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

California governor signs overhaul of bail system

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 208 posts

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#41

Post by koolba »

jeffdavis wrote: post #34
koolba wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting people to show up to trial is the main one. I’d like to see an experiment where rather than money, instead a free citizen is offered up for bail. And if you don’t show up for trial the citizen goes to jail till they apprehend you.

I don't follow your proposal. Honestly, it sounds really scary and disturbing, but I'll let you explain it better first.

Rather than putting up cash, a friend, brother, sister, etc offers themselves as the bond for my freedom. If I abscond then they’ll be arrested and imprisoned until I’m apprehended. Assuming that “everybody has somebody”, it’s quite fair as rich or poor you’ll be able to find someone to be your bond.

Again the idea is to have a strong incentive to report for trial. Assuming your actually emotionally close to the person being offered as bond (ex: I wouldn’t let my brother go to prison) then you’d make sure to show up.

In the case of the person who has done no wrong and knows they will show up to trial, it reduces the cost of the bond to effectively zero. For the rich you’re able to put a price higher than just money, the actual freedom of someone they care about.

Note that this entire system is predicated on a judge deciding if the person being offered for bond being worthy of the position. Otherwise you could have rich people “buy” their freedom by paying off a sap to sign their name.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#42

Post by philwelch »

bodas wrote: post #10
philwelch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who skip bail, by and large, don't get on a plane or drive across the country. Also, the bail system isn't designed to only incentivize defendants themselves to show up to court. The bail bondsman has the financial incentive and the legal right to apprehend and deliver a defendant who has skipped bail. Removing the bail bondsman from the equation only increases the public cost of reapprehending these defendant…

It would also be a lot cheaper to dispense with courts and replace them with private arbitrators with the power to send people to prison. A system where the decision on whether you go to jail or not is made by bail bondsmen is not just. If they decide not to grant you a bond, to where do you appeal?

Where do you appeal if the judge decides not to release you of your own recognizance? Where do you appeal of the judge decides not to even offer you bail, for that matter?

By the time you're dealing with a bail bondsman, you're already in jail, and a judge has likely decided not to release you of your own recognizance. The question is whether or not you have to stay there until trial.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#43

Post by koolba »

monetus wrote: post #36
koolba wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting people to show up to trial is the main one. I’d like to see an experiment where rather than money, instead a free citizen is offered up for bail. And if you don’t show up for trial the citizen goes to jail till they apprehend you.

Are you saying that they should try punishing an innocent until guilt overwhelms the alleged offender? ... That doesn't seem very empathic. Seems like it would create an incentive for vigilantism too. Huh.

Read my sibling reply. It’s not a random person, it’s someone close to the person being bailed who would do so voluntarily.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#44

Post by jdavis703 »

akira2501 wrote: post #12
syrrim wrote: post #3

If I had to speculate, I'd say this is primarily a reaction to improved ability to track people, such that it is next to impossible for a person to jump bail. You can't get on a plane, or otherwise try and cross the border, because your passport will be checked. If you drive across the country, then your credit cards/bank accounts will be tracked, and security cameras can pick up and recognize your face. I imagine th…

> because your passport will be checked. That's far more a concern for people trying to re-enter the United States. For those leaving, this is hardly an impediment.

Your passport is checked when you leave the U.S. It’s done electronically though, so if your passport is clear you don’t even notice it when you leave (unlike say the exit Visa stamp you get in Schegen countries). If your passport comes back flagged when you’re leaving the U.S. the FBI or Marshall’s or whoever can apprehend you.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#45

Post by closeparen »

komali2 wrote: post #37
koolba wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting people to show up to trial is the main one. I’d like to see an experiment where rather than money, instead a free citizen is offered up for bail. And if you don’t show up for trial the citizen goes to jail till they apprehend you.

I don't understand how a bail is more motivating for someone to show up to trial than the threat of arrest with no bail. We don't have people pre-pay to not commit other crimes, why does specifically this one get it? This is ignoring all the other, wealth disparity type issues, with bail. Seems to me like it just privatized part of the justice system - instead of cops chasing down delinquent criminals, it's bail bond…

Sure we do. Movers, bank tellers, and many other occupantions with high risk to the client/employer require surety bonds. Ever seen “licensed, bonded, and insured” on a contractor truck?

Offloading risk to a firm specialized in managing it is precisely the point. The criminal justice system is just one instance - it’s a long lived and widespread form of insurance.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#46

Post by TomMckenny »

swebs wrote: post #35
Someone1234 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a bunch of unaccountable social workers Some judges have appointments for life, and those that aren't often aren't recalled. How is that accountable? > anonymous 'committee' that can refuse to set bail altogether. Where are you getting the information that the committee is anonymous or unaccountable? The articles on this change that I've read didn't specify that.

Judges can be recalled, though it is rare. It recently happened to the California judge who presided over the Brock Turner case over accusations that his sentence was not harsh enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner#Repercussions...

Another instance was the removal of 3 California supreme court justices[1], including the first woman, for over turning too many death penalties and ruling against insurance companies too often (although the TV campaign to remove focused only insufficient zeal about the death penalty.)

[1]Rose Bird, Cruz Reynoso, Joseph Grodin

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#48

Post by rublev »

koolba wrote: post #43
monetus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that they should try punishing an innocent until guilt overwhelms the alleged offender? ... That doesn't seem very empathic. Seems like it would create an incentive for vigilantism too. Huh.

Read my sibling reply. It’s not a random person, it’s someone close to the person being bailed who would do so voluntarily.

You are the bureaucrat we all fear. Please never go into public policy.

Signed, everyone.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#49

Post by jack9 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #33
jaxn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of good sides to the bail system. What positives do you see.

1. Get people to show up for trial 2. Get dangerous people -- perhaps with little to lose if they are already facing serious charges -- off the street faster Of course these benefits need to be balanced against the costs imposed on the defendent (who has not been convicted yet).

> Get dangerous people -- perhaps with little to lose if they are already facing serious charges -- off the street faster

How does bail achieve that? If they are too dangerous to release, then it's no bail. If they are possibly dangerous, you're letting a financially motivated (exploitative) or ignorant entity decide who gets out of jail...be it a financial institution or the mob or family, but only if you come from a background which has finances to leverage. It's an effective tax on the poor innocent and guilty alike.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#50

Post by olliej »

philwelch wrote: post #40
olliej wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the very basic point: bail hearings are before you're on trial. Which is the problem: even if you did not commit the crime for which you're charged, you end up in jail because you literally cannot afford not to. Then you lose your job, because you know, you were in jail. There are innumerable cases where innocent people have been arrested (think protests that are protected by the first amendment, or si…

> Which is the problem: even if you did not commit the crime for which you're charged, you end up in jail because you literally cannot afford not to. Then you lose your job, because you know, you were in jail. Yes; putting people in jail is a mechanism for making sure people show up to court. It is a very effective mechanism. And it remains a mechanism even after California's reforms. There's no civil right to receiv…

> There's no civil right to receive an offer of bail. You have a civil right to not be placed in jail for a crime you didn't commit.

> Bail bondsmen are essentially loaning you money to pay bail With a 10% interest rate, except that's not per annum, that's until your trial or charges are dropped, so it's closer to 200% interest rate assuming a two week turn around.

> Sources?

The most basic google searches will give you examples. Even John Oliver has done a section on the abuse of bail to coerce guilty pleas. Just as an example (first hit on google) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/innocen...

> The probability that the suspect will miss their court date Missing your court date is always (and remains) something that results in immediate incarceration. So the impetus to not miss their court date is compulsory (no-bail) incarceration. Presumably we consider incarceration a motivation?

> The cost of trying to apprehend the suspect and return them to jail, if they miss their court date Vastly vastly cheaper than keeping them in jail -- especially given for minor crimes skipping bail doesn't result in a manhunt, it literally just means a warrant is issued and the next time a defendant encounters police they will be arrested, and again, not have the opportunity of bail.

The bail system does not solve any of these problems - the fact that even when money is involved people still skip bail should tell you something. The only thing that the current bail system ensures is that poor defendants will go to jail, even if they're innocent.

Remember that people who are put in jail because they can't afford bail are not compensated for the costs they are subjected to, even if the charges are dropped.

Post reply on HN