4 ms·
That's a false dichotomy. There's nothing inherent to the bail system that requires huge bail bonds that defendants cannot afford on their own. If bail schedule
by wl 8y ago
That's a false dichotomy. There's nothing inherent to the bail system that requires huge bail bonds that defendants cannot afford on their own. If bail schedules were abolished and bail was tailored to the individual, bail bondsmen would be unnecessary.
- rayiner 8y agoBail is set at an amount high enough that people can't afford to lose it, and thus show up to be prosecuted for a crime. If you set bails so low that most people could afford them out of pocket, they'd be so low that the risk of loss wouldn't have any deterrent effect. 60% of Americans couldn't cover even a $1,000 unexpected expense: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-americans-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-1000-emergency.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/18/few-americans-have-enough-sa....
- inlined 8y agoIt sounds like 60% should have bail set at or below $1k
- joshuamorton 8y agoQuestion: For someone who is already comparatively poor (ie. no savings), why is "being a fugitive who also owes someone money" worse than "being a fugitive"?
- pandaman 8y agoBecause the bail bondsman is not going to sell your debt to the collection and forget about it. He is going to salvage the bail money by catching you and bringing you to the court.
- rayiner 8y agoAs a practical matter, the government doesn't have the resources to launch a manhunt for everyone who gets arrested in a bar fight. The bail bondsman, however, typically will have your collateral, etc.
- aikol 8y agoBail is set absurdly high to force false guilty pleas.