7 ms·

In reading the article, part of the conclusion that I came to is not that cash bail is inherently broken and unfixable, but the sense of scale by the people set

In reading the article, part of the conclusion that I came to is not that cash bail is inherently broken and unfixable, but the sense of scale by the people setting bail is. To a lower-income person with minimal savings and unpredictable income (like most of the subjects of the article), an unplanned $500 expense like bail is potentially crushing, whereas to a higher-income person with decent savings and regular predictable income (like the judges), an unplanned $500 expense is annoying but not catastrophic. Restructure the law so that bail cannot be easily set over $100 for non-violent misdemeanors, and that 100% of the bail is returned to the person posting it for amounts under $1000, and NYC (of which I am not a resident) will be well on it's way to solving the current problems of the bail system, and then have a whole new host of problems with the new system to solve in 50 years once all of its weaknesses are exploited. [edit] corrected improper use of bailbond to bail

gohrt 11y ago
The bail amount should be a function of the defendant's means. That's the entire point of bail -- a collateral to make the defendant feel incentivized to show up for court.
- HarryHirsch 11y ago
  To a European, the bail system appears very strange. Isn't not showing up for your court date a crime in itself, and grounds for immediate arrest? Either the defendant is a threat to society or unlikely to show up at court (because he's a transient or likely to be issued a long sentence), then you lock up the fellow, or he isn't any of that, in which case one can trust him to show up on time. Also, isn't a person innocent until the judge pronounces the verdict? What is sit that makes American society so different?
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > To a European, the bail system appears very strange. Isn't not showing up for your court date a crime in itself, and grounds for immediate arrest? Yes, but resorting to arrest to bring you to trial after you've wasted the court's--and everyone else involved--time by not showing up has costs a risk of failure. Pretrial detention exists to eliminate that risk, and bail is in theory what you pay to get society to instead accept the risk and forego pretrial detention.
    - HarryHirsch 11y ago
      That's the standard argument in favour of bail. But can we attach some numbers to it? What's the percentage of people that would not show up at court? I haven't heard that it was a problem in my native country on the Old Continent.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    The founders of the country recognized one of the common abuses of European systems at the time (we're talking 18th century, here) was that people would be arrested by the crown and charged with a crime, but then had to wait long periods of time before there was an actual trial where the state had to prove the defendant's guilt. Sometimes years. So the sixth amendment to he US constitution guarantees everyone the right to a speedy trial. Unfortunately, evidence takes a long time to prepare, and the trials themselves need to be scheduled based on available resources. Technically when you post bail you're waiving your right to a speedy trial, and in exchange you can go about your business until the trial starts. The money is an extra incentive to show up - you lose it if you don't show. If you've done something particularly heinous, where the judge thinks you'll run no matter how much you have at stake, you won't be offered bail at all, and you'll sit in jail until the trial. I suspect in that case there's maximum amount of time they can keep you before trial, but I don't know what it is. Since most people don't have a lot of cash handy they borrow the money from a business that specializes in such things, the bail bondsman. The bail bondsman gets his money back when you show up for trial, and if you run away he'll generally track you down and forcibly bring you back.
- russnewcomer 11y ago
  Absolutely, I agree. But my point, which I believe underscores the article's, is the people setting the bail amount don't appear to have a true understanding in many cases of the defendant's means.
testin0000001 11y ago
Just a little quibble... if 100% of the bail bond is returned to the accused, how exactly does the bail bond company make money? If the bail bond company can't make money on the deal, they won't offer their services... Which would end up making it harder for the relatively poor to make bail... How about this: Just get rid of bail entirely for low level offenses. When a minor crime is expected to be charged, bring the suspect in, fingerprint and identify them, give a court date, then... let them go home.
- mikestew 11y ago
  > Just a little quibble... if 100% of the bail bond is returned to the accused, how exactly does the bail bond company make money? The bail bond company wouldn't be involved at all if the accused has the money for bail. The bail bond company is bonding the accused for the whole amount, that's the (typically) 10% the accused is paying. (EDIT: and if you don't show up for court, the bond company is authorized to go get you and drag your ass in. 'cause they're out their money otherwise. And thus you get such quality TV as Bounty Hunters.) However, if you can muster the whole amount, you don't need a bail bond company. Ergo, if bail amounts were reasonable, we would have less of a need for bail bond companies. Your last paragraph is covered by "OR" or "own recognizance". IOW, you go home with no money out of pocket. However, one must wait until arraignment before a judge before OR is an option. Waiting for arraignment is the part we could get rid of with your proposal.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  A bail companies will put up the actual bail, and charge the arrested person a flat fee that does not get returned to them. Of course, if the arrested person runs off, they're out the money they paid the court.
- russnewcomer 11y ago
  You're completely correct, and my meaning was to say 100% of the bail, not the bail bond. I originally transposed the meaning of bail and bond in typing my post, and didn't correctly edit it. Obviously the bail bond companies can set their own fees, this is more for the case of people being able to bail themselves out without the need for a bond.
acveilleux 11y ago
For a lot of the poors, any bail to post is too much bail. In the article here, one kid who got a 250$ bail and couldn't pay was homeless. He probably could hardly afford to eat, panhandling is not going to come up with 250$.
- russnewcomer 11y ago
  Agree, but I think if it's hard to set it over $100, more judges are going to put bail into a manageable range, or even not set it where many times.

gohrt 11y ago

The bail amount should be a function of the defendant's means. That's the entire point of bail -- a collateral to make the defendant feel incentivized to show up for court.

HarryHirsch 11y ago
To a European, the bail system appears very strange. Isn't not showing up for your court date a crime in itself, and grounds for immediate arrest? Either the defendant is a threat to society or unlikely to show up at court (because he's a transient or likely to be issued a long sentence), then you lock up the fellow, or he isn't any of that, in which case one can trust him to show up on time. Also, isn't a person innocent until the judge pronounces the verdict? What is sit that makes American society so different?
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > To a European, the bail system appears very strange. Isn't not showing up for your court date a crime in itself, and grounds for immediate arrest? Yes, but resorting to arrest to bring you to trial after you've wasted the court's--and everyone else involved--time by not showing up has costs a risk of failure. Pretrial detention exists to eliminate that risk, and bail is in theory what you pay to get society to instead accept the risk and forego pretrial detention.
  - HarryHirsch 11y ago
    That's the standard argument in favour of bail. But can we attach some numbers to it? What's the percentage of people that would not show up at court? I haven't heard that it was a problem in my native country on the Old Continent.
- tsotha 11y ago
  The founders of the country recognized one of the common abuses of European systems at the time (we're talking 18th century, here) was that people would be arrested by the crown and charged with a crime, but then had to wait long periods of time before there was an actual trial where the state had to prove the defendant's guilt. Sometimes years. So the sixth amendment to he US constitution guarantees everyone the right to a speedy trial. Unfortunately, evidence takes a long time to prepare, and the trials themselves need to be scheduled based on available resources. Technically when you post bail you're waiving your right to a speedy trial, and in exchange you can go about your business until the trial starts. The money is an extra incentive to show up - you lose it if you don't show. If you've done something particularly heinous, where the judge thinks you'll run no matter how much you have at stake, you won't be offered bail at all, and you'll sit in jail until the trial. I suspect in that case there's maximum amount of time they can keep you before trial, but I don't know what it is. Since most people don't have a lot of cash handy they borrow the money from a business that specializes in such things, the bail bondsman. The bail bondsman gets his money back when you show up for trial, and if you run away he'll generally track you down and forcibly bring you back.
russnewcomer 11y ago
Absolutely, I agree. But my point, which I believe underscores the article's, is the people setting the bail amount don't appear to have a true understanding in many cases of the defendant's means.

testin0000001 11y ago

Just a little quibble... if 100% of the bail bond is returned to the accused, how exactly does the bail bond company make money? If the bail bond company can't make money on the deal, they won't offer their services... Which would end up making it harder for the relatively poor to make bail... How about this: Just get rid of bail entirely for low level offenses. When a minor crime is expected to be charged, bring the suspect in, fingerprint and identify them, give a court date, then... let them go home.

mikestew 11y ago
> Just a little quibble... if 100% of the bail bond is returned to the accused, how exactly does the bail bond company make money? The bail bond company wouldn't be involved at all if the accused has the money for bail. The bail bond company is bonding the accused for the whole amount, that's the (typically) 10% the accused is paying. (EDIT: and if you don't show up for court, the bond company is authorized to go get you and drag your ass in. 'cause they're out their money otherwise. And thus you get such quality TV as Bounty Hunters.) However, if you can muster the whole amount, you don't need a bail bond company. Ergo, if bail amounts were reasonable, we would have less of a need for bail bond companies. Your last paragraph is covered by "OR" or "own recognizance". IOW, you go home with no money out of pocket. However, one must wait until arraignment before a judge before OR is an option. Waiting for arraignment is the part we could get rid of with your proposal.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
A bail companies will put up the actual bail, and charge the arrested person a flat fee that does not get returned to them. Of course, if the arrested person runs off, they're out the money they paid the court.
russnewcomer 11y ago
You're completely correct, and my meaning was to say 100% of the bail, not the bail bond. I originally transposed the meaning of bail and bond in typing my post, and didn't correctly edit it. Obviously the bail bond companies can set their own fees, this is more for the case of people being able to bail themselves out without the need for a bond.

acveilleux 11y ago

For a lot of the poors, any bail to post is too much bail. In the article here, one kid who got a 250$ bail and couldn't pay was homeless. He probably could hardly afford to eat, panhandling is not going to come up with 250$.

russnewcomer 11y ago
Agree, but I think if it's hard to set it over $100, more judges are going to put bail into a manageable range, or even not set it where many times.