3 ms·

Bail is set independently of net worth considerations and in a relatively impartial manner, which is the point. Judges do not have the flexibility to set a bail

Bail is set independently of net worth considerations and in a relatively impartial manner, which is the point. Judges do not have the flexibility to set a bail that high. Destitute murderers get $5 million+ bails all the time, which we would have to revisit if we started factoring in net worth (think about it).

charlesdm 9y ago
Yes, I am aware. But to me it seems like a clear flaw in the current law. Just like if you always fine people $100 for speeding, then average folk will generally adjust their behaviour and millionaires will be able to race around and not give a f*.
fjsolwmv 9y ago
Explain how a single murder-er is more dangerous than someone who has killed thousands of people and undermined the medical professional overall.
mikeash 9y ago
Bail is set independently of net worth, but is that how it should be? There are tons of poor people stuck in jail awaiting trial for relatively minor crimes because they can't afford what would be a trivial bail amount to most HN readers. A rich person who commits a much more severe crime gets to sleep at home, or can flee if they think they don't have a good chance of winning without a big financial impact. Is that just?
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  Should we adjust criminal justice or adjust wealth? What you describe is a well-known inequality that comes with being wealthy; bail is built for the 99%, and being rich is a good, unfair way to remain in control of such a situation. But is altering the impartiality of several elements of the criminal justice system to pursue the occasional unjust rich guy the right answer? I don’t know. Is there any country in the world that does bail that way? It seems like there could be a lot of unexpected drawbacks to such an approach, since on the other end it’s harder to justify a high bond for a destitute, transient murderer, for example. If you’re okay with $100 million for this guy, it follows that you’d also have to be okay with $10 for him. Otherwise justice is partial and biased, even more so than it is now. Ignoring net worth seems safer, but again, I don’t know.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    It's not just about the 99% versus the 1%. There are tons of poor people stuck in jail awaiting trial because they can't pay a bail that middle-class people could afford. Many end up pleading guilty for a crime they didn't commit because it gets them out of jail faster than waiting for trial. Assuming that $10 is high enough to ensure that the destitute, transient murderer will show up for trial, why shouldn't I be OK with it?
    - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
      I’m aware and do not need explanation, because I was one of them. I could not afford $80,000, even with a 10% bail bond, and I plead guilty to a crime I did commit to get out of jail faster (I was in about five months). I realize that it might be startling to hear me argue for the status quo having been in that very position. What you allege, that people happily plead out while innocent, does not happen. It just doesn’t, and it’s something I’ve heard repeated a lot by people who haven’t been inside. I was in a position to advise dozens of inmates on their cases during my time, and not once did that ever happen. The truly innocent folks (and it’s hard to tell) were happy to sit to get their day to prove it or wait for the charges to get dropped. I’ve seen inmates rip up a plea bargain and throw it in the prosecutor’s face after sitting in county three years. Inmates are not dumb cattle looking for the first door. They understand what signing a plea bargain does. Even beyond that, innocent people are almost never arrested in the first place. There are very, very, very few innocent people in jail. I hate to break it to you, because I know it undermines liberal sensitivity and view on the world (which I know because I’m liberal, I’m not critiquing). You’re also coming at this from the perspective that assumes everyone should be able to bail out, which isn’t true. Would you revisit total bail denials, too? Re: $10, how can you make that assumption? It’s disappointing that I’m being downvoted so heavily for pointing out that a seemingly minor change which is reactionary to one case could have implications far beyond intention. Being upset and changing things because of one billionaire is the very definition of mob-style reactionary grievance. There’s more to consider than just him, and I agree it sucks. This is a complicated issue and the easy engineering fix is very likely not the right one.
      - 9y ago
ScottBurson 9y ago
I think it's great that you're thinking about unintended consequences, which people often neglect to do, but I just don't see how it follows that because we increase bail for wealthy suspects we would therefore have to decrease it for impoverished ones. We can write the rules however we want. ETA: Well, we can't necessarily write the rules however we want; there are Constitutional restrictions. In this case, the case could be made that increasing bail for wealthy suspects violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law. That's a different argument from the one you're raising, however.

charlesdm 9y ago

Yes, I am aware. But to me it seems like a clear flaw in the current law. Just like if you always fine people $100 for speeding, then average folk will generally adjust their behaviour and millionaires will be able to race around and not give a f*.

fjsolwmv 9y ago

Explain how a single murder-er is more dangerous than someone who has killed thousands of people and undermined the medical professional overall.

mikeash 9y ago

Bail is set independently of net worth, but is that how it should be? There are tons of poor people stuck in jail awaiting trial for relatively minor crimes because they can't afford what would be a trivial bail amount to most HN readers. A rich person who commits a much more severe crime gets to sleep at home, or can flee if they think they don't have a good chance of winning without a big financial impact. Is that just?

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
Should we adjust criminal justice or adjust wealth? What you describe is a well-known inequality that comes with being wealthy; bail is built for the 99%, and being rich is a good, unfair way to remain in control of such a situation. But is altering the impartiality of several elements of the criminal justice system to pursue the occasional unjust rich guy the right answer? I don’t know. Is there any country in the world that does bail that way? It seems like there could be a lot of unexpected drawbacks to such an approach, since on the other end it’s harder to justify a high bond for a destitute, transient murderer, for example. If you’re okay with $100 million for this guy, it follows that you’d also have to be okay with $10 for him. Otherwise justice is partial and biased, even more so than it is now. Ignoring net worth seems safer, but again, I don’t know.
- mikeash 9y ago
  It's not just about the 99% versus the 1%. There are tons of poor people stuck in jail awaiting trial because they can't pay a bail that middle-class people could afford. Many end up pleading guilty for a crime they didn't commit because it gets them out of jail faster than waiting for trial. Assuming that $10 is high enough to ensure that the destitute, transient murderer will show up for trial, why shouldn't I be OK with it?
  - jsmthrowaway 9y ago
    I’m aware and do not need explanation, because I was one of them. I could not afford $80,000, even with a 10% bail bond, and I plead guilty to a crime I did commit to get out of jail faster (I was in about five months). I realize that it might be startling to hear me argue for the status quo having been in that very position. What you allege, that people happily plead out while innocent, does not happen. It just doesn’t, and it’s something I’ve heard repeated a lot by people who haven’t been inside. I was in a position to advise dozens of inmates on their cases during my time, and not once did that ever happen. The truly innocent folks (and it’s hard to tell) were happy to sit to get their day to prove it or wait for the charges to get dropped. I’ve seen inmates rip up a plea bargain and throw it in the prosecutor’s face after sitting in county three years. Inmates are not dumb cattle looking for the first door. They understand what signing a plea bargain does. Even beyond that, innocent people are almost never arrested in the first place. There are very, very, very few innocent people in jail. I hate to break it to you, because I know it undermines liberal sensitivity and view on the world (which I know because I’m liberal, I’m not critiquing). You’re also coming at this from the perspective that assumes everyone should be able to bail out, which isn’t true. Would you revisit total bail denials, too? Re: $10, how can you make that assumption? It’s disappointing that I’m being downvoted so heavily for pointing out that a seemingly minor change which is reactionary to one case could have implications far beyond intention. Being upset and changing things because of one billionaire is the very definition of mob-style reactionary grievance. There’s more to consider than just him, and I agree it sucks. This is a complicated issue and the easy engineering fix is very likely not the right one.
    - 9y ago

ScottBurson 9y ago

I think it's great that you're thinking about unintended consequences, which people often neglect to do, but I just don't see how it follows that because we increase bail for wealthy suspects we would therefore have to decrease it for impoverished ones. We can write the rules however we want. ETA: Well, we can't necessarily write the rules however we want; there are Constitutional restrictions. In this case, the case could be made that increasing bail for wealthy suspects violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law. That's a different argument from the one you're raising, however.