Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

globalcitizen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#161

Post by jessaustin »

CamTin wrote: post #59
hvidgaard wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a fair take on it. If you wrongfully imprison anyone, they get compensation. If all evidence points to them, but they was found not guilty, then they were wrongfully imprisoned and the intent and "why" doesn't really matter to that person.

This has its own potential problems. Prosecutors might be under even more pressure to get convictions or plea bargains, since the alternative, if somebody is already arrested and awaiting trial, is that their bosses (ultimately elected officials) have to shell out public money for a wrongful imprisonment case. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit, but all the moving parts and bizarre incentives of this system make…

Whence does this idea spring, that prosecutors are "under pressure"? I can't think of a single more conspicuously impune position in our society. There are lots of ethical prosecutors, but there are also lots of prosecutors who have destroyed innocent lives for their personal political gain. Maybe the latter group have to hang their heads in private prosecutor meetings, but from the public's perspective they are treated the same as the ethical prosecutors.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#162

Post by Nasrudith »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #48
guessthejuice wrote: post #28

I remember reading about this years ago. It's sad that this problem hasn't been resolved in all that time. We already have a legal system that advantages the wealthy ( more money for better lawyers, experts, etc ) over everyone else. But this bail problem is egregious and cruel. But it isn't the poor who created legal system. It isn't he poor who write laws.

The system isn't fundamentally flawed though. The problem starts when it's abused. When people are locked away regardless of whether or not there is any probability of them leaving the country or otherwise "disappearing" before their trial. Someone who has a family most likely won't do that, and there's no reason for them to go to prison until they have been proven guilty of a crime.

There is one radical viewpoint that I believe holds for the law and computer security practices: if it is abusable it is fundamentally flawed. To give a deliberately extreme example imagine a law that gave the accusser fifty percent of the assets of a terrorist and the prosecutor the other fifty percent with no downsides for a false accusation. Fundamentally there is no way that said law wouldn't be abused for profit and make a complete hash out of justice.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#163

Post by cs02rm0 »

skate22 wrote: post #64
cs02rm0 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A $50 ticket is not going to deter bill gates from speeding. Of course. But I don't think we can sensibly, or ethically, charge him an amount that would. How much would deter him to the same degree? $1m probably wouldn't cut it either. Instead, surely we should either accept that and charge everyone the same absolute amount or find other more equitable ways of deterring him. License points, driving bans, community se…

all of those other things you listed are already in place and cost people time & dignity (which enough money can offset the cost of) It needs to sting for everyone, not just the poor. Do you reject higher tax brackets for the wealthy under that same line of reasoning? Surely wealth is an important factor in deciding what people owe to society

Use those other things for punishment then, don't sting them additionally just because they're wealthier (or rather, have a higher income).

Getting off track here, but I'd rather there were as few tax rates as practical. Perhaps even one under a basic income system. Then the rate is upfront, clear and honest. Not a compounding system of stealth taxes.

Worth noting that wealth is not the same as income, but we tend to tax income rather than wealth, at least until death.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#164

Post by jessaustin »

knome wrote: post #114
athenot wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful imprisonment damages, > 2) take it to trial and lose, also exposing the public purse to the same damages, If a doctor makes a mistake, he or she is liable (in addition to the hospital). In the case of wrongful imprisonment, there should be exposed liability for the officers too. They are the ones who make the judgement call to arrest someone base…

But it takes more than a simple mistake to be able to bring a suit against a doctor, doesn't it? If they misdiagnose, but reasonably, or if complications occur but the doctor was following reasonable medical methods, then they aren't liable, no? If the police get a call that someone is being robbed, then pick someone up that matches the description that was jogging along a block away, the person may turn out to just…

But it takes more than a simple mistake to be able to bring a suit against a doctor, doesn't it?

In USA, the courts are open for anyone's business. No misdiagnosis is required, merely an unhappy patient (or survivors) and an opportunistic lawyer.

The time I said "your honor, we find for the defendant" as foreperson of a malpractice jury was surprisingly uplifting for me...

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#165

Post by jessaustin »

StreamBright wrote: post #22
mschuster91 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Flight risk is really not as high as the system is designed for. The system is rigged against the minorities. Look why cannabis was criminalized in the first place - to target blacks and hippies ( https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-... ). As a politician, keep as many of 'em in jails as you can, thus showing the white population you're "tough on crime" and at the same time filling the coffe…

This white against minorities narrative breaks down once you understand that ~80% of minorities are DNC voters[1] and Bill Clinton was the number one guy who f*ed them over the most with the infamous Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994[2]. 1. http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-aff... 2. In a speech at an NAACP convention in Philadelphia in July, Clinton acknowledged that toughe…

You don't think Clinton was playing the same game as Nixon in '94? He already had one group of voters in the bag; he was reaching out to another group so he wouldn't get Dukakissed in '96. If he had known he'd be facing a lump like Dole, he might not have bothered...

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#166

Post by TheCoelacanth »

jdlyga wrote: post #119

Banning setting excessive bail is literally in the constitution. We should abide by that.

Unfortunately, many parts of the constitution, including this one, have been re-interpreted into near irrelevance by courts. Excessive bail = bail larger than that which is typically required which means that that whatever bail is typically required is by definition not excessive. A more reasonable interpretation would be any bail larger than the amount necessary to achieve the purpose that bail is supposed to serve, which experiments by places like DC have shown for many cases to be any bail larger than zero.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#167

Post by nemetroid »

candiodari wrote: post #129
nemetroid wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All European countries > criminal judge Almost all of Europe uses civil law, where there is no distinction between civil and criminal courts. > But a rich person can drag you in front of a criminal court for not wiping the pavement in front of your apartment often enough. > This is a bail system. The money you put down, you get back if the person gets convicted. This is far removed from reality as far as I am aware…

> Almost all of Europe uses civil law, where there is no distinction between civil and criminal courts. Obviously not true. In fact, this is so obviously wrong I don't know where to start. Differences between civil and criminal courts: * different hierarchy * different powers (criminal court can, say, order imprisonment) * different judges * different parties (defendant vs prosecution for criminal, defendant vs compl…

> Differences between civil and criminal courts:

I spoke too broadly - apparently, some countries (including France, Spain, Poland and Italy) do have different courts for civil and criminal matters. Other countries do not (including Germany, Sweden, Hungary and Slovakia) [0].

> https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partie_civile_en_France

> Google suggests this as an English alternative:

> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.....

> (note there is "partie civile" and "action civile". They are NOT the same, aren't directly related. Specifically it is NOT the case that the "partie civile" is the complainant in an "action civile", as one might think. Keep reading)

I have only read briefly, but noted two things to start with: the document in English clearly states that it only describes the French system (even though other countries are mentioned at times), and it is also 60 years old. But even so:

> This problem was whether the juge d’instruction was bound to direct his investigations against the individual accused in the plaint, or whether he could exercise discretion as to the persons against whom he proceeded. The question was answered in 1925 in favour of the partie civile. The Chambre criminelle held that the juge d’instruction was not master of the proceedings. He was seised in personam in respect of the person accused and not in rem in respect of the charge as a whole. He was therefore without discretion as to whom he inquired against.

This reads similar to what you are describing about the prosecutor being forced to bring the case forward. However:

> The law of July 2, 1931, was passed in an attempt to remedy some of the foregoing abuses.

> ...

> The purpose of this reform was to avoid the infliction of the moral damage which usually followed merely from being publicly accused of certain crimes. No accusation would now be made unless the juge d'instruction were satisfied that there were adequate grounds for it.

The second-to-last paragraph of your post is also not substantiated by that source.

If this is as common as you claim, it should not be difficult to find recent sources which support it.

0: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_ordinary_courts-18-en.do

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#168

Post by white-flame »

EvilEndures wrote: post #93
CamTin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has its own potential problems. Prosecutors might be under even more pressure to get convictions or plea bargains, since the alternative, if somebody is already arrested and awaiting trial, is that their bosses (ultimately elected officials) have to shell out public money for a wrongful imprisonment case. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit, but all the moving parts and bizarre incentives of this system make…

Prosecutors already only take cases they think they can win via plea bargain. Part of why convinction rates are so high is Prosecutors ignore any case they might lose or the defendant can afford a quality lawyer who might cast reasonable doubt on the verdict. I doubt repayment for wrongful imprisonment would make that worse.

And that's another facet of the penal system's practical bias against the poor.

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#169

Post by wang_li »

dnomad wrote: post #66
StreamBright wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure, I just wanted to point out that this white vs minorities narrative is stupid. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/05/trump-prison...

How is it a "narrative"? The widespread and coordinated use of drug laws to persecute minorities is a matter of historical fact. Are you disputing the historical facts? Are you familiar with the rigorous academic research on this subject? You might want to start here [1]. Calling something a "narrative" doesn't actually change anything, let alone the facts. [1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680751.The_Marijuana…

You say "drug laws" but then link to stories about marijuana. If you want to discuss historical fact, you can't just focus on marijuana when the picture is much bigger. African-American leaders[1][2][3] quite often wanted tougher laws about drug use. Drug laws may have been influenced in part by racism, but that is assuredly not the whole story. Black people don't want their communities destroyed by drugs and crime any more than anyone else, and they want enforcement as much as anyone.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/04/obituaries/rev-oberia-dem... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=Pit7gWBM6M0C&pg=PA31&lpg=P... [3] "The Congressional Black Caucus secured a closed-door sit-down meeting with President Nixon in the Cabinet Room. During the session, the group demands more action to stop the flow of narcotics into urban neighborhoods."

Re: Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat

#170

Post by wang_li »

throw2016 wrote: post #142

There is an incestuous network of profit driven companies who benefit from this. Apart from the bail bonds and insurance companies detailed in the article there are also private prisons. All these interests are perfectly aligned to lobby and fund campaigns and 'grow their business'. Their presence and funding of DA and judges is a clear conflict of interest. This is basically a synergy of corruption and exploitation.…

According to ProPublica[1], in 2010 there were 1.6 million people in prisons in the US. Of those 128,195 were in private prison facilities. According to [2], the number of federal inmates in private facilities in 2016 was 22,000, which is down from 27,000 mentioned in the ProPublica piece in 2010. Additionally, in 2016 the Feds announced the intent to discontinue the use of private prisons. (Don't know if that has changed in the last two years or not.)

It doesn't seem like private prisons make any significant portion of the system.

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-the-u.s.s-... [2] https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/18/what-you-need-...

Post reply on HN