NY's Jailbreak Legislation Will Free Criminals From Prison Before Trial

Where I live in Upstate NY is beautiful, but Governor Cuomo is slowly destroying the entire state, and no, I have never voted for this clown. How ironic that the guy who stated that America "was never that great," is now allowing a criminal justice reform plan that will never make NY great in the future. How so? Because this new "reform plan" will allow criminals who are “non-violent” not jailed while awaiting their trial dates and they also won't have to post bail. Those already in jail awaiting their trial will be freed. This "jailbreak" legislation goes into effect January 2020.

Here's a list of crimes that are considered "non-violent" in New York:

-Second-degree manslaughter
-Aggravated vehicular assault
-Third-degree assault
-Promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child
-Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child
-Promoting a sexual performance by a child
-Failure to register as a sex offender
-Making terroristic threats
-Criminally negligent homicide
-Aggravated vehicular homicide

Law enforcement officials are already complaining that if Cuomo doesn't block this new law from taking effect, police across the state will be left continuously re-arresting accused criminals and having to find suspects who fail to show up to their court dates.

There have been a number of recent articles that have been about this new Jailbreak Law. Here are a few:

A drug-dealing suspect who allegedly laughed off the death of a man who died overdosing on drugs sold by his crew was freed on bail Thursday — and praised the politicians who approved new bail laws a judge cited in letting him free.

“Cuomo for president!”Jose Jorge proclaimed in Spanish as he hustled out of Manhattan Supreme Court.

Jorge, 47, is looking at a possible 96 years in prison if he’s convicted of drug possession and sale charges.

Before the court hearing Thursday, he was held at Rikers Island without bail. After the hearing, he was freed without having to post any bail at all.

Prosecutors wanted Jorge behind bars just a little longer — until the new bail laws go into effect Jan. 1. The Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor calls Jorge a major flight risk, and says he “laughed off an accusation of causing someones death” in a series of “chilling” recordings.

But Justice Abraham Clott said said Thursday that mayhem would ensue come 2020 if he did not start releasing soon-to-be eligible defendants now.

www.nydailynews.com... ression=true

Skylar Crouse was arrested in Warren County last week after authorities say he killed a bystander with his car during a police chase. Police charged him with second-degree manslaughter, a non-violent felony. He's in the Warren County Jail.

On January 1, 2020, he will be released. If that happened after that date, he would never have gone to jail in the first place. It's all part of a new law that eliminates cash bail for misdemeanors and non-violent felonies.

Fulton County Sheriff Richard Giardino spent 18 years as a judge, and has examined bail reform before. He says there should be more qualifying offenses for bail, including second degree burglary, criminally negligent homicide and selling drugs. "You leave for work in the morning, we arrest em’ at 7 o’clock on a raid. You get home at 6 o'clock, by the time you get issued an appearance ticket they're back out on the street,” Giardino said.

cbs6albany.com...

I read a comment that stated, "All the worst Democrat leaders come from California, New York and Chicago." Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

-Second-degree manslaughter -Aggravated vehicular assault -Third-degree assault -Promoting an obscene sexual performance by a child -Possessing an obscene sexual performance by a child -Promoting a sexual performance by a child -Failure to register as a sex offender -Making terroristic threats -Criminally negligent homicide -Aggravated vehicular homicide

I'm also here in the socialist state of NY. It's alarming what king andy is doing, he's also pushing to give inmates the right to vote in elections. What I see in most of these is there will be a lot of witness intimidation going on.

a reply to: Chance321

I hear ya. Can't wait to relocate to South Carolina. I'm waiting for my wife to retire in 6 years before moving out of state. Won't miss Cuomo, or the Upstate NY winters.

My sister lives in Sharon Springs....and hates how the city runs the state. Its a perfect example.of why we have an electoral college. Otherwise city idiots would.ruin the country fsster than their avacodos could spoil.

Many of the crimes you seem upset about are charges filed against people who are non-violent as well.

-Second-degree manslaughter
-Aggravated vehicular assault
-Criminally negligent homicide
-Aggravated vehicular homicide

When I was a kid, a friend of mine ended up serving 10 years being convicted of some of these charges.

He was driving with a car full of friends, and one idiot in the back seat thought it would be a funny prank to pull his seat-recline lever causing him to fall back. In the process of falling back he reflexively straightened out, extending his legs, and thus pressing the accelerator. The car hopped a curb and just happened to hit a woman heading to her garage in the morning. Sadly, she did not survive.

This guy was not a violent threat to society. He was the victim of a teenage prank that ended up having deadly consequences, so just because you see words like "manslaughter", "assault", or "homicide" in a charge doesn't mean you're dealing with an inherently violent person that would reasonably be considered a threat to society.

Our prison system is vastly overcrowded, and often creates more criminals than it rehabilitates. Allowing some non-violent and non-convicted defendants to be released on their on recognizance pending trial isn't as bad as you may fear.

a reply to: redmage

LMAO

‘Many’. are you serious when you type ‘many of the people who get charged with the below are non-violent’.

-Second-degree manslaughter
-Aggravated vehicular assault
-Criminally negligent homicide
-Aggravated vehicular homicide

Seriously???

Where you or a family member the kid that pulled the seat back?

I think any sane person who saw/heard someone get ran over by a car and died, would call that a violent act.

If someone ha a Permit to carry a gun and someone else causes the gun to go off and kills a 3rd person, would you call that a not a volumetric crime either???

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

All of those charges have an underlying element of recklessness, rather than intent to injure. I think that’s point being made.

This is already how things work where I’m at, though, so I’m pretty familiar with it. We’ve already seen a significant increase in FTAs. FTAs mean warrants. Warrants mean having to go find people. We’ve seen people get picked up in the morning and be out by lunch time and have time to go do something all over again before the day is out. We’ve seen people rack up a dozen arrests in a few months because they know they won’t spend any time in jail, and they can continue to do what they do for months, if not years, before they ever spend any significant time locked up.

Criminal justice reform is a great idea. Decriminalization of crime is not a good way to enact criminal justice reform.

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

There's a difference between a charge like first degree murder, and one like manslaughter.

If you think being the victim of a prank makes someone an inherently violent person, then I hope you're never the victim of a poorly conceived prank that causes unintended harm to another.

I know that the guy I knew was not a violent person at all, and no reasonable person would have considered him a threat to society. He felt horrible about the incident, and it was not intentional by any stretch of the imagination.

Accidents happen, people get hurt, and some don't survive. Victims' families still deserve justice in the court of law, and in sentencing, but our prison system is vastly overcrowded, and often creates more criminals than it rehabilitates. Allowing some non-violent and non-convicted defendants to be released on their on recognizance pending trial isn't as bad as you may fear.

a reply to: redmage

I agree with you that prison "creates more criminals than it rehabilitates." I also believe that there are people charged with criminally negligent homicide, who aren't necessarily violent people (like your friend). These people made a bad mistake, like texting on their cellphone, or they put themselves in a risky situation that resulted in a fatality.

However, people convicted of sexual crimes against a child SHOULD be in prison while awaiting trial, due to the inherent risk posed to other children if they remained free. Nor should someone accused of making terror threats be released from jail before their trial, due to the risk of them actually carrying out a terrorist act. Basic common sense, right?

I also believe that a person who is convicted of either 3rd degree assault, or 2nd degree manslaughter, is a violent person and should remain locked up until their trial. The definitions of such crimes describes the perpetrator as either being reckless while intimidating others with a deadly weapon, or one who fully realizes that their reckless act could result in a fatal risk to others.

3rd Degree Assault: Reckless infliction of the fear of serious bodily injury, or recklessly causing a fear of injury through the use of a deadly weapon.
LINK

Manslaughter in the Second Degree occurs when a person continues with a reckless act that they are aware of committing, and they consciously disregard the potentially fatal risks involved to others. The risk must be of the type that any reasonable person would not ignore.
LINK

This is appalling!

I'm in upstate NY also. I love my home and the area, but I hate the politicians (most of them).

I don't even know what he is trying to accomplish with this. Certainly, he doesn't care about average citizens feeling safe. I know I don't feel very safe a lot of the time, but this makes me think it even more!

Yes, yes, I know, I shouldn't be concerned that pedophiles and sex offenders are let loose. Nor should I care that someone who has committed assault and homicide is let loose. Oh, and the terrorism threats? No problem! I feel safer already.

I can't believe this....

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
However, people convicted of sexual crimes against a child SHOULD be in prison while awaiting trial, due to the inherent risk posed to other children if they remained free. Nor should someone accused of making terror threats be released from jail before their trial, due to the risk of them actually carrying out a terrorist act. Basic common sense, right?

I agree, and none of those were charges that I mentioned.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
I also believe that a person who is convicted of either 3rd degree assault, or 2nd degree manslaughter, is a violent person and should remain locked up until their trial. The definitions of such crimes describes the perpetrator as either being reckless while intimidating others with a deadly weapon, or one who fully realizes that their reckless act could result in a fatal risk to others.

In the issue I referred to the "recklessness" was simply having immature passengers in his car, and the car itself was considered a "deadly weapon".

I'm simply pointing out that some of the scary sounding charges that you listed don't mean a person is inherently a violent person, or one that would reasonably be considered a threat to society.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Like I said in my thread the other night.
I'm worried that the insanity happening in Cali lately is not
only going to get worse. But spread to the rest of the country.

Seeing deliberate destructive actions taken by liberals like this
are why I said that. This guy is making decisions that are gonna
cost innocent people some how. Possibly their life and you know
it isn't going to effect him or his family.

This is just more destruction and mayhem I guess.

a reply to: redmage

Yes killing someone running from the police is just the same as a prank. You win today's award.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I never said that. Perhaps you should read what is actually said before attempting a foolish response. Use a bit of common sense. The one you should be giving your "award" too are D.A.s who use the same charges in both situations.

Instead of making absurd leaps, it would be wise to look at things as a case by case basis.

a reply to: redmage

I don't get how your friend was convicted for that. The person convicted should have been the person doing the prank. If someone rams my car off the road and I hit a bystander the person ramming me is the one charged, manslaughter still requires you to have done something wrong.

Either coumo is plain old nuts or he is trying to make people fear more by releasing criminals like that. He will use that fear to solicit taxes to fuel more police officers and create a true police state. Both nuts and sly as a fox?

a reply to: redmage

Sorry, you did say that. That is exactly what your post is saying. This law equally applies to both those people which is why it's a horrible law and the OP railed against it.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The one you should be giving your "award" too are D.A.s who use the same charges in both situations.

D.A.s often are only concerned with convictions, so they throw every charge that they can in efforts to leverage out plea deals.

a reply to: redmage

The only thing that matters for this thread is they do, and this law applies to them both. I still don't get your friend's situation, manslaughter requires you to have done something wrong still.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
I still don't get your friend's situation, manslaughter requires you to have done something wrong still.

When you operate a vehicle, you are responsible for maintaining control of that vehicle. He lost control of the vehicle regardless of the back seat passenger's deadly prank.