The bail industry may be about to be over in US?

[nec209]

Duane “Dog the Bounty Hunter” Chapman and his wife Beth are ending their hit show Dog and Beth: On the Hunt in an attempt to save the bail industry, which is under attack nationwide.

 

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/dog-bounty-hunter-ending-show-87099

 

It seems the TV show Dog the Bounty Hunter and Dog and Beth On the Hunt are making conservatives hate the bail industry!!! And conservatives what to kill the bail industry!! Why? Because they say it makes it too easy for the bad guys to get out of jail.

 

The conservatives hate the bail industry!!! That it is too easy for the bad guys to get out of jail.

 

[Delta1212]

I have serious issues with the bail industry but for pretty much the opposite reason. It makes it too difficult for poor people who absolutely don't belong there to get out.

[Sensei]

The really poor people want to be in jail because they will get food for free, and they won't have to search for food in trashcans..

 

Couple months ago, prisoner was released (end of sentence), and killed girl.

He told police and judge, he did it because he wanted to return to jail, as he could not survive on freedom..

Not surprisingly, nobody wants ex-prisoner-employee...

Now he has life sentence.

 

Happened not once, nor twice, that retired person started committing crimes to be imprisoned (even some silliness).

On freedom had pension disallowing to survive a week..

Homeless people are starting doing some silliness to be imprisoned during autumn-winter here.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Sensei

[nec209]

I have serious issues with the bail industry but for pretty much the opposite reason. It makes it too difficult for poor people who absolutely don't belong there to get out.

 

Is that not for what the bail bond is for? If you don't have the money to bond out your self than you get mail bond to bond you out? And you pay 10% or 20% of what they ask for?

[Delta1212]

Yes, I'm sure that Kalif Browder, who was held in jail without trial for three years starting at the age of 16 because he and his mother couldn't afford the $3,000 bail on a robbery charge that was eventually dropped because there was no evidence that he actually did it was super glad that he got food while he spent 400 days in solitary confinement after trying to kill himself because of the beatings and abuse he got from other inmates and guards.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

 

It's not in the article because it happened afterwards, but he committed suicide.

 

Is that not for what the bail bond is for? If you don't have the money to bond out your self than you get mail bond to bond you out? And you pay 10% or 20% of what they ask for?

The ultimate result of bail bonds is that judges tend to set bail higher because they know the funds will be available, which means that a fair number of people can't afford the percentage they need to stake themselves which they won't get back in the event that it turns out they were innocent and are acquitted or the charges are dismissed.

 

Bail bond is effectively a tax on people who are too poor to put up the stake themselves, and people often wind up pleading guilty to minor charges just to avoid having to go to trial and remain in jail for the intervening period. New York especially relies on this because they don't have the man-power to physically process the number of people that go through the court system of they all had to go to trial. It's cheaper for many people just to take a misdemeanor charge and fine than to post bond or risk losing a job or custody of children while they are stuck in jail awaiting a trial that may be years away in some extreme cases, despite this being very much against the spirit of the Consirution and potentially against the letter as well, depending on how you view the loopholes they use to get around this.

[nec209]

Yes, I'm sure that Kalif Browder, who was held in jail without trial for three years starting at the age of 16 because he and his mother couldn't afford the $3,000 bail on a robbery charge that was eventually dropped because there was no evidence that he actually did it was super glad that he got food while he spent 400 days in solitary confinement after trying to kill himself because of the beatings and abuse he got from other inmates and guards.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/10/06/before-the-law

 

It's not in the article because it happened afterwards, but he committed suicide.

 

The ultimate result of bail bonds is that judges tend to set bail higher because they know the funds will be available, which means that a fair number of people can't afford the percentage they need to stake themselves which they won't get back in the event that it turns out they were innocent and are acquitted or the charges are dismissed.

 

Bail bond is effectively a tax on people who are too poor to put up the stake themselves, and people often wind up pleading guilty to minor charges just to avoid having to go to trial and remain in jail for the intervening period. New York especially relies on this because they don't have the man-power to physically process the number of people that go through the court system of they all had to go to trial. It's cheaper for many people just to take a misdemeanor charge and fine than to post bond or risk losing a job or custody of children while they are stuck in jail awaiting a trial that may be years away in some extreme cases, despite this being very much against the spirit of the Consirution and potentially against the letter as well, depending on how you view the loopholes they use to get around this.

 

 

I think you are talking about the human rights issue where the system that keeps people in jail, sometimes for YEARS, without trial simply because they can't afford to post bond.

 

Where it greatly incentives people especially the poor!! to plead guilty to crimes not because they are actually guilty but because they can't afford to post bail and will end up sitting in jail for YEARS without trial.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-cost-of-convicting-the-innocent/2015/07/24/260fc3a2-1aae-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

 

Why then did they plead guilty? As best we can tell, most were held in jail because they couldn’t make bail. When they were brought to court for the first time, they were given a take-it-or-leave-it, for-today-only offer: Plead guilty and get probation or weeks to months in jail. If they refused, they’d wait in jail for months, if not a year or more, before they got to trial, and risk additional years in prison if they were convicted. That’s a high price to pay for a chance to prove one’s innocence.

 

 

So the upper middle class and people that have money will not need bail bond industry to help bond out!! They will use there own money.

 

But I think what he was getting at is some bond is set so high even the upper middle class don't have that money. Where bond is really only for the upper class and rich. And the working class and poor have to use the bail bond industry.

The really poor people want to be in jail because they will get food for free, and they won't have to search for food in trashcans..

 

Couple months ago, prisoner was released (end of sentence), and killed girl.

He told police and judge, he did it because he wanted to return to jail, as he could not survive on freedom..

Not surprisingly, nobody wants ex-prisoner-employee...

Now he has life sentence.

 

Happened not once, nor twice, that retired person started committing crimes to be imprisoned (even some silliness).

On freedom had pension disallowing to survive a week..

Homeless people are starting doing some silliness to be imprisoned during autumn-winter here.

 

Probably more appealing for the homeless in colder cities. If you in southern part of US you not going to freeze and get froze bites most of the time.

 

Most southern US cities don't get below 35 fahrenheit or below 1 celsius most of the time in the winter. And lot times doing the day up around 12 Celsius or 53 fahrenheit.

[swansont]

The really poor people want to be in jail because they will get food for free, and they won't have to search for food in trashcans..

 

Couple months ago, prisoner was released (end of sentence), and killed girl.

He told police and judge, he did it because he wanted to return to jail, as he could not survive on freedom..

Not surprisingly, nobody wants ex-prisoner-employee...

Now he has life sentence.

 

Happened not once, nor twice, that retired person started committing crimes to be imprisoned (even some silliness).

On freedom had pension disallowing to survive a week..

Homeless people are starting doing some silliness to be imprisoned during autumn-winter here.

 

 

Oh good grief. Anecdotes are not evidence. If the really poor wanted to be in jail, then we wouldn't have so many poor, homeless people on the streets. You cite two examples. How many homeless people are there in the industrialized world? In the US alone it's half a million, with almost a fifth of that being chronically homeless. The sheer numbers tell us this is the exception, not the rule.

 

Please leave this toxic phobia out of the discussion.

[John Cuthber]

The really poor people want to be in jail because they will get food for free, and they won't have to search for food in trashcans..

 

...

Where that happens- and as Swansont pointed out, it is very rare- it's got nothing to do with bail.

Why did you bring it up? (That's a rhetorical question- answering it in this thread would be off topic).

[swansont]

 

Is that not for what the bail bond is for? If you don't have the money to bond out your self than you get mail bond to bond you out? And you pay 10% or 20% of what they ask for?

 

And what if you can't afford that?

 

 

Or afford paying for your overworked public defender?

 

[waitforufo]

I have serious issues with the bail industry but for pretty much the opposite reason. It makes it too difficult for poor people who absolutely don't belong there to get out.

It's supposed to be difficult. That is how they get you to come in for hearings and trials. Too difficult is a judgment call for the judge based on the crime and the financial circumstances of the defendant and/or the defendant's support group. Also, you have the right to a speedy trial (6th amendment). Most people however wave that right in order to build there defense strategy or to merely postpone judgement.

[swansont]

It's supposed to be difficult. That is how they get you to come in for hearings and trials.

 

 

No, it's not "supposed" to be difficult. Bail is to ensure you show up at trial. Excessive bail is literally unconstitutional. (Eighth amendment)

[Delta1212]

And while you are supposed to have a right to a speedy trial, the prosecution can request a postponement as many times as it likes as long as the new date is within the next couple months.

 

Which does a fat lot of good for anyone who winds up stuck in jail for years after several shorter postponements.

[nec209]

These videos explain how the bail industry works.

 

 

[waitforufo]

 

 

No, it's not "supposed" to be difficult. Bail is to ensure you show up at trial. Excessive bail is literally unconstitutional. (Eighth amendment)

Yes, but the amount should be based on the crime committed, the defendants potential to flee prosecution, and the defendants ability to pay. You mention bail is to ensure you show up at trial. If the amount is small relative to your means, then your return is less ensured. Finally, bail is set by judges, so your issue on bail is with them. I'm sure judges have guidelines, but they also have great latitude. I've never heard of a judge being thrown out of office for setting bail too low, even when those released have committed murders.

 

And while you are supposed to have a right to a speedy trial, the prosecution can request a postponement as many times as it likes as long as the new date is within the next couple months.

 

Which does a fat lot of good for anyone who winds up stuck in jail for years after several shorter postponements.

If you wave your right to a speedy trail even once your screwed. It's a bit like agreeing that you understand your constitutional rights. Why would anyone ever agree to that when the supreme court can't figure it out? If you insist on a speedy trial you will get one. You are not supposed to be prosecuted if there is not enough evidence for a conviction so the prosecution has no excuse not to proceed with trail. Judges know this. Why give the prosecution more time? Many people make the mistake on waving their right to a speedy trail based on advice from their lawyer. Their lawyer tells the defendant that they need time to prepare a defense when all they want is more billable hours.

[swansont]

Yes, but the amount should be based on the crime committed, the defendants potential to flee prosecution, and the defendants ability to pay. You mention bail is to ensure you show up at trial. If the amount is small relative to your means, then your return is less ensured. Finally, bail is set by judges, so your issue on bail is with them. I'm sure judges have guidelines, but they also have great latitude. I've never heard of a judge being thrown out of office for setting bail too low, even when those released have committed murders.

 

 

 

(emphasis added)

 

I hope it is obvious that if the defendant cannot afford the bail, then the defendant's ability to pay may not have been properly considered.

 

Not hearing about any judge being thrown out of office for setting bail too low should mean there is no bar for lowering bail for non-violent crimes. And yet the problem exists. Thank you for agreeing with my point.

[waitforufo]

 

 

(emphasis added)

 

I hope it is obvious that if the defendant cannot afford the bail, then the defendant's ability to pay may not have been properly considered.

 

Not hearing about any judge being thrown out of office for setting bail too low should mean there is no bar for lowering bail for non-violent crimes. And yet the problem exists. Thank you for agreeing with my point.

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "and". The ability to pay is only one consideration.

[swansont]

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "and". The ability to pay is only one consideration.

 

 

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "may".

 

But I will reiterate: excessive bail is literally unconstitutional. It's the only criterion you mentioned regarding bail that is in the constitution.

[waitforufo]

 

 

Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the word "may".

 

But I will reiterate: excessive bail is literally unconstitutional. It's the only criterion you mentioned regarding bail that is in the constitution.

I always understood the word excessive to mean more than usual, normal, or proper. I don't see how this has anything to do with one's ability to pay. So for example if I don't wear my seat belt in washington state I have to pay a $100 fine. That could be a lot of money for some people, but the fine is the same for everyone regardless.

Even if the ability to pay is a consideration in "proper" so is the crime committed as well as the likelihood of the defendant to flee prosecution.

[swansont]

I always understood the word excessive to mean more than usual, normal, or proper. I don't see how this has anything to do with one's ability to pay. So for example if I don't wear my seat belt in washington state I have to pay a $100 fine. That could be a lot of money for some people, but the fine is the same for everyone regardless.

A fine is the result of being found in violation of the law. Bail is before that, when one in presumed innocent.

 

Even if the ability to pay is a consideration in "proper" so is the crime committed as well as the likelihood of the defendant to flee prosecution.

I will do everyone the courtesy of not repeating my reply, since I assume they can refer to my earlier post.

 

One must presume, then, that your position is that for these many nonviolent crimes, all of these people were deemed flight risks. I don't see the logic involved. If someone can't scrape together what some would consider a modest amount of money for bail, why are they a flight risk? They would have little to no money after posting bail.

[waitforufo]

One must presume, then, that your position is that for these many nonviolent crimes, all of these people were deemed flight risks. I don't see the logic involved. If someone can't scrape together what some would consider a modest amount of money for bail, why are they a flight risk? They would have little to no money after posting bail.

Because they have nothing to lose if they flee. If they stay for there court date, they may lose there liberty.

[Delta1212]

Because they have nothing to lose if they flee. If they stay for there court date, they may lose there liberty.

Yes, but the solution we have is then to take their liberty ahead of time before they've been convicted of committing a crime just in case they might decide to run off in fear of us taking their liberty. Even a few days spent in jail is likely enough to lose these people any job they may have had, since they won't be able to show up to work and "I couldn't because I was in jail" is not generally considered a favorable excuse for missing work by most employers, even if you wind up being acquitted or having the charges dropped.

 

The people we are talking about are generally living in a fairly precarious financial state. Getting jailed for extended periods of time is likely to destroy whatever financial standing they do have going and could quite literally destroy their lives. And again, these are people who haven't been convicted of committing any crime. It's often cheaper and easier for them to plead guilty to a minor charge even if they are innocent and get released that way, now with a criminal record, than to stay locked up because they can't afford to post bail.

 

That is not a good way for a justice system to operate.

[waitforufo]

Yes, but the solution we have is then to take their liberty ahead of time before they've been convicted of committing a crime just in case they might decide to run off in fear of us taking their liberty. Even a few days spent in jail is likely enough to lose these people any job they may have had, since they won't be able to show up to work and "I couldn't because I was in jail" is not generally considered a favorable excuse for missing work by most employers, even if you wind up being acquitted or having the charges dropped.

 

The people we are talking about are generally living in a fairly precarious financial state. Getting jailed for extended periods of time is likely to destroy whatever financial standing they do have going and could quite literally destroy their lives. And again, these are people who haven't been convicted of committing any crime. It's often cheaper and easier for them to plead guilty to a minor charge even if they are innocent and get released that way, now with a criminal record, than to stay locked up because they can't afford to post bail.

 

That is not a good way for a justice system to operate.

While I have sympathy for your argument, a bail hearing is performed, and the accused and the prosecution have the opportunity to present their case for the bail amount before a judge. The judge then makes the determination. Sounds like due process to me. I also see no other effective alternative.

 

Well maybe perhaps one. Make it a felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for missing your court date. It should also be mandatory that the ten years be served consecutive to any sentence the accused receives if found guilty. It should also be mandatory to serve the sentence if found innocent of the crime committed for which the court date was set. That better?

 

One must presume, then, that your position is that for these many nonviolent crimes, all of these people were deemed flight risks.

Why the obsession with nonviolent crimes? Property crimes often cause more damage to people than violent crimes. If someone threatens you with a knife or a gun, that is known as assault with a deadly weapon and is quite properly a violent crime. Threatening to beat you up is simple assault, also quite properly a violent crime. I'm sure most people would rather be threatened with a gun, knife, or fists than be subject to the property crime of having their car stolen when they are nowhere near their car. The reason for that is simple. The person is more damaged by the property crime than the violent crime. Many I'm sure would rather be roughed up a bit than have their car stolen. How do they make a living if they can't get to work? How do they purchase groceries if they can't get to the supermarket?

Edited June 8, 2016 by waitforufo

[swansont]

Because they have nothing to lose if they flee. If they stay for there court date, they may lose there liberty.

 

 

So in your mind they have no job, or relatives to care for.

I'm sure most people would rather be threatened with a gun, knife, or fists than be subject to the property crime of having their car stolen when they are nowhere near their car.

 

 

Wow. That you are sure of this is more than a little frightening to me. What color is the sky in your world?

[waitforufo]

 

 

So in your mind they have no job, or relatives to care for.

 

 

Wow. That you are sure of this is more than a little frightening to me. What color is the sky in your world?

If they have a job or relatives then they should be able to come up with the money for a bail bond. It means they are connected to a community that can help provide that money and also assure they make there court date to get their money back. That is the purpose of bail.

 

Why is it frightening to you? Having a threat of harm may be frighting at the moment, but that moment passes. Having your car stolen causes you real damage. My statement is only logical. Today the color of the sky in my world is blue. Sometimes it's gray and black at night.

 

It is always curious to me why some think property crimes are somehow less damaging to people that violent crimes. Why is that? If someone ruins you financially through crime, you can be greatly damaged. Do you recognize that?

[Delta1212]

And yet, despite what you are saying should happen, that is not what we are seeing actually happen in practice. Simply having a job does not mean that you have cash to spare. We are talking mostly about people who are living paycheck to paycheck. Being able to pay your bills is not the same thing as having a $1,000 on hand to post bail. Nor does having friends or family mean that you know anyone else who has money they can put up for you.

 

That's the problem. It is an actual problem. Assuming that it doesn't happen and therefore there is no problem does not solve anything.