Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86
Are you sure about 60-70 people getting released back then? I think it's quite a bit more likely that roughly the same subset are being held without bail, they're just being held many times longer because the system is so far behind.
Eg if you had 121 people held for 1 month each in 1980 you'd have an average of 11 at a time.
If youu hold those same 121 people for 4.2 months before trial in 2024 then you're holding 42 people at a time.
One thought on that matter is that increasing court funding might actually save us money - get those who are acquitted out of custody and those who are convicted into a penitentiary. Fixes overcrowding in remand without building more jails.
|
Yeah, I worded that poorly. What I meant to say was of the 100 people in remand at any given time now, 60-70 would be out at that same point in time back then.
And you could also look at it in the inverse. Using your numbers, at any given time 110 of the 121 would be in the community in 1980 while only 79 would be now. Still a significant difference that is completely counter to people's impressions of the current bail system.
Also, my understanding is the average length of stay is only part of it, so the effect is greater than those numbers would suggest. I haven't come across recent data, but from the mid-80s until the early '00s (which represents most of the increase in the remand count), the average length of stay only increased marginally (about 20%). And most of that increase in median remand length is attributed to the fact that non-violent crime rates dropped faster than violent crime rates, so the latter (who are normally held longer) made up a higher proportion of detainees.
The fact is, conditional releases have always existed and the current system is less lax than it was in the past. Crime rates are down significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, yet the number of people being held without bail is up significantly.