^^^^ Working on it over here on the left-leaning right coast!
What better place to begin than at the entry point into incarceration!
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman announces bail reforms for New YorkChief judge says simple lack of money traps many in detentionBy Robert Gavin
Updated 11:38 pm, Thursday, October 1, 2015
Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman wants to overhaul the state's bail system — and he is starting in New York City.
The judge, who will leave his post at the end of the year due to reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70, said 40 percent of the jail population in New York City is being detained before trial only because the defendants lack the money to afford bail. He argued that for many defendants, a pre-trial bail of $2,500 might as well be $25 million.
"These numbers do not lie," Lippman in a speech at the Citizens Crime Commission. "Far too many people are trapped in pre-trial detention simply because they are poor."
Lippman has pushed legislation to create statutory presumption that a defendant will be released without bail if the judge determines there is no risk to public safety or legitimate expectation that the person will not return to court.
While that legislation would need to pass into law to take effect, Lippman took measures Thursday to handle the issue administratively.
The judge directed the criminal courts in all five boroughs of the city to have a judge automatically review bail determinations whenever defendants charged with misdemeanor have been unable to make bail.
"This means the judge will take a fresh look at the case and make an independent determination whether the bail amount should be adjusted — higher or lower — or whether bail should be permitted in a less onerous form," Lippman said.
Lippman ordered regular, periodic judicial review of case viability and bail. When defendants are in custody pending disposition of the charges against them, he said, the new rules will require a status conference at designated milestones in the person's case. Lippman noted the case of a Bronx teen who committed suicide after spending at least 2 1/2 years in Rikers Island because he could not afford bail in a backpack robbery case based on a one witness, which was dismissed.
The judge is additionally ordering a pilot program in Manhattan where electronic supervision will be used to track defendants on pretrial release — and immediately locate them if they do not appear in court when needed. He said other states and the federal government have been using such techniques for 20 years.
rgavin@timesunion.com • 518-434-2403 • @RobertGavinTUhttp://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Chief-Judge-Jonathan-Lippman-announces-bail-6543158.php
Also, while working with a victims of homicide group we met with former inmates, all of whom were murderers, including one woman who shot her husband, one man who as a teen was the getaway driver for a robbery in which one of the robbers shot dead an armed guard, and a few others whose crimes I cannot now recall.
I learned about how unfairly Victims Impact Statements were being used long after sentencing in the parole hearing process. VIS are to be used
only by the judge to help determine an appropriate sentence and after a jury verdict of guilty has been rendered.
Once one is sentenced, upon entry into the incarcerating facility they are given a set of rules to obey with certain goals clearly set out and these should be the only factors to be weighed in determining whether one should be granted parole. If they have exhibited "good behavior" and made strides towards or have accomplished all goals as set out upon entry, parole should be granted.
Yet time and time again, victims are present to read again and again their impact statements, year after year, hearing after hearing, and this is an injustice inherent in the system that must not be permitted any longer.
In my case the murderer committed suicide, so I was spared the anger and anguish of "carrying the torch by speaking for my dead child" at trial and at parole hearings ever after. (Honestly, how one can speak for anyone else, dead or alive?) But as victims, and they are indeed victims, they speak with their own voice and in place of their loved one, their anger they hold dear, feeling they are still doing all they can to defend their child or lost loved one, and sadly this unhelpful to anyone rage they embrace. All too often what they seek is revenge, not justice.
So, once a person has been convicted and received their sentence after weighing human impact upon family and/or friends, their release should be determined solely by their behavior in prison. Once sentencing has been issued, all victims involvement should cease to have bearing upon a convicts continued incarceration Imo, of course. It's also the law.
