In the aftermath of George Floyd’s death, the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) — which pays bail for those who can’t afford it — received tens of millions of dollars in donations.
If someone can’t pay bail, and a bail fund isn’t around to cover the cost, someone accused of a crime is kept in jail until their trial. Across America’s court systems, it can take weeks, months, even years before a trial begins.
Years — that’s how long it took for Kalief Browder, who was arrested in New York after being accused of stealing a backpack when he was 16. He spent three years in pre-trial detention. Eventually, the charges were dropped, he was released, and then later died by suicide at his parent’s house.
Minnesota Freedom Fund, formed in 2016, raises money to pay bail for people who are also stuck in the bail system locally in the Twin Cities. After the death of Floyd, the fund was flooded with donations.
MFF only had one employee in May 2020 and experienced massive growth as the donations poured in. That rapid expansion came with growing pains. But, in the time since Floyd was killed, the MFF has learned lessons, changed leadership and added staff and new practices, said co-executive director Elizer Darris.
With the new operation established, MFF leadership said the organization is ready to push bail reform — not just in a hot flash of spending all of its resources on bail and burning out as an organization while little has changed when it comes to bail policy — but for the long haul. For example, MFF has added a team dedicated to undoing current bail policies.
But also, in the time since May 2020, the Twin Cities has seen an uptick in violent crimes such as carjackings and homicide.
[image_caption]Zaynab Mohamed[/image_caption]
She also said the notion that setting bail will ensure that someone will appear for their court date has not been proven.
According to Darris, the MFF’s organizational changes have nothing to do with their approach to bail reform but were a result of new procedures designed to keep the organization afloat and provide resources for MFF’s efforts to lobby for changes to the bail system.
And the crime wave — and the fear it produces among residents of the Twin Cities metro — has not and will not cause the MFF to waver from its goals.
“This nation is oftentimes reactive,” said Darris. “It ebbs and it flows. We are in a cycle right now of reactive justice. Reactive justice perverts justice. We have to resist the urge to utilize a reactive, mob-like approach to saying, ‘Burn the accused’ and disregard the tenets that are supposed to be founding (of) the nation. Some of those are ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ the presumption of innocence, the notion that you are going to have access to counsel if accused and that you are going to have a fair, public and open trial.”
A mission of MFF’s is to end pretrial detention, said Darris.
“No one wins when someone is held pretrial without a conviction, criminalized and penalized as though they have a conviction,” said the co-director.
In Minnesota, when someone is charged with a crime, a judge can decide if the accused should be held on bail. Three are legal limits for bail for certain crimes, and there is a guideline a judge can follow at their discretion. If someone is unable to pay bail, they are detained until their trial begins, which again, can take weeks or months.
“What job is going to hold on to a person’s position for two weeks, three weeks, two months?” said Darris. “What apartment is going to hold on to a person’s unit just because they are detained? They are not going to do that. People suffer these harms from even low-level offenses.”
[image_caption]Elizer Darris[/image_caption]
“They are like, ‘OK, I have five years probation, I’m a felon now, but I can go home, I can pay my bills, I’m not going to lose my family,’” Darris said. He also said there is research showing people who cannot afford bail and await their trial in lockup have a higher rate of being convicted than those who post bail.
“We’re not saying we don’t want a fair and equitable trial, we’re saying we don’t want fingers on the scale,” said Darris.
MFF is a community fund, said Darris, which means the organization will only consider paying bail for people from the Twin Cities metro area. Currently, they are paying bail for people in Hennepin, Ramsey, Dakota, Anoka and Washington counties.
The MFF will not deny a request to pay bail for someone solely because of the severity of the charge. But there are a few exceptions as to who the fund will refuse to assist, such as people who have been accused of terrorism or members of white supremacist groups.
One big shift in MFF’s policy is a cap on the amount of bail the organization will pay for a single case. This change was made so that the fund wouldn’t run out of money, and money could be used for lobbying, not due to a shift in the organization’s approach to bail reform, Darris said. Darris said MFF will not disclose its bail cap because it doesn’t want prosecutors intentionally requesting bail above that amount.
“The Minnesota Freedom Fund, we’re invested in public safety,” said Darris. “These are our communities. This is where we live, where our loved ones live. That doesn’t mean we’re willing to sacrifice the safety and well-being of some community members to create the illusion of safety for other community members. More incarceration, especially more pretrial detention, is just not the answer to community violence. Decades of studies show that incarceration has no deterrent to crime and serves no rehabilitative function at all.”
Even now, as the crime wave continues and fears swell, Darris said MFF is not going to support “cannibalizing” some accused community members in order to assuage the fears of others.
It isn’t about a person stealing a backpack. Its about recidivist criminals committing violent crimes, getting out, then repeating.
A lot of bad people have been released. How would you feel if you or your family was the next victim.
If a person is a recidivist accused of a violent crime, then why is bail being set at all?
This is one of the problems with the bail system: currently, some people accused of a crime will sit in jail because they cannot pay, while other people will get out because they can pay. This doesn’t deter or prevent crime–criminals with the financial resources can get out of jail and go on their merry way. All it does it punish people for being poor.
“why is bail being set at all?” –It’s part of our Constitution.
The only place bail is mentioned in the US Constitution is Article VIII which prohibits “excessive bail”. There is no constitutional right to bail. Bail is set as a condition of pre-trial release as security for appearance at trial. Ms. Mack’s question is to that point. There’s nothing in this article that goes into the serious issue of pre-trial detention. It only goes to the fund that seeks to assist people who are caught in the criminal justice system (I dare say for nonviolent offneses) but who lack the means to post bail as security for their appearance at trial.
Unless I’m mistaken no bail has been adjudged excessive bail, which violates, of course, the Constitution. And no one is in favor of jailing those who are neither a flight nor a re-offend risk.
You are mistaken. The Eighth Amendment (which I mistakenly referred to as an Article) like the other Nine Amendments of the original Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government). The Constitutional protection against pretrial detention without trial or is protected by the Fifth Amendment due process clause and both Fifth and Eighth Amendment protections have been made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.
It’s not uncommon for those accused of serious violent offenses to be held with without bail. There must be compelling reasons for a court to do so. Some of those arrested for participation in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the Capitol were and I believe are being held without bail. That was because they were accused of violent acts.Of course, sometimes the same result is achieved by setting bail so high that the offender cannot realistically meet it. The key issue is the need for the court to address the issue and exercise its discretion on pretrial detention or release with or without bail, with the issue of bail being primarily related to the possibility of flight and likelihood of appearance at trial. Bail can be and often is on “personal recognizance”, i.e. an IOU.
As I read the above article, the Freedom Fund is about ensuring people are not detained in jail before trial simply because they cannot afford to pay cash bail. A lot of comments, including your comment below, seem to assume that the judicial system must keep anyone accused of a crime locked up unless they are acquitted at trial. No doubt, there are probably many more accused who should be held without bail based upon the nature of the crime. The suspect in the Waukesha parade homicides had been released on low bond after being charged with offenses related to a domestic violence episode. Maybe the bail should have been higher but what basis would there have been for a court or a prosecutor to predict that a person who is perhaps violent towards a spouse or family member would rob a bank or become a serial murderer? Our system presumes people are moral agents capable of free will so that no one is deprived of their personal liberty without some compelling reason necessary to protect the public.
” There is no constitutional right to bail.”
You are forgetting state constitutions.
Minn. Const. art. I, § 7: . . . All persons before conviction shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses when the proof is evident or the presumption great.
Since capital punishment has been abolished in Minnesota, a court has no discretion to deny bail in any case, although the court has some discretion in fixing the amount of bail. State v. Pett, 253 Minn. 429, 435, 92 N.W.2d 205, 209 (1958)
Violent crimes are committed by a small percentage of bad people. I agree that every broken law is not the same and common sense should be involved in the bail system. One thing I do know is if you use a gun while committing a crime or you hurt someone while committing a crime, you need to be locked up. As I’ve stated, hard to carjack your second car with a gun if you are in jail for the first one.
Should those people be given a trial first, or just thrown in jail? And then, using your legal eagle expertise, how long should they be in jail for a carjacking – 1 year, 5, life, what should it be?
Yep, if you are arrested for a crime using a gun, high bail… If you are arrested for hurting someone while committing a crime, high bail. Unfortunately for the law abiding folks of Mpls (99%), the bail everyone out and revolving door from arrest to street is destroying a once beautiful city. Again a small percentage of criminals commit most violent crime. The no consequences, no matter of the crime, is not working…. Time to change course.
Do you understand that being arrested does not mean you’re guilty of a crime?
Our Constitution and legal framework presumes your innocence until you are f0und guilty by a jury of your peers, which meets in a timely manner to decide that issue. You can’t just be locked away to r0t in a jail without due process, even if you’re poor.
Just give them a frowny face sticker and let them go is your solution?
No, I don’t think that would work. Due process however does.
Since many of the car jackers are repeating the same crime, I think the second time is 5 years automatic. 10 years on the third. These kids aren’t stupid, they know they’ll walk
The Mpls North football player, the north Mpls girl shot while in her back yard, the women killed at the Food Truck West 7th St, the Waukesha parade victims, were all killed by people with many past felonies that should have been locked up.
Last year Sheriff Fletcher said about 50 people are causing about 80% of the crime in Ramsey county.
Sure, prison or Totem Town/Glen Lake aren’t ideal, but better than letting them roam the street.
Should we lock them up before they’re tried for the crime they’re accused of?
This article misses a huge point–a quality safety risk assessment. Sure for non violent crimes, the freedom fund is a good idea; however there are some people who are at high risk of reoffending. That is also on the county to assist in assessing that. The problem also is what is the support and oversight for those who are out and have some riskier behaviors? Releasing an 18 yr old home when the parents are not able to support the youth is not a great option or if they have untreated mental health issues and refuse treatment. I think the Freedom Fund is well intentioned but lacks insight into some of the complexities of some of the situations. It is a fund, not a case management service, I get that, but releasing offenders who have risk factors on the streets(usually in low income areas) may not always be the answer either.
I agree that releasing potentially violent people is a problem. But the bail system we currently have doesn’t prevent them from being released, it just makes them pay for the privilege.
Something that might actually address the problem you mention is if there were a real system in place for determining whether an accused person is eligible for bail or not, depending on their history and the alleged crime and other factors. Currently, as the article says, this is totally up to the judge.
A friend of mine was carjacked at gunpoint a few months ago. The carjackers were caught. They were out the next day. The police told the victim that at least one of the individuals had committed other carjackings.
In a carjacking in Roseville, I listened to the police scanner. After a chase, the carjackers were arrested and I heard the officer say that the individual he arrested was a “known carjacker”.
It’s obvious that when judges are granting bail to violent carjackers, they are not considering public safety. A person who steals a backpack might not need to be held without bail, but when there is strong evidence that a person has carjacked people at gunpoint, I think holding them without bail is justified.
It’s obvious that when judges are granting bail to violent carjackers, they are considering the Minnesota Constitution, which requires that bail be set for every crime except some capital crimes (and, since there is no capital punishment in Minnesota, that has been held to mean that bail must be set for all defendants).
A person has a right to bail, but the court also has to consider other conditions when setting the conditions of release:
Minnesota law provides that the judge must consider a number of factors: Seriousness of the offense; Weight of the evidence; Defendant’s ties to the community; Past criminal history; and Risk to public safety.
Robert, you are right on! Every crime is not the same, gun crime and violent crime need to be treated differently. How is that so hard for certain folks to understand?
I disagree.
First, most carjackers in the Twin Cities are below the age of 18, and therefore are legally minors. Children. Most of their cases go to juvenile court, and we hope also to social services that would help them avoid a life of repeated crime.
Second, there are solutions to the prevalence-of-guns problem, but even on MinnPost nobody wants to talk about gun control.
Third, being accused of a crime is NOT the same thing as being convicted of that crime. You are presumed innocent until tried and convicted.
Fourth, a minor accused of carjacking in the Twin Cities deserves to spend how many days, weeks, months, or years in jail before being tried? Make an attempt to picture yourself in their shoes, without bail money. That’s the injustice we’re discussing here.
As a gun owner who grew up hunting, I want to talk about gun control. I want to talk about responsibility of gun owners. I want a registry. I want a gun owner to be charged with murder if a gun they owned and didn’t register a sale of is used to commit murder. I want a buyback program. I want gun manufacturers to be required to include biometric trigger locks. I want crimes committed with guns to be treated as violent. But then, I also want some white collar crimes that result in the destruction of someone else’s life to be treated pretty much the same (e.g., if you swindle a bunch of people out of their retirement funds, which leads to destitution and/or suicide, you will be treated like a criminal with a gun).
I don’t have the answers, but have some opinions. With all due respect to you:
First … and because they are “children” they don’t understand that car jacking is a crime and hurts people? This is probably the first time they have committed a ‘crime against society?’ Highly unlikely … by ‘crime against society’ I mean being a good person. Referring to them as “children” is a play on words. I would use the term ‘criminals.’
Second … I think there are a great number of people wanting to talk about and solve the problem of guns. There are too many guns available to criminals … that is a long term problem, whereas stopping car jackings needs to happen immediately. Car jacking is a crime … there is no debate about that.
Third … being caught in the vehicle that you have car jacked or with other solid evidence that you have committed the crime does not need a conviction in order for a person to be jailed. The crime is allowing bail to be set for those who have certainly committed the crime.
Fourth ….reform the criminal justice system so that a person, who is jailed, goes to court and has a trial to determine their guilt or innocence. Picture yourself as the victim of a crime. I can picture these poor “children” in jail for committing that crime … and have no problem with that as they chose to become a predator and commit a crime.
“…having bail for people who have potentially committed a crime until they show up to court doesn’t deter crime from happening.”
Actually it does; one can not commit another crime if in jail.
Choi wouldn’t charge our daughter’s carjacker. Oh well he would have just been let go anyway according to the SPPD.
In a normal bail situation, isn’t the jailed person somewhat on the hook for the bail money? If the MN Freedom Fund pays bail, what incentive does the jailed person have to even show up at their next court hearing? Shouldn’t they be responsible for repayment if they skip or reoffend?
Has the MFF ever forfeited bail? As I understand, there have been criminal suspect clients that have failed to show up for court or abide with a judge’s release conditions. Supposedly, in the case of bail obtained through a bondsman, the money isn’t immediately forfeited, thus there being an incentive for a ‘bounty hunter’ to apprehend the suspect. How would that work with the MFF?
The people giving to this fund are dangerous, politicized loons. Doubtless they don’t have to pay for releasing crooks. That’s for lower-income folk. Thanks a lot.
Robert Ryan & Lisa Miller made a great points on repeat VIOLENT offenders back on the streets by judges not looking at public safety. I would suggest these groups with all this money take a hard look at both the bail and the judges. Repeat offenders are not people that need their bail paid by rich organizations- they need help in some way from either jail, jobs, etc.. and need to be involved with restitution to their victims.
It sounds like this organization does not provide bail to those who invaded the Midway on May 28, 2020. So far all of them prosecuted have not lived in St Paul including the last two from Rochester.
Bottom line: I would suggest MFF not bail out violent criminals, especially if a gun or weapon is used on their victims. Sadly this violence is happening often in the metro area. I would also say this goes double for repeat offenders. Conversely, first time non violent offenders is something MFF should be involved with.
You might want to get some real figures, real data, to support your claims about how this fund works to keep our streets violent. It doesn’t, because it is careful about who it provides bail for. It simply does NOT provide bail for everybody.
Please read the article, maybe even go to the fund’s website?
VP Harris and leftist celebrities can be proud that their donations have resulted in the release of child molesters and domestic abusers who have gone on to repeat said crimes after getting bailed out by MFF. Thank you for making our state less safe for women and children.
Child molesters? VP Harris? Domestic abusers?
You should document that level of accusation or admit you made it up from anecdotal stories.
Would you tell police the evidence you have?
Sounds like the MN Constitution needs to be amended to provide that bail is not available for those charged with a violent crime involving a gun. Would that amendment pass?
Most crime problems now revolve around the ocean of guns in which our society is awash. The tsunami of weaponry in the US is a direct result of the “conservative” movement’s enthusiasm for all things gun, as well as the manufacture of “gun rights”. The higher the density of population, the more guns there are, “legal” or no.
As the rise in violent (gun) crime in urban areas is always attributed to decades of feckless “lib’rul” political control in cities, don’t forget that these Blue urban areas have to exist in states saturated with weaponry as a result of “conservative” gun policies, all formulated at the state level.
Which party consistently attempts to pass gun control legislation and which party always (successfully) opposes it? Ask yourself that they next time you hear some “conservative” denounce urban lib’ruls for the latest installment of violent (gun) crime. And ask yourself that when the 6 democratically-illegitimate “conservative” justices on the Supreme Court declare the next attempt by an urban area to attempt some hapless regulation of guns to be “unconstitutional”….
Guns don’t strangle women and molest children, people do. You seem to labor under the common leftist misconception that a gun turns otherwise law-abiding people into sociopaths. That illogic doesn’t hold up to even the most superficial examination.
I’m trying to understand your fixation on only certain violent crimes. In any case, I would love to make sure that every abuser and molester doesn’t see the light of day. But maybe we can also make sure they can’t have a gun because they clearly can’t be trusted with one because they’re violent. There’s a link between gun ownership and domestic abuse that ends in homicide…and frequently of everyone within gun’s reach of the perpetrator. Women and children that are abused by a person with a gun are 5x more likely to die by homicide than if the abuser doesn’t have a gun. Half of all mass shootings are committed by abusers with guns. I think we can agree that it’s way more efficient for an abuser to molest children and strangle women if they have a gun to threaten them with, and even more efficient to kill their victims with a gun. So, maybe it’s a good idea to keep guns out of the hands of such criminals.
Rachael, a man beating a woman or a child is as violent as it gets. Even though no gun was used, that man needs to put away from society. To beat a defenseless woman or a defenseless child, you have to be sick in the head. Not sure why you want that guy walking the streets before his trial…. I personally do not!
I understand the constitutional right to reasonable bail for 1st offenders. What I don’t understand is letting people out on bail, after they have been arrested for a new crime while they are on parole for a previous crime for which they have already been convicted.
If you violate you parole (like having an illegal gun), you should IMMEDIATELY be back in jail and serve your full sentence. Why is bail even an issue?
Once again: everyone (first offenders, repeat offenders, former Presidents) is entitled to bail once they have been arrested. If they are unable to post it, or don’t abide by the conditions, they are kept locked up.
Prisoners who have been convicted of a crime and are out on parole are NOT entitled to bail if they violate the conditions of the parole. A simple parole revocation hearing should be scheduled in front of the appropriate judge, and their parole should be IMMEDIATELY revoked and they should serve the suspended prison sentence for their prior offense. While they are in jail, cooling their jets for that, the prosecutors and courts can work on new charges related to whatever they did to violate their parole.
“Prisoners who have been convicted of a crime and are out on parole are NOT entitled to bail if they violate the conditions of the parole. ”
As you said, those are the people already convicted of a crime.
Persons convicted of a crime are, in most states, released on probation, not parole. Probation can be revoked, but a hearing is required.
“While they are in jail, cooling their jets for that, the prosecutors and courts can work on new charges related to whatever they did to violate their parole.”
Subject, I’m sure, to constitutional strictures regarding a speedy trial.
Zaynab Mohamed said ” I work on things like fundamentally changing the criminal justice system including bail reform is that having bail for people who have potentially committed a crime until they show up to court doesn’t deter crime from happening.”
Although nothing will for the most part will deter those who’s intent is to commit a crime ,however, it is foolish to cater to those those who commit certain crimes by allowing them to be released back into society only to commit more acts of violence and even death. The justice system is extremely flawed .
There is nothing wrong with helping those who can’t afford bail but there should be more consideration taken into account when it comes to the type of crime that was committed.
If you catch a fox in the hen house do you keep it lock up or turn it lose only to reenter the hen house?
It’s funny how many commenters here don’t seem to be able to follow the discussion. When we arrest people, put them on trial, convict them, and send them to prison, that’s NOT setting them lose, slapping their wrists, or giving them a sticker. If you don’t want to live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty, or if you want to give the state the power to lock-up “suspects” indefinitely simply because they’ve been arrested, fine… but you don’t get call yourself a champion of freedom or democracy, governments that kind of power are rarely if ever accused of being fair and just governments.
We have a three step criminal justice process: First suspects are arrested and charged. Second they get a trial. Third, they are sentenced. In theory everyone gets a speedy trial but when some people are spending three years in jail for being accused of backpack theft obviously that’s not the real world. Giving people a trial as required by our Constitution isn’t slapping their wrists, it’s our criminal justice system.
You present a deceptive argument. The kind of crime a person is accused of plays (or used to ) a role in whether they got bail.
Raj, everyone is innocent until proven guilty regardless of the crime they’re accused of. Do you really think stealing a backpack is a more heinous crime than murdering a wife? Do you actually think THIS is why a backpack thief spends years in lock-up while O.J. sits in his Hollywood mansion out on bail? Because the backpack thief is more dangerous? Please, follow the discussion here, this is about some people who can afford to buy their freedom while others languish in jails because they can’t afford the bail.
Paul, you and the author ARE presenting a misleading narrative. It was not a simple backpack theft that put Kalief in jail. It was a prior conviction. He WAS NOT eligible for bail. Why omit that ? Yes, things went wrong after that, but please don’t omit details.
For every one Kalief, there are hundreds of persons who get such bail for the first incident and then go and go do horrible things. Your solution is, cause it failed in this case (and i agree), then everyone else should be just let go.
Also a reminder to you, New York City is liberal central. If things are run so horribly there, then people should buy a mirror to deem responsibility for the extensive corruption in that system.
Thanks for the info about Kalief but that detail isn’t as critical as you seem to think it is because this discussion isn’t all about Kalief, you’re focusing a tree at the expense of the forest.
“For every one Kalief, there are hundreds of persons who get such bail for the first incident and then go and go do horrible things. Your solution is, cause it failed in this case (and i agree), then everyone else should be just let go.”
I’m afraid I’ll have to ask for some source or citation that hundreds of criminals out on bail are committing horrible crimes. And please, don’t give us one or two examples when your claiming there are hundreds. Nowhere have I suggested that everyone should just be let go. Again, you’re not following the discussion.
“Thanks for the info about Kalief but that detail isn’t as critical as you seem to think it is because this discussion isn’t all about Kalief, you’re focusing a tree at the expense of the forest.”
This article and your response are misleading. The entire basis of this narrative was Kalief. Now when i point out the facts about Kalief were false and misleading, i’m told this article wasn’t about Kalief. I don’t miss any tree or forest. I just debunked the falsehood of this article.
“I’m afraid I’ll have to ask for some source or citation that hundreds of criminals out on bail are committing horrible crimes. And please, don’t give us one or two examples when your claiming there are hundreds. ”
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3731&context=cklawreview
” Over a period of seventeen months, at least one in every four persons on
parole is known to commit a violent crime. BUREA OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, NCJ
149076, PROBATION AND PAROLE VIOLATORS 1N STATE PRISONS, 1991 10 (1995). Over a period of
thirteen months, at least one in every four parole violators will be charged with committing a violent
crime. Id. Contrast those already gloomy statistics with the fact that one in every four persons on bail is
known to commit one violent crime while awaiting trial. FELONY DEFENDANTS IN LARGE URBAN
COUNTIES 2002, supra note 13, at 6. In short, those on bail are as likely to commit a violent crime in
four months as those on parole are in seventeen months or as those on probation are in thirteen months.
None of the figures cited in this note take into account the presumably myriad but unknown crimes
committed by members of these cohorts.”
“Again, you’re not following the discussion.”
I proved falsehood in the article. I proved high recidivism rates among bailees. And i’m not following the discussion ?
Again Rikers Island is in the midst of New York Ultra Liberal Central. Just like many aspects of New York, it is a nest of sleaze and corruption. Where is the vaunted progress ? What we see are massive failures? Why avoid that ?
Raj, I’ve already noted your difficulty following the discussion: “Now when i point out the facts about Kalief were false and misleading, i’m told this article wasn’t about Kalief.”
This article isn’t about Kalief, it’s about a local organization that provides bail relief to those need it, yes you seem to have missed that fact.
As for your citation, this isn’t a debate game, simply googling up something that supports your statement doesn’t actually prove anything. This is an opinion piece presented at a conference, not a peer reviewed article. And most of the data referenced is decades out of date 1991-94 and the article itself dates back to 2009. And because this is an opinion piece not a research document we have no idea what methodology was used to assemble the data being presented, so we can’t verify or confirm the reliability of the claims being made. You would have to go back to the source documents, you’d have to know how to do that, and you’d have to understand the methods that were being used at the time and possible flaws that might have occurred. Did you even bother to look up who the authors are? Debate games are NOT serious intellectual work.
And again, don’t bother googling up more stuff because this is off topic and it doesn’t look like you actually know what your doing. This isn’t an article about the criminal recidivism, parole violations, or even criminal activity or violent crime. It’s an article article about a local group (MN Freedom Fund) that provides bail to people who’ve been arrested for non-violent crimes and wouldn’t otherwise have the means to pay a bail.
“Raj, I’ve already noted your difficulty following the discussion” – Paul, its not my difficulty following the discussion. Rather it’s your inability to accept that the entire article was based on a false premise.
When the facts of the research paper don’t fit your view of the world, you toss it aside claiming it was an Opinion piece! An opinion piece in a law journal !!! Also you simply will not address the corruption in cities like New York (a.k.a Progressive Central).
Denying actual research, is a weak argument.
Once again, we see the fallacy of thinking you can isolate a problem like as if it is in-and-of itself. What we actually have here is a cascading failure stemming from a variety of policies that filled jails and prisons far over capacity, thus producing legal challenges and rulings in response, and subsequent complaints arising from the very policies that were supposed to reduce crime in the first place. So tough on crime Rockefeller drug wars filled prisons and jails with non-violent offenders while other street laws drove police to arresting people for minor non-violent offenses which in turn jammed up the courts and the jails and so on which exacerbates the bail inequities. Pile some institutional racism and classism on top of all of that and then cut the budgets and now a guy spends years in jail without even going to trial for stealing a backpack. And then people here think this JUST about some current spike in violent crime and car jackings. Whatever.
All of this not to mention a plethora of other systemic contributions such as rampant gun possession, poverty, unemployment and housing, and educational inequities. Young black men are more likely to end up in jail than college and you think this is about parole violations? Fortunately we can look at the issue of bail and make some intelligent decisions in immediate short term. Ending the bail system for minor and non-violent offenses or flight risks is the simplest route. I doubt that even this program, as well funded as it’s been, has managed to get everyone who shouldn’t be in jail awaiting trial out on bail.
Paul, if the crook has 6 prior arrests for carjacking, don’t you think that should enter into the bail discussion for being arrested for number 7?
Joe, prior convictions and other factors like flight risk etc. ARE considered during the bail application process. Bail isn’t an automatic option.
It does. I’m not sure what gives you the idea that it doesn’t. It’s interesting, by the way, that during a crackdown in carjacking in early 2021, MPD made 46 arrests, from which only 5 people were charged, and NONE of those people were charged with carjacking. None. In order to need bail, you need to be charged. (See, https://www.kare11.com/article/news/crime/after-46-arrests-in-carjacking-detail-only-5-people-actually-charged/89-8a64b5e1-72ac-4c86-83bf-235d3fb4f1f4)
Second, when violent carjackers that commit multiple carjackings ARE caught and charged, their bail is set beyond the ability of MFF to bail them out, even if they’re juveniles. See, for example, https://www.fox9.com/news/teen-carjacking-suspects-charged-with-more-than-30-combined-crimes , where a couple of kids who committed 30 carjackings between them had bail set at $250k each. MFF has a max of $100k per day, and they are required to fund the entire bail amount at once because of their non-profit status. Even if they wanted to bail out these kids, they couldn’t. And even if their bails were set at the $100k max, they’d only be able to bail out one and not the other, or anyone else that day. I suspect that MFF would opt to not bail them out. It’s important to note that violent criminals that have the financial means to do so often post their own bail. So, MFF doesn’t do anything more than level the playing field between the haves and have nots.
Have and have nots amongst the criminal element in our community. Most are arrested and need bail for a reason. Catch and release works to protect fisheries, not citizens.
I must say it’s refreshing to see an unapologetic response from the Freedom Fund. I don’t detect a hint of defensiveness in their posture despite the obvious avenue’s of criticism. Stay on message, stay on point, and don’t back down. Atta way to go.
Many people have been wrong but stood firm on their wrong thinking. I was never too impressed with that personally.
Me either. But you’re as right or wrong in your head as anyone else is in their head. How do you know that your firm thinking isn’t the wrong thinking?
Unfortunately Joe when it comes to those who embrace “wrong” thinking your examples are well documented. However I wasn’t referring to anyone’s thoughts, I was discussing their strategy and approach to their mission.
The attacks on MFFs rationale (by yourself and others) thus far have failed to connect with reality. The criticisms in this thread rely on false claims and ignorance regarding everything from car jackers to our legal system. And yes, these critics are remarkably committed to their own misinformation and errant stereotypes.