3 ms·

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

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.
    - chowells 8y ago
      It's not a service, it's a penalty. I believe the whole point of this bill is to remove monetary penalties against people who haven't been convicted of a crime. The state pays for it as a cost of law enforcement. If they think they're paying too much, they find a cheaper vendor or use it more sparingly. Law enforcement is a cost to society. Budget for it appropriately. If you find it's getting too expensive, look at ways to reduce costs. Maybe prosecute fewer drug crimes. But don't pass the cost along to those who are accused without any conviction.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Assuring appearance of the accused is a service government provides to taxpayers (EDIT: more correctly, the public at large); doing it with the minimum necessary and efficient interference with the liberty of the accused is a matter of basic human rights, not a service to the accused. Therefore, there is no service to the accused being consumed, and no basis for a payment by the accused. The service being provided is to the public by the State at a cost to the liberty of the accused, and should be paid for out of public revenues, not out of the pocket of the person whose liberty is being curtailed. EDIT: > Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Yes, clearly. > Perhaps but good luck politically. It's been the policy, and a fairly uncontroversial one, in the nation's capital (despite the fact that for much of that time, a Congress of the opposing major party from the D.C. local government has had veto power over D.C. policy) for years, and a national political movement has now coalesced around it, with polls showing strong national public support for it, and it was just approved by both political branches of the government of the largest state. So, yeah, it seems to be doing just fine, politically.
- rdl 8y ago
  Pre-trial/pre-conviction, you're presumed innocent. The harm caused by arresting/detaining an ultimately-innocent person wrongly is so great that we should be doing everything we can to make conditions as good as possible for those people. Nothing should cost anything, and IMO jail (detention pre/during trial) should be 4-5 star hotel level, to the degree consistent with security.

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.
  - chowells 8y ago
    It's not a service, it's a penalty. I believe the whole point of this bill is to remove monetary penalties against people who haven't been convicted of a crime. The state pays for it as a cost of law enforcement. If they think they're paying too much, they find a cheaper vendor or use it more sparingly. Law enforcement is a cost to society. Budget for it appropriately. If you find it's getting too expensive, look at ways to reduce costs. Maybe prosecute fewer drug crimes. But don't pass the cost along to those who are accused without any conviction.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Assuring appearance of the accused is a service government provides to taxpayers (EDIT: more correctly, the public at large); doing it with the minimum necessary and efficient interference with the liberty of the accused is a matter of basic human rights, not a service to the accused. Therefore, there is no service to the accused being consumed, and no basis for a payment by the accused. The service being provided is to the public by the State at a cost to the liberty of the accused, and should be paid for out of public revenues, not out of the pocket of the person whose liberty is being curtailed. EDIT: > Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Yes, clearly. > Perhaps but good luck politically. It's been the policy, and a fairly uncontroversial one, in the nation's capital (despite the fact that for much of that time, a Congress of the opposing major party from the D.C. local government has had veto power over D.C. policy) for years, and a national political movement has now coalesced around it, with polls showing strong national public support for it, and it was just approved by both political branches of the government of the largest state. So, yeah, it seems to be doing just fine, politically.
rdl 8y ago
Pre-trial/pre-conviction, you're presumed innocent. The harm caused by arresting/detaining an ultimately-innocent person wrongly is so great that we should be doing everything we can to make conditions as good as possible for those people. Nothing should cost anything, and IMO jail (detention pre/during trial) should be 4-5 star hotel level, to the degree consistent with security.