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

171–180 of 208 posts

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#171

Post by pc86 »

alistairSH wrote: post #170
pc86 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm torn on this one to be honest. Just to make the math easier let's say it costs the state $1/unit/day and 10% of those equipped are later found innocent. The state will have to charge people $1.10/day (or something close to that) due to the refunds, making it even harder for even more people to afford it in the first place.

Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Perhaps but good luck politically. Should the guilty people who used the same service pay an inflated price?

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#172

Post by Alex3917 »

pc86 wrote: post #167
adam-a wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Look at the stats from the Brooklyn Community Bail Fund and the Bronx Freedom Fund.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#173

Post by alistairSH »

_2d30 wrote: post #120
Alex3917 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is that true? Why not get a bail bond??

Bail bond is typically 10% of the bail amount. And that's the bail bondsman's to keep.

So, on a $500 bail, that's $50. If you're indigent, you might not have $50.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#174

Post by alistairSH »

I haven't seen numbers... does anybody know, or have sources, for the rate of skipping trial (with and without bail)?

I wonder if, like excessively long prison sentences, that increasing bail has limited returns (in terms of getting people to show up for their trials). IE, most people will come to trial anyways. Those that are likely to skip will skip regardless of bail amount.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#175

Post by jopsen »

hollerith wrote: post #112
YokoZar wrote: post #29

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.

Good point. One of the arguments given for why crimes are punished less severely in Germany and France is that sentencing judges there are less accountable to voters.

If you also people if punishments are severe enough, most will say no.

If you also people if a specific punishment is severe enough, most will say yes.

People require less severe punishments the more informed they are. Voting on judges is only going to get a more generalized mob effect.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#176

Post by pc86 »

davidsawyer wrote: post #91
maxxxxx wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's how it used to be in Britain. Rich people would send somebody else to prison in their place.

Wow, that's absolutely insane. How did people think that was a good idea?

Trying to apply today's moral standards to a time centuries ago is a fool's errand.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#177

Post by sebasmurphy »

rdl wrote: post #8

I'm not sure if I agree with this change (there are positives and negatives to the bail system), but I love that in a federal system individual states are free to experiment like this. Maybe it will work, and then other states can adopt it.

It already works in DC.

This is a good vice episode. Gives an overview of DC's no-bail pretrail release system vs the bail bond system used in neighboring Maryland.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGomdoO368g

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#178

Post by downandout »

pm24601 wrote: post #148
downandout wrote: post #88

This is terrible. Pretrial detention in rough California county jails is often used as a bargaining chip by prosecutors to get quick convictions in exchange for probationary sentences. "Don't like the constant threat of being raped or assaulted every day? Sign the deal, take a felony conviction, and you'll get out on probation tonight". This won't result in more poor people being released. It will simply result in a…

> This won't result in more poor people being released. It will simply result in a higher percentage of middle and upper class people being extorted into guilty pleas that they would not otherwise take, under the threat of losing their careers and families as a result of many months Instead of just poor people?

Again, I do believe that the system should be adjusted to encourage judges to give free pretrial release to poor people that they think will show up for court. I just think that judges shouldn’t be given broad new authority to arbitrarily incarcerate people that can post money bail along with that adjustment.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#179

Post by acomar »

jacobush wrote: post #152
TangoTrotFox wrote: post #136

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.

> complete freedom of capital to nudge the will of the people.

"Nudge" is far too weak of a verb, here. There are many structural issues between the population and exercising their will, and many structural advantages that allow capital to exert undue pressure on the political process. These advantages and dis-advantages are inherent to our system and have been described at length in academia.

Post reply on HN