5 ms·

In this context; someone who can't afford bail makes someone a danger to the community?

stu2b50 4y ago
It’s usually more about flight risk. “Have nothing to lose” is the phrase that’d be associated with people who can’t afford bail. It’s a tough situation because optimally no one who’s not a flight risk or dangerous should be in jail. They’re all innocent, after all, until they have trial. A financial hostage is just the easiest to implement.
- arrrg 4y ago
  That seems like a deeply weird perspective to me because where I’m from (Germany) bail just isn’t a thing. At all. And we do totally fine. Whether or not someone is held in jail before trial is determined by whether there is a risk that they might flee, destroy evidence or influence witnesses and that judgement has to be taken in a proportional manner (so e.g. if jailing someone before trial would likely put them in jail longer than their potential punishment then you can’t do it). It actually doesn’t happen that often. As is often the case with criminal justice one of the biggest issues is actually that it just takes too long until there is a trial and this often also leads to problems with the duration someone sits in jail before trial. Six months are supposed to be the usual upper limit, in practice, however, that line is frequently crossed. So the thing I would want to improve in Germany is time until trial. (And: this is also not to say that this system is perfect. For example, people without a home are empirically much more likely to be jailed, even though the Constitutional Court determined that just the mere fact that someone doesn’t have a home isn’t a valid reason to consider someone a flight risk. Every individual case is supposed to be considered on its own terms. In practice that obviously doesn’t work perfectly.) As for the US, you need judges to decide whether and how to set bail anyway, just get them to decide on flight risk and risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses instead. Currently there are around 12,000 people in jail awaiting trial in Germany. In the US there are around half a million people in jail awaiting trial. Normalizing for population that’s around 150 per million in Germany and 1,500 per million in the US. There also seems to be about a five time difference in the crime rate (if we are focussing on violent crime) with, for example, five times more murders per capita in the US. So, even taking that difference into account the US still seems to be jailing about double the people Germany does pre-trial. Doesn’t seem like a great system … (Obviously all back of the napkin calculations. Please check my numbers if you think there’s anything wrong with those.)
  - c22 4y ago
    > "... people without a home are empirically much more likely to be jailed... " When I was briefly in jail I met several people without a home who had commited petty crimes with the explicit intent of being able to spend a couple days in jail. One fellow I saw return three times with less than 24 hours between each visit.
xeromal 4y ago
If you have nothing, then it's pretty logical to think that they have less ties to the community they're in vs someone who has a home, business, etc and uprooting is much more painful if you try to flee.
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  That’s not logical at all. A lot of poor people have strong ties to their community but still no money. You could argue that it’s much easier for rich people to flee. Poor people can’t afford to flee.
ch4s3 4y ago
Why would you assume that? In general I don't think people should be held pre trial for non violent crimes.

It’s usually more about flight risk. “Have nothing to lose” is the phrase that’d be associated with people who can’t afford bail. It’s a tough situation because optimally no one who’s not a flight risk or dangerous should be in jail. They’re all innocent, after all, until they have trial. A financial hostage is just the easiest to implement.

arrrg 4y ago
That seems like a deeply weird perspective to me because where I’m from (Germany) bail just isn’t a thing. At all. And we do totally fine. Whether or not someone is held in jail before trial is determined by whether there is a risk that they might flee, destroy evidence or influence witnesses and that judgement has to be taken in a proportional manner (so e.g. if jailing someone before trial would likely put them in jail longer than their potential punishment then you can’t do it). It actually doesn’t happen that often. As is often the case with criminal justice one of the biggest issues is actually that it just takes too long until there is a trial and this often also leads to problems with the duration someone sits in jail before trial. Six months are supposed to be the usual upper limit, in practice, however, that line is frequently crossed. So the thing I would want to improve in Germany is time until trial. (And: this is also not to say that this system is perfect. For example, people without a home are empirically much more likely to be jailed, even though the Constitutional Court determined that just the mere fact that someone doesn’t have a home isn’t a valid reason to consider someone a flight risk. Every individual case is supposed to be considered on its own terms. In practice that obviously doesn’t work perfectly.) As for the US, you need judges to decide whether and how to set bail anyway, just get them to decide on flight risk and risk of tampering with evidence or witnesses instead. Currently there are around 12,000 people in jail awaiting trial in Germany. In the US there are around half a million people in jail awaiting trial. Normalizing for population that’s around 150 per million in Germany and 1,500 per million in the US. There also seems to be about a five time difference in the crime rate (if we are focussing on violent crime) with, for example, five times more murders per capita in the US. So, even taking that difference into account the US still seems to be jailing about double the people Germany does pre-trial. Doesn’t seem like a great system … (Obviously all back of the napkin calculations. Please check my numbers if you think there’s anything wrong with those.)
- c22 4y ago
  > "... people without a home are empirically much more likely to be jailed... " When I was briefly in jail I met several people without a home who had commited petty crimes with the explicit intent of being able to spend a couple days in jail. One fellow I saw return three times with less than 24 hours between each visit.

xeromal 4y ago

If you have nothing, then it's pretty logical to think that they have less ties to the community they're in vs someone who has a home, business, etc and uprooting is much more painful if you try to flee.

rqtwteye 4y ago
That’s not logical at all. A lot of poor people have strong ties to their community but still no money. You could argue that it’s much easier for rich people to flee. Poor people can’t afford to flee.

ch4s3 4y ago

Why would you assume that? In general I don't think people should be held pre trial for non violent crimes.