Why do they allow violent criminals access to victims while they are on bail? What can be done?

I cannot understand why they keep allowing violent criminals out of jail on bail to be able to continue to do it over and over again? IF they keep allowing people who do these things access to victims, there will just be more people harmed. I do not understand why there is not more victim protection involved in these cases. This is not just a matter of a person here or there, but this happens all the time. It happened to me and why my neighbor wound up stabbed. I am just lucky I have not been killed yet. It still could happen of course because they keep letting out the person who did that as well.

This guy here has shot at least 6 women and they actually released him on bail after arresting him for shooting a woman. What does it seriously take to make them determine someone is dangerous and it is not okay to release them?

According to ABC 13, D'Agostino, who's admitted to being involved in five different road rage incidents and shot at six female drivers, was recently arrested twice for two similar shootings. He was apprehended last month on suspicion of the July shooting, then again on Thursday for allegedly shooting another female driver in the arm near the same car wash back in March.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/ne5gak/nicholas-dagostino-texas-road-rage-shooting-women-vgtrn

This is something that has continued to happen over and over and nothing seems to be being done to stop it.

?Rapist murdered victim, 16, while on bail to stop her testifying against him

https://metro.co.uk/2018/04/11/rapist-murdered-victim-16-bail-stop-testifying-7459898/

Murder suspect charged with killing neighbor while out on bail

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/11718924/murder-suspect-charged-with-killing-neighbor-while-out-on-bail

What options should there be to be able to stop this from happening because currently there isn't much preventing it?

Yes, people are innocent until proven guilty, however, there has to be something that helps keep perpetrators from accessing victims and carrying out these acts as well. What balance can be found here to actually be effective and provide relief without violating their human rights? Who should be accountable for allowing these people to have access to victims? should the victims right to life and to not be harmed or killed supersede the defendants right to walk around unimpeded?

This is an issue that affects me personally and my right to be able to live without someone trying to murder me, so yes, I may be a bit angry about this topic. Considering the circumstances, I hope it is understandable. I want to find options that could actually work here, so that myself and others do not have to keep going through this as nothing appears to be happening to relieve the situation.

If they're on bail, surely they shouldn't have any access to people liable to testify against them? Surely that qualifies as possible grounds for intimidation? The solution should surely be ankle bracelets and a big fucking buzzer to the associated police departments responsible for that area if they enclose on the known addresses of testifiers?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
If they're on bail, surely they shouldn't have any access to people liable to testify against them? Surely that qualifies as possible grounds for intimidation? The solution should surely be ankle bracelets and a big fucking buzzer to the associated police departments responsible for that area if they enclose on the known addresses of testifiers?

So are the testifiers not allowed to go shopping? out to eat? to friends houses? To work? Ride the bus? The problem here of course is often the perpetrators already know their victims activities/ route and can easily intercept them somewhere. What if their victim lives next door? That is the reality of many of these situations. They don't even need to go near their address if they already know where they will be. Or what about the random guy that shot 6 random women? I think it insane they let him out on bail.

In the end it comes down to either putting other people in danger or having to somehow "contain" the defendant to prevent access to more victims. In the end it is a matter of whose rights take precedent here?

To understand the bail system, you need to understand the criminal justice economy.

Basically, there are three different types of criminal detention: custody, remand, and imprisonment. Custody is where a person goes when they're suspected of committing a crime, but no charges have yet been laid. People can typically only be held in custody for a limited period of time, usually a few days. Imprisonment is where a person goes after being convicted of a crime. But what we're looking at here is the middle part - remand, which is where a person goes after they've been charged but before they've been convicted.

Remand is a tricky part of the criminal justice system. While arresting someone and holding them in custody for a day or so is tolerable in practice, and while imprisoning someone after they've been convicted of a crime goes without saying, remand is a system where a potentially-innocent person can be detained involuntarily for a significant period of time - depending on the court backlog, anywhere from a few months to a few years. Human rights issues are a major concern, but the bigger concern - for the government - is cost.

See, each of the three types of detention uses a different type of facility. People held in custody are usually kept in the local lockup, which is typically at the police station they were brought to when arrested. Convicts are sent to a prison - which, in the US, is increasingly likely to be a private, for-profit prison run by a corporation on contract with the government. Prison companies can turn a profit from detaining convicts essentially through forced labor; they receive a purse from the state to pay for the costs of detaining the convict, and can then also put the convict to work for a pittance (we're talking cents to the hour, here) in a low-skill position, deriving a profit mainly from the dirt-cheap labor costs, as well as any corners they can get away with cutting.

Now, while that's a perverse and dysfunctional system, it isn't relevant to the bail question except to point out something that isn't immediately apparent: remand is not profitable in the same way imprisonment is. You can't force a person on remand to perform forced labor because that person is potentially innocent, and the forced labor is therefore potentially illegal. That, as well as the additional threat of lawsuits for maltreatment if the remand centre cuts too many corners, makes remand centres unattractive options for privatisation.

That poses a problem for the state. The idea behind privatising prisons is that it reduces the cost burden on the state; while many remand centres are still privatised, the companies operating them demand more compensation to make up for the fact that the technically-still-innocent detainees cannot be put to work. The state therefore finds itself paying more money to keep people on remand than they would if that person was convicted and imprisoned.

The "solution" is the bail system, which has been prevalent in the US and most Western legal systems ever since the 19th century. Bail is where a person on remand - who still enjoys the presumption of innocence - basically puts down a cash deposit (the bail) with the state in exchange for their conditional freedom. If they violate the terms of their bail - by missing a court date, committing another crime, or leaving the country - the money is forfeit, and the state pockets it. The higher the risk of the detainee skipping out on their bail, the higher the price of the bail is.

In theory, this provides the state with a win-win situation - either the detainee meets his bail conditions and the state saves the money they would have spent keeping him on remand, or the detainee skips his bail and the state gets to keep the bail money. In practice, however, what it really does is provide rich detainees with a way to get out of remand, while denying that same option to poor detainees.

It also means - perversely - that the state actually has an incentive to let people out on bail, because it saves the costs of detaining them while also pocketing a sum of cash in the event that the detainee, uh, "bails." Bail is so common that it's practically the default scenario; if you're not a drug dealer or serial killer, and it's your first offence - or if you're on your tenth offence but have a good lawyer - then you will nearly always get bail. Because bail is so common, the real hurdle to pass isn't convincing the judge whether you're safe to be let out; it's convincing the judge to set bail at something you can afford. That gives rich people a distinct advantage.

In an ideal world, detainees who are so obviously likely to re-offend - such as the rapist killing their victim to prevent them from testifying, which is a tragic but a short-sighted action on the part of the rapist, since now he's likely to be found guilty of murder and rape - would not be let out on bail, because the court would have both the time to properly assess the bail conditions and the latitude to deny bail and put the person back in remand. But the criminal justice system is chronically underfunded; "law and order" politicians focus all their efforts on the "arresting criminals" part of the system, not the "detaining them under humane conditions until they can face trial" part. (It doesn't sound as tough on the stump.) That means there's always a glut of detainees at every stage of the process, the prisons, jails and remand centres are always overcrowded, and the judges are always overworked. Everyone is under pressure to cut corners. Letting repeat offenders out on bail is just one symptom of a much larger problem; there's not enough money, the money that does get allocated goes to the wrong places, the laws underpinning the whole mess are usually a crock of shit, and everyone involved is basically turning the handle on the meat grinder out of self-interest; the cops want to close cases so they look good, the state wants people out on bail to save the cost of detaining them, the courts want plea agreements to avoid going to trial, and the prisons want you to be handed over to them so that you can man a phone for ten cents an hour. It's dysfunctional.

But don't feel bad; criminal justice in Australia is FUBAR, too. It's not a uniquely American phenomenon. It has to do with perverse economic incentives, systematic long-term budget cuts, and politicians who want to seem tough on crime by throwing too much money at all the wrong places.

bastardofmelbourne:
In practice, however, what it really does is provide rich detainees with a way to get out of remand, while denying that same option to poor detainees.

Which is a big issue involving criminal justice that I don't see talked about nearly often enough.

I agree with the OP: I do on occasion see people let out on bail who shouldn't be. More often, I see people who can't afford bail languish, but the former is still an issue. And the state provides little more than a restraining order (in some cases), which is a mere paper guarantee, and in some jurisdictions (my own) the advice to purchase a firearm and be prepared to use it.

One of the suggestions I saw by a friend (and I think this is unfeasible) is a monitoring bracelet that discharges a painfully high shock (enough to say, require the person to make a hospital visit) if the bracelet gets within, say, 1000 feet of the victim's home. But there's always the danger of a mistaken discharge and all that. Or someone being brought there against their will by a third party.

CM156:

bastardofmelbourne:
In practice, however, what it really does is provide rich detainees with a way to get out of remand, while denying that same option to poor detainees.

Which is a big issue involving criminal justice that I don't see talked about nearly often enough.

I agree with the OP: I do on occasion see people let out on bail who shouldn't be. More often, I see people who can't afford bail languish, but the former is still an issue. And the state provides little more than a restraining order (in some cases), which is a mere paper guarantee, and in some jurisdictions (my own) the advice to purchase a firearm and be prepared to use it.

One of the suggestions I saw by a friend (and I think this is unfeasible) is a monitoring bracelet that discharges a painfully high shock (enough to say, require the person to make a hospital visit) if the bracelet gets within, say, 1000 feet of the victim's home. But there's always the danger of a mistaken discharge and all that. Or someone being brought there against their will by a third party.

But like I stated earlier, what keeps them away from their victim when they are not at home? The people doing thse things stalk their victims and know their routes, where they shop, dine, work, what time they ride the bus or drop their kids off at school. That is the reality here. Keeping them away from the victims home solves nothing.

bastardofmelbourne made a really good post explaining many of the problems with bail and the criminal justice system, so I won't reiterate any of that.

I will say what I've always said, that the only person you can rely on to protect you is yourself.

The unfortunate reality is that the state CANNOT protect you. No matter how much you want to believe in the police and the criminal justice system, if someone really wants you dead there's not a lot that the police can do about it.

They can't afford to put all victims in protective custody, they can't afford to incarcerate all potentially violent "criminals" (some of who may also be innocent). I honestly don't think that if everyone on bail got an ankle monitor that the state has the capacity to monitor everyone on bail in real time either.

You can do everything in your power to not become a victim in the first place, but that's an unreasonable attempt to control chaos. You can never really control whether you'll be victimized, all you can do is try to be ready if/when it happens.

If it's legal in your state/country carry a gun, carry a knife, carry pepper spray, if not then learn a martial art, go to the gym and work out to try and make sure you're fit enough to fight off your attacker and escape. Whatever you do, don't assume that you're safe just because you can call 911.

It's terrible, and it's scary, but victims and people in general just don't have any real protection. Police aren't there to protect you and actively stop crimes, they're there to dissuade crimes from happening and to catch the criminal after a crime has occurred.

Lil devils x:

So are the testifiers not allowed to go shopping? out to eat? to friends houses? To work? Ride the bus? The problem here of course is often the perpetrators already know their victims activities/ route and can easily intercept them somewhere. What if their victim lives next door? That is the reality of many of these situations. They don't even need to go near their address if they already know where they will be. Or what about the random guy that shot 6 random women? I think it insane they let him out on bail.

What?

For starters, if there's good evidence to suggest guilt that charges should be heard in court... the person on bail should be wearing an anklr bracelet. Not a testifier.

Seconfly, if a person who is to testify against a dangerous criminal, no... they shouldn't be able to just go to work or shopping. They require some form of protection that is equivalent to the risk they face. No one would testify against the mafiosi if they didn't have guarantees for them and their family.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Lil devils x:

So are the testifiers not allowed to go shopping? out to eat? to friends houses? To work? Ride the bus? The problem here of course is often the perpetrators already know their victims activities/ route and can easily intercept them somewhere. What if their victim lives next door? That is the reality of many of these situations. They don't even need to go near their address if they already know where they will be. Or what about the random guy that shot 6 random women? I think it insane they let him out on bail.

What?

For starters, if there's good evidence to suggest guilt that charges should be heard in court... the person on bail should be wearing an anklr bracelet. Not a testifier.

Seconfly, if a person who is to testify against a dangerous criminal, no... they shouldn't be able to just go to work or shopping. They require some form of protection that is equivalent to the risk they face. No one would testify against the mafiosi if they didn't have guarantees for them and their family.

So instead of containing the perpetrator, they contain the victim? What about the victims friends and family who can also be harmed by this person? What about the fact they may have additional victims? The guy who shot 6 random women admitted to doing so and they still let him out on bail.

If the ankle bracelet the Perpetrator is wearing only discourages them from going near the victims home, they can just target the victim when they are not at home.

There has to be means to contain/ prevent the perpetrators access to victims, victims in jail and those
not.

Dirty Hipsters:
bastardofmelbourne made a really good post explaining many of the problems with bail and the criminal justice system, so I won't reiterate any of that.

I will say what I've always said, that the only person you can rely on to protect you is yourself.

The unfortunate reality is that the state CANNOT protect you. No matter how much you want to believe in the police and the criminal justice system, if someone really wants you dead there's not a lot that the police can do about it.

They can't afford to put all victims in protective custody, they can't afford to incarcerate all potentially violent "criminals" (some of who may also be innocent). I honestly don't think that if everyone on bail got an ankle monitor that the state has the capacity to monitor everyone on bail in real time either.

You can do everything in your power to not become a victim in the first place, but that's an unreasonable attempt to control chaos. You can never really control whether you'll be victimized, all you can do is try to be ready if/when it happens.

If it's legal in your state/country carry a gun, carry a knife, carry pepper spray, if not then learn a martial art, go to the gym and work out to try and make sure you're fit enough to fight off your attacker and escape. Whatever you do, don't assume that you're safe just because you can call 911.

It's terrible, and it's scary, but victims and people in general just don't have any real protection. Police aren't there to protect you and actively stop crimes, they're there to dissuade crimes from happening and to catch the criminal after a crime has occurred.

I disagree they do not have the resources to contain violent criminals, if they stop spending their resources on nonviolent criminals they would have plenty for the violent ones. In addition, they need to stop using the criminal justice system as a "For profit at the expense of victims" business and actually utilize it as a tool to protect society instead. The entire system needs to be overhauled at this point.

Lil devils x:
So instead of containing the perpetrator, they contain the victim?

That is literally the opposite of what I wrote. Unless the testifier is on bail pending another court case, where did I say they should be wearing an ankle bracelet. Though an ankle bracelet may help prevent kidnapping attempts in certain situations I imagine. Or perhaps help immediatelyadvertise when a person at threat seems to be spending a suspicious amount of time in that toilet cubicle--and oh my God, send units immediately!

A panic button may not be enough.

What about the victims friends and family who can also be harmed by this person? What about the fact they may have additional victims? The guy who shot 6 random women admitted to doing so and they still let him out on bail.

If the ankle bracelet the Perpetrator is wearing only discourages them from going near the victims home, they can just target the victim when they are not at home.

There has to be means to contain/ prevent the perpetrators access to victims, victims in jail and those
not.

Depends on the level of the threat. We can't just allow people to needlessly threaten themselves. I mean, it sucks ... but testifying against the mafia is dangerous and unless they can contribute significant resources and manpower to protect them to do so, you're going to lose that testimonial.

Witness protection is a thing. A necessary thing. And unfortunately that may involve relocation.

So let's say you have a testifier saying; "I ain't saying nothing till you guarantee the protection of my children."

Their kids say; "Look, buddy ... I have a life, a career ... why the hell shouldI jeopardise that just so that my deadbeat parent can pretend like they're doing me a favour by upending my life? I want nothing to do with them or their 'fellow businesspeople'..."

It sucks, but resources should still be spent to guarantee their safety even if it means impeding on their life to an extent, if it guarantees that a violent crime organization can be incredibly undermined by said testimonial.

I don't think that's unreasonable. Well I do ... but the bigger unfairness of it would be assuming you have no debts to make a better world where you can. So if that involves a police officer keeping tabs on someone that wants none of it, in order to secure the testimonial of someone to crack down on a violent underground organization, so be it.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Lil devils x:
So instead of containing the perpetrator, they contain the victim?

That is literally the opposite of what I wrote. Unless the testifier is on bail pending another court case, where did I say they should be wearing an ankle bracelet. Though an ankle bracelet may help prevent kidnapping attempts in certain situations I imagine. Or perhaps help immediatelyadvertise when a person at threat seems to be spending a suspicious amount of time in that toilet cubicle--and oh my God, send units immediately!

A panic button may not be enough.

What about the victims friends and family who can also be harmed by this person? What about the fact they may have additional victims? The guy who shot 6 random women admitted to doing so and they still let him out on bail.

If the ankle bracelet the Perpetrator is wearing only discourages them from going near the victims home, they can just target the victim when they are not at home.

There has to be means to contain/ prevent the perpetrators access to victims, victims in jail and those
not.

Depends on the level of the threat. We can't just allow people to needlessly threaten themselves. I mean, it sucks ... but testifying against the mafia is dangerous and unless they can contribute significant resources and manpower to protect them to do so, you're going to lose that testimonial.

Witness protection is a thing. A necessary thing. And unfortunately that may involve relocation.

So let's say you have a testifier saying; "I ain't saying nothing till you guarantee the protection of my children."

Their kids say; "Look, buddy ... I have a life, a career ... why the hell shouldI jeopardise that just so that my deadbeat parent can pretend like they're doing me a favour by upending my life? I want nothing to do with them or their 'fellow businesspeople'..."

It sucks, but resources should still be spent to guarantee their safety even if it means impeding on their life to an extent, if it guarantees that a violent crime organization can be incredibly undermined by said testimonial.

I don't think that's unreasonable. Well I do ... but the bigger unfairness of it would be assuming you have no debts to make a better world where you can. So if that involves a police officer keeping tabs on someone that wants none of it, in order to secure the testimonial of someone to crack down on a violent underground organization, so be it.

I was referencing this quote with the first line:

Seconfly, if a person who is to testify against a dangerous criminal, no... they shouldn't be able to just go to work or shopping.

Why would they have to restrict the movement of the person testifying if they made sure the perpetrator was contained so they could not harm them or hire someone else to do so?

Testifying against the mob is one thing. Testifying against a non mafia guy who raped or tried to kill you is another. Most guys do not have access to mob resources, they can however try to find someone to harm you or come after you themselves if given the chance while on bail, like that guy who killed his rape victim. What about victims of domestic violence? They are killed at a higher rate than any other group, but yet the police do not offer them protection and the courts more often than not allow the perpetrators out on bail.

When violent crimes are involved, they have to find some way to prevent the people doing these things from having access to victims, period. Even in prison, they have allowed crime to run rampant rather than prevent further violence. The people carrying out violence repeatedly have to not be allowed access to anyone they can be violent to. If they are allowing those violent criminals to continue to victimize others in jail then they are making them and the other people in there worse, not better. The system is failing at that point.

Lil devils x:

Why would they have to restrict the movement of the person testifying if they made sure the perpetrator was contained so they could not harm them or hire someone else to do so?

We should restrict their movement if there is a threat or the 'greater good' can be achieved by doing so. You can't just let people threaten themselves needlessly, or jeopardize the pursuit of justice to bring down a worse evil than simply a curfew of a handful of people. Becaue if that worse evil can simply dissuade a testimonial by targetting people, they may do so. In which case if you have done nothing to protect them... all you've got is some more victims and no more a solid charge of putting them behind bars.

When violent crimes are involved, they have to find some way to prevent the people doing these things from having access to victims, period.

Which is next to impossible assuming they have things like a lawyer they will demand to talk to. The primary goal should be the protection of the public, and a more nuanced idea of that is; "Even if it costs someone some level of independence and mobility to do so."

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here