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

161–170 of 208 posts

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#161

Post by woodpanel »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #97
woodpanel wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And for these people, bail has zero impact on whether they show up for trial. All the while that 50$-based jail time has disastrous impact on their personal lives (losing jobs, eviction by landlords, more complicated interaction with police, three-strike-rules ....).

Well, then a common sense incremental change would be to drop or discourage those tiny bail amounts, not throw out the whole system. Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs.

I agree with your first point: incremental changes are often for the better.

Regarding your second: > Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs Doesn't the legitimacy of the job come before the right to perform it? A whole industry just lost their jobs is probably what many said in 1833 after the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#162

Post by jacobush »

TangoTrotFox wrote: post #156
jacobush wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but it's not just capital right? Especially in the internet era if you somehow removed all capital influence you just shift it to the range of people between celebrities and confidence men. The fundamental problem is that people let others unduly influence 'their' worldview. Seems even if you remove the influence of capital, you're just kicking the can rather than actually solving the problem.

Maybe, but I think capital must be the main driver. In an age when attention is scarce, paying for it must have a huge influence.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#163

Post by _delirium »

GeneralMayhem wrote: post #104
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…

His 1980 campaign was particularly weird in its combination of positions. It was during the height of his "Governor Moonbeam" reputation, and combined a grab-bag of left-wing and right-wing proposals, mostly culturally left but economically right-ish. Strategically this might've been an attempt to paint both Carter and Ted Kennedy (the other main primary candidate) as old-fashioned: Carter as staid and culturally conservative, and Kennedy (who had proposed a single-payer health plan) as the big-government, big-spending liberal, with Brown as a new modern kind of liberal who balanced budgets while advocating for acupuncture, solar energy, organic farming, and space travel. Very "California ideology", but it didn't really work nationally.

His 1976 campaign by contrast was oddly similar to his current persona, a kind of center-left, pragmatic technocrat. The conventional wisdom seems to be that he only lost because Carter figured out quicker how to campaign in the new primary system (1976 was the first year that primaries rather than state conventions dominated) and racked up a bunch of early delegates.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#164

Post by pc86 »

mehrdadn wrote: post #62
swebs wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

>> Some judges have appointments for life, and those that aren't often aren't recalled. > Judges can be recalled, though it is rare. I believe that's exactly what the parent was trying to point out...

A judge who is capable of being recalled by the public is certainly more accountable than a social worker who can't be. That is the point.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#165

Post by pc86 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #130
rdl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mostly, getting people to show up for trial. Here's a section from the actual bill: A person released pursuant to the local rule of court shall be released on his or her own recognizance or on supervised own recognizance release ... A person shall not be required to pay for any nonmonetary condition or combination of conditions imposed pursuant to this section I believe Supervised Own Recognizance means that the defe…

If this ends up being a better system then I hope more states adopt it. But I don't see what's wrong with having someone pay for the GPS bracelet if they're required to wear it because it's deemed that they are likely to not come to court?

Yes, it will be harder for some people to pay than others. Things cost money, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge the person using the service for that service, even if they're ordered to do so by a court.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#166

Post by jdavis703 »

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?

After some Googling, it appears that the U.S. land border crossing points are less monitored. I've only utilized U.S. air and sea crossings, both of which do have electronic exit visas (because the shipline or airline reports their passenger manifest to the authorities). So, yes, no check is done when using a land crossing.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#167

Post by pc86 »

adam-a wrote: post #146
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #140

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…

The original statement was "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 to determine the accuracy of that you need to see how many people are in jail specifically for failure to pay a very small bail amount. The fact that 32% are held on bail doesn't address the original point. From the linked source, page three:

> When the bail was under $10,000, most defendants secured release, including 7 in 10 defendants with bail under $5,000 (figure 3).

So we're talking about $50-100 bail fines, but even if you raise the definition of "small amount" to $5k, 70% of those are released. We're already down into single digit percentages of folks with a <$5k bail set who are financially unable to pay it. I wish the data went to $1k and below because I imagine the percentage unable to pay would be minuscule.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#168

Post by Broken_Hippo »

rdl wrote: post #99
jaxn wrote: post #14

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…

Sure, but so does simply calling folks and/or having them check in in many cases. Some places do such things already.

The system is cheaper than keeping folks in jail as well. Some civil servant can call folks and leave reminders and such. No need to pay for food and housing. And a great bonus: The person's life isn't so negatively affected before they are even found guilt or for crimes that wouldn't usually have jail time.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#169

Post by lightbyte »

mirimir wrote: post #111
rootw0rm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

she's accused of beating up 3 old people with a bat, then smashing up their vehicle for good measure

Impressive. 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.

>And did they deserve it?

Is this sarcasm? I'm struggling to think of a good reason for three elderly people to deserve getting beaten with a bat.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#170

Post by alistairSH »

pc86 wrote: post #165
Johnny555 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly, getting people to show up for trial. Here's a section from the actual bill: A person released pursuant to the local rule of court shall be released on his or her own recognizance or on supervised own recognizance release ... A person shall not be required to pay for any nonmonetary condition or combination of conditions imposed pursuant to this section I believe Supervised Own Recognizance means that the defe…

If this ends up being a better system then I hope more states adopt it. But I don't see what's wrong with having someone pay for the GPS bracelet if they're required to wear it because it's deemed that they are likely to not come to court? Yes, it will be harder for some people to pay than others. Things cost money, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge the person using the service for that service, ev…

And if they're eventually found innocent? Should the state pay then?
Post reply on HN