Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

globalcitizen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 184 posts

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#51

Post by candiodari »

jacobr wrote: post #24

Sweden actually has a similar problem even without the bail system. Most people get released awaiting trial, depending on severity of the crime, risk of influencing the case, etc. The ones who don't end up incarcerated with way worse conditions than regular prisons while waiting for the trial. You might end up with a sentence of 1 year after already spending most of it in an insitution with limited visitation rights,…

All European countries have a system that is sort-of a "reverse bail" problem. You can become a "civil party" to a complaint that you submit to the police. If you have money, you can force that complaint to get before a criminal judge, who is forced to ask you (the civil party) why you want this person criminally punished (e.g. jail), and listen to your response.

So poor people cannot complain about things like government excess or police brutality, since those complaints get thrown out. Nor can they effectively get police help, except in very severe cases.

But a rich person can drag you in front of a criminal court for not wiping the pavement in front of your apartment often enough.

This is a bail system. The money you put down, you get back if the person gets convicted. Additionally, in some countries the defendant, if convicted, will need to pay your lawyer expenses (again, if they are convicted).

Pretty much all of Europe.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#52

Post by DanielBMarkham »

thechao wrote: post #38
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is but it is extremely rare. These are systemic problems, caused by the construction of the system itself and not due to bad actors. One problem is to have a successful suit against wrongful imprisonment, you have to prove intent. If somebody accidentally imprisoned you acting in good faith, the idea is that people make mistakes. There is automatic protection built into the system to allow prosecutors and LE to do…

I understand the situation as described. I do feel that many Americans (including myself) would be happier without intent: the imprisonment of a free person is a fundamental violation of constitutional rights and, regardless of intent, is a wrong, which should lead to compensation.

I agree. It's horribly broken and only by getting somebody to pay will there be enough incentive to fix it and keep it fixed.

But it is a tricky wicket. You would have to go after the governmental authority, local, state, or federal. Those authorities are usually protected by the ones above them. Assuming you could go after them, their argument will probably be something like "We don't completely control the entire system you are holding us responsible for." This also is controlled by the next level up.

So there are at least two major structural problems: protection by the next level up and dozens of people in various other governmental units contributing to the problem. The social worker hired by the state that says the father who broke a local law is a flight risk is not somebody the local government has any control over. The state or federal government requires that folks like this be an important part of administrating law, yet local governments don't manage them. You end up beating local governments up for nothing -- and the problem doesn't change since they couldn't do anything about it in the first place.

Oddly enough, if you continue to pressure these folks, the only thing they can do is let a bunch of people go, some of which are actually violent folks who need to be locked up. Do that enough and they'll replace your local government with one that doesn't do that.

I really wish this problem was simpler than it appears to be. It's a terrible situation.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#53

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #46

What is the alternative then? Let a probable criminal go wander the streets or disappear altogether? At least these people have some possibility of release rather than none at all. While some innocents may be confined to a jail awaiting trial, I'm sure this is a minority, not the majority. Even then, bail skippers still occur. Let's quit with the "Oh the poor criminal being treated that way" mentality.

> "Oh the poor criminal being treated that way"

No. It's the exact opposite. Until they are proven guilty of a crime, it's a "Oh the poor innocent people being treated that way" mentality, and that is perfectly justifiable. People awaiting trial should only be locked away when there's any actual reason to believe they would disappear or commit a serious crime before their trial.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#54

Post by snarfy »

Financial punishments should be required by law to be a percentage of your worth/income instead of an arbitrary number. $100 fine can be devastating if you are living paycheck to paycheck. For others it's a bar tab. Fixed fees disproportionately hurt the poor.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#55

Post by candiodari »

Shoh3pif wrote: post #14
masklinn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the case in (some?) Scandinavian countries, as well as Switzerland. I think it's generally indexed on income (based on tax return), with fines being expressed in days (of a fraction of the offender's disposable income). There's usually a lower bound (e.g. 6€ in Finland) but no upper bound. The day-fines may also be convertible to jail time (at a ratio of 1:3 or 1:4 I think).

That's also the case in the german-speaking countries.

... and also the case in the US.

(however it's always going to be >$1000 or so, for obvious reasons, including of course in Germany and Scandinavian countries)

(by the way, I hate how tiring it is to see Europeans claim how "socially progressive" and protective of rights the EU governments supposedly are. You have more rights, as a suspect, in the US. Not less. The US, without any doubt, protects the rights of accused person FAR better than ANY European country. Just ask Julian Assange)

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#56

Post by crispyambulance »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #46

What is the alternative then? Let a probable criminal go wander the streets or disappear altogether? At least these people have some possibility of release rather than none at all. While some innocents may be confined to a jail awaiting trial, I'm sure this is a minority, not the majority. Even then, bail skippers still occur. Let's quit with the "Oh the poor criminal being treated that way" mentality.

    > What is the alternative then? Let a probable criminal go wander the streets or disappear altogether?
Grotesque inequities in the bail system are merely one symptom of the intractable disaster of criminal justice in America. This problem is tied to many other problems, you can't deal with them one at a time.

But "letting someone go" is not as bad as it sounds. Keeping them in jail because they can't come up with a few hundred dollars from a predatory storefront bailbonds joint ALSO has problems. If that person had a job, they've now lost it. If they have children, they're now at risk of losing them, and the children face an even more chaotic home life. In addition to that, keeping someone locked up is costly to the state.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#57

Post by fastball »

kasey_junk wrote: post #23
Ntrails wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with a fine for failure to appear is that you have to find the person to make them pay. The assumption being that if you're skipping out on a court case you're probably doing so with the intention of never attending, and a fine they can't enforce isn't going to make a difference. The logic behind bail is simple, you either show up to court or lose money that you cannot afford to lose. The incentives make…

The incentives for prosecutors though are off. They use high bail to leverage plea bargains & are judged on how well they accomplish that. Objective, non cash based determination of pretrial risk makes way more sense when judged through that lens.

Bail bondsmen?

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#58

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

captainbland wrote: post #2

I think that if there are financial penalties - or similar in the case of bail - they have to be adjusted to means (don't get me wrong, this can be a challenge in itself). Otherwise you're basically saying that something is legal for the rich who could easily make the bail or the fine, but illegal for somebody poor who cannot make the fine which can have ever worse consequences. Why should that be?

Except it doesn't work like that. Even if you can afford the bail, if you are found guilty, you're still going to jail in the end. The influence an expensive lawyer has on sentencing is probably a more important factor. Then again, it all comes down to something most of us should have learned by the age of 10: if somebody else gets away with something, that's no reason you should also get away with it.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#59

Post by CamTin »

hvidgaard wrote: post #43
thechao wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the situation as described. I do feel that many Americans (including myself) would be happier without intent: the imprisonment of a free person is a fundamental violation of constitutional rights and, regardless of intent, is a wrong, which should lead to compensation.

That would be a fair take on it. If you wrongfully imprison anyone, they get compensation. If all evidence points to them, but they was found not guilty, then they were wrongfully imprisoned and the intent and "why" doesn't really matter to that person.

This has its own potential problems. Prosecutors might be under even more pressure to get convictions or plea bargains, since the alternative, if somebody is already arrested and awaiting trial, is that their bosses (ultimately elected officials) have to shell out public money for a wrongful imprisonment case. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit, but all the moving parts and bizarre incentives of this system make it very hard to make adjustments without having 2nd or 3rd order effects that may be even worse than what we have.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#60

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

candiodari wrote: post #55
Shoh3pif wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also the case in the german-speaking countries.

... and also the case in the US. (however it's always going to be >$1000 or so, for obvious reasons, including of course in Germany and Scandinavian countries) (by the way, I hate how tiring it is to see Europeans claim how "socially progressive" and protective of rights the EU governments supposedly are. You have more rights, as a suspect, in the US. Not less. The US, without any doubt, protects the rights of accuse…

At least with Assange they bothered fabricating an excuse¹. Look at Snowden for a good example of how the USA won't even bother with something like that.

¹ Most likely, though nobody can say 100% for sure if it's just a fabrication in the end. But it does all seem rather suspicious.

Post reply on HN