4 ms·

> Indeed, [bail bonds] are a necessary service for the legal system to function. This is untrue. While bail bonds are a major feature of the U.S. legal system,

> Indeed, [bail bonds] are a necessary service for the legal system to function. This is untrue. While bail bonds are a major feature of the U.S. legal system, removing the whole bail bond system would be an improvement.

imglorp 9y ago
What would a replacement look like?
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  Unsecured bonds seem promising. "Show up to court or else you'll owe $10,000." Partially secured bonds also seem not so bad (pay refundable 10% of the bail to the court, rest becomes a debt if you don't show up). Some recent studies have indicated that these might be just as effective as regular bail. DC's PSA ( https://www.psa.gov/ https://www.psa.gov/ ) has shown that this sort of thing can work fine for regular, minor cases. You could go completely cashless and say that most small offenses are just released on their own recognizance and everybody who IS a flight risk gets an ankle bracelet.
gnicholas 9y ago
> removing the whole bail bond system would be an improvement. How would this improve the system? This would mean that only rich people who can bail themselves out would be able to await trial as free men/women. Poorer people would stay in jail and presumably lose their jobs.
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  I was suggesting that the entire idea of bail money was a bad one, for exactly the reason you describe. Rich people simply leave a deposit, and poor people effectively pay a permanent fine of 10% of that deposit regardless of their innocence. The idea of ensuring someone shows up to trial by holding onto something they value isn't terrible, but the implementation certainly is. If you want to set bail, why is it based mostly on the crime and not on the wealth of the suspect? $1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to someone living hand to mouth.
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    What would be a good replacement for the bail system? > $1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to someone living hand to mouth. This is surely true, but also irrelevant since bail is set in relation to the individual's means. Pretending that a rich person could ever have such insignificant bail is disingenuous.
    - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
      I'm no expert here, so perhaps you can enlighten me. Isn't the whole idea of a "bail schedule" or a "bail algorithm" to have set amounts of bail for a certain crime, like "this person is accused of a DUI, has committed no previous crimes, bail is therefore $1000?" Does wealth provide any sort of multiplier?
      - gnicholas 9y ago
        It certainly can be a multiplier. See $66M bail in the case of this wealthy heiress (whom I believe had no previous record): http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2085665/chinese-born-heiress-posts-us66m-bail-california http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/... This was undoubtedly also because she was a flight risk. But this is the case with all super-wealthy people who have means to flee the jurisdiction (private jets or access to other private transportation). This doesn't mean a rich person will have a high bail amount for all types of crimes, but this would be taking into consideration their ties to the community (own a mansion in town? You're probably not going to leave it behind. Ditto for your high-paying job.) Not saying any of this is fair — just that this is how the bail-setting factors get applied.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > What would be a good replacement for the bail system? Pre-trial supervision instead of money bail when the community risk doesn't preclude release in the first place. This is, incidentally, already in place in DC. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/when-it-comes-to-pretrial-release-few-other-jurisdictions-do-it-dcs-way/2016/07/04/8eb52134-e7d3-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?utm_term=.2648d538884d https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/when-it-c...
- api_or_ipa 9y ago
  The US is the only country I can think of that has a bail industry to 'rent' deposits to the accused. In Canada if you accused of a crime, you may be required to secure a surety or post a deposit but the whole idea of forcing the accused to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars for bail is unheard of. Obviously there are differences in Canadian vs US criminal proceedings, but I wouldn't assume that the bail system is integral to the US justice system. Many other countries do just fine without it.
misakwa 9y ago
I was just watching a TED talk about this very subject[1]. Its technically about non-profit bail fund - Freedom Fund[2]. Edit: Added website link. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B24RaqA33k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B24RaqA33k [2] - http://www.thebronxfreedomfund.org/ http://www.thebronxfreedomfund.org/

imglorp 9y ago

What would a replacement look like?

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
Unsecured bonds seem promising. "Show up to court or else you'll owe $10,000." Partially secured bonds also seem not so bad (pay refundable 10% of the bail to the court, rest becomes a debt if you don't show up). Some recent studies have indicated that these might be just as effective as regular bail. DC's PSA ( https://www.psa.gov/ https://www.psa.gov/ ) has shown that this sort of thing can work fine for regular, minor cases. You could go completely cashless and say that most small offenses are just released on their own recognizance and everybody who IS a flight risk gets an ankle bracelet.

gnicholas 9y ago

> removing the whole bail bond system would be an improvement. How would this improve the system? This would mean that only rich people who can bail themselves out would be able to await trial as free men/women. Poorer people would stay in jail and presumably lose their jobs.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
I was suggesting that the entire idea of bail money was a bad one, for exactly the reason you describe. Rich people simply leave a deposit, and poor people effectively pay a permanent fine of 10% of that deposit regardless of their innocence. The idea of ensuring someone shows up to trial by holding onto something they value isn't terrible, but the implementation certainly is. If you want to set bail, why is it based mostly on the crime and not on the wealth of the suspect? $1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to someone living hand to mouth.
- gnicholas 9y ago
  What would be a good replacement for the bail system? > $1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to someone living hand to mouth. This is surely true, but also irrelevant since bail is set in relation to the individual's means. Pretending that a rich person could ever have such insignificant bail is disingenuous.
  - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
    I'm no expert here, so perhaps you can enlighten me. Isn't the whole idea of a "bail schedule" or a "bail algorithm" to have set amounts of bail for a certain crime, like "this person is accused of a DUI, has committed no previous crimes, bail is therefore $1000?" Does wealth provide any sort of multiplier?
    - gnicholas 9y ago
      It certainly can be a multiplier. See $66M bail in the case of this wealthy heiress (whom I believe had no previous record): http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2085665/chinese-born-heiress-posts-us66m-bail-california http://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/... This was undoubtedly also because she was a flight risk. But this is the case with all super-wealthy people who have means to flee the jurisdiction (private jets or access to other private transportation). This doesn't mean a rich person will have a high bail amount for all types of crimes, but this would be taking into consideration their ties to the community (own a mansion in town? You're probably not going to leave it behind. Ditto for your high-paying job.) Not saying any of this is fair — just that this is how the bail-setting factors get applied.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > What would be a good replacement for the bail system? Pre-trial supervision instead of money bail when the community risk doesn't preclude release in the first place. This is, incidentally, already in place in DC. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/when-it-comes-to-pretrial-release-few-other-jurisdictions-do-it-dcs-way/2016/07/04/8eb52134-e7d3-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?utm_term=.2648d538884d https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/when-it-c...
api_or_ipa 9y ago
The US is the only country I can think of that has a bail industry to 'rent' deposits to the accused. In Canada if you accused of a crime, you may be required to secure a surety or post a deposit but the whole idea of forcing the accused to secure hundreds of thousands of dollars for bail is unheard of. Obviously there are differences in Canadian vs US criminal proceedings, but I wouldn't assume that the bail system is integral to the US justice system. Many other countries do just fine without it.

misakwa 9y ago

I was just watching a TED talk about this very subject[1]. Its technically about non-profit bail fund - Freedom Fund[2]. Edit: Added website link. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B24RaqA33k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B24RaqA33k [2] - http://www.thebronxfreedomfund.org/ http://www.thebronxfreedomfund.org/