0
ryoder

California Becomes First State To End Cash Bail

Recommended Posts

SkyDekker

Good idea, but according to the article last minute changes have significantly skewed this bill towards detention.



Not surprised, had to put some concessions in there and if there's ever a class of people who have zero support from society it's those in the limbo of being suspected but not convicted.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL

***Good idea, but according to the article last minute changes have significantly skewed this bill towards detention.



Not surprised, had to put some concessions in there and if there's ever a class of people who have zero support from society it's those in the limbo of being suspected but not convicted.

I dunno - Trump has some 41% of society approving him.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL

***Good idea, but according to the article last minute changes have significantly skewed this bill towards detention.



Not surprised, had to put some concessions in there and if there's ever a class of people who have zero support from society it's those in the limbo of being suspected but not convicted.
Perhaps. I agree with the premise that you shouldn't have to be well off to be able to go home, but isn't that why judges have the latitude to set bail at their own discretion? Rich guy gets higher bail, poor guy gets lower or none? (Okay, ROR is not incredibly likely for low income, I get it). But the court must have some reasonable assurance that the accused will come back for trial. Cash or bond out of pocket, that is forfeit when the accused violates the terms, seems reasonable to me. What am I missing? Is there some kind of modern "mandatory minimum" type of bail reference California judges must apply? Institutional bias for low income suspects in play, that refuses ROR, that needs to be regulated? I'd be interested to hear the details.
See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus

Shut Up & Jump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should be interesting to see how the courts resolve the problem of no bail for the wealthy that are considered a flight risk. Usually they put up a large bail to assure their appearance for trial, under this they will be denied release. That may violate Amendment 8 of the constitution which says "Excessive bail shall not be required".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TriGirl

******Good idea, but according to the article last minute changes have significantly skewed this bill towards detention.



Not surprised, had to put some concessions in there and if there's ever a class of people who have zero support from society it's those in the limbo of being suspected but not convicted.
Perhaps. I agree with the premise that you shouldn't have to be well off to be able to go home, but isn't that why judges have the latitude to set bail at their own discretion? Rich guy gets higher bail, poor guy gets lower or none? (Okay, ROR is not incredibly likely for low income, I get it). But the court must have some reasonable assurance that the accused will come back for trial. Cash or bond out of pocket, that is forfeit when the accused violates the terms, seems reasonable to me. What am I missing? Is there some kind of modern "mandatory minimum" type of bail reference California judges must apply? Institutional bias for low income suspects in play, that refuses ROR, that needs to be regulated? I'd be interested to hear the details.

Yeah it's a tricky one, the big issue comes in with bail bondsmen. So you post bail yourself, you show up, you get your money back. You use a bail bondsman because you can't afford bail, you don't get your 10% back. It becomes a "fee" that is imposed on only those who can't post/afford their own bail. In a lot of cases it isn't a lot of money, a few hundred dollars, but a lot of these folks live in crippling poverty where a couple hundred is a very big deal.

Not to mention, bail as a non-flight thing is kinda iffy. Say you get a 1,000,000 bail on a big ol charge, pony up 100,000 to a bail bondsman, you've already lost that money, what would keep you from fleeing? Nothing, only the legal penalties. Now say you're poor and you get $2,500 bail, you can go to a bail bondsman for $250 and get out. You lose $250; but is $250, or even $2,500 worth not fleeing if that's what you want to do? It just doesn't make much sense, especially considering living as a fugitive in the US is pretty difficult (and if you don't have $2,500 I'm gonna guess you're not fleeing the country).

So basically, almost everyone bails out, poor people pay a "fee" and not-poor people don't. If someone is really a flight risk, then deny bail, don't just throw on an unnecessary financial burden for basically no reason.

That's basically the argument as I see it. Great place for a few states to try it out and see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimjumper

Should be interesting to see how the courts resolve the problem of no bail for the wealthy that are considered a flight risk. Usually they put up a large bail to assure their appearance for trial, under this they will be denied release. That may violate Amendment 8 of the constitution which says "Excessive bail shall not be required".



I believe it is legal to deny bail all together for a "significant flight risk."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm unaware of how this would really affect attorneys. It's not that I disagree, just that I don't get it. Could you elaborate?

My impression is that most of the folks it would affect would be poor people awaiting trial for various crimes from check fraud to murder. The large majority of who would be represented by Public Defenders. But I could very well be mistaken, I'm not a legal expert.

Also just as an FYI, apparently something like 70% of our prison population are people awaiting trial that haven't been convicted. I didn't realize it was that high.

I very much do not endorse The Nation as a "news source" because they are pretty bias, but this article does a pretty good job of explaining the history and some of the current problems. e.g. I didn't know, but Bail Bondsmen will set up a payment plan and then charge astronomical interest that can often fall on relatives shoulders rather than the offender (even if the charges are dropped later). Pawn shops are an important part of our society and I've got nothing against them as a whole, but they are also kinda shady and that sort of loan sharkeyness shouldn't be associated with (much less an integral part of) our criminal justice system in the form of bail bonds.

(Also to the point of it doesn't do much to deter flight risks, bail bonds are considered a "low risk" investment by insurance companies. i.e. the vast majority of people bailed out do indeed show up for court, even though they don't have any money to lose since they already paid a bail bondsman.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OldGregg

***Should be interesting to see how the courts resolve the problem of no bail for the wealthy that are considered a flight risk. Usually they put up a large bail to assure their appearance for trial, under this they will be denied release. That may violate Amendment 8 of the constitution which says "Excessive bail shall not be required".



I believe it is legal to deny bail all together for a "significant flight risk."

Also I did some digging, it is indeed legal to deny bail all together if the judge feels the defendant is a "flight risk." Also why they sometimes seize passports pending trial, and you can have assets frozen before trial. Also as of some time in the 1980s it became legal to deny bail if the judge felt the defendant was a danger to the public. Which makes sense in the case of terrorists like the Boston bombers or a school shooter, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another podcast link (I've got a long commute), NPR's Planet Money did a story about New Jersey starting a similar program a couple of years ago...They re-aired it recently as the recent California news has made it relevant. It was an interesting listen the first time around, and the follow-up at the end of the re-air was even more-so.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/08/29/643072388/episode-783-new-jersey-bails-out
I got nuthin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0