5 ms·

Mostly, getting people to show up for trial. It might not be the best system, but it does work to some degree. For the same person, setting increased bail due

by rdl 8y ago

Mostly, getting people to show up for trial. It might not be the best system, but it does work to some degree. For the same person, setting increased bail due to more serious allegations or greater flight risk does seem to make sense. That people have wildly different levels of wealth to start with is the major problem, but a system that would give me a $5000 bail on a shoplifting charge vs. a $5mm bail on murder seems to make some sense.

tommoor 8y ago
It seems like they could go with a system similar to some of the nordic countries do for driving tickets where the bail amount is a percentage of your earnings.
- donarb 8y ago
  Don’t you mean the fine amount? I doubt any jurisdictions arrest for traffic infractions.
  - tommoor 8y ago
    Yea, I mean the fine.
Johnny555 8y ago
Mostly, getting people to show up for trial. Here's a section from the actual bill: A person released pursuant to the local rule of court shall be released on his or her own recognizance or on supervised own recognizance release ... A person shall not be required to pay for any nonmonetary condition or combination of conditions imposed pursuant to this section I believe Supervised Own Recognizance means that the defendant can be required to wear a GPS tracking ankle bracelet (but under this bill, they can't be required to pay for it). So that may do more to ensure that the defendant shows up for trial than leaving his girlfriend on the hook for $25K of bail money if he skips the trial. Plus, it seems that it'd be a good deterrent from committing other crimes while waiting for trial.
- pc86 8y ago
  If this ends up being a better system then I hope more states adopt it. But I don't see what's wrong with having someone pay for the GPS bracelet if they're required to wear it because it's deemed that they are likely to not come to court? Yes, it will be harder for some people to pay than others. Things cost money, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge the person using the service for that service, even if they're ordered to do so by a court.
  - alistairSH 8y ago
    And if they're eventually found innocent? Should the state pay then?
    - pc86 8y ago
      I'm torn on this one to be honest. Just to make the math easier let's say it costs the state $1/unit/day and 10% of those equipped are later found innocent. The state will have to charge people $1.10/day (or something close to that) due to the refunds, making it even harder for even more people to afford it in the first place. Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Perhaps but good luck politically. Should the guilty people who used the same service pay an inflated price?
      - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
        > Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Of course the tax payer should pay. The criminal justice system is a service of society. The tax payer receives that benefit and as well pays its costs. I'm really not sure what role and responsibilities people expect government to have in society. What's next, start charging innocent people room and board for the period they were locked in jail, because they used that "service"? The govt is not a business. Its purpose it not to make money, nor extract money from people charged with crimes. We don't want a society where you pay police each time they come to your house. Capitalism isn't the end goal of society, it's a tool. I see way to many people on HN (not you specifically) where it seems the only tool they know of to solve a problem is "hmm.. I'll try to apply capitalism to that". It is possible to frame every interaction in society as s product or service. The fact that we can doesn't mean we should. I frequently see people caught up in the "technical problem solving" of how to transform something else into a buying and selling transaction with zero foresight into motivation or consequences of doing so.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Sure, but so does simply calling folks and/or having them check in in many cases. Some places do such things already. The system is cheaper than keeping folks in jail as well. Some civil servant can call folks and leave reminders and such. No need to pay for food and housing. And a great bonus: The person's life isn't so negatively affected before they are even found guilt or for crimes that wouldn't usually have jail time.

by rdl 8y ago

tommoor 8y ago

It seems like they could go with a system similar to some of the nordic countries do for driving tickets where the bail amount is a percentage of your earnings.

donarb 8y ago
Don’t you mean the fine amount? I doubt any jurisdictions arrest for traffic infractions.
- tommoor 8y ago
  Yea, I mean the fine.

Johnny555 8y ago

Mostly, getting people to show up for trial. Here's a section from the actual bill: A person released pursuant to the local rule of court shall be released on his or her own recognizance or on supervised own recognizance release ... A person shall not be required to pay for any nonmonetary condition or combination of conditions imposed pursuant to this section I believe Supervised Own Recognizance means that the defendant can be required to wear a GPS tracking ankle bracelet (but under this bill, they can't be required to pay for it). So that may do more to ensure that the defendant shows up for trial than leaving his girlfriend on the hook for $25K of bail money if he skips the trial. Plus, it seems that it'd be a good deterrent from committing other crimes while waiting for trial.

pc86 8y ago
If this ends up being a better system then I hope more states adopt it. But I don't see what's wrong with having someone pay for the GPS bracelet if they're required to wear it because it's deemed that they are likely to not come to court? Yes, it will be harder for some people to pay than others. Things cost money, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge the person using the service for that service, even if they're ordered to do so by a court.
- alistairSH 8y ago
  And if they're eventually found innocent? Should the state pay then?
  - pc86 8y ago
    I'm torn on this one to be honest. Just to make the math easier let's say it costs the state $1/unit/day and 10% of those equipped are later found innocent. The state will have to charge people $1.10/day (or something close to that) due to the refunds, making it even harder for even more people to afford it in the first place. Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Perhaps but good luck politically. Should the guilty people who used the same service pay an inflated price?
    - BoiledCabbage 8y ago
      > Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Of course the tax payer should pay. The criminal justice system is a service of society. The tax payer receives that benefit and as well pays its costs. I'm really not sure what role and responsibilities people expect government to have in society. What's next, start charging innocent people room and board for the period they were locked in jail, because they used that "service"? The govt is not a business. Its purpose it not to make money, nor extract money from people charged with crimes. We don't want a society where you pay police each time they come to your house. Capitalism isn't the end goal of society, it's a tool. I see way to many people on HN (not you specifically) where it seems the only tool they know of to solve a problem is "hmm.. I'll try to apply capitalism to that". It is possible to frame every interaction in society as s product or service. The fact that we can doesn't mean we should. I frequently see people caught up in the "technical problem solving" of how to transform something else into a buying and selling transaction with zero foresight into motivation or consequences of doing so.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

Sure, but so does simply calling folks and/or having them check in in many cases. Some places do such things already. The system is cheaper than keeping folks in jail as well. Some civil servant can call folks and leave reminders and such. No need to pay for food and housing. And a great bonus: The person's life isn't so negatively affected before they are even found guilt or for crimes that wouldn't usually have jail time.