Keith Alan Raniere was arrested by the FBI on March 26, 2018, in Texas, after being captured in Mexico and removed from the country the same day.
After his arrest, and while in custody at the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), Raniere presented a bail package that included his release on condition that he reside in a residence approved by the Pretrial and Probation Department, located near the Brooklyn courthouse, with 24/7 armed guards — who were former U.S. Secret Service agents — to guard him and prevent his escape. He also proposed the use of ankle monitors, restricted phone and computer services, restricted visitation and additional security provisions to prevent his escape. Security was to be overseen by the former head of the U.S. Secret Service.
The judge denied his bail package, and, consequently, Keith Raniere spent the next year and one month in pre-trial detention at the MDC.
Obviously, anyone in pretrial detention, especially at MDC, has almost no chance at defending themselves at trial since it is infinitely more difficult to prepare for trial and meet with attorneys and witnesses while in a prison.
In a recent post, our legal correspondent, K.R. Claviger, made a comment that he believed that a bail package probably should have been granted for Raniere (Claviger proposed that the judge in such cases set a bail package that they think would ensure the defendant did not flee). A commenter who uses the name Pious Bangkok disagreed and argued that Raniere would have fled the jurisdiction had any bail package been granted.
By K.R. Claviger
Pre-trial detention is a very significant burden for all defendants who are in that situation. Fortunately, many states are moving to eliminate — or at least greatly reduce — the imposition of cash bail. Now, I think we need to reconsider the finding of “flight risk” as a reason to detain those defendants who have no history of not showing up for hearings or trials — and move towards releasing defendants who are not charged with crimes involving violence and who have no prior convictions.
I would prefer that judges simply set the terms that a defendant has to meet in order to be released rather than requiring the defendant to come up with a suitable “bail package”. In conjunction with that change, I would also suggest that we impose significant penalties on anyone who actually tries to flee after they are released before a trial (These penalties would be separate and apart from any penalties that would be imposed if the defendant is convicted — kind of like the penalties that are imposed on prisoners who try to escape from prison).
In Keith’s case, the fact that he had gone to Mexico gave the prosecution an easy way to suggest that he was a “flight risk”. And the fact that he was charged with Sex Trafficking meant that the burden of proof had shifted to him to show that he was neither a “flight risk” nor a danger to the general public.
All in all, I still think that a package of sufficient safeguards could have been put together that would have allowed Keith to be released prior to his trial. But this is definitely not an issue that’s going to result in him getting a new trial.
By Pious Bangkok
With all due respect to my good pal and colleague, Mr. Claviger…
Please kindly disclose the “sufficient bail package” you spoke about —– which allegedly contains enough safeguards to deter Keith from getting on a boat (funded by Clare Bear) and disappearing to a new country without extradition treaties.
Hint: No amount of Clare’s bail money (or followers’ money/property) would deter Keith from jumping bail. He doesn’t care about other people losing their money or homes. He’s a sociopath. Haven’t you learned anything on Frank Report?
Hint: Armed guards won’t work either —- BECAUSE ‘deadly force’ is not authorized if he runs away from home detention officers who are monitoring him. It’s not legal for armed guards to shoot him if he starts running away. He can easily have his cult followers — like Nicki Clyne or Suneel the buttkisser — distract the perimeter guard while he runs into a waiting car.
Would Mr. Claviger put up his own home (and life savings) to free Keith on bail? I doubt it. What does that say about his confidence in Keith not running?
Hint: Ankle monitors can be cut away easily —– and it would take less than 2 minutes for Keith to be driven away in a waiting car after he cut his ankle monitor off, long before law enforcement could respond to the signal.
The ONLY reason Clare chose not to run away is BECAUSE she thought she was gonna get a low sentence. The judge departed upward and threw the book at her, which caught her by surprise.
However… Keith was always facing LIFE In prison (or 20 years) so he’d have no reason to stay.
So again, I challenge Claviger to prove what he just said.
If he fails to respond and BACKUP his claim of a ‘sufficient bail package’ —- then we can all conclude that he was just making it up.
Maybe Frank can weigh-in here, if he’s got the balls to disagree with his buddy publicly.
Have a nice day. 🙂
By K.R. Claviger
Sorry for the delay in responding to you, Pious Bangkok, but I’ve had a lot going for the last couple of days.
So, let’s begin with what I wrote that provoked your comment:
Pre-trial detention is a very significant burden for all defendants who are in that situation. Fortunately, many states are moving to eliminate — or at least greatly reduce — the imposition of cash bail. Now, I think we need to reconsider the finding of “flight risk” as a reason to detain those defendants who have no history of not showing up for hearings or trials — and move towards releasing defendants who are not charged with crimes involving violence and who have no prior convictions.
I would prefer that judges simply set the terms that a defendant has to meet in order to be released rather than requiring the defendant to come up with a suitable “bail package”. In conjunction with that change, I would also suggest that we impose significant penalties on anyone who actually tries to flee after they are released before a trial (These penalties would be separate and apart from any penalties that would be imposed if the defendant is convicted — kind of like the penalties that are imposed on prisoners who try to escape from prison).
In Keith’s case, the fact that he had gone to Mexico gave the prosecution an easy way to suggest that he was a “flight risk”. And the fact that he was charged with Sex Trafficking meant that the burden of proof had shifted to him to show that he was neither a “flight risk” nor a danger to the general public.
All in all, I still think that a package of sufficient safeguards could have been put together that would have allowed Keith to be released prior to his trial. But this is definitely not an issue that’s going to result in him getting a new trial.
**********
Your suggestion that there is no “package of sufficient safeguards” that could have guaranteed Keith didn’t flee the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) is absurd on its face. Obviously, with an unlimited amount of money to pay for such a package — which assumes that the Bronfman sisters and/or others would be footing the bill — a judge could get very creative in what they included in Keith’s bail package. But rather than fashion one that included unrealistic components, let me describe one that is, in fact, practical and doable:
– Pledged cash, property, or other authenticated valuables totaling $20 million;
– The implanting of RFID transponder via a microchip implant [See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microchip_implant_(human)%5D;
– The installation of a pair of ReliAlert XC3 ankle monitors — which would allow the U.S. Probation Department to monitor his whereabouts and, except when he was meeting with his attorneys, to monitor his conversations;
– Requiring him to live in an apartment to be selected by the U.S. Probation Department — with three armed U.S. Marshals to be on duty with him 24/7: one to serve as a guard outside the apartment — and two to serve as guards inside the apartment (Keith would not be allowed out of the apartment except for medical emergencies — and only his attorneys would be allowed to visit with him there);
– No access to the internet and/or to phone service but he would be allowed to have a device that can display the contents of discs on a computer screen (All of the evidence in his case would be downloaded to a set of discs that he could access via this device); and
– A state-of-the-art security system that would allow the U.S. Probation Department to monitor, via sound and live-feed video, all activities within — and outside — the apartment.
If all of the above-listed components were implemented, I would estimate that Keith’s chances of escaping would be well under 1%. And I, for one, would be willing to take that level of risk in order to allow a defendant who has no prior criminal record to prepare for his upcoming trial outside of prison.
Obviously, very few prisoners could afford the cost of this particular “package of sufficient safeguards” — which means that only those with a high net worth (and/or high net worth friends) could take advantage of it. While I think that’s unfortunate, the same can be said about those defendants who can afford to hire high-priced criminal defense attorneys like Marc Agnifilo.
I don’t expect you to agree with me, PB, because I know that’s not your schtick. Especially after all your baseless crowing about your suggestion that a “package of sufficient safeguards” can’t be fashioned to ensure that almost every defendant who is granted bail will not attempt to flee.
It is not convenient for the law to be applied to the taste of some even if they are a majority; the law is one and it is the same for all
Defending due process is everyone’s job
Completely agree with this. It is a right that we can’t make exceptions to – due process is needed for an impartial justice system.
Please re-read Keith Raniere’s defense team petition for bail and compare it to the prosecution’s denial of bail petition. One is based on facts and a plethora of well-documented evidence for bail and the other reads like a tabloid. The denial of bail will prove to be a grave mistake and a new trial for Keith Raniere will be granted. Hopefully, the next one will be fair and uphold the US constitution.
Sorry…but even if I agree that Keith should have been granted pre-trial bail, the denial of it is not going to get him a new trial. Judge Garufis made it quite clear that although he denied bail solely because he thought Keith was a “flight risk”, he likely would have denied it because he also thought Keith was a potential danger to the general public (Given some of the things that Keith had done that were not related to the charges against him, I would find it difficult to argue against such a finding).
And what exact provisions of the U.S. Constitution do you think were not upheld during Keith’s trial? Non-specific allegations like that do nothing to garner support for Keith.
His bail package sounds like he was accounting already for how unlikely they were to approve it. 3 U.S. Marshalls? Microchip and 2 ankle monitors? He was willing to put himself under wraps just to have a little freedom to meet with attorneys pretrial. Seems fair to me.
Does anyone else find the Nxivm justice reform platform a mixed message? Everyone should be treated the same (Make her blind!). But if you have a shit ton of money, you should get out on bail. To meet with your paid million-dollar defense team. What if you are poor? Then rot in jail loser cause you don’t have a “Clare”? Or rich parents etc.?
I would prefer that judges simply set the terms that a defendant has to meet in order to be released rather than requiring the defendant to come up with a suitable “bail package”.
This makes senses.
This case makes me reflect on how vulnerable we are as citizens by depending on the criteria of a person who can use absolute power over a citizen, important thought
The value of the debate about bail and due process should interest us all.
I’m sorry but this is a moot debate. It is more than evident that the Vanguard was a major flight risk – he’d already fled the country when they located him!
For anyone interested in spotting the sociopath next to them, I offer this excerpt below (emphasis in italics added).
Symptom: Lack of empathy
Perhaps one of the most well-known signs of ASP is a lack of empathy, particularly an inability to feel remorse for one’s actions. “Many people with ASP do seem to lack a conscience, but not all of them,” he explains. Psychopaths always have this symptom, however, which is what makes them especially dangerous. “When you don’t experience remorse, you’re kind of freed up to do anything—anything bad that comes to mind,” says Dr. Black.
Symptom: Difficult relationships
People with ASP find it hard to form emotional bonds, so their relationships are often unstable and chaotic, says Dr. Black. Rather than forge connections with the people in their lives, they might try to exploit them for their own benefit through deceit, coercion, and intimidation.
Symptom: Manipulativeness
Sociopaths tend to try to seduce and ingratiate themselves with the people around them for their own gain, or for entertainment. But this doesn’t mean they’re all exceptionally charismatic. “It may be true of some, and it is often said of the psychopath that they’re superficially charming,” says Dr. Black. “But I see plenty of antisocial men in my hospital and in our outpatient clinic and I would not use the term charming to describe them.”
Symptom: Deceitfulness
Sociopaths have a reputation for being dishonest and deceitful. They often feel comfortable lying to get their own way, or to get themselves out of trouble. They also have a tendency to embellish the truth when it suits them.
Symptom: Callousness
Some might be openly violent and aggressive. Others will cut you down verbally. Either way, people with ASP tend to show a cruel disregard for other people’s feelings.
Symptom: Hostility
Sociopaths are not only hostile themselves, but they’re more likely to interpret others’ behavior as hostile, which drives them to seek revenge.
Symptom: Irresponsibility
Another sign that someone might have ASP is a disregard for financial and social obligations. Ignoring responsibilities is extremely common, says Dr. Black. Think, for example, not paying child support when it’s due, allowing bills to pile up, and regularly taking time off work.
Symptom: Impulsivity
We all have our impulsive moments: a last minute road trip, a drastic new hairstyle, or a new pair of shoes you just have to have. But for someone with ASP, making spur of the moment decisions with no thought for the consequences is part of everyday life, says Dr. Black. They find it extremely difficult to make a plan and stick to it.
Symptom: Risky behavior
Combine irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a need for instant gratification, and it’s not surprising that sociopaths get involved in risky behavior. They tend to have little concern for the safety of others or for themselves. This means that excessive alcohol consumption, drug abuse, compulsive gambling, unsafe sex, and dangerous hobbies (including criminal activities) are common.
https://www.health.com/condition/antisocial-personality-disorder/sociopath-traits
Sound familiar? 🙄
Susanne,
Great post! It’s always good to remind people. Fortunately or unfortunately I grew up with a psychopath/sociopath. The individual hits every criteria.
I am amazed how many sociopaths or people sociopathic tendencies there are out there.
I could write a PHD college dissertation on my experience.
Oh no, Nice Guy!! 😳 I did not know that you have had such a painful first-hand experience! I am sorry… 😔
But alas, you are right. I also had come to realize that there are waaaaaay more sociopaths out there than one might have guessed. Once you know how they behave, you can spot them everywhere. Even on the internet… 🖥️👀💡🙄 Sigh.
It wasn’t painful. It’s life. Fortunately not all Sociopaths are totally nefarious. My sibling is who he is. He has been that way since day one.
Only met him briefly. These pointers do not fit him at all.
So, what do you think? What was your impression instead?
Pious Bangkok, would you please reveal the data and source of the data you are using to conclude that Raniere is a sociopath? Also, are prosecutors sociopaths if they take any measure, including falsifying evidence, lying, and using torture techniques (e.g., isolation, trumped-up charges, and lies) to obtain “confessions” and imprison people?
I personally would love to see a psychiatric profile of the one, the only, the Vanguard. I do know psychologists who have witnessed his actions have referred to him as narcissistic. Maybe
The Vanguard will let science study him? The ability to block radar, see through clouds, and more? Don’t we deserve to know the science involved in this?
Please talk to him. He would be doing humanity a favor. Yeah,that’s it! Tell him he will be helping the world!!
What about his abilities to not get wet when it is raining and to make women see a blue light when they are in the thralls of intimacy?
His data comes from the 4 computer experts who work for the Nxivm 5.
Bangkok is right on the money!
Bangkok should write more articles of a serious nature. He is an intelligent person. I apologize for dismissing him so much of the time.
In regards to this debate, “Should Raniere been granted bail?” , it truly is a moot point !!
Pious Bangkok makes sense. The other guy not so much.
Pious Bangkok assumes that by the extradition treaty, Mr. Raniere was captured in Mexico. He seems to be unaware of the institutions in Mexico. A hug.
This is an historic moment……
Today is the first time in the history of the Frank Report Pious Bangkok won a debate against K.R. Claviger. I am proud of
Pious Bangkok!
This proves unequivocally, a mentally challenged-handicap can compete with a normal person.
Claviger may have called our beloved Pious Bangkok a retard, but today guess who the retard is…..
I never called Pious Bangkok a “retard” — and I’m surprised that you would throw around such a disparaging term so cavalierly. I’d suggest your wife should spank you for such shoddy behavior but you’d probably like that.
I’m also surprised that you agree with Pious Bangkok’s argument that it would have been impossible to be put together a “package of sufficient safeguards” that would have allowed Keith to have been released prior to his trial. Given that people like Bernie Madoff and Harvey Weinstein were given pre-trial bail, why do you think that Keith was more of a “flight risk” than either of them?
K.R. Claviger-
Re Bail Package:
1. Neither Bernie Madoff or Harvey Weinstein are cult leaders with a small army of followers. How are those examples remotely applicable?
2. —Pledged cash, property, or other authenticated valuables totaling $20 million;
Keith Raniere is a renunciate ne’er-do-well. It’s someone else’s money. Why would Kieth Raniere care about $20million dollars of someone else’s money when he, a 60 year old man, is looking at a 15 to 20 year sentence?
3. Ankle Monitors???Security??? 😂
https://www.businessinsider.com/guys-who-jumped-bail-2011-5
https://www.wcnc.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/defendants-arent-just-cutting-off-ankle-monitors-theyre-letting-the-batteries-die/275-287d4687-fb10-4a23-b743-4d4aca5ea915
https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/man-who-cut-off-ankle-monitor-fled-from-court-captured-by-u-s-marshals
****
RE Androgynous Pious Bangkok:
Bangkok originally referred to
ze(gender-neutral pronoun) self as the “Retard”. I wrongly believe you had previously addressed him by his chosen name. I apologize for *callously using the word retard and insinuating you would commit such a faux pas.
*Callous is the correct word. Cavalier was not the appropriate word.
****
This is the only time I’ve ever seriously disagreed with you please do not take offense. 🙂
BTW: Claviger you’re right, I would’ve enjoyed the spanking. 🙂
“There can be no pleasure without pain.”
-Kieth Vanguard Raniere
Were Madoff or Weinstein captured in a foreign country while using burner/encrypted phones and encrypted email? Are you REALLY a lawyer? Are you REALLY a man?
Uhm….
There is no reason to insult Claviger Bangkok if it is Bangkok.
I agree that bail should be granted more readily for alleged non-violent offenders with no previous convictions or history of missing court appearances. Especially for someone who hasn’t gone to trial yet and could be innocent. It seems unjust to lock them up for a year or more in prison if another reasonable option exists.
One question: who would pay for all the security involved in being out on bail, the defendant? If that’s the case, then not only would it seem more fair to allow more alleged non-violent offenders to get out on bail, but it seems it would save taxpayers money paying for their incarceration.
All costs for any bail package have to be paid for by the defendant — which means, of course, that wealthier defendants may be released more often than those defendants with fewer financial resources. And while I think that’s unfortunate, the reality is that wealthier defendants can also afford betters lawyers — and are more likely to be able to devote more time to their defense. Some things in life just aren’t fair.
You bring up an interesting point in terms of the money that is spent on incarcerating people before they go trial. It’s one of the reasons why I don’t think that poorer defendants should have to pay for things like ankle bracelets.
Just because people with more money can afford to spend more on lawyers doesn’t mean they should also be able to get bail when bail has nothing to do with how poor someone is, it has to do with whether they are a flight risk and/or are a danger to others. Of course, bail must be set higher for rich people because they can afford to skip out with a relatively low bail amount. Are you REALLY a lawyer?
Although “cash bail” is still prevalent in the U.S., its use is rapidly fading. And in every place that “cash bail” has been reduced or eliminated, there has been tremendous cost savings — and no reduction in the percentage of people who show up for their court hearings and trials.
Given your usual reaction to new and innovative ideas, I do not expect you to understand this, let alone agree with it. Perhaps you should buy a larger size 10-gallon hat the next time you go into town to shop.
Kieth Raniere has no money…..
Claviger-
Law enforcement only goes after the wealthy when they have a very strong case. That’s the real “unfair truth”. I know enough stories directly to know it’s truth.
I agree — and it’s another part of our criminal justice system that needs fixing. Unfortunately, it is rare for someone like Clare Bronfman to be charged with a crime, let alone convicted and sent off to prison.
You did not address the $20 million dollar bail…..
Which is not Kieth Raniere’s money. Why would he care if someone else lost their own money?
I don’t understand your logic.
Most courts in the U.S. still use money/assets as the primary basis for granting bail — which is why we now have 2.3 million incarcerated citizens who have never been convicted of a crime. That same reliance on “cash bail” has also helped create and sustain the bail bond industry — which currently generates an estimated $2 billion of revenue per year from those defendants who were able to scrape together enough money/assets to cover their bail (The U.S. and the Philippines are the only countries that utilize commercial bail bondsmen; in other countries, setting — and collecting — bail is done directly by the court).
Fortunately, several cities and states have begun to move away from cash bail (e.g., Chicago, Philadelphia, New Jersey, etc.) And study after study has concluded that eliminating cash bail has not resulted in fewer defendants showing up for court appearances.
So for me, the $20 million cash bail that was proposed in Keith’s case was not a major factor one way or the other — although I do agree that because none of it was his money, he would have less incentive to stay around than someone who had put up their own money. Even without any cash bail, I think it would have been possible to put together a “package of sufficient safeguards” that would have ensured — with a very high degree of probability — that he would have shown up for his hearings and his trial.
Incarcerating defendants before they go to trial not only makes it difficult for them to properly prepare to defend themselves, it also has huge negative effects on their families. In addition, it also costs taxpayers a lot of money to keep these unconvicted men and women sitting in cells instead of at home.
When Onondaga County stopped requiring cash bail for all defendants in 2020, its overnight inmate population dropped from 500 to 400 — a change that resulted in $4.5 million of annual savings. And in New Jersey — which enacted statewide bail reform in 2017 — the state is now saving $285 million per year.
So, for me, the fact that Keith had people who would put up their cash and other assets as part of his bail package was just icing on the cake. Even without those pledges, I still think it would have been possible to put together a bail package that would have guaranteed his court appearances (I’m willing to live with a system that does not ensure that every defendant stays around — and to punish the hell out of those who do skip out).
I’m also open to the idea that defendants be incarcerated just prior to — and even during — their trials. While not ideal, that’s still much better than having someone like Keith sit in a prison cell for 15 months before their case is heard.
K.R. Claviger,
I agree completely with Bond reform! Bond reform is urgently needed as well as a host of other reforms including the
“overcharging defendants” and forcing plea bargains.
***
When it comes to defendants like Raniere and Ghislaine Maxwell, I’m a little jaded and biased. They disgust me and If I had their resources, I would have ended up in Portugal or better yet Montenegro. If I was them: a 60-year-old, looking at a possible 15 to 20-year sentence and DOJ conviction rate 98%; I’m running provided I have Raniere or Maxwell type resources.
***
Why Maxwell didn’t run is beyond me. Instead, she bought a house and had former SAS UK bodyguards. She easily could have used her money and American husband’s connections to hire a private transatlantic charter boat; at that point, she was not an official fugitive because no arrest warrant had been issued.
OK…So, now that we’ve started to narrow the list of things we disagree about, let me push you a little further with a few questions:
(1) Do you think everyone who is over 60 — and who is facing a sentence of at least 15 or 20 years — should be denied bail?
(2) Do you think that everyone who is facing what would be a de facto life sentence should be denied bail?
(3) Do you think incarcerating Keith at MDC was the only way to ensure that he showed up for court hearings and his trial?
(4) Do you think that a pre-trial release system has to be 100% foolproof?
(5) If you were tasked to come up with a “package of sufficient safeguards” to ensure that someone like Keith Raniere would show up for his court hearings and trial, what would you include in that package?
K.R. Claviger 1/28 2:25 pm
Rather then respond out of hand, I am going to respond back later tomorrow….
(1) Do you think everyone who is over 60 — and who is facing a sentence of at least 15 or 20 years — should be denied bail?
No, I don’t. I think everyone should be denied bail. That’s a broad question. How would you write a law or a legal procedure to reform the system without it being ‘fraught’ with legal issues or loopholes for abuse? (Rhetorical)
(2) Do you think that everyone who is facing what would be a de facto life sentence should be denied bail?
No, I do not believe something so ridiculous. I believe RICO cases are unique and bail rules for RICO should be different; generally, RICO focus is on organized crime.
(3) Do you think incarcerating Keith at MDC was the only way to ensure that he showed up for court hearings and his trial?
Yes, I do, 100%. When Keith became aware he was on the FBI radar, he fled to Mexico. Unfortunately for Keith, he greatly underestimated how pissed-off and how much power someone’s dad had in Mexico. Remember Sarah went to Portugal; do you honestly believe Keith would not have joined her had he known Mexico would be such a mistake?
(4) Do you think that a pre-trial release system has to be 100% foolproof?
No of course not. The bail/bond system could not be reformed if the “100%” foolproof stipulation existed.
(5) If you were tasked to come up with a “package of sufficient safeguards” to ensure that someone like Keith Raniere would show up for his court hearings and trial, what would you include in that package?
I could not put a “sufficient safeguard package” together, at least not a realistic or economical one which I would want to sign off on—if I were a politician. I mention politicians because they are the high hurdle in the way of reform; they don’t like rolling the dice on things that can generate bad press.
****
I agree almost 100% with you regarding bail reform.
Additionally, I believe sentencing guidelines such as Three Strike laws and mandatory sentences are wrong. The Grand Jury system needs reforming; the Grand Jury system presently is the antithesis of what was originally intended by the forefathers of our country. Lastly, I agree the 13th Amendment needs some editing.
****
What I don’t understand is how the 8th Amendment is completely and entirely ignored. All the supposedly strict constructionists on the Supreme Court are bull-shitting themselves. How can they call themselves “constructionists”?
**********
Claviger, besides the public, the majority of attorneys who work outside of criminal law are almost as oblivious to the reforms you have spoken about and the need to make reforms. They are almost as bad as lay people. Example: Until my wife sat on a Grand Jury, she believed the Grand Jury system was fine and her many friends from law school are still oblivious.
If you are an advocate of sorts, I wish you luck.
Thank you so much for taking the time to correspond with me.
A couple of quick comments and questions — and if I have time over the weekend, I’ll respond in more detail.
RE: Question #1 — While I won’t deny that the potential sentence a defendant is facing should be considered when a judge is approving (or, in my ideal world, setting) bail conditions, I don’t think it should be a major consideration. Otherwise, prosecutors will be encouraged to do even more “over-charging” than they do now.
RE: Question 2 — If you automatically make it more difficult for those facing RICO charges to be released pre-trial, then you will, once again, be encouraging prosecutors to bring more RICO charges. Prosecutors are keenly aware that those who are subjected to pre-trial incarceration are much more likely to take plea deals — especially if they’re stuck in places like MDC.
RE: Question #3 — Let me give you some alternatives to consider. What if Keith had been placed in a local jail rather than MDC — don’t you think he would have been just as likely to show up for his trial in that scenario? What if Keith had been allowed to meet with his attorneys, under guard but outside of MDC, from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM to prepare for his trial — don’t you think he would have been just as likely to show up for his trial in that scenario?
RE: Question #4 — Agreed. And I would be willing to go with a system that resulted in the occasional defendant fleeing — and that paid a hefty bounty to whoever was able to find them and bring them back (If Keith had, in fact, fled to Fiji, don’t you think a bounty of $250,000 would have pretty much guaranteed that someone would find him and bring him back?).
RE: Question #5 — This is one of the reasons why I would prefer that magistrate judges set bail conditions. I also think that in the vast majority of cases in which defendants are currently in pre-trial incarceration, a judge could come up with a package that would ensure at least 98% of the defendants would show up for trial. In the few cases where that wasn’t possible, the defendant could be incarcerated.
Given your strong feelings about the 8th Amendment, I’m even more surprised that you don’t see the cruelty and unfairness that’s involved in pre-trial incarceration. Even if you enjoy it, I may have to have your wife spank you after all.
Thanks again Claviger,
If you have two seconds, I have a simple yes or no question.
Has the 8th Amendment vs 13th Amendment come up?
****
I agree about the bail issues. I am just biased when it comes to Vanguard.
I have never read an analysis comparing and/or reconciling those two amendments. Nor do I know of any cases where both amendments were part of the resolution.
If you’re suggesting that the 8th Amendment should serve as “guardrails” for what type of punishments can be doled out to prisoners in the U.S., then I agree with you. Unfortunately, what you and I may consider to be “punishments” (e.g., wages of $.08/hour; unhealthy and dangerous living conditions; non-nutritional food; lack of sunlight; lack of rehabilitative programs; etc.) have generally not been considered as such by the judiciary.
The most interesting and innovative criminal justice programs in the U.S. are happening at the local and state level (That has pretty much always been the case). Hopefully, some forward-thinking administration will eventually start to implement similar programs at the federal level.
Thanks for responding K.R. Claviger!
***
One of the benefits of having judges appointed rather than elected like in Massachusetts is that some actually lower bail to affordable levels and do not make bail unaffordable which in other states ends up increasing private jail revenues.
https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2019-08/Report_How_Judicial_Elections_Impact_Criminal_Cases.pdf
The book below seems like a good read.
I’m looking for something more current.
https://today.law.harvard.edu/book-review/in-new-book-shugerman-explores-the-history-of-judicial-selection-in-the-u-s/
Raniere really should be separated from people in general. He was a dangerous man that dedicated his life to destroying other people’s lives in the worst ways possible, raped kids and probably killed a few.
Those crimes are not counted by the way.
But he made a cult – a fucking cult! – that was one of the worst cults ever. He is the most similar thing we have to a Bond villain unless you count Hillary Clinton or the Rothschilds. Every time that you think about him, you spit on the pedophile víctims of Raniere, every pedophile victim, or ritual abuse víctim, because you undervalued the abuse. I would like to hear more from them by the way.
I think that Frank Report could inform about the Franklin scandal, Epstein, Dutroux, the Bilderberg world domination, etc etc etc. Every satanic abuse there is, instead of the estúpido opinión of Suneel or Asunsolo, two people that seem slow or immoral.
Judge Nicholas Garaufis agreed with Bangkok. End of Story!
Frank always depicts my nephew as a white kid, a retard, or a zoo animal.
Not true! My nephew is not white or a kid.
https://funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/470348/Retard/