9 ms·

America's Peculiar Bail System

Someone1234 11y ago
America's entire justice system seems unfair to the poor. Or to phase it another way, I literally don't believe the poor get a fair or speedy trial, but do believe the rich can. Bail is a big problem. Plea agreements and their relationship to public defender's workload are another massive problem. A lot of people without much familiarity of the legal system think things like "no innocent person would ever plead guilty!" but the way the US legal/justice system is set up right now, it is often the least-bad alternative to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit than to fight it. And I'd love to point my finger at one individual or set of individuals, but the reality is that the entire system is broken, and it isn't broken because of bad actors, it is broken because it is just poorly designed and implemented at its core (although moral prosecutors can help mitigate some of the problems). The UK justice system is imperfect, but things like no plea deals, no monetary bail, and better pay for public defenders (although still too low, and they're still overworked) improve things a lot. Plus prosecutors aren't politically motivated and are interested in justice (elected prosecutors is another massive problem in the US). The US criminal justice system is "scary." I feel bad for anyone who it victimises, in particular the poor.
- nickff 11y ago
  I agree with many of your criticisms of the US court system, but disagree with your characterization of the UK system. In the US (many, but not all) prosecutors are directly politically motivated, but in the UK they are largely bureaucratically motivated, as are a large number of US prosecutors who are in the lower ranks, and not subject to direct elections or high-level oversight. Some may regard bureaucratic motivations as more 'enlightened', 'nicer', and 'more impartial', but they are really just slightly different from political motivations. I would further argue that prosecutors' motivations are very similar in both countries. At the highest levels, the prosecutors are subject to political pressures and incentives whether due to direct elections, appointments, or oversight; at the lower levels, the lawyers are part of a bureaucracy with all that entails.
- jcromartie 11y ago
  Americans also have a uniquely individualistic philosophy of life. They are big on "personal responsibility" and free will. I see lots of people with no sympathy for people who are caught up in the justice system, based on a belief that they "chose" to do whatever they did, and are inherently evil and deserve whatever they get. We love retributive justice here in the USA. That will be very hard to dislodge. It seems abundantly clear that there is no such thing as truly (i.e. supernatural) free will, and severe punishments do little to deter crime. The phrase "they are just x" gets thrown around a lot. They are just animals. They are just monsters. They are just evil. As if these qualities are discrete things that exist by themselves... What can we do to convince people that criminals are not, in fact, "just" bad people?
  - Crito 11y ago
    The non-existence of supernatural free will is largely irrelevant; despite it not existing it is abundantly clear that we can modify expected behavior by offering rewards or punishments. Supernatural free will is not necessary in the slightest to explain this. > "severe punishments to little to deter crime." I have seen some evidence that this is the case specifically for the death penalty. I've seen little to suggest that it holds true throughout more general cases. Nevertheless, even if we rule out deterrence as a possibility, we're still left with incapacitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29). That undeniably does work, and it works damn well. The thought of being locked up in a cell may not deter a free man, and it may not cure a captured man, but it will prevent that man from victimizing innocent members of the general public again. You don't need silly concepts of supernatural souls or good and evil to benefit from incapacitation. No matter what we think of any of these issues, the fact of the matter is that Ted Kaczynski is unable to mail a bomb to people like you or I.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      While incapacitation is a valid need, the current American justice system appears to completely disregard the possibility of rehabilitation, especially for non-violent/victimless crimes. Incapacitation isn't so important when rehabilitation is possible, and accepting the lack of supernatural free will should help with acceptance of rehabilitation.
- netfire 11y ago
  I think its a symptom of some bigger issues. Specifically that many of the decisions in the US are being driven by fear and the increasing role that money plays in politics (and elections in particular). Instead of addressing problems in a way that would be most effective for the individual and society, we are so afraid of having "bad" people on the streets, that we lock them away, sometimes for years, without a lot of evidence that we are doing any good (in fact, there is evidence that once someone enters the prison system, they are likely to commit crime once released) On the political side, we are unnecessarily removing transparency from the government and sacrificing constitutional rights in the name of protecting ourselves from terrorists and people involved with criminal activity. The potential for abuse with this type of action is huge, especially if you get the wrong people in power. I don't think we'll fix these sort of problems until we change our mindset and get money out of politics.
  - maxlybbert 11y ago
    You may have a point. But bail bondsmen existed long before the current political climate.
- will_brown 11y ago
  >Plea agreements and their relationship to public defender's workload are another massive problem. Whether a case is criminal or civil more than 9 out of 10 times a case will not go to trial. This is not necessarily indicative of any problem in either criminal or civil...in fact in most contexts it makes a lot of sense. For example, as a criminal defense lawyer, if the Gov has a really shitty case against my Client (not saying they are necessarily innocent), guess what it will never go to trial, b/c either the case can be won on pretrial motions or I can have a case broken down to a lesser charge and it makes sense to work that out (plea) rather than risk the conviction on the original charge. Further, your statement "no innocent person would ever plead guilty", also inaccurately depicts a system where there is only two options guilty/not guilty, over looking a withholding of adjudication which is going to be applicable in the majority of misdemeanor cases and even some felonies. On the other hand if the State has a slam dunk case against my Client, it again makes no sense to go to trial and expose my Client to the maximum sentence when I can work out a plea at the minimums (or close to) under the law, this serves the interest of my Client as much as society (saving tax payer dollars on unnecessary trials, think arbitration/mediation in the civil context). Only in those cases where the plea offer is equal to the maximums under the law, or where the Gov has a shitty case but the facts are so egregious the Gov would rather take it to trial and lose than give a minimal plea does it make sense to go to trial. Unfortunately the World is simply comprised of haves and have-nots, where the poor (as you call them) get the short end of the stick...certainly this is true in the justice system as you note, but it is no more true in law than anywhere else (medical care, transportation, education, employment, ect...). Only the potential Gov abuses in the justice system have higher consequences, and that in part is why in 1963 SCOTUS ruled defendants have a Constitutional right to a lawyer who otherwise could not afford one(establishing the first PD office). Talk about scary...we have a Constitutional right to a criminal lawyer, but not to see a Dr. if we are sick.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    For example, as a criminal defense lawyer, if the Gov has a really shitty case against my Client (not saying they are necessarily innocent), guess what it will never go to trial, b/c either the case can be won on pretrial motions or I can have a case broken down to a lesser charge and it makes sense to work that out (plea) rather than risk the conviction on the original charge. Isn't this (plea to lesser charge) a part of the problem the parent post was describing, that the sheer might and vindictiveness of the criminal justice system intimidates innocent (or even guilty) defendants into pleading guilty? If justice would be served by a lesser charge or a lesser sentence, how is it fair to increase the charge or increase the sentence because the defendant wants to exercise their constitutional right to a trial?
- LordKano 11y ago
  It's just an extension of the fact that life seems unfair to the poor. Having less money means that you end up with lower quality food, water, air, sanitation, housing, education, medical care, legal representation, law enforcement, transportation and probably a dozen other things that didn't immediately come to my mind. Societal problems don't spontaneously develop overnight and it won't be quick or easy to address them without causing a lot of other problems. Still, we should be aware of them and their causes.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
  > Or to phase it another way, I literally don't believe the poor get a fair or speedy trial, The poor never get trials. The vast majority of cases are pled down. Prosecutors and other officers of the court punish those who refuse to waive trial and plead guilty, and this forces most (innocent and guilty alike) to take the bargain. Plea bargains are sometimes useful to prosecutors, allowing them to serve justice at times when there is real risk that a criminal would be acquitted. But it's a tool that is prone to outrageous abuse. I propose that prosecutors be prohibited from offering plea deals to more than 3% of their cases in any given calendar year, and that any excess of such be sufficient to disbar them or even carry criminal penalties.
- rayiner 11y ago
  > A lot of people without much familiarity of the legal system think things like "no innocent person would ever plead guilty!" but the way the US legal/justice system is set up right now, it is often the least-bad alternative to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit than to fight it. On the flip side, I think a lot of people with only passing familiarity with the legal system think innocent people regularly plead guilty. I have lots of friends who are public defenders. My impression is that they rarely encounter people who aren't clearly guilty of what they're charged with. When they rage about injustice, it's about how extreme the penalties are, the lack of sympathy for juvenile offenders, etc.
  - pcwalton 11y ago
    As an outsider, what Ken White says [1] sounds reasonable to me. "I think the federal guilty plea rate is in the 90-95% range, with the remainder being trials and the occasional dismissal or other resolution. How many of those are actually guilty? I don't know. Many of them did something. But a not-insigificant [sic] percentage of them didn't do what the government says they did." [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1aokls/iama_federal_criminal_defense_attorney_and_former/c8zbr4w http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1aokls/iama_federal_cr...
    - rayiner 11y ago
      I'm talking about the sort of cases handled by public defenders for people who have trouble making bail. Robbery suspects caught with the stolen goods, drug dealers caught on the street making a sale, etc. Not complex federal crimes where everyone can agree on what happened but disagree on what crime, if any, was committed.
      - mentat 11y ago
        It is absolutely not this cut and dry even for "simple crimes". Have you sat on a jury for anything substantial?
jimrandomh 11y ago
Suppose someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit, bail is set, they get a bail bond, they show up to court and are acquitted. The fees they pay on that bond are a de facto fine. This weakens juries' power to acquit and gives false arrests teeth. One way to improve things would be to allow juries to rule, not just that a criminal case wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that it was weak enough that no arrest should have been made; and in that case, make the government liable for bail bond fees, rather than the defendant.
- mindslight 11y ago
  Why bother creating a third outcome? If a defendant is found not guilty, then the expenses and time of arrest/imprisonment/trial are damages and they should be fully compensated. Anything less is externalizing the cost of policing onto innocent victims, accompanied by all the usual problems from moral hazard.
- rmah 11y ago
  Many states do just that. This is called the "Grand Jury" system. Every case is brought before a Grand Jury to determine if enough evidence exists for the case to go to trial.
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    And, as the saying goes, whomever the prosecutor wants indicted by the grand jury, up to and including a ham sandwich, will get indicted. Exceptions to this rule fall into the man bites dog category.
    - Crito 11y ago
      True of Federal grand juries. Less so of state grand juries.
- aqme28 11y ago
  A similar but worse situation: Someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit. Bail is set far above their ability to pay. A year later while awaiting trial, they are given the option to accept a plea deal for time served and a criminal record, or wait another year for the trial to take place.
ploxiln 11y ago
<quote> 77% of people charged with a misdemeanor in New York City were released on their own recognizance, and the other 23% were offered bail. Within that 23%, bail amounts widely varied: Of the 26,459 cases in which bail was set, 19,137 -- or 72.3% -- the bail amount was $1,000 or less. “Despite [this] relatively low bail amount,” writes the report, “the overwhelming preponderance of defendants required to post that bail amount were jailed because they could not do so.” </quote> How much cheaper can bail get? You can hardly get an apartment anywhere in NYC for less than $1000/month. These people must make and spend more than that in a month - it's just the strangely Average American Lifestyle to spend money as soon as you get it. Any amount that these poor people could afford isn't going to be an effective bail. These kind of people can only afford something that fits in a week's paycheck, and losing a week's paycheck isn't that big a deal, they've done without before.
- nyolfen 11y ago
  just a hunch, but perhaps part of the reason they're poor is that they have to spend over a grand on rent
- rpedroso 11y ago
  The minimum wage in New York is $8.75. Someone working 40 hours/week for 52 weeks/year, which is a generous estimate due to how many minimum wage employers hire and schedule employees, would earn $18,200 every year. After 15% in federal income taxes, that leaves us with $15,470. Let's assume they pay nothing in state/local income taxes. Let's also assume they live alone and have no children or family to care for-- all their expenses are their own. Assuming that they pay $1000/mo for their apartment (let's be generous -- this includes rent and utilities), that leaves them with $3,470 every year to cover all other living expenses. If I spend $50/week on food (which is conservative for NYC), that adds up to $2400, which leaves us at $1070. At that salary, if you spend more than $70 in a YEAR on clothing, healthcare, toothpaste, public transit), then you won't be able to afford $1000 in bail. I spend more than that every year on public transit alone (MTA 30-day pass costs $116.50 -> $1398.00/year). It's really not hard to see how a $1000 bail can be out of reach for the poor in New York.
  - 11y ago
jtchang 11y ago
And if anyone is curious this is the bail schedule for san francisco: http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/131224.Bail%20Schedule.Final_.pdf http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/13...
nickpsecurity 11y ago
Excellent overview of problems in the bail system. Here's a nice supplement to it from the other side by a judge. The two together show why the situation is extremely one-sided if the accused is poor. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...

America's entire justice system seems unfair to the poor. Or to phase it another way, I literally don't believe the poor get a fair or speedy trial, but do believe the rich can. Bail is a big problem. Plea agreements and their relationship to public defender's workload are another massive problem. A lot of people without much familiarity of the legal system think things like "no innocent person would ever plead guilty!" but the way the US legal/justice system is set up right now, it is often the least-bad alternative to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit than to fight it. And I'd love to point my finger at one individual or set of individuals, but the reality is that the entire system is broken, and it isn't broken because of bad actors, it is broken because it is just poorly designed and implemented at its core (although moral prosecutors can help mitigate some of the problems). The UK justice system is imperfect, but things like no plea deals, no monetary bail, and better pay for public defenders (although still too low, and they're still overworked) improve things a lot. Plus prosecutors aren't politically motivated and are interested in justice (elected prosecutors is another massive problem in the US). The US criminal justice system is "scary." I feel bad for anyone who it victimises, in particular the poor.

nickff 11y ago
I agree with many of your criticisms of the US court system, but disagree with your characterization of the UK system. In the US (many, but not all) prosecutors are directly politically motivated, but in the UK they are largely bureaucratically motivated, as are a large number of US prosecutors who are in the lower ranks, and not subject to direct elections or high-level oversight. Some may regard bureaucratic motivations as more 'enlightened', 'nicer', and 'more impartial', but they are really just slightly different from political motivations. I would further argue that prosecutors' motivations are very similar in both countries. At the highest levels, the prosecutors are subject to political pressures and incentives whether due to direct elections, appointments, or oversight; at the lower levels, the lawyers are part of a bureaucracy with all that entails.
jcromartie 11y ago
Americans also have a uniquely individualistic philosophy of life. They are big on "personal responsibility" and free will. I see lots of people with no sympathy for people who are caught up in the justice system, based on a belief that they "chose" to do whatever they did, and are inherently evil and deserve whatever they get. We love retributive justice here in the USA. That will be very hard to dislodge. It seems abundantly clear that there is no such thing as truly (i.e. supernatural) free will, and severe punishments do little to deter crime. The phrase "they are just x" gets thrown around a lot. They are just animals. They are just monsters. They are just evil. As if these qualities are discrete things that exist by themselves... What can we do to convince people that criminals are not, in fact, "just" bad people?
- Crito 11y ago
  The non-existence of supernatural free will is largely irrelevant; despite it not existing it is abundantly clear that we can modify expected behavior by offering rewards or punishments. Supernatural free will is not necessary in the slightest to explain this. > "severe punishments to little to deter crime." I have seen some evidence that this is the case specifically for the death penalty. I've seen little to suggest that it holds true throughout more general cases. Nevertheless, even if we rule out deterrence as a possibility, we're still left with incapacitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_%28penology%29). That undeniably does work, and it works damn well. The thought of being locked up in a cell may not deter a free man, and it may not cure a captured man, but it will prevent that man from victimizing innocent members of the general public again. You don't need silly concepts of supernatural souls or good and evil to benefit from incapacitation. No matter what we think of any of these issues, the fact of the matter is that Ted Kaczynski is unable to mail a bomb to people like you or I.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    While incapacitation is a valid need, the current American justice system appears to completely disregard the possibility of rehabilitation, especially for non-violent/victimless crimes. Incapacitation isn't so important when rehabilitation is possible, and accepting the lack of supernatural free will should help with acceptance of rehabilitation.
netfire 11y ago
I think its a symptom of some bigger issues. Specifically that many of the decisions in the US are being driven by fear and the increasing role that money plays in politics (and elections in particular). Instead of addressing problems in a way that would be most effective for the individual and society, we are so afraid of having "bad" people on the streets, that we lock them away, sometimes for years, without a lot of evidence that we are doing any good (in fact, there is evidence that once someone enters the prison system, they are likely to commit crime once released) On the political side, we are unnecessarily removing transparency from the government and sacrificing constitutional rights in the name of protecting ourselves from terrorists and people involved with criminal activity. The potential for abuse with this type of action is huge, especially if you get the wrong people in power. I don't think we'll fix these sort of problems until we change our mindset and get money out of politics.
- maxlybbert 11y ago
  You may have a point. But bail bondsmen existed long before the current political climate.
will_brown 11y ago
>Plea agreements and their relationship to public defender's workload are another massive problem. Whether a case is criminal or civil more than 9 out of 10 times a case will not go to trial. This is not necessarily indicative of any problem in either criminal or civil...in fact in most contexts it makes a lot of sense. For example, as a criminal defense lawyer, if the Gov has a really shitty case against my Client (not saying they are necessarily innocent), guess what it will never go to trial, b/c either the case can be won on pretrial motions or I can have a case broken down to a lesser charge and it makes sense to work that out (plea) rather than risk the conviction on the original charge. Further, your statement "no innocent person would ever plead guilty", also inaccurately depicts a system where there is only two options guilty/not guilty, over looking a withholding of adjudication which is going to be applicable in the majority of misdemeanor cases and even some felonies. On the other hand if the State has a slam dunk case against my Client, it again makes no sense to go to trial and expose my Client to the maximum sentence when I can work out a plea at the minimums (or close to) under the law, this serves the interest of my Client as much as society (saving tax payer dollars on unnecessary trials, think arbitration/mediation in the civil context). Only in those cases where the plea offer is equal to the maximums under the law, or where the Gov has a shitty case but the facts are so egregious the Gov would rather take it to trial and lose than give a minimal plea does it make sense to go to trial. Unfortunately the World is simply comprised of haves and have-nots, where the poor (as you call them) get the short end of the stick...certainly this is true in the justice system as you note, but it is no more true in law than anywhere else (medical care, transportation, education, employment, ect...). Only the potential Gov abuses in the justice system have higher consequences, and that in part is why in 1963 SCOTUS ruled defendants have a Constitutional right to a lawyer who otherwise could not afford one(establishing the first PD office). Talk about scary...we have a Constitutional right to a criminal lawyer, but not to see a Dr. if we are sick.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  For example, as a criminal defense lawyer, if the Gov has a really shitty case against my Client (not saying they are necessarily innocent), guess what it will never go to trial, b/c either the case can be won on pretrial motions or I can have a case broken down to a lesser charge and it makes sense to work that out (plea) rather than risk the conviction on the original charge. Isn't this (plea to lesser charge) a part of the problem the parent post was describing, that the sheer might and vindictiveness of the criminal justice system intimidates innocent (or even guilty) defendants into pleading guilty? If justice would be served by a lesser charge or a lesser sentence, how is it fair to increase the charge or increase the sentence because the defendant wants to exercise their constitutional right to a trial?
LordKano 11y ago
It's just an extension of the fact that life seems unfair to the poor. Having less money means that you end up with lower quality food, water, air, sanitation, housing, education, medical care, legal representation, law enforcement, transportation and probably a dozen other things that didn't immediately come to my mind. Societal problems don't spontaneously develop overnight and it won't be quick or easy to address them without causing a lot of other problems. Still, we should be aware of them and their causes.
NoMoreNicksLeft 11y ago
> Or to phase it another way, I literally don't believe the poor get a fair or speedy trial, The poor never get trials. The vast majority of cases are pled down. Prosecutors and other officers of the court punish those who refuse to waive trial and plead guilty, and this forces most (innocent and guilty alike) to take the bargain. Plea bargains are sometimes useful to prosecutors, allowing them to serve justice at times when there is real risk that a criminal would be acquitted. But it's a tool that is prone to outrageous abuse. I propose that prosecutors be prohibited from offering plea deals to more than 3% of their cases in any given calendar year, and that any excess of such be sufficient to disbar them or even carry criminal penalties.
rayiner 11y ago
> A lot of people without much familiarity of the legal system think things like "no innocent person would ever plead guilty!" but the way the US legal/justice system is set up right now, it is often the least-bad alternative to plead guilty to a crime you didn't commit than to fight it. On the flip side, I think a lot of people with only passing familiarity with the legal system think innocent people regularly plead guilty. I have lots of friends who are public defenders. My impression is that they rarely encounter people who aren't clearly guilty of what they're charged with. When they rage about injustice, it's about how extreme the penalties are, the lack of sympathy for juvenile offenders, etc.
- pcwalton 11y ago
  As an outsider, what Ken White says [1] sounds reasonable to me. "I think the federal guilty plea rate is in the 90-95% range, with the remainder being trials and the occasional dismissal or other resolution. How many of those are actually guilty? I don't know. Many of them did something. But a not-insigificant [sic] percentage of them didn't do what the government says they did." [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1aokls/iama_federal_criminal_defense_attorney_and_former/c8zbr4w http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1aokls/iama_federal_cr...
  - rayiner 11y ago
    I'm talking about the sort of cases handled by public defenders for people who have trouble making bail. Robbery suspects caught with the stolen goods, drug dealers caught on the street making a sale, etc. Not complex federal crimes where everyone can agree on what happened but disagree on what crime, if any, was committed.
    - mentat 11y ago
      It is absolutely not this cut and dry even for "simple crimes". Have you sat on a jury for anything substantial?

jimrandomh 11y ago

Suppose someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit, bail is set, they get a bail bond, they show up to court and are acquitted. The fees they pay on that bond are a de facto fine. This weakens juries' power to acquit and gives false arrests teeth. One way to improve things would be to allow juries to rule, not just that a criminal case wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, but that it was weak enough that no arrest should have been made; and in that case, make the government liable for bail bond fees, rather than the defendant.

mindslight 11y ago
Why bother creating a third outcome? If a defendant is found not guilty, then the expenses and time of arrest/imprisonment/trial are damages and they should be fully compensated. Anything less is externalizing the cost of policing onto innocent victims, accompanied by all the usual problems from moral hazard.
rmah 11y ago
Many states do just that. This is called the "Grand Jury" system. Every case is brought before a Grand Jury to determine if enough evidence exists for the case to go to trial.
- MaysonL 11y ago
  And, as the saying goes, whomever the prosecutor wants indicted by the grand jury, up to and including a ham sandwich, will get indicted. Exceptions to this rule fall into the man bites dog category.
  - Crito 11y ago
    True of Federal grand juries. Less so of state grand juries.
aqme28 11y ago
A similar but worse situation: Someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit. Bail is set far above their ability to pay. A year later while awaiting trial, they are given the option to accept a plea deal for time served and a criminal record, or wait another year for the trial to take place.

ploxiln 11y ago

<quote> 77% of people charged with a misdemeanor in New York City were released on their own recognizance, and the other 23% were offered bail. Within that 23%, bail amounts widely varied: Of the 26,459 cases in which bail was set, 19,137 -- or 72.3% -- the bail amount was $1,000 or less. “Despite [this] relatively low bail amount,” writes the report, “the overwhelming preponderance of defendants required to post that bail amount were jailed because they could not do so.” </quote> How much cheaper can bail get? You can hardly get an apartment anywhere in NYC for less than $1000/month. These people must make and spend more than that in a month - it's just the strangely Average American Lifestyle to spend money as soon as you get it. Any amount that these poor people could afford isn't going to be an effective bail. These kind of people can only afford something that fits in a week's paycheck, and losing a week's paycheck isn't that big a deal, they've done without before.

nyolfen 11y ago
just a hunch, but perhaps part of the reason they're poor is that they have to spend over a grand on rent
rpedroso 11y ago
The minimum wage in New York is $8.75. Someone working 40 hours/week for 52 weeks/year, which is a generous estimate due to how many minimum wage employers hire and schedule employees, would earn $18,200 every year. After 15% in federal income taxes, that leaves us with $15,470. Let's assume they pay nothing in state/local income taxes. Let's also assume they live alone and have no children or family to care for-- all their expenses are their own. Assuming that they pay $1000/mo for their apartment (let's be generous -- this includes rent and utilities), that leaves them with $3,470 every year to cover all other living expenses. If I spend $50/week on food (which is conservative for NYC), that adds up to $2400, which leaves us at $1070. At that salary, if you spend more than $70 in a YEAR on clothing, healthcare, toothpaste, public transit), then you won't be able to afford $1000 in bail. I spend more than that every year on public transit alone (MTA 30-day pass costs $116.50 -> $1398.00/year). It's really not hard to see how a $1000 bail can be out of reach for the poor in New York.
- 11y ago

jtchang 11y ago

And if anyone is curious this is the bail schedule for san francisco: http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/131224.Bail%20Schedule.Final_.pdf http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/sites/default/files/images/13...

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Excellent overview of problems in the bail system. Here's a nice supplement to it from the other side by a judge. The two together show why the situation is extremely one-sided if the accused is poor. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/nov/20/why-inn...