111–120 of 208 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus, what kind of crime allegation gets that kind of bail set?
she's accused of beating up 3 old people with a bat, then smashing up their vehicle for good measure
So why did she do that? And did they deserve it?
I'm guessing maybe a bicycle accident. Just a wild guess. I mean, been there, almost did that. But with a chain, not a bat. Those jerks almost killed me.
Instead of the duly appointed Judge making the decision, the power is delegated to a "Risk Assessment" board. (i.e., a bunch of unaccountable social workers). So, instead of an individual Judge getting flack for excessive bail, he can sleep at night having had his authority delegated to an anonymous 'committee' that can refuse to set bail altogether. It seems the general public -- at least in California -- has little…
Isn't part of the problem that judges face a lot of pressures to be extra harsh when deciding bail? A board seems less likely to face political blowback when the rare out on bail person commits a serious crime. That sounds like the sort of incident that incentivizes judges to be extra harsh.
Instead of the duly appointed Judge making the decision, the power is delegated to a "Risk Assessment" board. (i.e., a bunch of unaccountable social workers). So, instead of an individual Judge getting flack for excessive bail, he can sleep at night having had his authority delegated to an anonymous 'committee' that can refuse to set bail altogether. It seems the general public -- at least in California -- has little…
Isn't part of the problem that judges face a lot of pressures to be extra harsh when deciding bail? A board seems less likely to face political blowback when the rare out on bail person commits a serious crime. That sounds like the sort of incident that incentivizes judges to be extra harsh.
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…
> Known bike thieves carrying a bike while riding another - nothing done. your choice not to use the word convicted but instead known strikes me as really interesting. So your argument is that the police should focus on enforcing your perception of order despite the fact that the social contract (and the law is a social contract) has been changed because the populace viewed the existing version to be structurally rac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Bail long predates the existence of the police as we now know them. I have a suspicion though that if you eliminated bail, what you'd end up doing would functionally be making all the bail bondsmen (who currently are limited in what they can do) disappear but suddenly create a need for a bunch more police (who have broader powers). I don't know if that is really a positive tradeoff. I think the bail bondsmen are like…
OTOH, even most of the history of money bail didn't involve up front payment, it involved recognizances and sureties (pledges from either the accused or third parties, with the latter prohibited from profiting from the arrangement).
> I have a suspicion though that if you eliminated bail, what you'd end up doing would functionally be making all the bail bondsmen (who currently are limited in what they can do) disappear but suddenly create a need for a bunch more police (who have broader powers).
Since Washington, D.C., already did this for quite a while, why are speculating as if this hasn't been done?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't think of good sides to the bail system. What positives do you see.
Mostly, getting people to show up for trial. It might not be the best system, but it does work to some degree. For the same person, setting increased bail due to more serious allegations or greater flight risk does seem to make sense. That people have wildly different levels of wealth to start with is the major problem, but a system that would give me a $5000 bail on a shoplifting charge vs. a $5mm bail on murder see…
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?
What you really want is a system that allows further changes based on assessment of it's faults.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't part of the problem that judges face a lot of pressures to be extra harsh when deciding bail? A board seems less likely to face political blowback when the rare out on bail person commits a serious crime. That sounds like the sort of incident that incentivizes judges to be extra harsh.
If judges risk themselves politically if they release people on bail then that means that the will of the people is to rarely release people on bail. I know it may sound weird to you and me but apparently there are a lot of people in California who feel that someone accused of a crime should suffer in prison until they are proven innocent. That is the disadvantage of democracy, people with different opinions get to v…
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.