The mayor used a series of examples to make the case that we need higher bonds for people charged with gun crimes. But argument by anecdote can be deceptive:
The mayor recited (I think) six instances (maybe eight?) of people who were arrested on gun charges, released fairly quickly, and went on to be arrested for new serious charges soon after. If that were the whole universe of gun arrests, his would be a compelling argument.
But that is not all the gun arrests. In 2017, for example, Hartford had 400 serious gun crime convictions (murders + robberies + aggravated assaults), per data from the Office of Legislative Research:
Let's assume, then, that there are 400 gun crime arrests per year (it's actually more, since this table doesn't include convictions for simple possession or arrests that don't lead to convictions, but let's underestimate to be safe).
If there were ten times as many instances of quick reoffending as the eight that the mayor related, 80 altogether, we'd still be talking about 20% of all arrestees. But we don't know which 20% it will be, so we have to set high bonds for everyone.
That means that to prevent reoffense by that 20%, we have to detain the other 80% needlessly. What happens to our community then?
People lose their jobs, their housing, and sometimes custody of their kids. Ripples of instability move outward, from individual to family to community, creating exactly the kind of conditions that we know lead to more violent crime.
And the thing is, we actually know the number of arrestees classified as "high risk" who commit new offenses while awaiting trial. It's not 20%. It's under 10%.
This is why bail reform is widely popular: because widespread pre-trial detention doesn't make communities safer; it destabilizes them.
I give @MayorBronin credit for being, on the whole, honest about the challenges the city faces and the causes of violence, inasmuch as we know them.
And he's in a tough position: most of the causes of violence are outside our borders and control, and most of the solutions require more resources and broader reach than the city has. But let's not take a step backward by calling for more pre-trial detention.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The other day, @constanz_a was pointing out how much room this story makes for this guy's humanity and how little it makes for the humanity of the people who bought the guns:
I mean, here's how the dude is described and referred to:
The folks who bought the guns, on the other hand? Do they have children? Are they driven by addiction or other factors? We will never know.
With COVID spiking, our president is on a run of unmasked rallies; already overpoliced, our cities are responding to a rash of shootings with... more cops. More than ever, the US is like a couple that tries to solve incessant fighting by getting married. So let's read Vows!
Look, I do not want to underestimate to weight of everyone's lived experience, but 210,000 people dead from a respiratory illness might win here.
OK! Is this how the Times says that several Fs went down?
The panelists are the Mayor, the City Council President, the two top cops, and a prosecutor. I would gently suggest that that is not a well-rounded group to address gun violence in a poor city. But let's see how the conversation goes.
The mayor did shout out the many community groups who are doing work around the issue in the city.
The decision not to indict the cops who killed Breonna Taylor is clearly garbage. AND it is a really good example of how American policing has not only created a culture that encourages and reinforces individual racism, but also built systems that (1/14)
2. facilitate the imposition of racism on Black people *even without* individual racism. Now understand, I'm not trying to excuse the cops who did this or to say anything about them as people. But if we say that their culpability turns on whether they knocked and announced...
3. before going into her apartment, we're missing a big part of the thing: NO-KNOCK WARRANTS ARE AN ORDINARY PART OF MODERN LAW ENFORCEMENT; PRE-DAWN WARRANT EXECUTIONS ARE AN ORDINARY PART OF MODERN LAW ENFORCEMENT.
If this feels racist (it should), think about whether it's really that different from saying that a residency requirement in an 82% Black and Latinx city is keeping you from hiring qualified city government department heads.
And let me be clear: I'm not saying that supporting the change in Hartford residency rules = racist intent. I'm saying it is an embrace of a concept of talent and qualifications that is rooted in structurally racist gatekeeping.
If you believe all groups of people, including the people who live in Hartford, have a fundamentally equal distribution of intellect and talent, then to say that Hartford lacks enough qualified candidates is to recognize the difference between qualification and actual ability.
The thing that bothers me about the GOP's use of power is not the use of power; it's the million and one bullshit justifications. Just say, "We can't get electoral majorities, but this system allows us to rule without them, so that's what we're doing."
Like, these knucklehead triumphalists are out here saying "elections have consequences," BUT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF ELECTIONS TO BE.
It actually lines up pretty nicely with their understanding of the relationship between wealth and virtue. Being rich proves you did something right and are virtuous; holding office proves you have legitimacy. (Thanks, @flawlesswalrus; couldn't RT you, but you said this.)