Another victim of progressive judges, Chicago

[scombrid]

Fox News said to just kill them. Unless they are Ross Ulbricht or Juan Hernandez or RFK Jr

 

[Derec]

Meanwhile the cunts don’t care that Trump is pardoning another convicted drug kingpin.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, scombrid, than just incessantly bitching about Trump.
On this forum, there is certainly no deficit of Trump-centric threads. So there is no need to derail all the others with whataboutisms.

 

[Derec]

Not necessarily, but at least they are not out in the community, attacking random citizens.

Why wouldn't they? Jail terms end. Unless that is what you are proposing changing. Are you?

For a jail term to end, a judge would have to send him to jail to begin with.
But sure, jail/prison terms end. Two responses to that:
- At least he'd be locked up for a period of years, during which he would not be a menace to the community. Something is better than nothing.
- With the criminally insane, we should be able to hold them indefinitely as long as they are deemed a danger to themselves or others. Reed is most definitely an ongoing danger to others.

And he is more likely to receive some mental health treatment inside than out on the streets.

Incorrect. Jails are not consistent or effective mental health care providers.

Saying that jails are "not consistent or effective mental health care provider" is not a rebuttal of my point in the least.
I wasn't opining that jails are "consistent or effective mental health care providers" on some absolute scale, but that they are better than just releasing somebody as dangerous and prone to violence as Reed into the wild. Jails have healthcare professionals on staff, and he would be in a controlled environment where for example medication compliance could be ensured. None of that exists when you just release him, even with a tether.

Do you believe that they should be? We could design such a system, but we do not have such a system.

You work with the system you have. Between two less-than-optimal options, jail would have been by far the better option. Even the Democratic Cook County DA recognized that when she objected to Reed being released into the community.
Jail would undoubtedly have been infinitely safer for the community Reed has been terrorizing for decades. But I also argue that it also would have been better for Reid, as he is more likely to be medication compliant in jail.
There is no rationale to defend the judge's decision, none whatsoever. Lack of some optimal system is not a reason to choose the worst option.

"Little to no consequences"? The man has spent fifty years drifting from one form of temporary involuntary detainment to another, and was otherwise homeless. In what universe is that "no consequence"?

He assaulted a social worker - after many priors - and was released. He set city property on fire and was released. In what universe are those examples of meaningful consequences for those actions?

 

[Derec]

No, my concern is that you are using sensational news headlines to justify attacking our collective civil rights and the rule of law in the United States, while ignoring the question of how to actually address or reduce the very crimes you decry.

It's an example of the criminal justice system failing the community it is tasked to protect.
There is no civil right to go around attacking people and setting things on fire, so I fail to see how locking up Reed would have violated his civil rights, much less "our collective civil rights".

Some of the manifold crimes Reed has committed over the decades could have easily prevented by locking him up. Even if his felony prison terms would eventually end, he would not have been able to attack women on the subway while locked up at Statesville. Btw, IDOC does have mental health services.

 

[Derec]

Jail does not cure "lunatics".

Neither does being out in the streets. But the former at least prevents them from terrorizing the community.

Then the "crime you decry" is the justice system functioning according to the law, rather than the grievous injury done to Bethany MaGee.

Please cite the Illinois law that prevented this judge from remanding Reed. Or other judges from imposing prison sentences in accordance with sentencing guidelines for his previous felony crimes.

 

[Derec]

Mr Reed was not in prison. So your objection is based on misinformation.

He certainly should have been. He committed enough felonies for it.

 

[scombrid]

I am all for the Fox News suggestion of killing off all the addicts and alcoholics and crazies; as long as the junkie that the GOP put in charge of HHS and people like him are not excluded.

 

[scombrid]

Meanwhile the cunts don’t care that Trump is pardoning another convicted drug kingpin.

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, scombrid, than just incessantly bitching about Trump.
On this forum, there is certainly no deficit of Trump-centric threads. So there is no need to derail all the others with whataboutisms.

The GOP is the alternative to these horrible woke judges that are endangering us all by their libtarded approach to the law. We, therefore, need to be clear what the GOP does when it promises to protect us from trannies and junkies.

 

[scombrid]

It is clear who really cares about public safety.

 

[scombrid]

And they definitely are not the people that think it is okay for a 40 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old as long as the 16 year old wants it and preferably if the 16 year old gets paid for it.

 

[Politesse]

No, my concern is that you are using sensational news headlines to justify attacking our collective civil rights and the rule of law in the United States, while ignoring the question of how to actually address or reduce the very crimes you decry.

It's an example of the criminal justice system failing the community it is tasked to protect.
There is no civil right to go around attacking people and setting things on fire, so I fail to see how locking up Reed would have violated his civil rights, much less "our collective civil rights".

Because you have a right to a fair trial, a right to have the same laws applied to you as to any other citizen, and a right to a sentence commensurate with your crime. Our justice system is not based on "feels", but on a rigorous set of laws, policies, and guidelines subject to democratic review.

You ought to also have a right to adequate healthcare, including mental healthcare, throughout your natural life. But Republican and Democrat alike agree that this is a dangerous, "Progressive" idea that would cause the country to fall to Marxism, because everyone over the age of fifty was raised in a toxic stew of Cold War propaganda funded by a vampiric insurance industry.

 

[TSwizzle]

Society has a right to be protected from violent lunatics who set fire to people who go about their day but nah, leave the lunatics to wander the streets to kill and maim because feelings.

 

[Politesse]

Society has a right to be protected from violent lunatics who set fire to people who go about their day but nah, leave the lunatics to wander the streets to kill and maim because feelings.

Literally no one says that. You're the one demanding that we feel instead of thinking critically, here.

 

[bilby]

It's an example of the criminal justice system failing the community it is tasked to protect.

It's an example of the criminal justice system being the wrong tool for the job.

Your calls for greater use of the wrong tool are misguided, in the same way that it would be misguided to use a bigger hammer, when you note that your efforts to hammer in a screw have failed.

Nobody here is arguing that the victim should not have been protected. Rather, people are pointing out that use of jail time would be entirely ineffective as an attempt at providing that protection.

The only ways that the criminal justice system could possibly defend society against offenders who are mentally ill, would be if jail were effective in treating mental illness (it obviously isn't); Or if offenders were routinely sentenced to life without parole for the kinds of offences Mr Reed had committed (which they cannot be under current law, and which would be a terrible idea on a number of levels).

A better option would be secure psychiatric accommodation, with appropriate treatment, and with release contingent not on time served, but on the condition having been mitigated to the point where the offender no longer poses a risk to the public. But that option is not generally available to mentally ill people in the US, because the US healthcare system is failing the community it is tasked to protect.

Your concerns about the criminal justice system are based on the false belief that that is the system that has failed; But it has failed not because it's a bad system, but because it's not a system that is capable, even in principle, of doing what you want it to do.

 

[laughing dog]

The discussion in this thread ignores a very important facet in this tragedy: The Pre-Trial Fairness Act;

The Pretrial Fairness Act, signed into law on February 22, 2021, as part of the omnibus Safety, Accountability, Fairness and Equity-Today (SAFE-T) Act, Public Act 101-0652, fundamentally alters pretrial release practices. Public Act 102-1104 is a trailer bill that amended certain portions of Public Act 101-0652. Its core purpose is to eliminate cash bail, making Illinois the first state to do so. This legislation establishes new standards for determining whether an individual should be released or detained before trial, focusing on individualized assessments rather than financial conditions. The Act aims to ensure that individuals who pose a threat to the community cannot simply purchase their freedom, while those who can be safely released are not held due to a lack of funds.......
Judges must consider six factors when deciding whether to detain someone:

• The nature and circumstances of the offense
• The weight of the evidence against the accused
• The history and characteristics of the accused
• The risk of danger to another person
• The risk of obstruction of justice or flight
• The optional use of a risk assessment tool.....

• During the hearing, the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to demonstrate the necessity of detention. The prosecutor must present evidence to convince the judge that the individual poses a specific, real, and present threat to the safety of any person or the community, or has a high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution. The defense counsel has the opportunity to contest the allegations and argue for their client’s release. The judge then makes a determination based on the evidence presented and the legal standards outlined in the Act. Possible outcomes include release with conditions, such as electronic monitoring or no-contact orders, or pretrial detention if the stringent criteria for detention are met.

Without knowing the content of the prosecutor's presentation (i.e. the facts), the conclusion that the judge is too liberal or "woke" is debatable. I know this may upset the law and order contingent, but judges are supposed to follow the law.

Furthermore, according to the linked article of TSwizzle, Mr. Read was in violation the conditions for his release for over 12 hours. Which means that if he was still wearing his ankle monitor when apprehended, the monitoring and enforcement personnel have some explaining to do.

Mr Read appears mentally ill. We don't have the facts about concerning his arrests or convictions. Maybe it was obvious from his record and demeanor that he was a real threat to injure someone else. But maybe it wasn't. Maybe a fair-minded person without Minority Report power made a reasonable decision that ended in tragedy. It happens.