When non-Denominational Isn't

Abolition of Cash Bail May Contribute to Crime

WASHINGTON (TND) — How to best respond to crimein our communities is a debate that has evolved but has never subsided.

In the summer of 2020,in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, calls grew louder for a complete overhaul of the criminal justice system. That included ending cash bail— a policy implemented in cities like New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles by progressive leaders who argue that innocent until proven guilty was a reality only for those who could afford it.

But others see a connection between the new policy and a rise in crime, as notedin a new study by the Yolo County California District Attorney’s office. It found that the rate of recidivism was far higher for those who paid no bail versus those who did pay.

"In this study, individuals released on zero bail were subsequently rearrested for a total of 163% more crimes than individuals released on bail," it read.

Read the rest here.

cf This

Primatial Divine Liturgy, Nativity of the Theotokos

Tucker Carlson

I used to like watching him back in the days when he was a relatively sane conservative sparring on CNN and elsewhere. Now he seems to have gone off to whatever plain of reality is home to QAnon, MAGA, and outright Nazi apologists. All in all, rather depressing.

UK: New Law to Remove Last of Hereditary Lords from Parliament

The government is proposing to banish all remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords in the biggest shake-up of parliament in a quarter century.

The UK’s 92 remaining hereditary peers – who have inherited their titles from their parents – will lose their right to sit and vote in the upper chamber under proposals put forward by ministers on Thursday.

The move would complete reforms first made by Tony Blair’s government, which revoked the 700-year-old right of all hereditary peers to sit in the Lords in 1999. Just 92 of them, elected from the whole group, were allowed to remain until an agreement could be reached to phase them out altogether.

All 92 hereditary peers who now hold seats in the Lords are white men, and their average age is just under 70. They have continued to top up their numbers by holding byelections when one of them retires or dies.

Campaigners have long called for the system to be overhauled. In its manifesto, Labour said the continued existence of hereditary peers was “indefensible”.

The government’s bill will mean that there will no longer be any hereditary peers in the upper chamber. The earl marshal and the lord great chamberlain, who had been expected to keep their seats because of their ceremonial functions, will also be removed.

The bill is likely to become law sometime next year, and will fulfil a Labour manifesto commitment.

Read the rest here.

If Republicans Want to Win, Trump Must Lose — Big

Accepting his party’s nomination in 1984, Democrat Walter Mondale vowed to cut the deficit with a memorable line about the tough medicine either he or Ronald Reagan would have to administer to the country.

“Let’s tell the truth,” Mondale said, “Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”

Now, as Labor Day marks the final stretch of another presidential campaign, it’s time for another round of truth-telling.

The best possible outcome in November for the future of the Republican Party is for former President Donald Trump to lose and lose soundly. GOP leaders won’t tell you that on the record. I just did.

Trump will never concede defeat, no matter how thorough his loss. Yet the more decisively Vice President Kamala Harris wins the popular vote and electoral college the less political oxygen he’ll have to reprise his 2020 antics; and, importantly, the faster Republicans can begin building a post-Trump party.

Harris is less a doctrinaire progressive than she is up for grabs on policy, but any liberal course she takes would be constrained by a GOP-held Senate. No, that’s not a sure thing, but it’s the safest electoral bet in this turbulent election. What is virtually certain come January is that conservatives will have a 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court, which will also serve as a check on the law and rulemaking coming out of a Democratic White House.

Harris is effectively an emergency nominee, has few policy proposals, scant governing history in Washington and a history of churning through staff. Oh, and she would be the first Democrat to enter the presidency since 1884 without majorities in both chambers, should Republicans flip the Senate.

That adds up to a recipe for gridlock — and perhaps some deal-making to fund the government and avoid across-the-board tax hikes — but not a Scandinavian social welfare state.

2026 would represent the sixth year of one party holding the presidency, always a promising midterm for the opposition. Those conditions, along with a diminished, twice-defeated Trump, would make it easier for Republicans to recruit Senate candidates.

Consider just the governors: Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin, Georgia’s Brian Kemp and New Hampshire’s Chris Sununu would all be prime targets for Senate Republicans. As one GOP senator put it to me in hoping for Trump’s defeat: Who do you think would have a tougher 2026 reelection, Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) under Harris or Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) under Trump?

A Democratic House majority would also be far easier for Republicans to reverse under Harris than Trump. And the GOP would almost certainly find more success in the 36 governors’ races taking place that year if they were running against the so-called six-year-itch.

For most Republicans who’ve not converted to the Church of MAGA, this scenario is barely even provocative. In fact, asking around with Republicans last week, the most fervent private debate I came across in the party was how best to accelerate Trump’s exit to the 19th Hole.

Read the rest here.

Old New York

From the turn of the previous century.

From the crime blotter

"Eight persons were arrested this morning for gambling at 136 Anthony Street and breaking the Sabbath. They were held to bail and to answer."

Source

How far have we sunk?