This article is taking place in Philadelphia which is one of the United States Largest jail populations. What is happening has to due with serious illegal detaining of offenders. In all cases judges are suppose to approve the request to automatically have an offender detained in the proactive way of stopping future criminal activity from said offender. The bad thing about what Philadelphia is being accused of is that these parole officers are not getting these “automatic detainer requests”. The Chief Public Defender in Philly wrote a memo that mentioned that they are doing this to not only high risk violators, but as well as low risk slip up offenders who may have missed a court date. Due to this she mentioned that it is putting a huge burden on the prison system. I would have to completely agree with this statement. They are “needlessly incarcerating” people, as she puts it, and raising the population of the prison systems. Since we already have a huge population in prisons, I do not think this is something that should be looked over in any way. This has a huge impact on the system. A study showed that this is the reason that 31% of the local jail population in Philly is incarcerated. That is a large amount of the jail population. Automatic detainers without a proper hearing violates the law and these peoples right to a fair trial. Something has got to be done in Philadelphia. Re-incarcerating people for minor slip ups without authorization from a judge is so wr0ng in so many ways. One way they are trying to help this is by requiring a hearing with a judge with in seven days of the arrest. They are always wanting to have a defense lawyer notified when a violation is brought up so they can be properly prepared to defend their client. - ST789
This article is taking place in Philadelphia where some inmates due process rights might be taking advantage of. Keir Bradford Grey is the public defender that is fighting this circumstance. It is being stated that the probation procedures currently are incarating people for no need. It is being noticed that probation officers are having automatic detainer requests without the approval of a judge. Which is quite unbelievable that this is a problem. The problem is is that most people think you need a judges approval before that request which is not the case stated by another defense lawyer Carina Laguzzi. Most are being denied bail without getting a court hearing for months. To me this is unbelievable especially for the low level offenders. Even if most of this requests are for high-level offenders it still slips up and catches low level offenders which is not need. They are being detained for needless reasons. It has been shown that 31% of local jails are people who violated parole. Which considering some should be in there for slipping up to much but it should be based on the violation. I also agree with the fact about how many violations is to much and too little. Should there be a policy set for the amount of times you get to mess up? Or should it still be based on probation officer? There is a problem with it being based on probation officer because personal ties could be associated with it. Causing incarceration for people that it is not needed. Most believe it's unconstitutional which is possible that it is. There is also the argument that most probationary officers are already overworked and dealing with challenging individuals, that if you take away this right most won't have time to do the work that they do now. Which could be quite a problem in the future. Hollywood789
This article explained some very interesting info about a new thing called an “automatic detainer” policy, which allows for people to be locked up for things like probation violations and they do not receive proper hearings. Due to this new policy, more and more people are thrown behind bars every day, which means that this is adding to the problem of prison overcrowding and not making things any easier for the prison populations. Because of the parole and probation violations in the city of Philadelphia, thirty one percent of the local jail population is incarcerated. This is somewhat absurd because people are being incarcerated for any violation of their probation or parole. But what makes one violation more punishable than another? There needs to be some sort of guideline set that explains how if one violation is committed, no prison time will be required. However, certain other violations should result in incarceration. This needs to be figured out before the problem of overcrowding becomes too much to handle. Another stat from the article that stood out to me was when city and county detainers of all kinds are included, the figure jumps to more than fifty percent of Philadelphia’s jail population. This again brings up the problem of overcrowding. This new policy puts so many people behind bars without any sort of idea of how the prison size is changing in a negative way because of it. Also, people are mad with this policy because they claim that it is depriving them of their due process rights. These people who are incarcerated are locked up for thing such as probation violations without having proper hearings. Not only does this policy make the problem of overcrowding increase dramatically, it also seems to be taking certain rights away from people. This policy needs to be removed as it is only causing negatives. -Fozz789
I thought this article was very interesting. I think that everyone in the article brought up some good points, and that they should all be considered. I would agree with Keir Bradford-Grey that based on the article there are plenty of people being incarcerated that do not need to be incarcerated. The specific people that he is talking about here is the people on probation are being incarcerated when they should not be. They are also using automatic detainer requests without the permission of a judge. They are using this when people are high-risk, but they are also using this when people violate a non-violent technical part of the probation such as missing a payment or a meeting. Most of the time when these people are detained, they are put in a jail and often held for months before they can go to trial, and they are denied bail. Many of these people are in the jail and make up a big percentage of the population of the jail, so this is also causing a problem of overcrowding in the jails. It is hard to justify sending someone to jail for months, when all they did was miss a meeting or a payment. I think that the people should be held accountable for missing a meeting or payment and they should have to pay for that in some way, but it is not severe enough to justify sending them to jail. I also think that District Attorney Lynne Abraham makes a good point when they said that taking away their ability to automatically detain someone will make them have a lot less power and control over the person. Lynne also talked about how there will be bad people getting away if the ability to detain them right away is taken from probation officers. I think both sides make a good point, and that their needs to be a line when someone can or cannot be detained. -Dp789
This article is taking place in Philadelphia which is one of the United States Largest jail populations. What is happening has to due with serious illegal detaining of offenders. In all cases judges are suppose to approve the request to automatically have an offender detained in the proactive way of stopping future criminal activity from said offender. The bad thing about what Philadelphia is being accused of is that these parole officers are not getting these “automatic detainer requests”. The Chief Public Defender in Philly wrote a memo that mentioned that they are doing this to not only high risk violators, but as well as low risk slip up offenders who may have missed a court date. Due to this she mentioned that it is putting a huge burden on the prison system. I would have to completely agree with this statement. They are “needlessly incarcerating” people, as she puts it, and raising the population of the prison systems. Since we already have a huge population in prisons, I do not think this is something that should be looked over in any way. This has a huge impact on the system. A study showed that this is the reason that 31% of the local jail population in Philly is incarcerated. That is a large amount of the jail population. Automatic detainers without a proper hearing violates the law and these peoples right to a fair trial. Something has got to be done in Philadelphia. Re-incarcerating people for minor slip ups without authorization from a judge is so wr0ng in so many ways. One way they are trying to help this is by requiring a hearing with a judge with in seven days of the arrest. They are always wanting to have a defense lawyer notified when a violation is brought up so they can be properly prepared to defend their client.
ReplyDelete- ST789
This article is taking place in Philadelphia where some inmates due process rights might be taking advantage of. Keir Bradford Grey is the public defender that is fighting this circumstance. It is being stated that the probation procedures currently are incarating people for no need. It is being noticed that probation officers are having automatic detainer requests without the approval of a judge. Which is quite unbelievable that this is a problem. The problem is is that most people think you need a judges approval before that request which is not the case stated by another defense lawyer Carina Laguzzi. Most are being denied bail without getting a court hearing for months. To me this is unbelievable especially for the low level offenders. Even if most of this requests are for high-level offenders it still slips up and catches low level offenders which is not need. They are being detained for needless reasons. It has been shown that 31% of local jails are people who violated parole. Which considering some should be in there for slipping up to much but it should be based on the violation. I also agree with the fact about how many violations is to much and too little. Should there be a policy set for the amount of times you get to mess up? Or should it still be based on probation officer? There is a problem with it being based on probation officer because personal ties could be associated with it. Causing incarceration for people that it is not needed. Most believe it's unconstitutional which is possible that it is. There is also the argument that most probationary officers are already overworked and dealing with challenging individuals, that if you take away this right most won't have time to do the work that they do now. Which could be quite a problem in the future.
ReplyDeleteHollywood789
This article explained some very interesting info about a new thing called an “automatic detainer” policy, which allows for people to be locked up for things like probation violations and they do not receive proper hearings. Due to this new policy, more and more people are thrown behind bars every day, which means that this is adding to the problem of prison overcrowding and not making things any easier for the prison populations. Because of the parole and probation violations in the city of Philadelphia, thirty one percent of the local jail population is incarcerated. This is somewhat absurd because people are being incarcerated for any violation of their probation or parole. But what makes one violation more punishable than another? There needs to be some sort of guideline set that explains how if one violation is committed, no prison time will be required. However, certain other violations should result in incarceration. This needs to be figured out before the problem of overcrowding becomes too much to handle. Another stat from the article that stood out to me was when city and county detainers of all kinds are included, the figure jumps to more than fifty percent of Philadelphia’s jail population. This again brings up the problem of overcrowding. This new policy puts so many people behind bars without any sort of idea of how the prison size is changing in a negative way because of it. Also, people are mad with this policy because they claim that it is depriving them of their due process rights. These people who are incarcerated are locked up for thing such as probation violations without having proper hearings. Not only does this policy make the problem of overcrowding increase dramatically, it also seems to be taking certain rights away from people. This policy needs to be removed as it is only causing negatives.
ReplyDelete-Fozz789
I thought this article was very interesting. I think that everyone in the article brought up some good points, and that they should all be considered. I would agree with Keir Bradford-Grey that based on the article there are plenty of people being incarcerated that do not need to be incarcerated. The specific people that he is talking about here is the people on probation are being incarcerated when they should not be. They are also using automatic detainer requests without the permission of a judge. They are using this when people are high-risk, but they are also using this when people violate a non-violent technical part of the probation such as missing a payment or a meeting. Most of the time when these people are detained, they are put in a jail and often held for months before they can go to trial, and they are denied bail. Many of these people are in the jail and make up a big percentage of the population of the jail, so this is also causing a problem of overcrowding in the jails. It is hard to justify sending someone to jail for months, when all they did was miss a meeting or a payment. I think that the people should be held accountable for missing a meeting or payment and they should have to pay for that in some way, but it is not severe enough to justify sending them to jail. I also think that District Attorney Lynne Abraham makes a good point when they said that taking away their ability to automatically detain someone will make them have a lot less power and control over the person. Lynne also talked about how there will be bad people getting away if the ability to detain them right away is taken from probation officers. I think both sides make a good point, and that their needs to be a line when someone can or cannot be detained. -Dp789
ReplyDelete