Grass8989 t1_jcal80z wrote
“The one exception was for bail-eligible people who were released following recent violent felony arrests. The rate of rearrests for that cohort of offenders increased slightly.”
Okay, this is the statistic most people actually care about. Disingenuous headline from the gothamist, as usual.
cty_hntr t1_jcbrp0e wrote
If the politicians want to save bail-reform, then fix it so those with recent violenty felony arrests are not eligible. Give back the discretion for judges, especially those with a long arrest history.
SolitaryMarmot t1_jcclbcr wrote
That was already done like 2 years ago though
onemanclic t1_jcb9oxy wrote
Yeah, you probably want NY Post's version of this data. Oh wait, they won't even report on it as it doesn't fit their narrative.
DelTeaz t1_jccjai7 wrote
Probably understated too given there’s people who went in to commit other crimes but weren’t caught
redroverster t1_jcbp841 wrote
Came here to say this.
chargeorge t1_jcb74x4 wrote
No, that's not really how you should read that.
If violent felony re-arrests drops among the entire group, even if it went up slightly in one cohort, that's still a net drop. The recently had violent arrests groups is a small overall group.
So if you take this study at face value (Which, statistical studies like this are always going to be tough, and this is happening in the middle of a massive upheaval that makes any kind of data hard to parse) bail reform would suggest a lower number of re-arrests for crimes in total, and that bail reform dropped crime overall.
EITHER WAY, even the studies I've had that are more more critical of bail reform show very small effects. In terms of overall crime rates, bail reform is mostly just an emotional issue.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcbkyhn wrote
>In terms of overall crime rates, bail reform is mostly just an emotional issue.
That's not quite accurate (emphasis mine).
What's typically measured is not the quantity of crimes (via re-offenses).
They count the quantity of individuals that reoffend: if a single individual commits 50 crimes, that is counted as only 1.
That's a tangible difference on the streets, because most people care about "how many crimes are committed" a lot more than "how many reoffending criminals are out there".
matzoh_ball t1_jccd06f wrote
The 2020 amendments that took effect in July 2020 made some cases bail eligible again, including so-called "harm-harm" cases, aka cases that involve the harm to person or property where the defendant has an open case that also falls under that category. This basically takes care of a large swath of these repeat offenders that you are rightly concerned about.
So for example, if someone is arrested for petit larceny and released without bail, and then they're arrested again while their first case is still open, the judge is allowed to set bail or detain that person.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jccpv4x wrote
There's a loophole here though. First, trials don't happen in a timely manner when the defendant is on the street.
Second, if the defendant never shows up for trial, they can never get convicted.
So a person committing petty theft, for example, can do that forever as long as they never show up for trial, under the current laws.
A person committing misdemeanor violence (like playing the knockout game) can also do that forever as long as they never show up for trial.
chargeorge t1_jccqflx wrote
Rates of missed appearances were down in another study I saw. So more cope
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcd5bv7 wrote
The ones who appear are not an issue.
The ones who never appear are.
chargeorge t1_jcd96gs wrote
I feel like you are confusing arraignment and a trial here
matzoh_ball t1_jccss66 wrote
No, that would be to their disadvantage. The harm-harm rule doesn’t have anything to do with convictions, it’s about being arrested while having an open case, aka a case that did not yet lead to conviction, acquittal, or dismissal.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcd4ubh wrote
The harm to harm rule only applies when the defendant is being charged with a felony, no?
Anyone being charged with a misdemeanor cannot be held under the harm-harm rule.
matzoh_ball t1_jcdh8tm wrote
No, it doesn’t. While the harm-harm rule is kinda imprecise, the basic idea is that every crime is a “harm” crime except for “victimless crimes” such as prostitution or drug crimes (though some judges may consider the sale of meth as a harm crime while other judges may not, so there’s still room for discretion). In any case, for example petit larceny (a misdemeanor) is a harm to property crime and would thus be a harm-harm crime. The same is true for many other misdemeanors.
chargeorge t1_jcbn7bb wrote
I mean if you have some research that shows these people are committing extra crimes in a way that distorts the numbers sure of love to see it.
There are some numbers in the study that suggest the opposite, that those who do re offend in the bail reform group go longer before re offending.
If you have some data I’m happy to see it, but tbh that point sounds like cope.
Brokeliner t1_jcf7bmd wrote
> If violent felony re-arrests drops among the entire group, even if it went up slightly in one cohort, that's still a net drop.
Imagine the overall effect if we didn’t apply the law to violent felony arrests? The net drop would be so stupefyingly obvious it would be impossible to deny the law’s benefits. We should try it.
chargeorge t1_jcf7fvl wrote
We don’t, automatic bail reduction law doesn’t apply to vfo. Could we target "People who have had recent VFO arrests better, sure that seems like a good path
mowotlarx OP t1_jcalrff wrote
It's not disingenuous, you just don't want to hear the fact that ricidivism went down. This study was by John Jay College - a criminal justice school - not by Gothamist.
>This new study found that the two-year rearrest rate for those released due to bail reform was 44%, compared to 50% for those with similar charges, criminal histories and demographics who were held in jail in the period before the reform.
Because most violent arrestees aren't released. They do not account for a significant percentage of those out. Given *all the data on all those released pre-trial"...the numbers went down. So who is being disingenuous here?
PandaJ108 t1_jcan98s wrote
The two year rearrest rate is down once you group misdemeanor, pending case, and violent felonies together. Misdemeanor rearrest being down is what pulls the overall numbers down.
But a look at the chart of page 17 clearly shows that those in the bail/reform group who had a pending case or were arrested on violent felony were more likely to be rearrested.
I think people care way more about those with a pending case and/or a violent felony arrest being more likely to get rearrested even if the raw numbers are relatively low when compared to misdemeanors.
mowotlarx OP t1_jcao397 wrote
>once you group misdemeanor, pending case, and violent felonies together.
Yes, that's generally how studies and averages work.Overall ricidivism is down. Period.
PandaJ108 t1_jcaov3h wrote
When most New Yorkers care way more about violent repeat offenders overall ricidivism being down because misdemeanors rearrest deceased while violent felonies rearrest increase means little.
This is the second study in the past year that has claim “bail reform led to less rearrest” only for the numbers to clearly show that the overall decrease was driven solely by a drop in misdemeanor rearrest while felony rearrest rates increased.
matzoh_ball t1_jcaqmmg wrote
Violent felony re-arrest didn't increase though; it didn't change at all due to bail reform (or might have been gone down). Look at the bar chart on page 13 and the table below.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jcatpfn wrote
The “overall” part is extremely disingenuous.
Because it counts things like petty theft or disorder conduct as if they are the same as felony violence.
They are very different and shouldn’t be lumped together.
matzoh_ball t1_jcb00ha wrote
They're not lumped together though. For bail ineligible people (i.e., people where judges could no longer set bail due to bail reform), overall re-arrest rates (regardless of charge) and felony re-arrest rates went down, while violent felony re-arrest rates and firearm re-arrest rates didn't change (see p.13 of the report).
Mrmilkymilkster t1_jcapoad wrote
Yes, I care about the shoplifting recidivist just as much as I care about someone committing violent crimes or having an illegal gun 🙄🙄🙄
matzoh_ball t1_jcaqps7 wrote
Violent felony or firearm re-arrest didn't increase; it didn't change at all due to bail reform. Look at the bar chart on page 13 of the report.
wateringtheflowers t1_jcb3uaj wrote
I would just point out a few things. First, is that re-arrests for violent felony increased, and that is the one statistic that actually matters. Secondly, that “slight” increase occurred despite the fact that overall arrests decreased dramatically during the pandemic. Thirdly, this was basically a “study” funded by the Arnold Foundation, which states very clearly on its website that it is strongly in favor of bail reform: “We must reform every aspect of the pre-trial system from policing to bail…”. Fourthly, this wasn’t a study that was published in an academic journal after peer-review. It appears to be a self-published report. I’m all for using data to guide policy and legislative decisions. The data is what it is. But the way that data is interpreted and presented can introduce a lot of bias. This study could just have easily been titled “Study shows that re-arrests for violent felonies increased after bail reform.”
chargeorge t1_jcb7ys4 wrote
> First, is that re-arrests for violent felony increased, and that is the one statistic that actually matters. Secondly, that “slight” increase occurred despite the fact that overall arrests decreased dramatically during the pandemic.
No, VFO re-arrests were down slightly, only among specific subgroups did the VFO re-arrest go up according to the study, for the other groups it was down. Because of that the overall VFO rate was lower.
Yourgrandsonishere t1_jcbutap wrote
Study seems legit to me. Could you link your source stating that the Arnold Foundation funded it. Anybody who funds a study will absolutely take a position on the matter, but skewing the numbers and being disingenuous isn't hard to figure out. A lot of the data is public lol. Go and find out if your theory holds.
This is one of their key findings from the study:
"Beyond the aforementioned overall takeaways, bail reform had varying
recidivism effects depending on people’s charges and recent criminal
history."
This would support what some of your are saying. Bail reform isn't perfect but we needs these studies to be able to refine it. We are still disproportionately jailing minorities.
NYC has 8 million people accounted for, probably more. There will be crime, no if ands or buts, its just the way the world works.
But here we are on reddit, complaining as usual, sigh.
wateringtheflowers t1_jcc1tvi wrote
Page 2 of the report says the study was funded by Arnold Foundation. Then go to Arnold Foundation’s website and see what causes they support.
I agree that the only valid takeaway from this study is that the data is mixed (but that’s not the kind of conclusion that is conducive to receiving additional funding from the Arnold Foundation). The relatively small differences in comparison groups from which the authors try to derive conclusions is completely outweighed by the fact that the comparison groups were not (and could not be) comparable, because one group was before the pandemic and the other was not. The effect of the pandemic on crime and policing in the city was far more significant than the effect of bail reform. If anything, I would guess that because arrests were down significantly during 2020, re-arrests would also be down. So an increase in re-arrests, even if slight, is something that needs to be looked into more carefully.
matzoh_ball t1_jcdnfsg wrote
The report addresses potential confounding issues due to COVID. In a nutshell, clearance rates were down during 2020 and declined-prosecution rates were up in 2020, and both of those things went back to normal in 2021 (links to that are in the report in the “limitations” section). However, since they tracked re-arrest over two years for everyone, the “pandemic effect” affects (aka downward biases) the re-arrest rates for both the pre-reform group and the post-reform group.
[deleted] t1_jcbw9xy wrote
[deleted]
StrictDare210 t1_jccknyt wrote
I can assure you that to the people who aren’t rotting in Riker’s and/or getting rearrested (disproportionately impoverished minorities) the VFO statistic is not the only one that matters. And even if it is, you should be reading it a little more closely than you are before your race to undermine it. VFO was not up across the board and bail reform does not have to be the one band aid that makes it all go away. You concluded that the headline could be some other categorical statement because you’re lacking nuance, but in the other direction.
Grass8989 t1_jcam5dp wrote
Okay well the ones that ARE being released pretrial for violent crimes are being arrested at higher rates than before bail reform. Maybe we can have some common sense and change that portion?
And the disingenuous part was the headline not the study.
matzoh_ball t1_jcarx2r wrote
Not quite. The table on p.17 shows that people with a *prior* violent felony re-arrest who were released were more likely to be re-arrested. There is no section in that table that shows stats for people with *current* violent felony charges, since almost all of them are still legally eligible for bail.
And FWIW, the authors of the actual study suggest potential changes to the existing law where they do make those distinctions:
​
>Preventing re-arrest in the future could potentially involve careful, targeted policy changes based on these results. For example, future legislation or policy might make fewer “high risk” individuals (e.g., people with a prior violent felony) subject to mandatory release, allowing for wider judicial discretion in considering bail; or might enhance the range of non-monetary conditions for supporting “high risk” individuals. (To avoid misinterpretation, we are not embracing weaker decision-making standards that might compromise due process, undermine the presumption of innocence, or contradict legal precedents concerning when bail or pretrial detention are permissible.)
> On the other end of the spectrum, it could benefit public safety if legislation or policy encouraged the release of more bail-eligible people charged with relatively low-level offenses or with no or only minor criminal history, given that the incapacitation effects of incarceration (most people who face bail end up in pretrial detention) appear to be outweighed by its adverse “criminogenic” effects for these subgroups.
> Alternatively, armed with the knowledge that, in totality, the bail elimination provisions of the original reforms reduced recidivism, and reducing the use of bail in cases legally eligible for it had little net effect in either direction, policymakers would be justified on public safety grounds in avoiding further legislative or policy changes while awaiting additional rigorous studies over longer tracking periods.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments