4 ms·

> And for these people, bail has zero impact on whether they show up for trial. All the while that 50$-based jail time has disastrous impact on their personal

> And for these people, bail has zero impact on whether they show up for trial. All the while that 50$-based jail time has disastrous impact on their personal lives (losing jobs, eviction by landlords, more complicated interaction with police, three-strike-rules ....).

WillPostForFood 8y ago
Well, then a common sense incremental change would be to drop or discourage those tiny bail amounts, not throw out the whole system. Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs.
- woodpanel 8y ago
  I agree with your first point: incremental changes are often for the better. Regarding your second: > Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs Doesn't the legitimacy of the job come before the right to perform it? A whole industry just lost their jobs is probably what many said in 1833 after the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    I agree that legitimacy of the job comes first, but don't think bail bondsmen are illegitimate. They definitely aren't illegitimate if you think there should be bail system. Instead of comparing it to slavery (which is borderline Godwin's Law), I'd compare it to being a distiller when 18th amendment passed.
    - canhascodez 8y ago
      I reject that comparison. Bail is an administrative construct, not a physical substance. It is a "peculiar institution".
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > They definitely aren't illegitimate if you think there should be bail system Incorrect. First, a bail system still will exist in California, just not a money bail system. Second, most of the history of money bail didn't require up front payment and specifically prohibited those providing surety from getting paid. So, yes, it's quite possible (and the historical norm) to both accept bail systems as legitimate—even specifically when money bail systems are seen as legitimate—and view anything like the current American profit-driven predatory lending and privatized fugitive apprehension industry surrounding it as quite illegitimate.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Well, then a common sense incremental change would be to drop or discourage those tiny bail amounts, Or, we could instead try replacing money bail in a relatively small jurisdiction (say, Washington, D.C.) for a number of years, and if it works well do it in a larger jurisdiction. Once the first step of that has been done and shown to work, the case for smaller incremental steps in the next jurisdiction, though, is pretty weak. You seem to think we are at the point of considering a first practical test, but that step was taken years ago.
  - WillPostForFood 8y ago
    Since DC got rid of the whole system, you don’t know if they could have achieved a better result with an incremental move.

WillPostForFood 8y ago

Well, then a common sense incremental change would be to drop or discourage those tiny bail amounts, not throw out the whole system. Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs.

woodpanel 8y ago
I agree with your first point: incremental changes are often for the better. Regarding your second: > Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs Doesn't the legitimacy of the job come before the right to perform it? A whole industry just lost their jobs is probably what many said in 1833 after the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  I agree that legitimacy of the job comes first, but don't think bail bondsmen are illegitimate. They definitely aren't illegitimate if you think there should be bail system. Instead of comparing it to slavery (which is borderline Godwin's Law), I'd compare it to being a distiller when 18th amendment passed.
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    I reject that comparison. Bail is an administrative construct, not a physical substance. It is a "peculiar institution".
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > They definitely aren't illegitimate if you think there should be bail system Incorrect. First, a bail system still will exist in California, just not a money bail system. Second, most of the history of money bail didn't require up front payment and specifically prohibited those providing surety from getting paid. So, yes, it's quite possible (and the historical norm) to both accept bail systems as legitimate—even specifically when money bail systems are seen as legitimate—and view anything like the current American profit-driven predatory lending and privatized fugitive apprehension industry surrounding it as quite illegitimate.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Well, then a common sense incremental change would be to drop or discourage those tiny bail amounts, Or, we could instead try replacing money bail in a relatively small jurisdiction (say, Washington, D.C.) for a number of years, and if it works well do it in a larger jurisdiction. Once the first step of that has been done and shown to work, the case for smaller incremental steps in the next jurisdiction, though, is pretty weak. You seem to think we are at the point of considering a first practical test, but that step was taken years ago.
- WillPostForFood 8y ago
  Since DC got rid of the whole system, you don’t know if they could have achieved a better result with an incremental move.