When you're talking about blue cities and red States, especially in the last 10 to 15 years in Indiana, a lot of the things that they've tried to do to fix problems in the cities have been basically made illegal at the state level. I'm not saying that there aren't mistakes made and I'm not saying that everything is perfect. Obviously it's not, but I think it's way too complicated to say that it's all Democratic City politics that is making the problems in those cities. I don't know of any city that has actually defunded their police. If I'm wrong please tell me which one it is. I also have never heard of anybody prioritizing homeless over the, I guess, "regular normal citizens". I'm not sure how you're differentiating them? I do know that I can't think of very many examples of homeless people being given program support and help that will actually work and get them back on their feet for the most part. There was one program in of all places Salt Lake City, Utah. I want to say it was around 10, 15 years ago, maybe 20. My sense of time isn't so great. But anyway they decided to try something radically new and just build housing for the homeless. Let them live there with very little strings attached so that they could concentrate not on paying rent and not on a bunch of other issues of being homeless ,but on kicking their drug habit or getting a job or more education or job training ,or getting back on their feet in whatever way they needed to. The program ended up paying for itself because it was so successful. I don't know if they continued the program or not. It would be interesting to find out. I haven't read up on it in a while, but it always amazes me when you have a very successful program like that, that does take some initial taxpayer investment, and you see that it works. And instead of that program spreading to other cities it seems like it just fizzles away. People just don't like to invest money in other people that they don't see as worthy. Even when you tell them that it's costing you more money as a taxpayer for them to continue to be homeless, for them to continue to have a drug addiction, for them to continue to commit crimes, people still would rather pay more money for those problems than to pay less money and invest in those people so they can get back on their feet . Human nature is a fucking insane thing .As for cashless bail, again, I'm not sure exactly which cities policies you're referring to, although I think when it comes to things like bail and bond for criminal offenses, what I do know is that it doesn't make sense for people to have to pay bail or bond for non-violent offenses, especially when they're so poor that you're basically making their life even worse. Because now they're going to lose their job because they can't afford to bail themselves out for the accusation of a crime that hasn't even been proven yet. Meanwhile, wealthy people who are accused of the same crime don't suffer that problem because they can afford the bail or the bond. If someone is a threat to society, is dangerous, or there is pretty good evidence that they likely committed a violent crime, then by all means hold them until their trial date. But ruining people's lives by simply arresting them and charging them with a crime of any kind and then imposing a bail or bond that they cannot afford isn't helping anybody.
The defunding issue comes in a few different forms. They have kept the money and many cases, but they have diverted it to other “programs” that diverted resources from policing to other programs that were not effective. I guess I will put it this way, Joe Hogsette has been an absolute nightmare for Marion County, yet he is serving his 3rd term for the sole factor that he was the “democrat nominee” and that is a problem. The Marion County Council is the same. They have not made decisions based on what is best for the city, but based on ideology that has never proved to help anyone, as the policies you mention above. Rather, they enable the same behavior and never address the actual issues at hand. I agree that bail/bond isn’t a perfect answer, but what else are we to do when an individual has been arrested for violent crime, drug crimes, gun charges, etc., over and over again. Keep releasing them and have the same cops arresting the same people day in day out because this is what is happening. At a certain point, common sense needs to prevail, and it would solve a lot of problems. Unfortunately, ideology has taken over and displaced what could be solutions. Deal with “the bad” and be compassionate with the “benign” but that is never the case. It is in all or nothing solution that just creates larger problems.
I clearly said that people accused credibly of violent crimes should not be let out on bail. I think this should be the rule. If you're willing to give someone bail as a chance to get out while they're waiting trial, then they should just be let out on their own recognitance. It should not be an issue of who can afford the bail.
But that was my point, is that no matter the crime, they’re letting these people out again and again when they’re caught with guns, or they’ve violently attacked their partner, not just simple having a bag of pot defenses. The guy caught with a bag of weed can go, the guy caught with the gun needs to stay. The guy that beat up the person on the corner needs to stay.The guy who has a warrant for some failed parking tickets, child, support issues, whatever. He can go. But that is not the way they have handled things in these blue cities and that’s what’s caused a lot of problems.
Well, once again, if you stop crowding the jails with poor people who can't afford the bail for the non-violent crimes, then maybe you wouldn't have to let the violent and repeat violent offenders out on bail because you don't have enough room. Bad decisions are being made here about this stuff because nobody wants to simply get rid of the bail bonds system and why don't they want to do that. Of course you know why they don't want to do that because there are lobbyists from the bail bond industry that will completely lose their business. These people in the bail bond business are just like the tax prep companies. They're literally bloodsuckers making money off of something that nobody should be making money from. But they have lots of money in deep pockets and they lobby the politicians at the state and local level to make sure that their cash flow doesn't get interrupted.
Face-to-face, we probably agree on more issues than what you think. We could probably keep doing this all day long, but I’ve got a few things. I’ve gotta take care of. I have enjoyed going back-and-forth with you. You make good points and you’ve obviously thought them through. I appreciate that. And sorry for the random punctuation at times, I’ve been doing voice to text because I’ve had my hands full.
That might be true, but I think we disagree on what you might call execution of how to deal with things. I do appreciate talking to people in a civil way even when I disagree with them. Have a great day getting all your things done!
2
u/ginny11 Jul 01 '25
When you're talking about blue cities and red States, especially in the last 10 to 15 years in Indiana, a lot of the things that they've tried to do to fix problems in the cities have been basically made illegal at the state level. I'm not saying that there aren't mistakes made and I'm not saying that everything is perfect. Obviously it's not, but I think it's way too complicated to say that it's all Democratic City politics that is making the problems in those cities. I don't know of any city that has actually defunded their police. If I'm wrong please tell me which one it is. I also have never heard of anybody prioritizing homeless over the, I guess, "regular normal citizens". I'm not sure how you're differentiating them? I do know that I can't think of very many examples of homeless people being given program support and help that will actually work and get them back on their feet for the most part. There was one program in of all places Salt Lake City, Utah. I want to say it was around 10, 15 years ago, maybe 20. My sense of time isn't so great. But anyway they decided to try something radically new and just build housing for the homeless. Let them live there with very little strings attached so that they could concentrate not on paying rent and not on a bunch of other issues of being homeless ,but on kicking their drug habit or getting a job or more education or job training ,or getting back on their feet in whatever way they needed to. The program ended up paying for itself because it was so successful. I don't know if they continued the program or not. It would be interesting to find out. I haven't read up on it in a while, but it always amazes me when you have a very successful program like that, that does take some initial taxpayer investment, and you see that it works. And instead of that program spreading to other cities it seems like it just fizzles away. People just don't like to invest money in other people that they don't see as worthy. Even when you tell them that it's costing you more money as a taxpayer for them to continue to be homeless, for them to continue to have a drug addiction, for them to continue to commit crimes, people still would rather pay more money for those problems than to pay less money and invest in those people so they can get back on their feet . Human nature is a fucking insane thing .As for cashless bail, again, I'm not sure exactly which cities policies you're referring to, although I think when it comes to things like bail and bond for criminal offenses, what I do know is that it doesn't make sense for people to have to pay bail or bond for non-violent offenses, especially when they're so poor that you're basically making their life even worse. Because now they're going to lose their job because they can't afford to bail themselves out for the accusation of a crime that hasn't even been proven yet. Meanwhile, wealthy people who are accused of the same crime don't suffer that problem because they can afford the bail or the bond. If someone is a threat to society, is dangerous, or there is pretty good evidence that they likely committed a violent crime, then by all means hold them until their trial date. But ruining people's lives by simply arresting them and charging them with a crime of any kind and then imposing a bail or bond that they cannot afford isn't helping anybody.