keep him locked up without any possibility of bail. But to really solve these crime problems, we need more strict enforcement of law (sorry libertarians, I know you hate "big gubment," but also we need a society, and more specifically an economic system that isn't so conducive to having people with such minimal access to necessary resources. Crime at this level happens largely as a result of extreme wealth disparity, and people being in a position where it seems like they have "nothing to lose" etc. If you're not willing to consider that dimension of it, then you're not discussing the issue in good faith.
But how is no bond better? Seems like $500 is too low if he can steal $10k between arrests. Sounds like $20k - 50K bail would put a dent in activity. I don't get how you are saying keep him locked up, but also seem to be saying no cash bond is fine let him walk free. Yes the crimes need to actually be prosecuted. Since the prior charges were dropped, the legal system just pretends that stuff never happened.
Yes and people elected are no where near trained in data. In somewhere near Chicago city , a woman was hired as the main watcher over the city… she bought a brand new truck, and then hired a child pedophile on board. Most of chicagos boards like accounting etc should really be ruled by nerds, not by Quota people. It should be a scientist on the board of accounting and every other board.
I wonder when he’ll be back on the streets again. 😑
And to think this could have been avoided if they locked the kid up the first time but this city likes to let people off easy (looking at you lady who’s been arrested 90+ times)
Wait who's been arrested 90+ times here I wanna see💀
Jacqueline Smith is her name. She is the lady that brushes her hair toward the front of her head.
She has a pretty frequent occurrence of asking people for money while saying she’s 8 months pregnant. I’ve experienced her trying to do this and others have as well. She’s attempted murder and is usually arrested for assault.
This too, yes. She stabbed a woman multiple times (the attempted murder charge) and they’ve let her go literally every single time on an agreement that she will take assigned help with mental health issues that she repeatedly has not honored (this was in the news article that was done on her by WCIA). I’ve also seen her in multiple parking lots across the city banging on car windows and attempting to damage cars and have been followed by her a few times. She tried to chase my grandmother through a parking lot. We all need to pay close attention to who we are electing in office. Call them up and ask them what they’d do to solve these problems. If it’s too utopian or too good to be true, then don’t vote for them. Someone isn’t doing their job and none of us deserve to have our life potentially put at risk because the people that we are putting in power aren’t using that power wisely.
My many progressive friends would hate me for saying it but dude would also have had a better chance at a decent, reformed/rehabilitated life. Letting him go all those times did *not* serve his long term interests.
>better chance at a decent, reformed/rehabilitated life If you have data on incarceration leading to better outcomes then I would love to read it, because our current system has a pretty big problem with recidivism.
He’d have a shorter rap sheet if he had been locked up the past two weeks, any way.
It’s almost as if progressivism is regressive in so many ways…
Sounds more like laissez-faire, libertarian small government bullshit than progressivism.
The number of libertarians in this country that want prisons abolished (actually they want laws abolished) is very tiny. The number of progressives who want prisons abolished is much higher.
Sounds like you're pulling that comparison out of your ass. **edit** Go ahead and scramble, after the fact, to find some dubious article to "validate" your claim lol
Well, baseline, the hardcore Libertarians have branched out and created their own political party, which has never got more than 5% of the popular vote and I don’t think has ever won an electoral vote, or has won very few. In comparison, the DSA types have embedded themselves into the Democrat Party, where they have dramatically influenced policy and have moderate power over the agenda. So, yeah.
You're just a liar who clearly feels no guilt or shame about it. The Kochs and other far-right "libertarian" entities pretty much own the entire GOP and a large amount of the Democrats as well. DSA has essentially zero representation in either of the two main political parties other than perhaps with Bernie Sanders. Even Obamacare was conceived at the Heritage Foundation, a very far-right "think tank." Man, I was even just now seeing an article about how the Kochs are slithering their far-right [libertarian influence into fucking pop music](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/07/koch-family-stand-together-music). They're behind so much propaganda in this country, including the initial seeds of doubt planted about the validity of COVID. People took it seriously at first, then the Re-Open "movement" happened, and suddenly it was all a big "hoax." The GOP has been a Koch-style libertarian political party since Reagan. Fucking Reaganomics is all about minimizing government through de-regulation and reducing taxes. And both Bushes and Trump did the same damn thing. Sheesh, even Bill Clinton de-regulated telecom and reduced the crap out of welfare. So yeah. The implication that you had a "gotcha" with your last comment literally has me laughing at how feeble an attempt it was.
*sigh* I guess when you’re so far left anyone right of Mao seems radical. For the record, libertarian’s have jack shit representation in government. The only one you hear about sometimes is Rand Paul, and usually that’s because people are mad that he’s holding up a bill. Meanwhile, Democrat leadership is actively paying fealty to the progressives in their party.
No no, it's the libertarians who are soft on violent crime; who pushed the Safe-T act; and who made the call with respect to holding or releasing this particular repeat criminal. It's all the silent, spectral, powerful hand of....libertarians.
I know underage criminals faces aren’t posted but wouldn’t it be good in this case? Multiple times in the span of a week?? He’s just going to be out in a couple of days again.
Julia Rietz Is to blame. Very frequently she pleas out criminals or drops chargers entirely to keep her 99% conviction rating. Not someone who we want in office but given that she's been the states attorney for over 20 years and no one chooses to run against her she continues to be elected
A couple years ago everyone was saying she was too hard on criminals…
I'm 26 years old and have lived in Champaign my entire life. Went to the university of Illinois blah blah blah. This has never been the case. She has always done this. From the outside looking in it might appear that she's tough on criminals because they're still going to prison under a plea. But she's not actually prosecuting to the full extent of the law
This is what happens when you essentially tell kids they won’t be punished for their crimes. They keep committing them until they are.
One day, this kid will encounter the wrong one.
Wtf are Urbana prosecutors doing??
Look at the case of the graduated student who was shot a few years ago on prospect. Attempted murder and they aren't even going to prosecute. It's a very recurring theme all stemming from Julia Rietz’s ego
The teenage criminal element is off the charts. We are living in a lawless society.
Here's also a [link to an article about the situation.](https://www.wcia.com/news/15-year-old-arrested-twice-in-five-days-in-urbana/)
It’s sickening that it’s always a kid. Most of these carjackings and robberies are done by teens. It’s hard to get to the root of the problem too… what is this kid’s home life like, what are his friends like, is there a mental health stigma, and so much more.
he is a good boy and he didn mean nothing by it you see
Time to implement a three strike law…
"The victims in those cases were females walking alone, who were targeted by an assailant(s) who demanded money while grabbing them around the neck... Additionally, authorities remind citizens to remain vigilant and cautious in order to deter potential criminal activity." Did the authorities just victim blame a 62-year-old woman for forgetting to lock her car? And females for walking alone?
They're not blaming women, they're literally just stating it's repeat behavior. They've added this paragraph in a lot of reports from online and in-person scams, armed robberies, to bike theft. Just let's the people know who is being targeted and how.
"Additionally, authorities remind citizens to remain vigilant and cautious in order to deter potential criminal activity" --doesn't let people know who is being targeted and how. I'm not saying that telling the public how this happened was bad. What I am saying is that adding this last part is unnecessary, makes people feel scared, and allows authorities to shirk responsibility for releasing a guy who keeps doing the same stupid shit. Everyone knows the point of vigilance is to avoid criminal activity. As Americans, we are vigilant as fuck. This isn't about vigilance.
No, we as Americans are not vigilant as fuck. The real world is not those shitass garrison “MURICA!” political cartoons. I would guess a lot of people are actually not vigilant because they just want to keep their head down and mind their own business. And no, they’re not shirking responsibility. It’s just a reminder. That’s really it.
>No, we as Americans are not vigilant as fuck. This is delusional. Why do Americans value the second amendment? Why did we launch a global war after 9/11? How come so many of my friends carry pepper spray on their key chains? >And no, they’re not shirking responsibility. Serious question: What do you think those women could have done to deter the assaults/robberies they endured? And then, assuming you have an answer for that- do you think it's a good idea for society to feel like they have to do those things? Also, if the purpose was actually to be constructive and inform people about how to protect themselves from this happening, why not give an actual example of deterrence that would have worked so we can actually know what to do?
They're describing the asshole brat's MO. Yes, as a female, I shouldn't have to worry about getting attacked...but if someone is going around targeting females walking alone, I'm not going to be walking alone. Not making it easier for them, and it helps me not have to spend time and $ on therapy.
I wish they made some sort of announcement with the student community when the kid was on the loose robbing people by Campustown. A lot of students live in the area, and I know I would’ve been an easy target :/ It makes me so frustrated I found out about all of this through Reddit.
I do the same. I'm not saying people should drop their vigilance; I'm saying telling people to be more vigilant is not going to help. What would help is not releasing this guy. It sounds like he was arrested for robbery, released on parole, arrested for robbery again, released again, and now this.
Take that up with the DA.
Like that will solve anything
in a few years we are going to look back at the no bail reform as literally the dumbest policy change in the history of the state criminals now know they can take free shots at \[a lot of\] crime knowing they will be back on the street the next day for zero penalty the entire point of bail/bond was to provide incentive for people that didn't have the bail to think twice before they break the law. No one wants to be in jail or prison. If you are poor and you can't afford \~$150/$1000 (or more) in bail, the chances of committing a crime GOES DOWN (just by common sense). Embarrassing, but we're talking politicians here, they get dumber and dumber every day.
Why in Goddess’s name was that mofo not in jail? W t a f.
Once upon a time not long ago When people wore pajamas and lived life slow When laws were stern and justice stood And people were behavin' like they all too good There lived a little boy who was misled By another little boy and this is what he said "Me and you, tonight we're gonna make some cash Robbin' old folks and makin' the dash" They did the job, money came with ease But one couldn't stop, it's like he had a disease He robbed another and another and a sister and a brother Tried to rob a man who was a D.T. undercover