First of all, the numbers don't show that they're extremely unlikely to commit a crime, they at best show that they're 22% likely to be re-arrested within 5 years for a violent crime. Not all crimes are solved, and not all crimes are even reported, especially in the sorts of places these people likely live, and five years is not much of a window. So the actual number is higher, maybe a lot higher. And if the last few years of wuhan virus hysteria has taught me anything, it's that even a <1% chance of a negative outcome is apparently worth shutting down society over. But now you're telling me 22% (and actually more) is "extremely unlikely" and not worth worrying about?
Second, ask the average person this: "We have ten murderers. If we let them free, between 2 and 3, at least, other innocent people will be violently attacked within five years, and the number goes up from there. Is it worth letting these murderers free?" and they will not say yes.
Each person on this study is an individual with their own situation, world view, mental health issues, etc. It makes no sense to create blanket policies for all of them (coughcommiescough), that's why they're tried and sentenced separately, why differenct people can get different sentences for the same charges, and why the parole board reviews on a case by case basis.
Say you take 10 people in prison for violent crimes. Say 5 of them got into fights at the bar that got out of hand, 2 were altercations in a parking lot, two were gangbangers, and the last one eats people. Do we just let them all out because 70% are unlikely to reoffend?
I'd say that a loving husband and father who murders his wife after she cheats on him and fucks him out of his money and his house and his children in a rigged divorce court is really unlikely to re-offend, but I'll bet they have a very different opinion about that sort of murderer.
We all know which murderers they want walking the streets; The drug gangs, the armed robbers, the reprobates, the scum of the earth the whole world rightly executed until a few decades ago.
Would they be legally liable if the people they get out on bail were to re-offend, I wonder?
I don't know how your bail works exactly but in Canada, when you post bail, you only actually pay like 5% of the posted bail. If the person you're bailing out pulls any shit then you're on the hook for the full amount.
Do you think this group has opened themselves to a civil suit by the victims families?
Cuz by the time they get out they're fucking old.
First of all, the numbers don't show that they're extremely unlikely to commit a crime, they at best show that they're 22% likely to be re-arrested within 5 years for a violent crime. Not all crimes are solved, and not all crimes are even reported, especially in the sorts of places these people likely live, and five years is not much of a window. So the actual number is higher, maybe a lot higher. And if the last few years of wuhan virus hysteria has taught me anything, it's that even a <1% chance of a negative outcome is apparently worth shutting down society over. But now you're telling me 22% (and actually more) is "extremely unlikely" and not worth worrying about?
Second, ask the average person this: "We have ten murderers. If we let them free, between 2 and 3, at least, other innocent people will be violently attacked within five years, and the number goes up from there. Is it worth letting these murderers free?" and they will not say yes.
I think this is a flagrant misuse of statistics.
Each person on this study is an individual with their own situation, world view, mental health issues, etc. It makes no sense to create blanket policies for all of them (coughcommiescough), that's why they're tried and sentenced separately, why differenct people can get different sentences for the same charges, and why the parole board reviews on a case by case basis.
Say you take 10 people in prison for violent crimes. Say 5 of them got into fights at the bar that got out of hand, 2 were altercations in a parking lot, two were gangbangers, and the last one eats people. Do we just let them all out because 70% are unlikely to reoffend?
I'd say that a loving husband and father who murders his wife after she cheats on him and fucks him out of his money and his house and his children in a rigged divorce court is really unlikely to re-offend, but I'll bet they have a very different opinion about that sort of murderer.
We all know which murderers they want walking the streets; The drug gangs, the armed robbers, the reprobates, the scum of the earth the whole world rightly executed until a few decades ago.
Most people are also "extremely unlikely" to commit a homicide.
We'd need some numbers to compare ideally.
Dumbases can't tell the difference between a Robert Latimer and a Clifford Olsen.
Would they be legally liable if the people they get out on bail were to re-offend, I wonder?
I don't know how your bail works exactly but in Canada, when you post bail, you only actually pay like 5% of the posted bail. If the person you're bailing out pulls any shit then you're on the hook for the full amount.
Do you think this group has opened themselves to a civil suit by the victims families?
"Oh, I love this truck with an extendable lift bucket! It helps me reach all the 'right' conclusions."
Murderers belong in prison because they don't deserve to be free. I don't care whether or not they are likely to re-offend.
Darrell Brooks was one such case.
Very unlikely, goy! Just let them all out.
Great, let's release Derek Chauvin, Anders Brevik, and James Fields.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
So they will campaing to keep child molesters in jail forever? ( nearly all will molest kids again ).