10 ms·

> a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers The rich don't go to jail already. The crypto scammer paid

by epups 4y ago

> a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers The rich don't go to jail already. The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. That, to me, is far more dystopian than a cheap tool to help people appeal traffic tickets.

colechristensen 4y ago
>The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. Locally, it's a somewhat significant problem that people are getting caught for violent crimes and getting released immediately and reoffending.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  Why is it a problem? Do they get bail a second time? Do you think they wouldn't reoffend if they weren't released until after they are punished? If they do two crimes and get two sentences, does it matter if that's AABB or ABAB?
  - Joker_vD 4y ago
    Well, because there are now e.g. two cases of murder instead of only one, and the second one was entirely preventable? Oh, right, the law is not about the populace's lives and well-being, how silly of me to assume that.
    - Dylan16807 4y ago
      You didn't answer my questions. Do you think it would decrease the odds of reoffending if they didn't get bail? If it doesn't, then it's two crimes either way, just timed differently. And after the policy settled in it would have negligible impact on the crime rate. Also if you're doing sentencing for two crimes at once you can give a longer punishment for the first crime and get them off the street longer.
      - Joker_vD 4y ago
        Yes, it would decrease the odds, provided that after walking out of jail the probability of a criminal to commit a crime (that includes his intent to reoffend but also possible changes in the environment that happened during his time in jail that reduce his possibilities to do so) is less than before walking in, because they wouldn't get the chance to reoffend immediately.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        I don't assume that someone coming out of a sentence is less likely to commit a crime. Isn't it often the opposite, because the US is so bad at rehabilitation?
        Joker_vD 4y ago
        Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you? But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender; also, some people die during the sentence... the probability does go down, for many small reasons compounded together.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you? Not unless I'm a robot programmed to prevent recidivism at all costs. Why are you even asking this? > But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender ...and not everyone released before their trial becomes a repeat offender. > some people die during the sentence Is that a significant effect? I don't think most sentences are long enough for that to make a big difference, and I don't think preventing a single crime per lifetime, at most, is enough reason to keep people locked up for the lengthy pre-trial process.
        mattw2121 4y ago
        What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
- ketzu 4y ago
  How significant is that problem? As far as I am aware * Not allowing bail for people at high risk of reoffending or flight is already allowed * Reoffending while waiting on trial or out on bail is rare On the other hand there seems to be a huge problem in the US of people being detained for long times without a trial.
  - throwaway17_17 4y ago
    I could run the actual statistics for my district’s Court and tell you the percentage of reoffending while on bond, but in my experience a number approaching 40%, of people out on felony bonds, are re-arrested for additional felony conduct.
- bombolo 4y ago
  It's also a problem to put people in jail without a trial.
pocketarc 4y ago
You're conflating a few different things. Being able to pay bail so you don't have to be in jail while you wait for your trial doesn't get you out of having a trial, and has nothing to do with needing lawyers. What the parent was referring to is the fact that if AI starts to consume the low-end (starting with traffic tickets), actual lawyers for trials will become even more expensive, and thus poorer people will actually fare worse because they will lose their already-limited access to human lawyers. Yes, their case might get handled with less hassle and cheaper, but the quality of the service is not -better-, it's just cheaper/easier.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > the fact that if AI starts to consume the low-end (starting with traffic tickets), actual lawyers for trials will become even more expensive That should only happen if lawyers become very niche or if those low end cases are subsidizing trials. I doubt the former, and the latter means the situation is already bad and mainly just the type of unfairness would change.
  - worthless-trash 4y ago
    Supply vs demand, won't there just be more supply availble for other cases ?
- dandellion 4y ago
  It seems to me you're the only one conflating things? Grandparent didn't say anything about getting out of having a trial, or about needing lawyers. They're talking about how people with money can use it to avoid spending time in jail, and gave a perfectly valid example of someone rich doing exactly that.
  - watwut 4y ago
    That is pretty bad example. In theory, bail should be affordable to the individual person. It is meant to be insurance that you come back for actual court date. The outrage there is bails being set to unaffordable sizes for poor people. OP was picking out the case where bail functioned as intended.
iso1631 4y ago
Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually looks like 1) The driver was actually speeding and 2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality Is that the case? In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned? In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years it's typically 1st time: 3 hour course and £100 2nd, 3rd, 4th time: 3 points and £100 5th time: Driving ban and £100 (or more)
- wardedVibe 4y ago
  The difference is that in large swaths of the US, taking away their license is not that different from house arrest. Breaking the speed limit by 10mph is completely unenforced. I've yet to be on the highway without someone going 20 over, and no enforcement.
  - iso1631 4y ago
    Same in the UK, you have to get lifts or taxis everywhere, unless you live in big cities (London has great public transport, but so does New York. The weekly bus that my sister gets doesn't really help her to travel to work as dozens of different schools all over the county) It's a very good reason not to speed. So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding? Are fines at least proportional to wealth? Or can a rich people speed without problem as saving 10 minutes on their journey is worth the $100 fine even if it was guaranteed they got one? (In the UK speed is almost entirely enforced by cameras, not by police cars which are rarely seen on roads. Removes any bias the cop might have -- maybe the cop has it in for young tesla drivers so pulls them over, but lets the old guy in a pickup go past)
    - xienze 4y ago
      > So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding? Well, things vary from state to state. But there is definitely a point system in place for excessive speeding, speeding in a school zone, passing a school bus at any speed, stuff like that. In a lot of places you can be arrested for reckless driving, with varying levels of what defines "reckless." Virginia is notorious for their speeding laws. Speeding in excess of 20mph of the posted limit or in excess of 80mph regardless of limit (e.g. 81 in a 65) is what they consider reckless driving and it's a misdemeanor that could potentially (but not likely) give you a one year jail sentence.
watwut 4y ago
It is actually OK and correct for justice system to NOT keep people in jail prior sentencing unless necessary. It is dishonest to conflate "not being sentenced yet" with "got out".
- epups 4y ago
  If that's the case, why involve money in it? About a third of people who are arrested cannot afford bail, while if you are rich (maybe through crime), you can pay it. Of course bail is a mechanism for differential treatment between rich and poor in the judicial system.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    Right, the UK generally doesn't have cash bail, and the most recent noteworthy example where cash bail was used (Julian Assange) the accused did not in fact surrender and those who stumped up the money for bail lost their money, suggesting it's just a way for people with means to avoid justice. The overwhelming majority of cases bailed in the UK surrender exactly as expected, even in cases where they know they are likely to receive a custodial sentence. Where people don't surrender I've been to hearings for those people and they're almost invariably incompetent rather than seriously trying to evade the law. Like, you were set bail for Tuesday afternoon, you don't show up, Wednesday morning the cops get your name, they go to your mum's house, you're asleep in bed because you thought it was next Tuesday. Idiots, but hardly a great danger to society. The penalty for not turning up is they spend however long in the cells until the court gets around to them, so still better than the US system but decidedly less convenient than if they'd actually turned up as requested.
  - watwut 4y ago
    I am not defending bail as a system. However, the system in USA relies on it. The complaint here was not that poor people stay in jail. The complain was purely about someone being able to pay bail. > About a third of people who are arrested cannot afford bail, while if you are rich (maybe through crime), you can pay it. This means 2/3 of arrested people can afford bail or are released without it. A case of single rich person having affordable bail is not exactly proof of inequality here. Poor people who had low enough bail they were able to pay do exist too.

by epups 4y ago

colechristensen 4y ago

>The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. Locally, it's a somewhat significant problem that people are getting caught for violent crimes and getting released immediately and reoffending.

Dylan16807 4y ago
Why is it a problem? Do they get bail a second time? Do you think they wouldn't reoffend if they weren't released until after they are punished? If they do two crimes and get two sentences, does it matter if that's AABB or ABAB?
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  Well, because there are now e.g. two cases of murder instead of only one, and the second one was entirely preventable? Oh, right, the law is not about the populace's lives and well-being, how silly of me to assume that.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    You didn't answer my questions. Do you think it would decrease the odds of reoffending if they didn't get bail? If it doesn't, then it's two crimes either way, just timed differently. And after the policy settled in it would have negligible impact on the crime rate. Also if you're doing sentencing for two crimes at once you can give a longer punishment for the first crime and get them off the street longer.
    - Joker_vD 4y ago
      Yes, it would decrease the odds, provided that after walking out of jail the probability of a criminal to commit a crime (that includes his intent to reoffend but also possible changes in the environment that happened during his time in jail that reduce his possibilities to do so) is less than before walking in, because they wouldn't get the chance to reoffend immediately.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        I don't assume that someone coming out of a sentence is less likely to commit a crime. Isn't it often the opposite, because the US is so bad at rehabilitation?
        Joker_vD 4y ago
        Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you? But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender; also, some people die during the sentence... the probability does go down, for many small reasons compounded together.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you? Not unless I'm a robot programmed to prevent recidivism at all costs. Why are you even asking this? > But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender ...and not everyone released before their trial becomes a repeat offender. > some people die during the sentence Is that a significant effect? I don't think most sentences are long enough for that to make a big difference, and I don't think preventing a single crime per lifetime, at most, is enough reason to keep people locked up for the lengthy pre-trial process.
      - mattw2121 4y ago
        What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
ketzu 4y ago
How significant is that problem? As far as I am aware * Not allowing bail for people at high risk of reoffending or flight is already allowed * Reoffending while waiting on trial or out on bail is rare On the other hand there seems to be a huge problem in the US of people being detained for long times without a trial.
- throwaway17_17 4y ago
  I could run the actual statistics for my district’s Court and tell you the percentage of reoffending while on bond, but in my experience a number approaching 40%, of people out on felony bonds, are re-arrested for additional felony conduct.
bombolo 4y ago
It's also a problem to put people in jail without a trial.

pocketarc 4y ago

You're conflating a few different things. Being able to pay bail so you don't have to be in jail while you wait for your trial doesn't get you out of having a trial, and has nothing to do with needing lawyers. What the parent was referring to is the fact that if AI starts to consume the low-end (starting with traffic tickets), actual lawyers for trials will become even more expensive, and thus poorer people will actually fare worse because they will lose their already-limited access to human lawyers. Yes, their case might get handled with less hassle and cheaper, but the quality of the service is not -better-, it's just cheaper/easier.

Dylan16807 4y ago
> the fact that if AI starts to consume the low-end (starting with traffic tickets), actual lawyers for trials will become even more expensive That should only happen if lawyers become very niche or if those low end cases are subsidizing trials. I doubt the former, and the latter means the situation is already bad and mainly just the type of unfairness would change.
- worthless-trash 4y ago
  Supply vs demand, won't there just be more supply availble for other cases ?
dandellion 4y ago
It seems to me you're the only one conflating things? Grandparent didn't say anything about getting out of having a trial, or about needing lawyers. They're talking about how people with money can use it to avoid spending time in jail, and gave a perfectly valid example of someone rich doing exactly that.
- watwut 4y ago
  That is pretty bad example. In theory, bail should be affordable to the individual person. It is meant to be insurance that you come back for actual court date. The outrage there is bails being set to unaffordable sizes for poor people. OP was picking out the case where bail functioned as intended.

iso1631 4y ago

Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually looks like 1) The driver was actually speeding and 2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality Is that the case? In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned? In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years it's typically 1st time: 3 hour course and £100 2nd, 3rd, 4th time: 3 points and £100 5th time: Driving ban and £100 (or more)

wardedVibe 4y ago
The difference is that in large swaths of the US, taking away their license is not that different from house arrest. Breaking the speed limit by 10mph is completely unenforced. I've yet to be on the highway without someone going 20 over, and no enforcement.
- iso1631 4y ago
  Same in the UK, you have to get lifts or taxis everywhere, unless you live in big cities (London has great public transport, but so does New York. The weekly bus that my sister gets doesn't really help her to travel to work as dozens of different schools all over the county) It's a very good reason not to speed. So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding? Are fines at least proportional to wealth? Or can a rich people speed without problem as saving 10 minutes on their journey is worth the $100 fine even if it was guaranteed they got one? (In the UK speed is almost entirely enforced by cameras, not by police cars which are rarely seen on roads. Removes any bias the cop might have -- maybe the cop has it in for young tesla drivers so pulls them over, but lets the old guy in a pickup go past)
  - xienze 4y ago
    > So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding? Well, things vary from state to state. But there is definitely a point system in place for excessive speeding, speeding in a school zone, passing a school bus at any speed, stuff like that. In a lot of places you can be arrested for reckless driving, with varying levels of what defines "reckless." Virginia is notorious for their speeding laws. Speeding in excess of 20mph of the posted limit or in excess of 80mph regardless of limit (e.g. 81 in a 65) is what they consider reckless driving and it's a misdemeanor that could potentially (but not likely) give you a one year jail sentence.

watwut 4y ago

It is actually OK and correct for justice system to NOT keep people in jail prior sentencing unless necessary. It is dishonest to conflate "not being sentenced yet" with "got out".

epups 4y ago
If that's the case, why involve money in it? About a third of people who are arrested cannot afford bail, while if you are rich (maybe through crime), you can pay it. Of course bail is a mechanism for differential treatment between rich and poor in the judicial system.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Right, the UK generally doesn't have cash bail, and the most recent noteworthy example where cash bail was used (Julian Assange) the accused did not in fact surrender and those who stumped up the money for bail lost their money, suggesting it's just a way for people with means to avoid justice. The overwhelming majority of cases bailed in the UK surrender exactly as expected, even in cases where they know they are likely to receive a custodial sentence. Where people don't surrender I've been to hearings for those people and they're almost invariably incompetent rather than seriously trying to evade the law. Like, you were set bail for Tuesday afternoon, you don't show up, Wednesday morning the cops get your name, they go to your mum's house, you're asleep in bed because you thought it was next Tuesday. Idiots, but hardly a great danger to society. The penalty for not turning up is they spend however long in the cells until the court gets around to them, so still better than the US system but decidedly less convenient than if they'd actually turned up as requested.
- watwut 4y ago
  I am not defending bail as a system. However, the system in USA relies on it. The complaint here was not that poor people stay in jail. The complain was purely about someone being able to pay bail. > About a third of people who are arrested cannot afford bail, while if you are rich (maybe through crime), you can pay it. This means 2/3 of arrested people can afford bail or are released without it. A case of single rich person having affordable bail is not exactly proof of inequality here. Poor people who had low enough bail they were able to pay do exist too.