bail inaccessibility and thee expansion of pre-trial incarcerations are tactitcs to push people into taking pleas so civilian prosecutors can get their numbers up and politicians can take credit.First off: coming into this thread, I'm a former prosecutor and support rehabilitation, not retribution, as a form of justice. Also, I'm going to ask a pointed and direct question because it's likely one that anyone in serious opposition to this idea would launch, and I think it's likely best addressed up front.
"You're suggesting that we don't put serial killers behind bars?"
I am sure that the readings (which I haven't had time to digest, though I'm familiar with these concepts from my past life) touch upon this issue, but I'm curious what the ready-made rejoinder is. I suspect that most folks don't inherently have an objection to abolishing prison sentences for victimless crimes (see Winny(๑•̀ㅂ•́)و 's post for example), but it seems a bridge too far to suggest that some people, for whatever reason -- including some reasons that society inflicts upon them unfairly -- should be free to roam among the general population.
One thing I'll throw out that most find to be an interesting tidbit: I was a military prosecutor, and under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, people awaiting trial weren't held in jail. They continued to do their jobs unless they were a threat to themselves or others. Obviously, if they were convicted and sentenced to confinement, they'd serve out that confinement, but the idea of pretrial confinement was a rare thing, reserved for special circumstances. No idea why this isn't common practice.
at least that's one argument I've seen proposed