California governor signs overhaul of bail system

Post by 0xffff2 » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:41 AM UTC

olliej wrote: post #4

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…

It's mostly due to the increasing evidence of: * Clear biases in distribution of bail vs. non-bail gated release * The substantially unbalanced cost of bail for poor vs. middle-class and up. Basically: if your bail costs $1000 and you make $50k/year you can probably arrange cash to cover it. If you make 20k/year you probably cannot, so your option is to lose $100 - bail bond is not returned to you - or you literally…

Post by pishpash » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:58 AM UTC

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…

Post by jaxn » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:08 AM UTC

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).

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:12 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #56

olliej wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 have a civil right to not be placed in jail for a crime you didn't commit. No, you don't. You have a civil right not to be imprisoned indefinitely , but you can be held in jail from the moment you're arrested to the moment a "not guilty" verdict is reached by a jury.

Post by woodpanel » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:13 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #58

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.

> Getting people to show up to trial is the main one. So I think at the top end of the spectrum this might make sense. The problem is that a very large percentage people in jail are there because their bail was literally $50 or $100 but they didn't have the money to pay it, so they end up in jail for months or years on end. And for these people, bail has zero impact on whether they show up for trial.