Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat • Hacker News Board

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

#131

Post by tialaramex » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #102

Svip wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do actually (»varetægtsfængslet« in Danish), but I forgot the appropriate term in English. I thought given the context that we were talking about bails, I didn't have to be specific.

Ah ok. I was confused by your question because while the distinction between pre-conviction "jail" and post-conviction "prison" is not always followed in English, "wrongful imprisonment" as a phrase almost always refers to wrongful conviction + imprisonment.

I don't know the phrase "Wrongful imprisonment" but I'd assumed "Unlawful imprisonment" which is a crime and I'd associate it not with people who were wrongly _convicted_ because their conviction means imprisoning them was lawful, rather I'd associate it with situations where someone's freedom is taken away by some process other than the due process of law. If you're wrongly convicted the conviction must be overturned, whereupon you're innocent and will be freed by normal operation of the law (assuming you didn't also commit some other crime for which you're imprisoned)

As example of what I'd think of as "unlawful imprisonment" there are problems in the UK with wives brought from countries where women, especially poor women, aren't treated very well - who are sometimes basically used as household slaves. The law against unlawful imprisonment doesn't require that they be chained up or in a locked room or anything, even a strong psychological coercion to remain ("You are my wife! You mustn't leave the home without my express permission") could be enough to make this unlawful.

Or you'll sometimes get people taking the law into their own hands, somebody catches a shoplifter and decides to put him in the walk-in fridge to "teach him a lesson" - that sort of thing. Again, that's a crime.

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

#132

Post by moate » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

dismantlethesun wrote: post #16

mschuster91 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flight risk is really not as high as the system is designed for. The system is rigged against the minorities. Look why cannabis was criminalized in the first place - to target blacks and hippies ( https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-... ). As a politician, keep as many of 'em in jails as you can, thus showing the white population you're "tough on crime" and at the same time filling the coffe…

I have heard this and always wondered what exactly is keeping people from doing drugs with lessers sentencing? For example, if crack-cocaine carries a high sentence, then why not drop the habit in exchange for powdered cocaine? If the question is price, then this is really more of a system targeting the poor than one that is against any specific minority group.

Crack is substantially cheaper to obtain than powdered cocaine. Crack is just powdered cocaine that's been cooked with other substances, essentially diluting it.

The question is purely price, and it's the system targeting drug users of certain class/ethnic groups more than others. If you look at drug law enforcement in the US, it's substantially more punitive towards poor/minority groups.

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

#133

Post by TillE » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:15 PM UTC

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.

Unless you murdered somebody, the vast vast majority of people arrested in Germany are quickly released pending trial.

Status quo bias is such a huge problem. We think that just because the world (or a country) works a certain way, that it's justified and correct. These are all just mostly arbitrary half-broken systems that have accrued over time, so it pays to look at how things might be different.

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

#134

Post by kaolti » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:18 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #104

cubano wrote: post #87

In my experience by far the worse part of the totally racist and unfair US bail system is the fact that... ... if you can't bail out, you don't get any REAL credit for the time you have spent locked up when you finally go to court and get sentenced , which really rubs injury into insult and flies 100% into the face of "innocent until proven guilty" bullshit we are all told is the way the system works. Before everyone…

> over 30 years getting arrested for minor shit all over the US Have you tried not spending three decades committing petty crimes "all over the US?" As for your original point - credit for time - you get 1.5x for time served. If you're sentenced to prison. If you spend weeks in jail but don't actually get sentenced to prison, there's nothing against which your time can be credited. Nobody's crediting jail time toward…

> Have you tried not spending three decades committing petty crimes "all over the US?"

Way to be constructive bro.

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

#135

Post by 1024core » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:21 PM UTC

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.

> is a fundamental violation of constitutional rights

That's one thing I don't understand: why isn't violation of Constitutional Rights a crime in itself? I mean, speeding by 10mph on a road with noone around gets you at least a ticket; but violating someone's rights? Nothing. Of course, by definition, this can be done only by government actors, but I still feel that there should be a price to pay even for government actors when they violate the fundamental law of the land.

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

#136

Post by sp332 » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:24 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #72

candiodari wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... 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…

Arrange claims to be hiding because he is afraid of being handed over to the US.

*Assange, sigh

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

#137

Post by giancarlostoro » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:46 PM UTC

Seems more and more like our legal system is based around people being guilty until proven innocent. This is so wrong. People who could be flight risks are the ones who should pay bail.

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

#138

Post by shawabawa3 » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:47 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #107

bdhess wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems just as farcical to levy a $100 fine on someone who only has $100. What exactly does that accomplish?

So if a robbery results in a 10 year sentence and a poor person makes $15,000 per year, that means the sentence costs the poor person $150,000, not adjusted for inflation. A rich person who makes $1 million per year would he. Need to serve less than 2 months then right? If we are trying to use this socialist fine system, then that would necessarily result in shorter jail time for rich people because they are being “h…

You've got it backwards.

"time" is the unit of punishment, as it's more equal than wealth.

We agree that both a rich and poor person should serve the same time in prison for the same crime

Therefore, for a fine, both a rich and a poor person should pay the same fine relative to their earnings per unit of time. i.e., if the fine is $100 for someone making $15,000/year, it should be $100,000 for someone making $15,000,000/year

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

#139

Post by tialaramex » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:52 PM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #129

nemetroid wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All European countries > criminal judge Almost all of Europe uses civil law, where there is no distinction between civil and criminal courts. > 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. This is far removed from reality as far as I am aware…

> Almost all of Europe uses civil law, where there is no distinction between civil and criminal courts. Obviously not true. In fact, this is so obviously wrong I don't know where to start. Differences between civil and criminal courts: * different hierarchy * different powers (criminal court can, say, order imprisonment) * different judges * different parties (defendant vs prosecution for criminal, defendant vs compl…

As the article you've linked points out, the fact you _can_ theoretically do this in England doesn't mean it will actually work.

There are private prosecutions in England, but they almost all happen under the tacit approval of the state, e.g. rather than spend government money prosecuting people who mistreat their pets the government doesn't stop the RSCPA (a charity) from prosecuting them privately with donated money.

If instead a rich person has just decided to try to prosecute someone they don't like, it is almost certain that the state will intervene, and indeed it is legally required to do so once it's told this is going on, by a judge, a newspaper article, a law clerk who realises what's happening, almost anybody.

What will happen is that a very bored junior barrister from the Crown Prosecution Service will show up (this could happen as early as pre-trial discussions), they will inform the court that the CPS would like this case assigned to them, they're privileged to do this without giving any reason. Then, having been granted control of your prosecution, the barrister will inform the judge that they're not offering any evidence, the judge will accordingly declare the defendant isn't guilty as no evidence has been presented against them. You have now spent a lot of money and achieved nothing except to annoy a judge and the prosecutor, which seems like a bad idea.

If you've got a dubious case, maybe the defendant was caught red-handed stealing something from your store and you're trying to prosecute them to ruin their reputation after police decided a formal warning was sufficient - the CPS can demand all your paperwork, take over the case and then having read your evidence decide to take that evidence to court or offer no evidence on the same basis they'd have used if the police sent them the case (a "full code test").

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

#140

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC » Wed, Aug 08, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

scott_s wrote: post #110

CamTin wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prosecutors might only take those cases, but they're not the ones making arrests. Police are. Once you are already in jail then, under the proposed scheme, the prosecutor's options become 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, 2) take it to trial and lose, also exposing the public purse to the same damages, 3) take it to trial and win, which is expensive but at lea…

Not necessarily. We could decide that being in jail prior to seeing a judge or magistrate that sets bail does not count as wrongful imprisonment; it's the period of time during which the state has to decide if they really want to follow through on charging this individual, and if so, wether or not they want to take the risk of wrongful imprisonment. We could say that only time after a judge or magistrate has made the…

I don't see why any individual is expected to pay for this. Locking someone up has a cost, and it's done in the interest of the public, so I would think it is obvious the public should have to pay for it if they are innocent.

If we want to build a town hall, we don't just take the next person that comes along and force them to build the thing that everyone then gets to benefit from--that's what taxes are for.