151–160 of 208 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe the solution is to remove the political (dis)incentive structure such that the will of an irrational population doesn't continue to cause harm.
Completely agreed, but how would you propose to navigate these waters within a democratic system?
So, we have the will of the people. So far, so good.
And then we have the complete freedom of capital to nudge the will of the people.
Something is wrong with this picture.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the data available for felonies right here [1]. And according to those data 77% of people without prior convictions end up being released (63% for those with only misdemeanor convictions, 46% with prior felony convictions). Of those released, about 33% are released for $0 bail, and the remainder met financial conditions. For those who faced a bail of [1] - https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf
According to your link 32% of all defendants are held on bail, I would call that "a very large percentage". It would be interesting to see what proportion of the total incarcerated population those held on bail made up too. It's also worth pointing out that that data stops at 2004 and shows the amount held on bail increased ~15% in 14 years, from the "media sources" I've read it has apparently not stopped going up in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agreed, but how would you propose to navigate these waters within a democratic system?
It's really weird when it's completely normal for insurance companies to take out TV ads for the removal of a judge. On the grounds of something unrelated, of course. So, we have the will of the people. So far, so good. And then we have the complete freedom of capital to nudge the will of the people. Something is wrong with this picture.
Seems even if you remove the influence of capital, you're just kicking the can rather than actually solving the problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
To a higher court, as with any other judicial order? This is how things work in normal common law countries like the UK, Canada and Australia.
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…
As I understand it, bail on bond is an old concept. Imagine rich landlord from movie universe Wild West. Their power comes from wealth (which comes from land) and being free. If they are detained for the period of trial, then someone will take over the land and they lose the power. If they are bailed on bond and fail to show up for trial, the land is seized by government and they again lose the power. Being free (getting bailed) and keeping the wealth (showing up for trial) is the winning move for the landlord, therefore they are strongly incentivised to appear for trial.
Of course the person in question must have a lot to lose (social status, wealth, etc.) for bail on bond to work. For the outcast beggar jail is arguably a better place than open streets. The rich™ have their wealth diversified so much, that it would be difficult to seize significant portion of their wealth.
> We don't have people pre-pay to not commit other crimes, why does specifically this one get it?
As I understand it, bail on bond is not about committing other crimes (while this is a nice side effect) but about appearing for trial.
> Seems to me like it just privatized part of the justice system - instead of cops chasing down delinquent criminals, it's bail bondsmen.
As others have noted, bail bondsmen essentially operate "risk management" business and offloading the risk assessment from court to bail bondsmen is one of the points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uhh, sounds like they will be treated the same as a poor person is currently treated then. I agree that judges should have the discretion to release poor people that cannot make bail. That part of the system needed to be changed. I don't agree that they should have limitless discretion to arbitrarily hold anyone without bail. That is a gaping and dangerous hole to open up.
That is already the case right now, anyone can be held without bail