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

71–80 of 184 posts

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

#71

Post by candiodari »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #60
candiodari wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... and also the case in the US. (however it's always going to be >$1000 or so, for obvious reasons, including of course in Germany and Scandinavian countries) (by the way, I hate how tiring it is to see Europeans claim how "socially progressive" and protective of rights the EU governments supposedly are. You have more rights, as a suspect, in the US. Not less. The US, without any doubt, protects the rights of accuse…

At least with Assange they bothered fabricating an excuse¹. Look at Snowden for a good example of how the USA won't even bother with something like that. ¹ Most likely, though nobody can say 100% for sure if it's just a fabrication in the end. But it does all seem rather suspicious.

Note that it was European countries that complied with the orders, and local European courts that agreed with and ordered enforcement of the orders, all without so much as hearing Assange, and all at the request of a foreign government (if true).

Note the technique used by the European courts:

> On 20 August 2010, two women, a 26-year-old living in Enköping and a 31-year-old living in Stockholm,[6][7] jointly went to the Swedish police not seeking to bring charges against Assange but in order to track him down and persuade him to be tested for sexually transmitted diseases after their separate sexual encounters with him.[8] The police told them that they could not simply tell Assange to take a test, but that their statements would be passed to the prosecutor.[9] Later that day, the duty prosecutor ordered the arrest of Julian Assange on the suspicion of rape and molestation.

So it was the Swedish government, NOT the women, that came up, with very flimsy justification, with the rape charge.

And let's just ask it: if they do that at the request of a (very) far away government, lying about that fact, do you think this is the only time they do such a thing ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assange_v_Swedish_Prosecution_...

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

#72

Post by sp332 »

candiodari wrote: post #55
Shoh3pif wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's also the case in the german-speaking countries.

... and also the case in the US. (however it's always going to be >$1000 or so, for obvious reasons, including of course in Germany and Scandinavian countries) (by the way, I hate how tiring it is to see Europeans claim how "socially progressive" and protective of rights the EU governments supposedly are. You have more rights, as a suspect, in the US. Not less. The US, without any doubt, protects the rights of accuse…

Arrange claims to be hiding because he is afraid of being handed over to the US.

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

#73

Post by bdhess »

rayiner wrote: post #62
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is but it is extremely rare. These are systemic problems, caused by the construction of the system itself and not due to bad actors. One problem is to have a successful suit against wrongful imprisonment, you have to prove intent. If somebody accidentally imprisoned you acting in good faith, the idea is that people make mistakes. There is automatic protection built into the system to allow prosecutors and LE to do…

EDIT: Since OP was apparently talking about pre-conviction jailing, my comment was non-responsive to his point, and likely yours as well.

Your information/links are about the wrongly convicted, but TFA is about accusals.

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

#74

Post by refurb »

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…

Being held in jail prior to a decision of guilty/not guilty wouldn’t be wrongful imprisonment.

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

#75

Post by cafard »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #5
captainbland wrote: post #2

I think that if there are financial penalties - or similar in the case of bail - they have to be adjusted to means (don't get me wrong, this can be a challenge in itself). Otherwise you're basically saying that something is legal for the rich who could easily make the bail or the fine, but illegal for somebody poor who cannot make the fine which can have ever worse consequences. Why should that be?

If one person gets their life savings cleared out for a $100 speeding fine, how do you equate that financial pain to Bill Gates? Why should Bill Gates be punished more in the same situation for having put the work in to build a successful company? You end up with silly (IMHO) situations like someone getting a $290k fine in Switzerland for 85mph in a 50 zone. 6 months in jail for someone who can't afford a $1k bail is…

If you do a bit of searching, you can find a mug shot of the very young Bill Gates, I think from Microsoft's New Mexico days.

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

#76

Post by kup0 »

sureaboutthis wrote: post #46

What is the alternative then? Let a probable criminal go wander the streets or disappear altogether? At least these people have some possibility of release rather than none at all. While some innocents may be confined to a jail awaiting trial, I'm sure this is a minority, not the majority. Even then, bail skippers still occur. Let's quit with the "Oh the poor criminal being treated that way" mentality.

The fundamental flaw in your viewpoint is the fact that you see nearly everyone awaiting trial as a criminal.

Regardless of whether the system respects this- "innocent until proven guilty" is a principle that we should not lose

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

#77

Post by bdhess »

refurb wrote: post #74
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…

Being held in jail prior to a decision of guilty/not guilty wouldn’t be wrongful imprisonment.

Why not? How can this thread make sense in the context of the article otherwise?

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

#78

Post by evan_ »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #36
IneffablePigeon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of those Switzerland-style fines based on wealth are to make sure that Bill Gates is punished the _same_ amount for the same crime, not more. It's just using a different measure of "amount of punishment" - in this case something based on proportion of wealth/income rather than a flat amount. That flat amount means a lot less to Bill Gates than someone who has $100 in savings. Having to rely on chariti…

So, if a $100 fine for someone with only $100 to their name is adjusted to punish Bill Gates the same amount... how much do you fine him? Every cent he has to his name? Because if you leave him with anything the punishment isn't the same. And what if he then commits a much more serious offence? I still think the whole concept is so flawed it's a farce.

Maybe the problem is at the low end and you shouldn’t find a person with $100, $100.

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

#79

Post by charlesdm »

Svip wrote: post #25

Is it possible to get compensation for wrongful imprisonment in the US? I know it is in Denmark. The logic being that it shouldn't be 'free' for the state to imprison someone wrongfully. In Denmark, you seek compensation after the fact. The exact compensation will depend on several variables, so I cannot give an exact figure. But I did find a case where a man was wrongfully imprisoned for five months, and got 141,000…

$22,000 is a pittance however, for five months of wrongful imprisonment (in my view)

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

#80

Post by bdhess »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #36
IneffablePigeon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of those Switzerland-style fines based on wealth are to make sure that Bill Gates is punished the _same_ amount for the same crime, not more. It's just using a different measure of "amount of punishment" - in this case something based on proportion of wealth/income rather than a flat amount. That flat amount means a lot less to Bill Gates than someone who has $100 in savings. Having to rely on chariti…

So, if a $100 fine for someone with only $100 to their name is adjusted to punish Bill Gates the same amount... how much do you fine him? Every cent he has to his name? Because if you leave him with anything the punishment isn't the same. And what if he then commits a much more serious offence? I still think the whole concept is so flawed it's a farce.

To me it seems just as farcical to levy a $100 fine on someone who only has $100. What exactly does that accomplish?
Post reply on HN