Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CALIFORINA ending cash Bail! (and is this an "oppertunity" for Security?)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Soper View Post
    Please post the states and agencies that are providing full law enforcement services via security guard companies. Not bases, labs, private communities, etc. Cities, towns.
    Who said they did entire cities and towns? I sure didn't. So please stop changing the goal posts. They are contract police agencies for hire,some work for transit agencies,universities,hospitals etc, and ARE fully certified Police officers with full academy training, with powers of arrest and marked police vehicles.

    Comment


    • #17
      I remember a discussion here years ago about "special police" certifications in Washington, D.C. - essentially private security with academy training and full arrest powers.

      Mixing public and private duties carries risks. Privatization was all the rage in the U.S. and the U.K. for awhile, but it had very mixed results. Most of it was just a ploy to get around union rules or to try to streamline the bureaucracy. I have no problem with privatizing police support officers and the like, but LE duties should be left to the government.

      Rather than decriminalizing crime (which is essentially what eliminating bail does), governments should look at diversion programs or preventive measures (but that gets into social policy, and government never seems to be good at that).

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Condo Guard View Post

        Rather than decriminalizing crime (which is essentially what eliminating bail does), governments should look at .
        Back when the USA was Quakers, Puritans and others of the most intrepid and self reliant of the British Isles, Bail was solely to ensure the Accused would show at trial, since there wasn't any good way of tracking people.

        Back then being "shunned" was a real punishment, and could be life threatening.

        Bail is supposed to be only for people that might seriously flee, and not worry that a Bench Warrant would be out on them for the rest of their lives.

        Its not supposed to be for your average citizen busted for DUI, or even auto theft, etc.

        If there is a real danger of 'repeat offense' then a Judge can issue an RO, and violation of RO means "held until trial/hearing". IIRC, judges can issue an RO for just about anything, including "no drinking booze, including at home".

        One of the big problems in USA with Law Enforcement is the cops think it is their job to punish law breakers. Its not, it is the COURT's job to punish, and its the cop's job to present a case.

        There is a strong For Profit bail lobby. When a certain group's livelihood depends on a law they will wield disproportional influence because they will no choice but to spend a year's pay or more on a lobby(bribes).

        IIRC, today Bail Bondsmen don't actually lose the whole bail they post, only the 10% they already collected. Not sure about details, maybe they get certain time after you skip bail to nab you and not lose Bond amount.

        IMO ending most Bail and granting OR would free up jail space for actual sentences, rather that for people who just can't afford bail.

        Of course, for CA, its really just about the flood of new criminals overwhelming all jail and prison space.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Condo Guard View Post
          I remember a discussion here years ago about "special police" certifications in Washington, D.C. - essentially private security with academy training and full arrest powers.

          Mixing public and private duties carries risks. Privatization was all the rage in the U.S. and the U.K. for awhile, but it had very mixed results. Most of it was just a ploy to get around union rules or to try to streamline the bureaucracy. I have no problem with privatizing police support officers and the like, but LE duties should be left to the government.

          Rather than decriminalizing crime (which is essentially what eliminating bail does), governments should look at diversion programs or preventive measures (but that gets into social policy, and government never seems to be good at that).
          IIRC in D.C. non-sworn private or public security couldn't legally carry a gun, so if you wanted your guards to be armed you had to get them sworn in as "special police" even if they were never allowed to actually use their police powers.

          Comment


          • #20
            I think Console is right - D.C. is one of those cities with strict gun laws, but you have a whole hub of politicians, lobbyists and "high value assets" that need protection.

            As far as bail goes, I agree for minor offenses just get rid of it, if it makes sense (first time offender with a job, etc.). The problem is you have a whole population in this country that moves around by choice, either due to mental illness, drug addiction or being a professional criminal. There is no incentive to show up for court, and in cities like Seattle where you have to be swinging a sword at someone to get a cop's attention, little risk of ever being picked up. Bail theoretically gives them an incentive to "stay in the system" and get things worked out one way or another.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TOII View Post

              Who said they did entire cities and towns? I sure didn't. So please stop changing the goal posts. They are contract police agencies for hire,some work for transit agencies,universities,hospitals etc, and ARE fully certified Police officers with full academy training, with powers of arrest and marked police vehicles.
              Where? You posted the claim, now you can show us where it's being done. That's not changing a thing, it's asking for proof.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Condo Guard View Post
                I think Console is right - D.C. is one of those cities with strict gun laws, but you have a whole hub of politicians, lobbyists and "high value assets" that need protection.

                As far as bail goes, I agree for minor offenses just get rid of it, if it makes sense (first time offender with a job, etc.). The problem is you have a whole population in this country that moves around by choice, either due to mental illness, drug addiction or being a professional criminal. There is no incentive to show up for court, and in cities like Seattle where you have to be swinging a sword at someone to get a cop's attention, little risk of ever being picked up. Bail theoretically gives them an incentive to "stay in the system" and get things worked out one way or another.
                I think bail reform can't be possible without sentencing reform. A person who gets bail and who is facing, say, a six month or year sentence for possession of cocaine will probably realize he's better off going to court and doing the time. The same person facing, say, a five to ten year sentence for the same crime is probably going to skip court and "lay low".

                Of course, very few politicians are able to pursue major sentencing reform because they don't want to be perceived as being "soft on crime". The best they can usually do is to try to curtail some of the more extreme punishments.

                Comment

                300x250

                Collapse

                Mid 300x250

                Collapse

                Taboola

                Collapse

                Super Leaderboard

                Collapse
                Working...
                X