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

51–60 of 208 posts

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#51

Post by codersbrew »

Someone1234 wrote: post #30
lurquer wrote: post #26

Instead of the duly appointed Judge making the decision, the power is delegated to a "Risk Assessment" board. (i.e., a bunch of unaccountable social workers). So, instead of an individual Judge getting flack for excessive bail, he can sleep at night having had his authority delegated to an anonymous 'committee' that can refuse to set bail altogether. It seems the general public -- at least in California -- has little…

> a bunch of unaccountable social workers Some judges have appointments for life, and those that aren't often aren't recalled. How is that accountable? > anonymous 'committee' that can refuse to set bail altogether. Where are you getting the information that the committee is anonymous or unaccountable? The articles on this change that I've read didn't specify that.

Sounds like a DA.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#52

Post by khawkins »

koolba wrote: post #41
jeffdavis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your proposal. Honestly, it sounds really scary and disturbing, but I'll let you explain it better first.

Rather than putting up cash, a friend, brother, sister, etc offers themselves as the bond for my freedom. If I abscond then they’ll be arrested and imprisoned until I’m apprehended. Assuming that “everybody has somebody”, it’s quite fair as rich or poor you’ll be able to find someone to be your bond. Again the idea is to have a strong incentive to report for trial. Assuming your actually emotionally close to the pers…

This has the capacity to put domestic abuse victims in jail for the actions of their abusers, force noble people to pay the price for family members who have no decency, and allow crime lords the ability to escape to freedom by sacrificing someone less influential.

This system only works under assumption that the accused is honorable, but it's silly to think that people accused of crimes are generally honorable.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#53

Post by jeffdavis »

koolba wrote: post #41
jeffdavis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your proposal. Honestly, it sounds really scary and disturbing, but I'll let you explain it better first.

Rather than putting up cash, a friend, brother, sister, etc offers themselves as the bond for my freedom. If I abscond then they’ll be arrested and imprisoned until I’m apprehended. Assuming that “everybody has somebody”, it’s quite fair as rich or poor you’ll be able to find someone to be your bond. Again the idea is to have a strong incentive to report for trial. Assuming your actually emotionally close to the pers…

I think this is a bad idea. The whole concept of punishing one person for the crimes of another is disturbing.

You'd end up with a lot of cases of a woman trying to help a deadbeat boyfriend who doesn't care about her or anyone else. Are you really going to put her in jail? Maybe he just leaves the country, and then what?

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#54

Post by rootw0rm »

komali2 wrote: post #38
rootw0rm wrote: post #20

my gf has bail review on the 30th, too bad this won't help her. her bail is at $355,000, she's currently in vista detention facility =(

Jesus, what kind of crime allegation gets that kind of bail set?

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

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#55

Post by philwelch »

dragonwriter wrote: post #22
philwelch wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who skip bail, by and large, don't get on a plane or drive across the country. Also, the bail system isn't designed to only incentivize defendants themselves to show up to court. The bail bondsman has the financial incentive and the legal right to apprehend and deliver a defendant who has skipped bail. Removing the bail bondsman from the equation only increases the public cost of reapprehending these defendant…

> people who get caught committing crimes are generally not the best at responding to the incentive of not going to jail People who are arrested and charged for crimes (charges which in many cases are dropped before trial) are not necessarily people who have been caught committing crimes. > people who get caught committing crimes are generally not the best at responding to the incentive of not going to jail The pre-t…

> The involvement of bail bondsmen has a cost; the fact that the major direct cost is paid for by what amounts to a tax on the (potentially wrongly) arrested doesn't mean it isn't a cost.

Unless your county is run by a mafia of bail bondsmen or something, this doesn't turn out to be true.

By default, people who get arrested just stay in jail. If someone is able and willing to pay a bail bondsman, that means they would prefer to lose the bond amount than to remain in jail, which means that they're strictly better off. "Why not just release them of their own recognizance?", you might ask. Courts do that sometimes! We're only talking about the cases where the courts don't do that.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#56

Post by philwelch »

olliej wrote: post #50
philwelch wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is the problem: even if you did not commit the crime for which you're charged, you end up in jail because you literally cannot afford not to. Then you lose your job, because you know, you were in jail. Yes; putting people in jail is a mechanism for making sure people show up to court. It is a very effective mechanism. And it remains a mechanism even after California's reforms. There's no civil right to receiv…

> There's no civil right to receive an offer of bail. You have a civil right to not be placed in jail for a crime you didn't commit. > Bail bondsmen are essentially loaning you money to pay bail With a 10% interest rate, except that's not per annum, that's until your trial or charges are dropped , so it's closer to 200% interest rate assuming a two week turn around. > Sources? The most basic google searches will give…

> You have a civil right to not be placed in jail for a crime you didn't commit.

No, you don't. You have a civil right not to be imprisoned indefinitely, but you can be held in jail from the moment you're arrested to the moment a "not guilty" verdict is reached by a jury.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#57

Post by jkaplowitz »

MBCook wrote: post #47
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.

Wow. I didn’t realize he was 80. I knew he’d been governor for quite a while.

And this isn't even his first stint in that role. He first became governor in 1975.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#58

Post by Alex3917 »

koolba wrote: post #28
jaxn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of good sides to the bail system. What positives do you see.

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.

> 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.

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#59

Post by siruncledrew »

koolba wrote: post #28
jaxn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't think of good sides to the bail system. What positives do you see.

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.

So then gangs or cartel members could just forcibly “offer up” a free citizen, then skip trial while someone they don’t care about sits in jail?

Re: California governor signs overhaul of bail system

#60

Post by dragonwriter »

philwelch wrote: post #55
dragonwriter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people who get caught committing crimes are generally not the best at responding to the incentive of not going to jail People who are arrested and charged for crimes (charges which in many cases are dropped before trial) are not necessarily people who have been caught committing crimes. > people who get caught committing crimes are generally not the best at responding to the incentive of not going to jail The pre-t…

> The involvement of bail bondsmen has a cost; the fact that the major direct cost is paid for by what amounts to a tax on the (potentially wrongly) arrested doesn't mean it isn't a cost. Unless your county is run by a mafia of bail bondsmen or something, this doesn't turn out to be true. By default, people who get arrested just stay in jail. If someone is able and willing to pay a bail bondsman, that means they woul…

> By default, people who get arrested just stay in jail.

In a money bail system, sure. But artificially creating a worse default doesn't make the relatively better condition good.

Jail as pretrial default is imprisoning the accused, who are presumed innocent, which is a cost (both an economic cost and a liberty cost.)

In a pretrial services model, pretrial detention is exceptional, not default.

Post reply on HN