re: Starved to Death in an American Jail, the Man Who Couldn't Pay $100 Bail

quote:

---

you believe that the relatives of everyone arrested should be on the hook for bail in specifically what amounts? Your issue seems to be that if someone is poor, they should have to stay in jail as punishment for not being able to afford bail

---

If you are confused about what a “ straw man” is in rhetorical analysis, please read Wack’s response to you earlier. If you need an actual example, your post illustates one

quote:

---

Your assumptions cause you to disregard research without evaluating for yourself. Shocking

---

What assumption are you referring to? Which research are you saying I’m disregarding? I’ve asked for your data relative to missed appearances. You didn’t provide it and assert you did. When you realized you not only didn’t provide it, but you insulted me for not seeing it, you still didn’t cite it but cut and pasted your lot review ( which I hope no advisor signed off on its completeness). I have no desire to be your second reader but would like the cite for you assertion

quote:

---

And by the way I haven't said one thing to you or about you on this thread that would make any sense for you to be jerky to me that way (until now, anyway)

---

Asking “is that supposed to impress me” when confronted with evidence that disproved your assumption was condescending and jerky. I honestly don’t think I responded in a a jerky way by stating that I’m not concerned with impressing you. You implied that I failed to impress you. i responded that I'm not trying to impress you.

quote:

---

Like I said, if anyone gave that data, I missed it. You posted what I replied to as though the 13%-21% reduction meant that the majority of people showed up for court.

---

we all make silly mistakes. No one is perfect. You probably already realize this but the reduction was in reference to the 40% of people who fail to appear in court. 40% is not a significant minority, but it’s still the minority.

quote:

---

Except that it isn't "working." Even according to the numbers you gave, there are still around a quarter of the people who are supposed to be coming for court who just choose to not show up. That's after the nannying.

That's not "working."

---

It’s working to increase the number of people who appear in court. Electronic reminders are not nannying, imo. They are pretty standard for bills, appointments, etc.

quote:

---

That's getting closer to "working." What does it cost? Sounds kind of expensive.

---

Not sure how much it cost at the moment. I assume these defendants are assigned to (already overloaded and underpaid) existing probation and parole officers.

quote:

---

Asking “is that supposed to impress me” when confronted with evidence that disproved your assumption was condescending and jerky.

---

No, it wasn't.

You think those numbers are good and that they are "working." I don't.

Asking that was mean to communicate that and nothing more.

quote:

---

I honestly don’t think I responded in a a jerky way...

---

You sure? You just admitted you thought I was being jerky to you. You're going to claim that using the same language back was not you trying to return what you perceived to be the favor?

quote:

---

we all make silly mistakes. No one is perfect. You probably already realize this but the reduction was in reference to the 40% of people who fail to appear in court.

---

Yeah, I got it now. I just missed it the first time around, and yeah, we all do miss stuff and make mistakes.

quote:

---

40% is not a significant minority, but it’s still the minority.

---

Again, I don't think that simply technically being a minority is anywhere in the vicinity of being good enough (which is just a different way of me saying that I'm not impressed by it). We're talking about people who have allegedly committed crimes and who are being provided their due process with taxpayer money. When they don't show up it burdens the system and costs even more of your money and mine.

40% is an order of magnitude too high for that IMO.

quote:

---

Electronic reminders are not nannying, imo. They are pretty standard for bills, appointments, etc.

---

Being commonly applied to other contexts doesn't mean that it's not nannying—it most certainly is (all of it, not just the court appearances.) I don't even think that's an opinion, I think that's a self-evident fact.

People have more convenient ways to manage their schedules than they have ever had before. The fact that vendors over-function for them because it's in their best interest to do so only makes people that much less responsible and feel that much more entitled to have someone else manage their schedules for them. I work in the medical field and it's not uncommon at all to have patients who no-call, no-show for appointments tell us it was our fault because they didn't get a reminder text.

quote:

---

Not sure how much it cost at the moment.

---

Then there's no way for you or I to know whether that's a workable solution.

quote:

---

I assume these defendants are assigned to (already overloaded and underpaid) existing probation and parole officers.

---

Sounds like you think it might not be workable.

Hey, I have an idea...what if we give these defendants the respect of expecting them to manage their own schedules and transportation and show up like they're supposed to instead of assuming that it is the responsibility of parole officers or probation officers or the court system or the state?

That doesn't necessarily require bail, btw. There just needs to be a penalty for not showing up for court. Fines (that poor people could work off if they couldn't pay them by providing community service), 2 days in jail for each court date missed (that could be served on weekends or otherwise around work schedules), etc.