Bernie Sanders: America's criminal justice revolution can start with Philadelphia's primary

[Uncle Joe]

Opinion

After decades of politicians in Washington supporting mass incarceration, America is now spending $80 billion a year to lock up 2.2 million people — the highest incarceration rate in the world. What’s more, in a country that prides itself on the principle of presuming innocence, nearly half a million people who are in jail across the country haven’t even been convicted of any crime — and that includes roughly 60 percent of all prisoners in Pennsylvania. That is because many people accused of a crime cannot afford bail.

This creates a modern-day debtors prison. Add to that a racial wealth gap that leaves African American and Latino communities with higher rates of poverty, and “tough on crime” policies that disproportionately target those same communities, and what we have is a criminal justice system that is effectively criminalizing communities of color.

(snip)

Efforts like these in Philadelphia are critical parts of a larger national movement that will help us ultimately make nationwide change. That is going to start with us passing The No Money Bail Act. This bill, which I introduced last year, would formally end the use of secured bonds in federal criminal proceedings, provide grants to states that wish to implement alternate pretrial systems to reduce their pretrial detention population and withholds grant funding from states that continue to use money bail systems. It would also require a study three years after implementation to ensure the new alternate systems are also not leading to disparate detention rates.

Making this kind of change will not come easy. The for-profit bail industry makes more than $2 billion each year from a predatory system that profits off the plight of poor defendants. This powerful industry will spend heavily to maintain the United States’ status as one of only two countries in the world that even allows for-profit bond companies.

(snip)


https://www.philly.com/opinion/commentary/end-cash-bail-philadelphia-judge-elections-bernie-sanders-20190513.html

[George II]

1. Is he endorsing anyone in that primary?

[MH1]

2. Interesting that the part relevant to this year's PA primary was not included in the excerpt.

So, PA elects judges. There are a bunch of judge positions up this year (and every odd-numbered year).

The article claims that some of the candidates have pledged to end cash bail. Although, I followed the link in the article, and the link did NOT provide that information, that I could tell. Certainly not to a handy guide to the candidates' positions on that. (Oh and now I have used up 3 of my 4 free articles for the month at philly.com. For a wild goose chase that could have linked to substantive info instead.)

Bernie's op-ed is correct about some important issues that should be considered when voting for judges. And maybe the op-ed was a good way to draw attention to these issues. But trust me, there are groups on the ground that are trying to get this information out - with candidate names attached.

What Bernie does NOT mention, is that in PA, judicial candidates can cross-file. SO, that means there will be Rs running on the D ballot, and vice versa. In theory that is because judges are supposed to be non-partisan. Hah!

In practice, that means that winning the party endorsement is crucial, and getting voters to support the party-endorsed candidates and avoid vote-splitting, is essential. If D voters peel off to vote for fringe candidates that are maybe right on cash bail but have no chance of winning, it is very likely that the D line in the general election will actually have the name of a right wing judge.

The real vote for judges occurs at the county committee when endorsements are made.

[Uncle Joe]

3. Bernie is endorsing the issue of ending cash bail along with other criminal justice reforms

(snip)

This is an international embarrassment — one that I and other progressives have been opposing for years in Congress. Our government today makes sure Wall Street criminals get bailouts and never face charges in a courtroom, while low-income people are locked away in jail cells simply because they are poor and have inadequate legal counsel.

When our movement defeats Donald Trump in 2020, things are finally going to change. But even before we get to that presidential election, the people of Philadelphia have an upcoming opportunity to start making changes right now in 2019. On May 21, you will have a chance to vote for local judicial candidates who pledge to end cash bail.

Philadelphia has been leading this reform effort for a while now. Community organizers created the Philadelphia Community Bail Fund to help those in need, including many juveniles, avoid having their lives torn apart with unnecessary jail time. Philly’s City Council passed a resolution calling for the end of cash bail, the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer has joined in this chorus demanding action, and District Attorney Larry Krasner has unilaterally put an end to the practice of seeking cash bail on low-level offenses.

To continue this progress, I hope the citizens of Philadelphia cast their votes for progressive judicial candidates in this month’s primary election, and get their friends, family and neighbors out to vote.

(snip)

https://www.philly.com/opinion/commentary/end-cash-bail-philadelphia-judge-elections-bernie-sanders-20190513.html

I imagine the candidates have made their positions known on this issue.

[George II]

4. His Op Ed is about a primary for judges in Philadelphia. Judge don't establish laws with respect...

....to cash bail or criminal justice, legislators do.

Presidential candidates shouldn't be weighing in on local issues. Remember, for years we've been hearing, when confronted with the shortcomings of Vermont laws, he ducked his lack of involvement because he wasn't a Vermont legislator, so why is he inserting himself in Pennsylvania and Philadephia laws?

This is mixing issues. If he's endorsing the issues you mention he should be talking about and endorsing local and state legislators, not judges. THEY are those who establish laws, not judges.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Did you not read the paragraph that I just bolded in the post to which you just responded?

(snip)

Philadelphia has been leading this reform effort for a while now. Community organizers created the Philadelphia Community Bail Fund to help those in need, including many juveniles, avoid having their lives torn apart with unnecessary jail time. Philly’s City Council passed a resolution calling for the end of cash bail, the editorial board of the Philadelphia Inquirer has joined in this chorus demanding action, and District Attorney Larry Krasner has unilaterally put an end to the practice of seeking cash bail on low-level offenses.

(snip)

https://www.philly.com/opinion/commentary/end-cash-bail-philadelphia-judge-elections-bernie-sanders-20190513.html

Or this paragraph in the OP linking this local issue to the greater national one?

(snip)

Efforts like these in Philadelphia are critical parts of a larger national movement that will help us ultimately make nationwide change. That is going to start with us passing The No Money Bail Act. This bill, which I introduced last year, would formally end the use of secured bonds in federal criminal proceedings, provide grants to states that wish to implement alternate pretrial systems to reduce their pretrial detention population and withholds grant funding from states that continue to use money bail systems. It would also require a study three years after implementation to ensure the new alternate systems are also not leading to disparate detention rates.

(snip)

https://www.philly.com/opinion/commentary/end-cash-bail-philadelphia-judge-elections-bernie-sanders-20190513.html

Judges don't make the law but they enforce it and they still have some discretion.

(snip)

Overview: Traditionally, judges’ elections are low information races that are ultimately decided primarily by ballot position and the support of the Democratic Party -- for which candidates pay as much as $35,000. The lack of information is compounded by the fact that judges must show restraint in campaigning on their views and positions. A coalition of organizations that helped elect progressive district attorney Larry Krasner hosted a “judge the judges” candidate forum recently. Phillyjudges.com is a website intended to provide information. The Philadelphia Bar Association surveys candidates on their ethical and professional backgrounds and publishes a three-tier rating. Even though the Bar’s rating is perhaps the only authoritative source of information, it doesn’t endorse individual candidates; rather, it gives them ratings of “highly recommended,” “recommended,” and “not recommended.”

The stakes: Judges have tremendous discretion in both criminal and civil matters. The First Judicial District, the organizing body of courts in Philadelphia administered by judges, can influence policy. For example, in the fall, the FJD rescinded its policy of withholding bail fees from defendants that showed up in court or even had the charges against them dropped. Similarly, over the summer Mayor Jim Kenney was under pressure to end the arrest data sharing agreement between the city and Immigration and Customs Enforcement -- an agreement the court was party to but didn’t communicate their own position. Also notable: Family court judges are assigned from the Common Pleas Court. Those judges are the ones who remand children to centers like the recently closed Glen Mills.

(snip)

https://www.philly.com/opinion/editorials/judges-election-municipal-primary-philadelphia--20190414.html

Bernie did the right thing to endorse this local/national issue and not a/the candidate (s).

[George II]

6. I read all that, but still, why is he getting involved in "local" (i.e., Philadephia/PA) issues....

in another state when he repeatedly does nothing about his OWN "local" (i.e., Vermont) issues by claiming "I'm a Congressman/Senator", not a Vermont legislator?

Plus his Op Ed concerns judges, not legislators.

Vermont has an equally serious situation with respect to cash bail and high rate (among the highest nationally) of incarceration. It's so high that Vermont had to ship their prisoners to neighboring Massachusetts and now Mississippi.

Why is he silent about the same issues in his own state? Would like to know the answer.

[Uncle Joe]

7. If you read it, you would know this is a national issue as well but Philadelphia just happens

to have the most immediate elections pertaining to this issue.

You would also know that judges have some if not great discretion in how the law is upheld.

Bernie introduced a bill last July to end cash bail on a national level, of course this would also include Vermont, one of only two states that allows prisoners to vote, Maine being the other.

Do you even believe the issue of ending cash bail has any merit?

[George II]

8. Again, why has he done nothing on this issue in his home state, where incarceration rates....

....are among the highest in the country, so bad that they have to ship prisoners out of state?

To turn your predictable question around, doesn't he believe ending cash bail in his own state has any merit?

[Uncle Joe]

9. Your "logic" is illogical, how could ending cash bail on a national basis not include Vermont?

Of course you never answered my question, do you believe the issue of ending cash bail has any merit?

I suspect you don't and so you're intent on trashing Vermont to distract from the actual issue.

[George II]

10. Speaking of "illogical". If you feel that my comment is "trashing Vermont", then what do YOU think

Sanders is doing by ignoring the mass incarceration and cash bail issue in his own state, not "trashing Vermont"? What did he do about this issue when he was the mayor of Burlington for eight years?

Here's an interesting read:

https://www.vcjr.org/2-uncategorised/197-unnecessary-incarceration

[Uncle Joe]

11. Do you believe the issue of ending cash bail has merit?

[George II]

12. I certainly don't believe candidates should pick and choose in which states and cities.....

....their pet issues should be addressed. Agree?

[Uncle Joe]

14. You still didn't answer my question, a simple yes or no.

Do you believe the issue of ending cash bail has merit?

[George II]

16. And you didn't answer any of mine (you never do), so I guess we're even. In the context....

....of your question very narrow question, it's obvious that Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders doesn't believe that the issue of ending cash bail in Vermont has merit. Agree?

[Uncle Joe]

18. I already said I didn't have a problem with it during our debate here on this thread, post #5

for one, not to mention just posting the OP.

And you didn't answer any of mine (you never do), so I guess we're even. In the context....
View profile
....of your question very narrow question, it's obvious that Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders doesn't believe that the issue of ending cash bail in Vermont has merit. Agree?

No I don't agree.

Now I have answered two of your questions and you have yet to display the courage of your convictions and answer mine.

Do you believe the issue of ending cash bail has merit?

[George II]

19. This discussion has served as a reminder to me....

Time to get down to Mystic Aquarium soon, they have a new exhibit.

[Uncle Joe]

20. I believe there are only three possibilities with you in regards to my unanswered question

1. You believe ending cash bail, is the moral, not to mention economic right thing to do but yet are afraid to admit it because Bernie is for it and Biden may come out against it.

2. You don't believing ending cash bail to be the right thing to do but are afraid to admit it because it might not flow well with the lower middle class, poor and minorities and Biden might come out for it.

3. You don't know whether it's the right thing to do or not and are just here to trash Bernie.

In either case trying to have a good faith debate with you has become a waste of my time.


Peace to you.

[ehrnst]

21. A "waste of your time"

So MUCH of a "waste of your time"... that you took the time to carefully compose a numbered list respose that illustrates spectacularly the the argument from silence fallacy.



How DARE someone to refuse defend the strawman you attack!

You are nothing if not predictable, Joe.

[ehrnst]

22. Once again, you demand that someone answer your tangental question...

and if they don't take the bait, you claim that you "won."

[Uncle Joe]

23. You misspelled "tangential" ehrnst. Furthermore the elimination of cash bail

is literally the subject of the OP.

Do you support the elimination of cash bail?

[ehrnst]

25. You're a character, Joe

I'll give you that.

Predictable, but a character.

You produce bales and bales of straw men to line up and tilt at... must've hit a nerve.

[Uncle Joe]

26. No answer from you either?

Simple question yes or no, do you support the elimination of cash bail?

[ehrnst]

27. You feel entitled to demand answers from people a lot, don't you?

It just comes off like a desperate attempt to control the discussion.

Is it? Yes or no?

[Uncle Joe]

30. I'm not demanding, I'm just asking and coming on to a thread

with the primary subject being the elimination of cash bail and denying this inconvenient truth to the point of not even being able to give your opinion as to whether you believe the elimination of cash bail to be sound policy or not does little for the cause of credibility.

[ehrnst]

32. The tone is demanding.

And my oh my, now you've gotten accusatory.

The argument from silence fallacy is a favorite, isn't it? When repeated, it's typically a tactic to bully someone into answering.

It's just so frustrating when people just don't take the bait, isn't it? And even worse when the target calls you out on it.

[Uncle Joe]

36. The tone was nothing but a simple question to both of you.

I'm not giving anybody hell, I'm just asking a if not the most appropriate question directly related to the subject of the OP about the issue of ending cash bail.

I see criticisms of Bernie here on this subject but neither one of you willing to say yes or no as to whether you believe eliminating cash bail to be sound policy or not.


Peace to you.

[ehrnst]

47. Please point out in this thread where I criticized Bernie.

That's a simple question, isn't it?

The neediness displayed to control the discussion... prickly response when asked a question that one doesn't like... where have I seen that before?



Peace to you.

[George II]

45. A president has no control over state bail systems. NONE. And as I've shown more than once....

....in this thread, there is no issue with "cash bail" in the Federal justice system, it's virtually non-existent.

Senator Sanders has been a Federal Congressman and Senator for more than 25 years, he should know this. And as I've also said in this thread, if this is an issue that he really wants to weigh in on locally (i.e., in Philadelphia), why hasn't he done so in his own state of Vermont?

[ehrnst]

48. He doesn't like to talk about Vermont very much on the POTUS campaign trail, does he?

Whether it's about any lessons we might take away from Green Mountain Care's failure to get off the ground, or if he got the message that people of color in VT think that he needs to get with the program on race.

Bernie's "not going to speculate" on those two details, and might he add that the minimum wage in this country is at the root of those problems....

[George II]

49. Apparently he's more concerned about the criminal justice "revolution" (why is it a revolution?)....

....in Philadelphia than he is in his own state.

This clearly does not go unnoticed by the voters.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. Scooooorrrre... another one for Uncle Joe!! Right on the money, as usual!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Uncle Joe]

33. ....

[ehrnst]

34. Our cheerleader chimes in!

Yay!

[George II]

35. ...

[lapucelle]

51. The Vermonters who are sent to serve their sentences at for-profit prisons in Mississippi

are not allowed to vote. They are governed by the laws of the state in which they are incarcerated rather than by the laws of the state that shipped them off to serve their terms thousands of miles away from family and their personal support systems.

[LibFarmer]

13. Sounds like an opportunistic move

to cash in on an ongoing local conflict which has nothing to do with the office of the POTUS.

This would be like a POTUS candidate weighing in on who should win the OSCAR, which horse should win the Kentucky Derby or what Kim Kardashian should name her next baby.

[Uncle Joe]

15. It's a local AND national issue.

Furthermore comparing the ending of cash bail; (which only serves to harm the poor and minorities) to show biz or a horse race is a ridiculously tragic analogy but an effective reflection of your values.

[George II]

17. If it's a national issue, why isn't he talking about this in Vermont? You might want to research...

....the plight of the incarcerated poor and minorities in Vermont.

[ehrnst]

24. What do you mean..

the plight of the minorities in Vermont?

[George II]

28. The ratio of blacks incarcerated to whites incarcerated in Vermont is the highest in the country.

[ehrnst]

29. There's a bit of White Supremacy action going on there, as well, I hear.

https://www.pjcvt.org/the-problem-with-vermonts-whiteness/

[George II]

39. Looks like a great place for a city boy to settle after graduating from college.

I've been to Vermont over a hundred times, not a place to which THIS Brooklyn boy would consider moving.

[ehrnst]

46. It certainly was quieter than anywhere the fight for civil rights was happening.

While people turned down jobs at law firms to go do the unglamorous civil rights footwork on the ground where it was happening that didn't make the papers.

[rgbecker]

42. Are you just making stuff up to be saying something rather than answering the question?

It only took a minute to find that Kentucky's ratio of blacks incarcerated to whites incarcerated is 29%:64%. Vermont's ratio is 9%:82%.

I'm sure a look at the numbers from the other states will also show that Vermont is not the highest in the country.

Here's some rates of incarceration of blacks in four samples:

Vermont 2214 blacks in jail for every 100,000 in state.
FLorida 2555
Louisiana 2749
Kentucky 3545

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/profiles/

[George II]

43. Making stuff up? Check out "The Sentencing Project".....

....Rates change from year to year, when I checked Vermont had the highest ratio of Black to White, according to this they're now 5th, but not far behind 1st:

https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/#III.%20The%20Scale%20of%20Disparity

Table 3. States with the highest black/white differential

State/White/Black/B:W

New Jersey/94/1140/12.2
Wisconsin*/221/2542/11.5
Iowa/211/2349/ 11.1
Minnesota/111/1219/11.0
Vermont*/225/2357/10.5

[LibFarmer]

38. Some things are just too local for POTUS

I just highlighted the ridiculousness of this move trying to get some traction in a race that is fast slipping out of Sen. Sanders' hands.

It has nothing to do with my values. Let the local people fight the local issues.

I wouldn't want a POTUS candidate to weigh in on what menu the local school should have for school lunches or what the local dog pound's policy is on euthanizing its animals. One can opportunistically make them "national" issues by saying "hey school lunch is everywhere" and "dog pounds are all over the country" but some people can smell opportunistic publicity seeking easily.

[George II]

40. It appears that the issue of cash bail on the Federal level, the only level a president can affect..

....isn't what it has been portrayed. As far as the Federal government is concerned, this seems to be a politically manufactured issue:

http://federaldefendersny.org/information-for-client-and-families/bond-and-pretrial-detention-faqs.html

How does bail or bond work in federal court?

Upon your first appearance in court, a federal magistrate judge will decide if you should be released, with or without bail, or held in jail. There may be a hearing to determine whether you should be released and, if so, what the conditions of your release will be. This hearing may take place at your initial appearance, or within 5 court days after that if your attorney needs more time to prepare.

There is no fixed bail amount in federal court. A magistrate judge releases you on conditions sufficient to ensure your continued appearance in court. The conditions of your bail vary depending on the seriousness of the charges against you, your criminal history, your ties to the community, and your financial circumstances.

Bail in federal court is very different from bail in the state system. Bail bondsmen are rarely used in federal court, and for indigent defendants, there is rarely a cash component to a federal bail. Instead, the judge will set your bond amount with conditions that may include co-signers to ensure your return to court. A bond is basically a contract between you, your co-signers, and the government. This contract requires that you show up to your court dates and comply with the conditions of the bond. If you do not, the government can collect up to the full amount of the bond from you and each of your co-signers.

[George II]

50. As noted elsewhere here by me, it's not a "national" issue, it's an issue....

....in many states and localities, but nowhere that a potential president can do anything since they're all state and local issues. The fact is, on a federal level, where a president could be effective, there is virtually no cash bail at all!

http://federaldefendersny.org/information-for-client-and-families/bond-and-pretrial-detention-faqs.html

How does bail or bond work in federal court?

Upon your first appearance in court, a federal magistrate judge will decide if you should be released, with or without bail, or held in jail. There may be a hearing to determine whether you should be released and, if so, what the conditions of your release will be. This hearing may take place at your initial appearance, or within 5 court days after that if your attorney needs more time to prepare.

There is no fixed bail amount in federal court. A magistrate judge releases you on conditions sufficient to ensure your continued appearance in court. The conditions of your bail vary depending on the seriousness of the charges against you, your criminal history, your ties to the community, and your financial circumstances.

Bail in federal court is very different from bail in the state system. Bail bondsmen are rarely used in federal court, and for indigent defendants, there is rarely a cash component to a federal bail. Instead, the judge will set your bond amount with conditions that may include co-signers to ensure your return to court. A bond is basically a contract between you, your co-signers, and the government. This contract requires that you show up to your court dates and comply with the conditions of the bond. If you do not, the government can collect up to the full amount of the bond from you and each of your co-signers.

So we're wondering, why is a presidential candidate meddling in local Philadelphia issues/elections but when it comes to local Vermont, his state, he says over and over again, to the effect, "I'm a Federal elected official, not a state or local official".

[MH1]

52. Why? Here's an idea.

He is using this as another chance to run down the Democratic Party "establishment"; and continue the situation that creates a perceived need for "progressives" like himself. (just like some charity for a medical condition doesn't want that condition to ever go away, because they'd lose their reason for existence, and the charity's officers would have to go find a salary elsewhere)

He references the Dem Party endorsement but fails to mention the cross-filing situation that makes it crucial to avoid vote-splitting among Democratic candidates.

It is essential, in our current plurality voting system, to inform Democratic voters of the vetted ("endorsed" ) candidates that are actual Democrats. Otherwise, in November, the D column on the ballot could have R judges that won the D primary due to vote-splitting.

Bernie seems to be encouraging people to ignore the party endorsement and do their own research. Problem with that is, Philly could end up with worse judges than they would have by following the party endorsement. Why oh why would anyone on the left want to push an approach that results in more right-wing judges? Hmm, that's a stumper. (Or maybe a trumper?)

The real solution is for all these well-meaning progressives to get involved in influencing the endorsement. By the time the primary comes it is too late. Note, this is specific to judge elections where cross-filing is allowed. And guess what? In Philly and the burbs (where I am), there are lots of young progressives getting involved in just that! They don't need Bernie to come here and tell them how to vote. They're on top of it. So I wonder who is listening to him.

[George II]

37. Really interesting how these issues suddenly surface during a presidential campaign, after....

....more than 30 years in public office.

[George II]

41. It appears that the issue of cash bail on the Federal level, the only level a president can affect..

....isn't what it has been portrayed. As far as the Federal government is concerned, this seems to be a politically manufactured issue:

http://federaldefendersny.org/information-for-client-and-families/bond-and-pretrial-detention-faqs.html

How does bail or bond work in federal court?

Upon your first appearance in court, a federal magistrate judge will decide if you should be released, with or without bail, or held in jail. There may be a hearing to determine whether you should be released and, if so, what the conditions of your release will be. This hearing may take place at your initial appearance, or within 5 court days after that if your attorney needs more time to prepare.

There is no fixed bail amount in federal court. A magistrate judge releases you on conditions sufficient to ensure your continued appearance in court. The conditions of your bail vary depending on the seriousness of the charges against you, your criminal history, your ties to the community, and your financial circumstances.

Bail in federal court is very different from bail in the state system. Bail bondsmen are rarely used in federal court, and for indigent defendants, there is rarely a cash component to a federal bail. Instead, the judge will set your bond amount with conditions that may include co-signers to ensure your return to court. A bond is basically a contract between you, your co-signers, and the government. This contract requires that you show up to your court dates and comply with the conditions of the bond. If you do not, the government can collect up to the full amount of the bond from you and each of your co-signers.

[happybird]

44. Yep

I've been (unhappily, but out of necessity) learning about the federal court system these past two months. It's a lot different than state/county/local court. Unless you have outstanding warrants in other jurisdictions or are deemed a serious flight risk, the majority of people with federal charges are PR'd out immediately after arrest. That's according to the Federal Marshalls, assorted cops, lawyers, and the (unnecessary) bailbondsmen I spoke with while and after a relative was recently arrested on a federal charge.


This whole proposed bill seems off. Or maybe just naive about how court actually operates for us little people without fancy ass lawyers.

States and counties have pre-trial systems in place already. You go on pre-trial supervision after you pay bail or PR out. It's just like probation -meetings, mandatory groups, assigned court officer, drug testing, etc- and it lasts until your case is decided. Why would states need grants for programs that already exist and make money (because of course fees are involved with pre-trial release)?

My bs meter was pinging, so just sharing my personal experience with the courts, and that of several friends (a handful of whom have done federal time). Between all of us, our past arrest/court experiences span several states and the pre-trial system was nearly identical in each jurisdiction.

This bill just seems like window dressing bs.

How about not jailing non-violent offenders? The best quote I've heard on the topic is, "we need to decide who we are mad at and who we are afraid of." Damn straight. Jail/prison is supposed to be for the people we are afraid of: the violent offenders. It shouldn't be used as a money-grubbing "time out."