Rocag said:
Yeah, he was absolutely a criminal that was guilty of prior crimes. I'd wager most people who are out on bail are. So why should any criminal ever be helped post bail? I'm happy to give you the point of view that most people who oppose cash bail share.
So let's say you have a criminal like Tillman who is accused of a misdemeanor. There's a good chance that the punishment for that crime won't actually include any time in jail. So once his trial is over he's going to be back out on the streets and free in relatively short order anyway. But whether or not they were able to post bail could heavily impact what happens then.
In one case, the accused can't afford bail and so they have to sit in a cell waiting for their court date. While that's going on, there's a pretty good chance that if they did have a job they're going to be fired since they can't show up to work. Most poor people also don't have the most stable living arrangements either. So while they're in jail unable to work they're either getting way behind on rent or maybe they're even getting evicted.
On the other hand the person is provided bail and able to work and maintain their normal living arrangements while they wait for trial.
The court case comes and goes and now that person is back out on the streets. One still has a job and place to live. The other doesn't. Which of those do you think is more likely to go out and commit more crimes? Which do you think is more likely to create better outcomes for the community?
This kind of utopian, ivory tower bull**** is why left-controlled cities and states are crime-ridden ****holes.