California governor signs overhaul of bail system • Hacker News Board

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#181

Post by chowells » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:27 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #171

alistairSH wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

It's not a service, it's a penalty. I believe the whole point of this bill is to remove monetary penalties against people who haven't been convicted of a crime. The state pays for it as a cost of law enforcement. If they think they're paying too much, they find a cheaper vendor or use it more sparingly.

Law enforcement is a cost to society. Budget for it appropriately. If you find it's getting too expensive, look at ways to reduce costs. Maybe prosecute fewer drug crimes. But don't pass the cost along to those who are accused without any conviction.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#182

Post by WillPostForFood » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:46 PM UTC

woodpanel wrote: post #161

WillPostForFood wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that legitimacy of the job comes first, but don't think bail bondsmen are illegitimate. They definitely aren't illegitimate if you think there should be bail system. Instead of comparing it to slavery (which is borderline Godwin's Law), I'd compare it to being a distiller when 18th amendment passed.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#183

Post by sewercake » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 2:55 PM UTC

A relatively new podcast has a really enlightening episode on the bail system [1]. Episode two. Highly recommended.

The big takeaways for me: - the process for setting bail prices is very opaque, with little accountability. Many districts have extraordinary or unmanageably high bail for common crimes. - if you are poor, and can't afford bail, you either have to stay in jail, meaning you are apart from your family, unable to work, or more often than not, pay a bail bondsman a non-refundable amount of money to get you out of jail, meaning, before you are charged, before you are guilty (or innocent), you end up paying a fine.

[1] https://twitter.com/justice_podcast?lang=en

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#184

Post by pas » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:00 PM UTC

sewercake wrote: post #183

A relatively new podcast has a really enlightening episode on the bail system [1]. Episode two. Highly recommended. The big takeaways for me: - the process for setting bail prices is very opaque, with little accountability. Many districts have extraordinary or unmanageably high bail for common crimes. - if you are poor, and can't afford bail, you either have to stay in jail, meaning you are apart from your family, un…

Isn't bail set by the judge after you are charged, that is after arraignment?

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#185

Post by pjgrad » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:12 PM UTC

gesman wrote: post #180

Just wonder in case of dangerous local gang member - couldn’t gang influence (threaten) risk assessment board people to let the guy go free?

They could rob people to pay their buddy's bail too, and threaten the judge to reduce sentencing. What's your point?

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#186

Post by jaxn » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:56 PM UTC

woolvalley wrote: post #102

olliej wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What is and isn't a violent crime is already well-defined.

Mugging is a violent crime, but shoplifting isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#187

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 4:17 PM UTC

sjy wrote: post #157

philwelch wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Where do you appeal of the judge decides not to even offer you bail, for that matter? 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.

Eventually you run out of appeals, or the higher court refuses to hear your appeal, just as you eventually run out of bail bondsmen. I don't see the situation as any different.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#188

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 5:20 PM UTC

firic wrote: post #113

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.

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…

> The solution is to educate voters why you think that they should vote differently or to move to another place.

Or, the solution is for the people elected by the people to write laws to take the decision out of the hands of judges and put it into a different mechanism; if this is a lesser political risk for them than it would be for the judges making decisions with the same result case by case, it shows that the will of the people is not against the result, as you claim it must be if the judges face a political risk for the outcome of frequent release, but against the mechanism of judicial discretion.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#189

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #171

alistairSH wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

> Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service.

Assuring appearance of the accused is a service government provides to taxpayers (EDIT: more correctly, the public at large); doing it with the minimum necessary and efficient interference with the liberty of the accused is a matter of basic human rights, not a service to the accused.

Therefore, there is no service to the accused being consumed, and no basis for a payment by the accused. The service being provided is to the public by the State at a cost to the liberty of the accused, and should be paid for out of public revenues, not out of the pocket of the person whose liberty is being curtailed.

EDIT:

> Should the taxpayers foot the bill?

Yes, clearly.

> Perhaps but good luck politically.

It's been the policy, and a fairly uncontroversial one, in the nation's capital (despite the fact that for much of that time, a Congress of the opposing major party from the D.C. local government has had veto power over D.C. policy) for years, and a national political movement has now coalesced around it, with polls showing strong national public support for it, and it was just approved by both political branches of the government of the largest state. So, yeah, it seems to be doing just fine, politically.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#190

Post by canhascodez » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

pc86 wrote: post #171

alistairSH wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

Taxpayers foot the bill for the entire justice system; why should this one part be some individual's responsibility? This is a service that is required to be universal: it has to be applied regardless of the individual's ability to pay for it. It's considered good fun to punish victims of the justice system by making them pay for it, but this is ultimately a ruinous policy.