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

101–110 of 208 posts

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#101

Post by GeneralMayhem »

MBCook wrote: post #47
DanCarvajal wrote: post #25

I wish Gov. Jerry Brown was young enough to run for President. I don't like the crop of Democrats that are vying for 2020.

Wow. I didn’t realize he was 80. I knew he’d been governor for quite a while.

Jerry Brown has had a pretty nutty career. He's been governor for 4 terms (16 years), but that's split into two stints 30 years apart. He was first elected Governor in 1974, at which point he was not quite the youngest governor ever, but close. He's now the oldest governor ever.

I can't imagine what that first day back in 2011 must have been like. "Oh yeah, just like I left it... except now there's all these computers, those weren't here before..."

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#102

Post by woolvalley »

olliej wrote: post #75
jaxn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Faster due process has a much bigger impact than tracking people down (which is both expensive and dangerous). There will also likely be an increase in "no bond" holds until the court date. This is a step in the right direction, but the entire incarceration machine needs an overhaul/downsize.

my inclination is that all non-violent offenses should be on recognizance (or however that's worded) unless there's historic evidence that you will miss your court dates. If you have previously skipped court dates then we shouldn't necessarily assume that you would make future court dates, so why do we believe bail would mean anything?

Would you call physical theft a violent or non-violent crime? How about if that theft involved property damage?

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#103

Post by jmspring »

firic wrote: post #87
jmspring wrote: post #84

For communities already pushing the extremes of what Prop 47 and Prop 57 allow, this will be one more blow to the common citizenry. Places like Santa Cruz have a very high recidivism rates where serial bike thieves, petty theft, even violence towards common citizens are maybe ticketed and at best brought in and released in a couple of hours will use this as further excuse to do nothing. Examples - woman assaulted in…

What does this have to do with one party? How is a primary system in one party different than a general election amongst two parties?

California did better with balanced government. Republican Gov and democratic legislature. There was some semblance of balance.

Without that balance, we see prop 47 and 57. Local communities using those as an excuse to not really do much in the way of law enforcement — the city government of Santa Cruz was actively hostile toward the police well into the 90s. An individual casing bikes with bike tools in the east bay would have an “encounter” with PD, in Santa Cruz PD actually told me in a meeting - they won’t engage unless they actively see an incident in progress or the owner reports it.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#104

Post by GeneralMayhem »

DanCarvajal wrote: post #25

I wish Gov. Jerry Brown was young enough to run for President. I don't like the crop of Democrats that are vying for 2020.

He tried, a long time ago, and lost the primaries to Carter (twice... not sure why he bothered to enter the primary in 1980). He also lost a presidential primary in 1992 (Clinton).

If he ran again in 2020... well, it would be pretty fitting considering he's done his whole career path twice, but it's pretty crazy that it's not absolutely out of the question for someone who was on the national stage at the same time as Carter and Reagan to still be there.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#105

Post by manigandham »

koolba wrote: post #41
jeffdavis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pers…

You make several assumptions that they have someone in the first place, and that they care about them as well - but justice should never be about assumptions. The entire justice system is designed to let guilty go free if it means a single innocent person is protected from wrongful incarceration.

Why do you think involving innocents is a good idea? Especially when it means they go to jail and get their freedoms taken away? People who skip bail already put their family at risk plenty of times, often signing away property and leaving family members destitute.

It would be much better to refund bail costs for anyone acquitted than to force this on people who do not deserve it.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#106

Post by manigandham »

topmonk wrote: post #82
toomanybeersies wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other people have mentioned, this is a terrible idea. I wouldn't be surprised if my brother would let me rot in jail and skip bail, obviously I wouldn't offer myself up for bail, but not everybody would be in the same situation. It would be easy for people to coerce (by threats of violence etc.) people to offer themselves as bail.

It would easy for people to coerce others into giving up money for bail, as well. How is this worse in that aspect?

Would you rather give up some money or your freedom?

They are not comparable at all, and locking up an innocent person is unimaginably worse.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#107

Post by shimms »

topmonk wrote: post #82
toomanybeersies wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other people have mentioned, this is a terrible idea. I wouldn't be surprised if my brother would let me rot in jail and skip bail, obviously I wouldn't offer myself up for bail, but not everybody would be in the same situation. It would be easy for people to coerce (by threats of violence etc.) people to offer themselves as bail.

It would easy for people to coerce others into giving up money for bail, as well. How is this worse in that aspect?

Because in the first example all the person lost was money, in the other - their liberty. Not sure how they're at all comparable.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#108

Post by learc83 »

topmonk wrote: post #82
toomanybeersies wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other people have mentioned, this is a terrible idea. I wouldn't be surprised if my brother would let me rot in jail and skip bail, obviously I wouldn't offer myself up for bail, but not everybody would be in the same situation. It would be easy for people to coerce (by threats of violence etc.) people to offer themselves as bail.

It would easy for people to coerce others into giving up money for bail, as well. How is this worse in that aspect?

Because the person who was coerced is in jail as opposed to just missing some money.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#109

Post by gizmo686 »

gaadd33 wrote: post #76
jdavis703 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does the US electronically check my passport when driving into Canada? I can seen Canada doing it on entry and relaying that to the US but otherwise, how does that check get done?

The US has good relations with Canada; and Canada is not particularly fond of criminals entering their country. When they check your passport, they will notice you are out on bail and, at best, deny you entry. (The Canadian border also happens to be the US border, so they might also refer the incident to US authorities)

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#110

Post by dragonwriter »

koolba wrote: post #28
jaxn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Washington D.C had demonstrated that the pretrial services model does that without the economic Injustice of money bail, so, no, that's not a relative advantage of money bail.

> 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.

This kind of primitive hostage system is very much like some of the ancient precursors of bail; I'm not sure what reason we'd have to reexplore that, though.

Post reply on HN