Waukesha WI - Christmas Parade Attacked by Driver (Darrell Brooks Jr) in an SUV (2 Viewers)

[John123]

These bail discussions are interesting because everyone wants this guy kept in jail. But that's not the purpose of bail. The purpose of bail is to ensure he shows up for his trial. 

Remember, this guy had not yet been found guilty of anything. We can't just throw him in jail (and keep him there) because we think he's a bad guy.

We can, and should, if he has a rap sheet 10 miles long with a lot of violent offenses going back 20 years:

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/DOJ-WORCS.pdf

 

[Coach Morris Buttermaker]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59369492

CNN isn't doing anything.  That's what an officer is apparently telling people and it's being reported everywhere.  

The race to find out it is 'terrorism' is a ratings boom unfortunately

There was no pursuit, never had been a confirmed report of a pursuit. Its a false narrative that was just disproved by the police chief.  The guy intentionally mowed down a parade of innocent people, we don't know the motive yet. 

 

[whoknew]

We can, and should, if he has a rap sheet 10 miles long with a lot of violent offenses going back 20 years:

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/DOJ-WORCS.pdf

I mean - we have a Constitution. We aren't supposed to just violate it when we don't like someone.

 

[djmich]

Interesting Take

 

[John123]

I mean - we have a Constitution. We aren't supposed to just violate it when we don't like someone.

I'm sure any of the lawyers here will tell you that holding someone without bail is not unconstitutional when a judge determines it is appropriate.  Did you read that rap sheet?  After doing so, are you seriously saying you would still release him on $1000 bail?

 

[whoknew]

I'm sure any of the lawyers here will tell you that holding someone without bail is not unconstitutional when a judge determines it is appropriate.  Did you read that rap sheet?  After doing so, are you seriously saying you would still release him on $1000 bail?

But the judge's appropriateness calculation isn't based on whether he belongs in jail. Its what kind of risk he will be to not show up at his trial. Now, of course, likelihood of conviction is weighed into that calculation. But the judge is not deciding whether to set bail because he thinks the guy sucks and belongs in prison. 

 

[Godsbrother]

Just came in here to see if the same guys are arguing about the same old stuff.  

Keep up the good work fellas!

 

[djmich]

But the judge's appropriateness calculation isn't based on whether he belongs in jail. Its what kind of risk he will be to not show up at his trial. Now, of course, likelihood of conviction is weighed into that calculation. But the judge is not deciding whether to set bail because he thinks the guy sucks and belongs in prison. 

Are you saying you think the bail amount was appropriate?  Probably easiest way to parse through the clutter.

 

[John123]

But the judge's appropriateness calculation isn't based on whether he belongs in jail. Its what kind of risk he will be to not show up at his trial. Now, of course, likelihood of conviction is weighed into that calculation. But the judge is not deciding whether to set bail because he thinks the guy sucks and belongs in prison. 

Danger to the community and previous record of the accused are factors judges consider when deciding on bail.  It's not just about making sure you show up for court.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But the judge's appropriateness calculation isn't based on whether he belongs in jail. Its what kind of risk he will be to not show up at his trial. Now, of course, likelihood of conviction is weighed into that calculation. But the judge is not deciding whether to set bail because he thinks the guy sucks and belongs in prison. 

Also, the overwhelming majority of people who commit crimes (even violent crimes) don't kill a bunch of people while out on bail.  Obviously this situation sucks, but it's not obvious that the "solution" should be incarcerating more people before having been found guilty of anything.  

To be clear, I'm not opposed to cash bail as a matter of general principle, and I'm positive there are some folks out there who don't deserve bail regardless.  I'm just sympathetic to the idea that maybe this system should be liberalized a bit on the margin.  

 

[gruecd]

I'm not sure how much George Soros has to do with John Chisholm, who has run unopposed in Milwaukee County for the past several elections - going back probably over 10 years at least.  I don't think he even has to campaign. It would be nice to see some opposition and some new ideas. Like most politicians, I'd say he's done some things I agree with and some I don't like at all since I moved here in 2007.  He is a strong proponent of bail reform, which is a particularly hot issue right now given the massive caseload and backlog in the criminal courts.

I would think most agree this case is an example of a need for some type of bail reform. At the same time, cases on the extreme like this one are rarely a good reason to make massive knee-jerk changes in criminal procedure. It appears from the official communication from Chisholm's office that this was a prosecutor's mistake - asking for an unacceptable low cash bail under the circumstances. I am personally against cash bail, as it obviously criminalizes poverty. The difficulty is that its hard to hold people in jail pending a trial given the constitutional presumption of innocence. As noted in the FFA thread, we have a recent case in Wisconsin where an innocent young man would have spent the past year in jail had he not been fortunate to raise a $2mil cash bail through donations. 

I feel for the unjustly accused/charged, but let’s be honest — 99.9% of the people in jail belong there. I’ll accept “criminalizing poverty” (whatever that means) or putting the rare innocent man in jail if it prevents what happened yesterday. Lesser of two evils, if you ask me.

 

[whoknew]

Are you saying you think the bail amount was appropriate?  Probably easiest way to parse through the clutter.

I have no idea. I don't know all the factors considered. Here's what is supposed to be considered (I think - not a WI lawyer) - 

• the ability of the arrested person to give bail,
  
• the nature, number and gravity of the offenses and the potential penalty the defendant faces,
  
• whether the alleged acts were violent in nature,
  
• the defendant's prior record of criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications, if any,
  
• the character, health, residence and reputation of the defendant,
  
• the character and strength of the evidence which has been presented to the judge,
  
• whether the defendant is currently on probation, extended supervision or parole,
  
• whether the defendant is already on bail or subject to other release conditions in other pending cases,
  
• whether the defendant has been bound over for trial after a preliminary examination,
  
• whether the defendant has in the past forfeited bail or violated a condition of release or was a fugitive from justice at the time of arrest, and
  
• the policy against unnecessary detention of the defendant's pending trial.
  

 

[Dickies]

Interesting Take

Ooooooof

 

[djmich]

I have no idea. I don't know all the factors considered. Here's what is supposed to be considered (I think - not a WI lawyer) - 

• the ability of the arrested person to give bail,
  
• the nature, number and gravity of the offenses and the potential penalty the defendant faces,
  
• whether the alleged acts were violent in nature,
  
• the defendant's prior record of criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications, if any,
  
• the character, health, residence and reputation of the defendant,
  
• the character and strength of the evidence which has been presented to the judge,
  
• whether the defendant is currently on probation, extended supervision or parole,
  
• whether the defendant is already on bail or subject to other release conditions in other pending cases,
  
• whether the defendant has been bound over for trial after a preliminary examination,
  
• whether the defendant has in the past forfeited bail or violated a condition of release or was a fugitive from justice at the time of arrest, and
  
• the policy against unnecessary detention of the defendant's pending trial.
  

OK, I think its reasonable for someone to conclude based on those bullets that we wouldn't be ripping up the constitution to believe that $1,000 bail in this case was inadequate...no?

 

[whoknew]

Danger to the community and previous record of the accused are factors judges consider when deciding on bail.  It's not just about making sure you show up for court.

That's not true. So right from the WI statute - 

"Bail may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe that bail is necessary to assure appearance in court."

Now, as I wrote above, some of the factors you mentioned can be considered when determining how much bail would be. And (apparently) the judge can set certain conditions of release to protect the public. Like, for example, maybe the judge should have forbade him from driving.

 

[whoknew]

OK, I think its reasonable for someone to conclude based on those bullets that we wouldn't be ripping up the constitution to believe that $1,000 bail in this case was inadequate...no?

Definitely possible. I don't really know. And, the judge could have set conditions on his release.

 

[Insein]

That's not true. So right from the WI statute - 

"Bail may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe that bail is necessary to assure appearance in court."

Now, as I wrote above, some of the factors you mentioned can be considered when determining how much bail would be. And (apparently) the judge can set certain conditions of release to protect the public. Like, for example, maybe the judge should have forbade him from driving.

They doesn't mean he wouldn't have drove but I guess it's a nice gesture. 

 

[Sabertooth]

When I think of "middle", the word "Sabertooth" doesn't come to mind either. 

I would think not.  Your view is very skewed by the conservative propaganda stating anything left of Paul Gosar is a liberal.  

 

[Sabertooth]

I don’t really care if there’s a thread here because hopefully that ensures the FFA thread is just about the story - but I will say that even having a thread in the PSF is speculation on things we don’t know.  Unless this was some kind of coordinated attack then no matter this persons motivation I will chalk it up to that person being crazy and just a horrible human being - and that won’t change if I find out he’s a R or a D or neither.

Yup. Same. 

 

[Sabertooth]

We can, and should, if he has a rap sheet 10 miles long with a lot of violent offenses going back 20 years:

https://heavy.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/DOJ-WORCS.pdf

But I thought you were saying innocent until proven guilty just last week?  You are starting to sound like Trump with his “take the guns first and then due process.” 
 

 

[parasaurolophus]

That's not true. So right from the WI statute - 

"Bail may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe that bail is necessary to assure appearance in court."

Now, as I wrote above, some of the factors you mentioned can be considered when determining how much bail would be. And (apparently) the judge can set certain conditions of release to protect the public. Like, for example, maybe the judge should have forbade him from driving.

Bail can be denied due to the person being considered dangerous. 

That should be used more often for repeat offenders. 

We also should lock more people up that are out on bail for other crimes and get picked up for new crimes.

Since the statute you quoted sets such a thing as a requirement. 

 

[John123]

That's not true. So right from the WI statute - 

"Bail may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe that bail is necessary to assure appearance in court."

Now, as I wrote above, some of the factors you mentioned can be considered when determining how much bail would be. And (apparently) the judge can set certain conditions of release to protect the public. Like, for example, maybe the judge should have forbade him from driving.

It would be nice if you'd cite exactly what you're quoting.  For example, if you read section 969.035 of the Wisconsin statutes on bail, it says :
 

969.035  Pretrial detention; denial of release from custody.

(2) A circuit court may deny release from custody under this section to any of the following persons:

(a) A person accused of committing an offense under s. 940.01, 940.225 (1), 948.02 (1) or (2), 948.025, or 948.085.

(b) A person accused of committing or attempting to commit a violent crime and the person has a previous conviction for committing or attempting to commit a violent crime.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/969

Subsection (b) would seem to apply in this case.

 

[BladeRunner]

I would think not.  Your view is very skewed by the conservative propaganda stating anything left of Paul Gosar is a liberal.  

As usual, you're just making stuff up as you go along.   Par for the course.

I find it very amusing and ironic that you, Sabertooth, are accusing others of listening to propaganda.  The Rittenhouse thread alone definitely proved that YOU, in fact, were the one listening to it. 

 

[John123]

But I thought you were saying innocent until proven guilty just last week?  You are starting to sound like Trump with his “take the guns first and then due process.” 
 

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Snotbubbles]

That's not true. So right from the WI statute - 

"Bail may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe that bail is necessary to assure appearance in court."

Now, as I wrote above, some of the factors you mentioned can be considered when determining how much bail would be. And (apparently) the judge can set certain conditions of release to protect the public. Like, for example, maybe the judge should have forbade him from driving.

Sound great.  Maybe a judge should have forbade him from committing any additional crimes.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

I mean - we have a Constitution. We aren't supposed to just violate it when we don't like someone.

Denying bail or revoking bail is not unconstitutional. 

 

[Dickies]

I'm sure any of the lawyers here will tell you that holding someone without bail is not unconstitutional when a judge determines it is appropriate.  Did you read that rap sheet?  After doing so, are you seriously saying you would still release him on $1000 bail?

I would like to see a topic created regarding bail reform because I am of the strong belief that we set bail way too high in this country and it disproportionately affects poor people.  My understanding of the bail system is that it's just used as an incentive to make them return for court/trial.  It's easy in hindsight to say that this guy should not have been released on $1,000 bail, but it seems reasonable to me if this is a typical amount for bail to be set at.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I feel for the unjustly accused/charged, but let’s be honest — 99.9% of the people in jail belong there. I’ll accept “criminalizing poverty” (whatever that means) or putting the rare innocent man in jail if it prevents what happened yesterday. Lesser of two evils, if you ask me.

Understood.  The only point is that a bail hearing by definition takes place before a plea or trial, so the accused is still entitled to a presumption of innocence. We can agree the great majority of incarcerated prisoners are in fact guilty and deserve their sentence. The "criminalizing poverty" part just means that with a cash bail system, wealthy people get out pending adjudication whereas poor people don't. In a perfect world, an accused's wealth shouldn't be a factor in that part of the process. I don't think anyone disputes that. You can't ask judges to assess guilt/innocence at a bail hearing.

If yesterday is your sole reference point - well sure, we put every accused person in jail until they've proven their innocence or served their time, constitution be damned.  If we use last week as a reference, we probably reach a different conclusion.

 

[identikit]

I have no idea. I don't know all the factors considered. Here's what is supposed to be considered (I think - not a WI lawyer) - 

• the ability of the arrested person to give bail,
  
• the nature, number and gravity of the offenses and the potential penalty the defendant faces,
  
• whether the alleged acts were violent in nature,
  
• the defendant's prior record of criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications, if any,
  
• the character, health, residence and reputation of the defendant,
  
• the character and strength of the evidence which has been presented to the judge,
  
• whether the defendant is currently on probation, extended supervision or parole,
  
• whether the defendant is already on bail or subject to other release conditions in other pending cases,
  
• whether the defendant has been bound over for trial after a preliminary examination,
  
• whether the defendant has in the past forfeited bail or violated a condition of release or was a fugitive from justice at the time of arrest, and
  
• the policy against unnecessary detention of the defendant's pending trial.
  

Glad to see that there's a lot more than just one thing to consider...

 

[Sabertooth]

Glad to see that there's a lot more than just one thing to consider...

Who knew right?  

 

[whoknew]

Denying bail or revoking bail is not unconstitutional. 

Right. But as I wrote above, the consideration for having bail is not whether we think he's a bad guy and belongs in jail. Its whether we think he will show up for trial.

 

[whoknew]

It would be nice if you'd cite exactly what you're quoting.  For example, if you read section 969.035 of the Wisconsin statutes on bail, it says :
 

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/969

Subsection (b) would seem to apply in this case.

Link

 

[Sabertooth]

As usual, you're just making stuff up as you go along.   Par for the course.

I find it very amusing and ironic that you, Sabertooth, are accusing others of listening to propaganda.  The Rittenhouse thread alone definitely proved that YOU, in fact, were the one listening to it. 

Lol. You’d be surprised how little I listen to anything besides football.  

 

[BladeRunner]

Lol. You’d be surprised how little I listen to anything besides football.  

Cool.  Then I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making stuff up. 

 

[GordonGekko]

Can we now ask if Biden's reaction to the Rittenhouse verdict emboldened this guy?  

Direct Headline: Illinois Democratic staffer MOCKS Waukesha SUV tragedy that killed 5

Alex Hammer and Jennifer Smith 11/22/21

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/illinois-democratic-staffer-mocks-waukesha-suv-tragedy-that-killed-5/ar-AAR00oy

Screenshot Of Lemanski's Twitter

Direct Headline: Illinois Dem blasted for calling Wisconsin Christmas rampage ‘karma’

By Yaron Steinbuch November 22, 2021 8:51am

https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/illinois-dem-calls-wisconsin-christmas-rampage-karma/

******

That's a hard assessment to make. But the media spin and the inciting rhetoric and dog whistling is a clear media strategy.

Mary Lemanski of Illinois engages in egregious behavior designed to promote open tyranny. She is not a Tier 1 level media optics operative like I am, but she should still know better. I expect civilians to not understand the kind of neck deep messes they are getting into when they spout things off on social media, but people actually in the game have implied duties and obligations to their craft and to the public at large.

If you look at recorded human history, any ideological purge had a 2nd wave that were wiped out quickly. Those were always the moderates. Conservatives and Republicans will put up a fight before being slaughtered. Moderates will have their throats cut from behind. That's just how authoritarian regimes operate and these are  the tactics they've always used.

For any moderates in here. Once you see all the Conservatives and Republicans around you wiped out, and their children wiped out for good measure, you might think it will end there, but historical precedent says it's just a quiet before the storm. Then all you moderates will be next. Point to note about actual ethnic cleansing that you don't get to read in history books. Soldiers are not wired like robots to start executing their own people. This causes massive issues in morale, emotional disturbance, desertion and is seen as a waste of manpower and resources ( authoritarian regimes are usually waging war or brokering more war somewhere eventually) So they tend to co-opt sympathizers like how the SonderKommando were used and they bury their victims alive. It's the cheapest and most cost effective way, without a massive impact on troop morale, to effect widespread ethnic cleansing.

My take? For the moderates in here, if this kind of madness keeps going on this same track and at this same speed, be prepared to see your neighbors standing over you with a shovel. If you are lucky, your children will only be reassigned for "reeducation." However history has shown us many are often sold into sexual slavery.

That's the forecast when the roller coaster finally picks up some speed. No one can say they weren't warned.

 

[dkp993]

, we don't know the motive yet.

I’d say he’s not mentally stable. Everything else is window dressing. 

 

[identikit]

Right. But as I wrote above, the consideration for having bail is not whether we think he's a bad guy and belongs in jail. Its whether we think he will show up for trial.

There's not just one thing to consider.

But you keep saying it

 

[Joe Bryant]

Direct Headline: Illinois Democratic staffer MOCKS Waukesha SUV tragedy that killed 5

Alex Hammer and Jennifer Smith 11/22/21

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/illinois-democratic-staffer-mocks-waukesha-suv-tragedy-that-killed-5/ar-AAR00oy

Screenshot Of Lemanski's Twitter

Direct Headline: Illinois Dem blasted for calling Wisconsin Christmas rampage ‘karma’

By Yaron Steinbuch November 22, 2021 8:51am

https://nypost.com/2021/11/22/illinois-dem-calls-wisconsin-christmas-rampage-karma/

******

Awful. 

 

[John123]

I would like to see a topic created regarding bail reform because I am of the strong belief that we set bail way too high in this country and it disproportionately affects poor people.  My understanding of the bail system is that it's just used as an incentive to make them return for court/trial.  It's easy in hindsight to say that this guy should not have been released on $1,000 bail, but it seems reasonable to me if this is a typical amount for bail to be set at.

That would be a good discussion.  I certainly am not in favor of keeping people in jail because they can't afford bail if we are reasonably sure they will show up for court.  In this case, with this rap sheet, it seems like a no brainer that bail should have either been denied or a much larger amount with other conditions such as home detention attached.

 

[gruecd]

Right. But as I wrote above, the consideration for having bail is not whether we think he's a bad guy and belongs in jail. Its whether we think he will show up for trial.

Or whether a career criminal who's already facing charges for domestic violence and running someone over with a car might be likely to re-offend and put the public at risk.  

 

[whoknew]

There's not just one thing to consider.

But you keep saying it

But it is just one thing. From the WI statute - 

"Bail may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe that bail is necessary to assure appearance in court."

But those other things are considered when determining how much to set the bail and whether other conditions of release should be set.

 

[BladeRunner]

That would be a good discussion.  I certainly am not in favor of keeping people in jail because they can't afford bail if we are reasonably sure they will show up for court.  In this case, with this rap sheet, it seems like a no brainer that bail should have either been denied or a much larger amount with other conditions such as home detention attached.

To be honest, if you have a rap sheet a mile long - heck even 1 page long - should you EVER be considered for bail?  Would they even listen to home detention?  Show up for hearing?  You've already proven that you don't give two s###s about the law.

I think once you get past one page or have a serious criminal offense, bail should be off the table.

 

[gruecd]

I would like to see a topic created regarding bail reform because I am of the strong belief that we set bail way too high in this country and it disproportionately affects poor people.  My understanding of the bail system is that it's just used as an incentive to make them return for court/trial.  It's easy in hindsight to say that this guy should not have been released on $1,000 bail, but it seems reasonable to me if this is a typical amount for bail to be set at.

The DA's own office admitted it was a mistake.  Not that it will bring anyone's lives back, but commence with the civil suits.

 

[gruecd]

To be honest, if you have a rap sheet a mile long - heck even 1 page long - can you EVER be considered for bail?  Would they even listen to home detention?  Show up for hearing?

I think once you get past one page or have a serious criminal offense, bail should be off the table.

I couldn't possibly agree more.  Have a rap sheet like his and you forfeit the privilege of bail being granted.

 

[identikit]

But it is just one thing. From the WI statute - 

"Bail may be imposed at or after the initial appearance only upon a finding by the court that there is a reasonable basis to believe that bail is necessary to assure appearance in court."

But those other things are considered when determining how much to set the bail and whether other conditions of release should be set.

Or whether there's any bail at all...

Still not one thing

 

[CletiusMaximus]

1 hour ago, CletiusMaximus said:
I'm not sure how much George Soros has to do with John Chisholm, who has run unopposed in Milwaukee County for the past several elections - going back probably over 10 years at least.  I don't think he even has to campaign. It would be nice to see some opposition and some new ideas. Like most politicians, I'd say he's done some things I agree with and some I don't like at all since I moved here in 2007.  He is a strong proponent of bail reform, which is a particularly hot issue right now given the massive caseload and backlog in the criminal courts.

I would think most agree this case is an example of a need for some type of bail reform. At the same time, cases on the extreme like this one are rarely a good reason to make massive knee-jerk changes in criminal procedure. It appears from the official communication from Chisholm's office that this was a prosecutor's mistake - asking for an unacceptable low cash bail under the circumstances. I am personally against cash bail, as it obviously criminalizes poverty. The difficulty is that its hard to hold people in jail pending a trial given the constitutional presumption of innocence. As noted in the FFA thread, we have a recent case in Wisconsin where an innocent young man would have spent the past year in jail had he not been fortunate to raise a $2mil cash bail through donations. 
Expand  

I wonder how many more "mistakes" they've made that we'll only hear about if people die.

I would guess many prosecutors make mistakes like this all the time and yes, they almost never become news. I have a friend who's been a prosecutor here for about 20 years and he is on a run of having at least 2 trials a month since the beginning of the year. For comparison, most civil litigators I know almost never have more than 2 or 3 trials in a year at most. Its extremely likely the prosecutor in this case did not even see this guy's file until he was in the courtroom that day. There really should be no surprise these guys frequently overcharge, hide or misplace exculpatory evidence, etc. and the entire system is based on pleas and agreements, which the judges most often rubber-stamp.  

For what its worth, the judge who approved bail in this case is a former DA in Milwaukee County, also worked as a parole and probation officer for the Department of Corrections. She was appointed to the bench by our former governor Scott Walker, then lost her bid for reelection before winning an election in 2017 in which she was broadly endorsed by politicians and lawyers on the left and right.  

 

[gruecd]

I would guess many prosecutors make mistakes like this all the time and yes, they almost never become news. I have a friend who's been a prosecutor here for about 20 years and he is on a run of having at least 2 trials a month since the beginning of the year. For comparison, most civil litigators I know almost never have more than 2 or 3 trials in a year at most. Its extremely likely the prosecutor in this case did not even see this guy's file until he was in the courtroom that day. There really should be no surprise these guys frequently overcharge, hide or misplace exculpatory evidence, etc. and the entire system is based on pleas and agreements, which the judges most often rubber-stamp.  

For what its worth, the judge who approved bail in this case is a former DA in Milwaukee County, also worked as a parole and probation officer for the Department of Corrections. She was appointed to the bench by our former governor Scott Walker, then lost her bid for reelection before winning an election in 2017 in which she was broadly endorsed by politicians and lawyers on the left and right.  

Well maybe they should start paying closer attention, because now they all have blood on their hands.  And they have to live with it the rest of their lives.

 

[John123]

To be honest, if you have a rap sheet a mile long - heck even 1 page long - should you EVER be considered for bail?  Would they even listen to home detention?  Show up for hearing?  You've already proven that you don't give two s###s about the law.

I think once you get past one page or have a serious criminal offense, bail should be off the table.

See, we need to get past this either/or mentality.  Every case is different and 99% of them are gonna be in a grey area.  This case is clear, at least to me, that he should have either had severe restrictions with monitoring and high bail, or denied bail period.  But just having a long rap sheet in and of itself doesn't make you a danger to society or a flight risk.   For example, a prostitute that gets arrested every few months, shows up for court, does her penance, and then gets arrested over and over again?  She's not a danger to the community and she's not a flight risk.  Now, I may be biased by my belief that prostitution should be legal, but I don't see how denying her bail just because she's been arrested a number of times is the right course of action.

 

[identikit]

I have no idea. I don't know all the factors considered. Here's what is supposed to be considered (I think - not a WI lawyer) - 

• the ability of the arrested person to give bail,
  
• the nature, number and gravity of the offenses and the potential penalty the defendant faces,
  
• whether the alleged acts were violent in nature,
  
• the defendant's prior record of criminal convictions and delinquency adjudications, if any,
  
• the character, health, residence and reputation of the defendant,
  
• the character and strength of the evidence which has been presented to the judge,
  
• whether the defendant is currently on probation, extended supervision or parole,
  
• whether the defendant is already on bail or subject to other release conditions in other pending cases,
  
• whether the defendant has been bound over for trial after a preliminary examination,
  
• whether the defendant has in the past forfeited bail or violated a condition of release or was a fugitive from justice at the time of arrest, and
  
• the policy against unnecessary detention of the defendant's pending trial.
  

See?

Not just one thing

There's 11 things right here...

 

[whoknew]

See?

Not just one thing

There's 11 things right here...

Right. But the entire point of those 11 factors are to determine whether bail is required to ensure the defendant shows up for trial.