St. Louis activists bail out African-American moms - Black Privilege?

[Axulus]

Who cares if the fundraiser targets a specific race and gender? They are a private organization. Let them target whomever they want.

Because raced based or gender based criteria for merit is unsavory. No one is suggesting that they can't use such criteria or that they should be stopped. Just that they shouldn't use such criteria.

 

[Axulus]

The part I don't really get is why are the proceeds for the fundraiser race targeted? Are there no white moms (or latino, asian, american indian, etc) unable to afford $1,000 bail, or are they simply less deserving of being with their children on mothers day? Why not administer the charity in a race neutral manner?

The group raised $3,000 or so which permits it to bail out 3 people with $1,000 bail. I read the story, and despite the headlines, I could not tell if the organization targeted black moms or if they just ended up with black moms. And, of course, we don't the racial distribution of the mothers held in the St. Louis jail.

The organization's tag line is "bail out black mothers for mother's day"

https://m.facebook.com/FrontLineA1/

Certainly they can do whatever they want, and its better than not doing anything at all, but it would be even better (imo) to not have race based (or gender) merit criteria if race (gender) isn't itself a metric for merit (or lack thereof).

I would argue that the injustices of the bail system in these cases affect all races. If it affects blacks disproportionately, then it makes sense to give them a disproportionate amount of the help, but I question the reasoning behind deciding that they are the only ones deserving of help.

 

[laughing dog]

Poor Derec. This thread is a Trigger Perfecta.

And it gets worse. If you can't afford bail, you are much more likely to be tried or plea to a higher charge and face stiffer sentences. So much for equal protection.

What do you suggest as an alternative incentive for such individuals to show up on their court date? The bail is there to incentivize people not to skip out on their court proceedings.

There is reasonable bail, and there is unreasonable bail. Incarcerating someone who cannot make $1,000 bail makes little sense if the costs of the incarceration greatly exceed the expected benefits from that incarceration.

 

[Axulus]

Poor Derec. This thread is a Trigger Perfecta.

And it gets worse. If you can't afford bail, you are much more likely to be tried or plea to a higher charge and face stiffer sentences. So much for equal protection.

What do you suggest as an alternative incentive for such individuals to show up on their court date? The bail is there to incentivize people not to skip out on their court proceedings.

There is reasonable bail, and there is unreasonable bail. Incarcerating someone who cannot make $1,000 bail makes little sense if the costs of the incarceration greatly exceed the expected benefits from that incarceration.

The purpose of bail isn't to reduce costs or make money. It is to incentivize someone charged with a crime to show up for their court dates. If no one ever skipped out on their court dates then the proper amount of bail would be zero.

 

[Underseer]

The part I don't really get is why are the proceeds for the fundraiser race targeted? Are there no white moms (or latino, asian, american indian, etc) unable to afford $1,000 bail, or are they simply less deserving of being with their children on mothers day? Why not administer the charity in a race neutral manner?

The group raised $3,000 or so which permits it to bail out 3 people with $1,000 bail. I read the story, and despite the headlines, I could not tell if the organization targeted black moms or if they just ended up with black moms. And, of course, we don't the racial distribution of the mothers held in the St. Louis jail.

The organization's tag line is "bail out black mothers for mother's day"

https://m.facebook.com/FrontLineA1/

Certainly they can do whatever they want, and its better than not doing anything at all, but it would be even better (imo) to not have race based (or gender) merit criteria if race (gender) isn't itself a metric for merit (or lack thereof).

I would argue that the injustices of the bail system in these cases affect all races. If it affects blacks disproportionately, then it makes sense to give them a disproportionate amount of the help, but I question the reasoning behind deciding that they are the only ones deserving of help.

Of course you argue that the justice system affects all races the same.

The justice system treats you better than everyone else, so we expect you to make arguments that prevent any changes to the justice system, and you certainly have a motive to oppose anything that reduces the injustices that favor you.

Therefore, if we ask Muslims in Muslim-majority countries to stop killing gay people, we are therefore "persecuting" the Muslims.

If we ask the justice system to stop hurting certain minorities more than others, that must be opposed because it reduces the advantage you have, and if you don't have advantages like that, you can't possibly compete on a level playing field. I believe you rightists refer to that as the "soft bigotry of low expectations," right?

 

[laughing dog]

There is reasonable bail, and there is unreasonable bail. Incarcerating someone who cannot make $1,000 bail makes little sense if the costs of the incarceration greatly exceed the expected benefits from that incarceration.

The purpose of bail isn't to reduce costs or make money. It is to incentivize someone charged with a crime to show up for their court dates.

The purpose of bail is to help run the criminal justice system effectively and in a cost-efficient manner. If someone cannot pay $1,000 bail, does incarcerating them for 10 days instead help run the criminal justice system effectively and in a cost-efficient manner? That is the real question.

 

[Axulus]

The organization's tag line is "bail out black mothers for mother's day"

https://m.facebook.com/FrontLineA1/

Certainly they can do whatever they want, and its better than not doing anything at all, but it would be even better (imo) to not have race based (or gender) merit criteria if race (gender) isn't itself a metric for merit (or lack thereof).

I would argue that the injustices of the bail system in these cases affect all races. If it affects blacks disproportionately, then it makes sense to give them a disproportionate amount of the help, but I question the reasoning behind deciding that they are the only ones deserving of help.

Of course you argue that the justice system affects all races the same.

The justice system treats you better than everyone else, so we expect you to make arguments that prevent any changes to the justice system, and you certainly have a motive to oppose anything that reduces the injustices that favor you.

Therefore, if we ask Muslims in Muslim-majority countries to stop killing gay people, we are therefore "persecuting" the Muslims.

If we ask the justice system to stop hurting certain minorities more than others, that must be opposed because it reduces the advantage you have, and if you don't have advantages like that, you can't possibly compete on a level playing field. I believe you rightists refer to that as the "soft bigotry of low expectations," right?

"Justice system doesn't treat all races the same" does not mean that there are some individuals of other races who never face injustice.

 

[Axulus]

There is reasonable bail, and there is unreasonable bail. Incarcerating someone who cannot make $1,000 bail makes little sense if the costs of the incarceration greatly exceed the expected benefits from that incarceration.

The purpose of bail isn't to reduce costs or make money. It is to incentivize someone charged with a crime to show up for their court dates.

The purpose of bail is to help run the criminal justice system effectively and in a cost-efficient manner. If someone cannot pay $1,000 bail, does incarcerating them for 10 days instead help run the criminal justice system effectively and in a cost-efficient manner? That is the real question.

Incarcerating them for 10 days ensures they show up for the court date more effectively than releasing them on $0 bail. $1,000 bail seems to be a reasonable balance between burden on the individual and incentive to show up for the court date.

If such individuals always showed up for their court dates, then bail should always be $0.

If there are other options that obtain similar level of show-rates at a lower burden to the individual I definitely think those should be implemented. Does anyone have any suggestions?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Poor Derec. This thread is a Trigger Perfecta.

And it gets worse. If you can't afford bail, you are much more likely to be tried or plea to a higher charge and face stiffer sentences. So much for equal protection.

What do you suggest as an alternative incentive for such individuals to show up on their court date? The bail is there to incentivize people not to skip out on their court proceedings.

Well it is a crime to skip out of court. Putting someone in jail because they can’t afford bail, instead of they are a flight risk is stupid.

 

[bilby]

The purpose of bail is to help run the criminal justice system effectively and in a cost-efficient manner. If someone cannot pay $1,000 bail, does incarcerating them for 10 days instead help run the criminal justice system effectively and in a cost-efficient manner? That is the real question.

Incarcerating them for 10 days ensures they show up for the court date more effectively than releasing them on $0 bail. $1,000 bail seems to be a reasonable balance between burden on the individual and incentive to show up for the court date.

If such individuals always showed up for their court dates, then bail should always be $0.

If there are other options that obtain similar level of show-rates at a lower burden to the individual I definitely think those should be implemented. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Essentially bail is a fine for failing to attend court, but it is paid upfront, and refunded if the offence (of failing to attend) is not committed.

Ideally it should reflect the likely cost of finding the accused and bringing them to court if they don't show up under their own steam; How much that cost is likely to be depends on the probability of a no-show, and on the amount of effort and expense the accused might employ to evade re-arrest. So a poor person accused of a minor offence might well only need bail set at a very low level - maybe even $0 - because they simply don't have the incentive nor the resources to evade arrest.

A person charged with a more serious offence, and/or someone with the means to flee the country, might need bail set at a very high level - international extradition proceedings are not cheap.

The whole system is completely undermined if the accused has their bail paid by a third party, unless that third party undertakes to recover the bail money with prejudice in the event of a default.

 

[laughing dog]

Incarcerating them for 10 days ensures....

Your response completely misses the point because it is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why do you assume the only 2 options are $1,000 bail or zero bail?

$1,000 is not a reasonable burden for someone of little means.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Incarcerating them for 10 days ensures....

Your response completely misses the point because it is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why do you assume the only 2 options are $1,000 bail or zero bail?

$1,000 is not a reasonable burden for someone of little means.

INDEED. And if it were a reasonable burden, what other reason would they not be paying it? Because they know they will try to run away and not get caught? That is not a coherent explanation at all.

 

[Axulus]

Incarcerating them for 10 days ensures....

Your response completely misses the point because it is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why do you assume the only 2 options are $1,000 bail or zero bail?

$1,000 is not a reasonable burden for someone of little means.

Did you review the judge's decision process in these cases? How did you determine that the judge set an unreasonable bail here? Are you claiming he/she did not take into account the accused's level of means? What was the process used in this court to determine the bail amount?

I would need more facts here to determine whether the bail was excessive or not.

 

[Derec]

I just don't understand the race based criteria in reuniting poor mothers with their children on mothers day who were charged with minor stuff. It seems like a more noble goal to consider all as potentially deserving of help regardless of the color of their skin if they find themselves in identical circumstances. If more black mothers are in the pool of potentially deserving of help, then they will tend to be more likely to get the help.

I agree in general, just with a caveat that the Gilpert woman wasn't charged with minor stuff exactly. That property damage charge is a felony.

 

[Axulus]

Incarcerating them for 10 days ensures....

Your response completely misses the point because it is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why do you assume the only 2 options are $1,000 bail or zero bail?

$1,000 is not a reasonable burden for someone of little means.

INDEED. And if it were a reasonable burden, what other reason would they not be paying it? Because they know they will try to run away and not get caught? That is not a coherent explanation at all.

What would've been reasonable for these particular cases? If the crime is petty enough zero bail might be ok. I'm all for alternatives to bail as well that incentivize appearance.

 

[Derec]

What would've been reasonable for these particular cases? If the crime is petty enough zero bail might be ok. I'm all for alternatives to bail as well that incentivize appearance.

That's called "released on own recognizance" and is a thing already when dealing with minor crimes, especially for first offenders.
However, the article gave us the name of one of the bailed out black moms and she isn't exactly being accused of a petty crime. $1000 is probably reasonable in this case.

 

[Derec]

You have no respect for the law. It is possible to disagree with a law and yet respect the law. it is possible to find a law unjust and still respect the law. It is possible to break the law and still have respect for the law.

If it is possible to disagree with a law, find it unjust and even break it while still "respecting" it, in what way am I not respecting the law while these hypothetical people are?

Selectively choosing which laws to keep and which to break at your personal convenience is not respect for the law or for other people.

So I need to break all the laws in order to "respect the law"? I mean, you do have a problem with the "selective" part.

But how is selectively choosing to break certain unjust laws any different from a gay man having sex pre-Lawrence? How is it different from people (like I am sure many here do) smoking weed in places where it is illegal? Or a woman getting an illegal abortion?
Are they all showing disrespect for the law? Or are they, in your mind, showing respect because you agree with their behavior and disagree with mine?

It is possible to respect people but your ‘respect’ seems much more a willingness to ignore law in instances where it benefits you personally and allows you to throw down some cash in lieu of actual mutual échange of human emotions. This is not respect. This is selfishness.

No more selfishness than paying any service provider. And I bet that I show much more respect to the ladies I see (especially ones I see repeatedly) than many "players" do to their "conquests".

But your opinions about me not respecting the law are rooted in your deep animus against sex work. I do not see what it has to do with this thread or why you even brought up sex work. Please stop this derail.

 

[laughing dog]

Incarcerating them for 10 days ensures....

Your response completely misses the point because it is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. Why do you assume the only 2 options are $1,000 bail or zero bail?

$1,000 is not a reasonable burden for someone of little means.

Did you review the judge's decision process in these cases? How did you determine that the judge set an unreasonable bail here? Are you claiming he/she did not take into account the accused's level of means? What was the process used in this court to determine the bail amount?

I would need more facts here to determine whether the bail was excessive or not.

One would think the fact she could not afford the bail makes it pretty obvious.

 

[Toni]

If it is possible to disagree with a law, find it unjust and even break it while still "respecting" it, in what way am I not respecting the law while these hypothetical people are?

So I need to break all the laws in order to "respect the law"? I mean, you do have a problem with the "selective" part.

But how is selectively choosing to break certain unjust laws any different from a gay man having sex pre=Lawrence? How is it different from people (like I am sure many here do) smoking weed in places where it is illegal? Or a woman getting an illegal abortion?
Are they all showing disrespect for the law? Or are they, in your mind, showing respect because you agree with their behavior and disagree with mine?

It is possible to respect people but your ‘respect’ seems much more a willingness to ignore law in instances where it benefits you personally and allows you to throw down some cash in lieu of actual mutual échange of human emotions. This is not respect. This is selfishness.

No more selfishness than paying any service provider. And I bet that I show much more respect to the ladies I see (especially ones I see repeatedly) than many "players" do to their "conquests".

But your opinions about me not respecting the law are rooted in your deep animus against sex work. I do not see what it has to do with this thread or why you even brought up sex work. Please stop this derail.

Frankly, it does not matter to me whether it is you engaging in prostitution, making moonshine in your bathtub, selling weed out of your garage, jaywalking or whatever.

You are extremely quick to assume--to presume--guilt of any black person or any woman and to attribute the worst motives and behavior possible to them, even for minor infractions or no infractions at all. You frequently take a position that seems as though you are really very much all law and order! But you really are not. You feel quite comfortable in condemning any (black and/or female) person for being arrested, even for being killed while in custody or being taken into custody and blaming them for the circumstances of their misfortunes. Fine. I don't agree but fine. At least that's consistent.

What is not consistent is how you let yourself off the hook completely with regards to prostitution. Because that's a crime that you engage in.

You don't respect the law. I am not talking about any specific law but the law as a body of governance of our society.

 

[Derec]

One would think the fact she could not afford the bail makes it pretty obvious.

She could have have a bail bondsman post her bail for a fee of 10% or $100.