What Happens When You Suggest A Violent Criminal Should Be Kept in Jail?
Strangulation and aggravated assault do not, according to some, constitute crimes enough to keep someone locked up for the safety of those they have pledged to kill
For days, people have been arguing on my Twitter feed about when someone who’s proven to be a recidivistic violent criminal should be kept behind bars. This, in response to the murder of Rachael Abraham, whose killer, her former common-law husband, beat and strangled Abraham numerous times and was repeatedly released for no-bail. After the third arrest, a judge imposed bail - not for the assault and strangulation charges, but contempt of court. A private bail fund bailed him out, for $2000, after which he made good on his promise to kill Abraham. Sample comment:
The argument seems to be that poor people should not be held in jail because they cannot afford bail and, extending that argument, that people like me who believe he should have been kept in jail because he was a clear threat, are somehow prejudice against poor people, or racist, or both. This assumes, I guess, that had the would-be killer been rich, I would have been fine with him being offered the opportunity to bail himself out, which is absurd. I don’t think anyone who poses a clear and repeated threat to another individual, or society as a whole, should be allowed to walk free until they get help or are otherwise no longer deemed a serious threat. It eludes me that this is not obvious. But let’s take a look as to how it is not:
So round-and-round we go, albeit I do not disagree that the judge who granted bail was hugely irresponsible. I don’t care if the would-be killer had as much money as Elon Musk; he should have not been let out of jail.
People have accused the commenter on the Twitter thread of being a troll. I don’t think so. I think her tolerance for the violence of others is informed by a sense of duty to people who’ve historically been given an unfair deal and in some cases continue to be. What do you think? And if you’ve been following this story, what else do you want to know?
"I think her tolerance for the violence of others is informed by a sense of duty to people who’ve historically been given an unfair deal and in some cases continue to be."
This is probably an accurate take. But the person has mischaracterized your argument, is not arguing in good faith. It's annoying because the person appears to be interacting rationally but they're not, they're ignoring the big picture.
Schmokeweeed420 (and others actors in this tale apparently) is committing the logical fallacy of applying the statistical properties of a group to an individual in it. Accept for argument's sake the statistical trends that Schmokeweeed420 and others appear to be citing, namely that if you are poor, etc., you are more likely to be sent to jail. Mohammed Adan was poor. Ok. That may lead the judge and the private Portland bail fund, knowing statistically being poor Adan may be getting a raw deal, to look into his case more closely. But still Adan and Michelle Abraham are individuals. Their case should be evaluated irrespective of their social or economic class since the law does not and should not distinguish. Take the case on face value and it is clear that since Adan continued to make threats against Abraham, he should have been kept in jail. One could argue that the source of the statistical wrong is that bail is not set based upon the wealth of the person, in spite of one of its purposes being to prevent flight, but that is only one element to consider. And in this case, it is clear that the threats by Adan overrides that consideration.