Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on August 29, 2018, 10:14:43 AM
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/28/642795284/california-becomes-first-state-to-end-cash-bail
I was listening to this story on my drive into the office. I wonder how this is going to work out from the standpoint of public safety and people showing up to court.
-
From what I've read, the decision to turn the New Mexico terrorist compound suspects loose was a result of a bail "reform" movement. So it's working out great there.
-
Well that should open up quite a bit of office spaces around the County Courthouses in California now that the Bail Bondsmen will have to find a new business model (tow trucks maybe?).
bob
-
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/28/642795284/california-becomes-first-state-to-end-cash-bail
I wonder how this is going to work out from the standpoint of public safety and people showing up to court.
My guess will be that people with assets and a structured life, that is, house, family, etc. won't be much affected as bail or not, it's not easy for them to give everything up and go on the run. People with no assets can just disappear. Extremely wealthy people, to whom a $1mil bail is chump change can skip out to their Swiss chalet as they have always done.
It will probably be fair for some poorer individuals who committed some misdemeanor, or more precisely, are accused of such, as it puts them at the same level as those with some assets, who can post bail and continue on with their lives while court proceedings go on.
So basically I think it will be a "gimme" to petty criminals. While they may be held without bail or release the second time they are caught, this just seems to give them a get out of jail free card for the first offense for which they are caught.
-
From what I've read, the decision to turn the New Mexico terrorist compound suspects loose was a result of a bail "reform" movement. So it's working out great there.
That was part of it, but I don't know what the guidelines are they have to follow. I heard that judge has been known for stuff like that before.
-
So if someone skips trial, I guess there will just be an arrest warrant out for them and that is it. I wonder how well that will work.
Seems to me the best plan would be to figure out how to speed up the investigation and trial process so it doesn't take years to resolve.
-
Seems to me the best plan would be to figure out how to speed up the investigation and trial process so it doesn't take years to resolve.
I agree. Bail really can be a very unfair process for the poor, however this new law is a "lowest common denominator" solution (as so many solutions these days are). To protect poor people accused of a crime who can't make bail and might have to sit in jail for a year, or two, or three, they create a system that lets real criminals have an easier time of it.
I don't know what the solution to a speedy trial (as supposedly guaranteed by the constitution) is, but we really need to do something about the current process. If we had a better track record of speedy trials, this law would likely never have come up.
-
Why do I have a funny feeling that the first part of this will be that the jails will be flooded with people deemed releasable.
That will lead to lawsuits and "adjustments" that flood the streets with people who should NEVER be back on the streets.
California will find new and inventive ways to step all over their cranks on this, and it will be a HUGE mess that will take years, if not decades, for it to be worked out.
-
I don't know what the solution to a speedy trial (as supposedly guaranteed by the constitution) is, but we really need to do something about the current process. If we had a better track record of speedy trials, this law would likely never have come up.
Based on my experience with the local court systems, there are not enough criminal legal resources (judges, courtrooms, prosecutors, and public defenders) for a particularly speedy criminal trial process. Add to that the ability to drag out the process by procedural maneuvers, and the willingness of people to accept plea bargains or not, and you can get quite the slows when it comes to criminal trials. Of course, no one wants to pay more taxes for more judges, courtooms, prosecutors and public defenders.
-
Based on my experience with the local court systems, there are not enough criminal legal resources (judges, courtrooms, prosecutors, and public defenders) for a particularly speedy criminal trial process. Add to that the ability to drag out the process by procedural maneuvers, and the willingness of people to accept plea bargains or not, and you can get quite the slows when it comes to criminal trials. Of course, no one wants to pay more taxes for more judges, courtooms, prosecutors and public defenders.
Mainly because most of it will be wasted and put towards some other purpose that the politicians want to do so they can keep screaming about needing more taxes.
Why should I pay more to an entity that has proven it's unable to use what it has already taken in a judicious manner?
(This is especially the case in California.)
-
In my county, Snohomish, which is north of Seattle, about 2/3rds of the county budget goes to 'law and justice': the courts, the sheriff, the jail, the prosecutors and the public defenders. Some of that is for civil legal matters, but the majority is for criminal matters.
-
In my county, Snohomish, which is north of Seattle, about 2/3rds of the county budget goes to 'law and justice': the courts, the sheriff, the jail, the prosecutors and the public defenders. Some of that is for civil legal matters, but the majority is for criminal matters.
That's.... amazing.
My city's budget is almost 30% for education and only about 25% for courts, police, etc...
Just how large is that budget? I live in a city of about 100,000 and the "law and justice" portion of the budget is about $71M.
-
I guess it comes down to the rule that good govt is simple. It is all the scamming and theft that make it complicated.
-
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/46331/2018-Budget-Book-Exec-Rec
I see it law and justice combined is actually up to 74% of the total county budget for 2018: the total county budget is $ 252 million, and judicial accounts for $34 million and law enforcement accounts for $ 154 million (all figures rounded). $ 188 million combined is 74.6% of $ 252 million.
Snohomish county is geographically large and has about 805,000 people living here.
-
[muses in libertarian] Perhaps we might think about not running people through the criminal justice system for things that ought not to be crimes? Seems like that would free up resources and make trials speedier.
ETA: What's the bail set at for giving someone an unasked for plastic straw?
-
[muses in libertarian] Perhaps we might think about not running people through the criminal justice system for things that ought not to be crimes? Seems like that would free up resources and make trials speedier.
That's part of the fun with not keeping people in jail. I'm reminded of a case where a teen was kept in jail for well over a year awaiting trial on a misdemeanor theft charge. That's right, they held him for over twice as long as the maximum sentence for his alleged crime.
They eventually realized "oh crap" and tried to get him to agree to a plea bargain of "time served". Keeping in mind that he had a good alibi for where he was at the time of the alleged theft, he refused. The alleged victim meanwhile, ended up returning to his home country, so was no longer available as a witness. And get this - they never did an official lineup or identification of the teen as the perp, only a vague verbal description given by the victim. So they ended up having to drop all charges. He's a free man, having been held in jail for over a year, effectively without any charges.
He sues, and wins several million. Though not for violating his rights to a "speedy trial" because technically he had one - they just kept delaying things. The prosecutor wasn't ready, the PD wasn't ready, the judge is on vacation type stuff.
I'd argue that the cost of a year's worth of jail, in NYC no less, would MORE than cover the cost of the trial. Ergo, by reducing the number of people we keep in jail, we can afford to increase our trial assets, get the trials for those IN jail out of the way quickly, so they're either out quickly or at least know what their stay is going to be. With yet fewer in jail, we can hire even more staff for trials, and not have year long delays before trial unless the investigation really takes that long.
Oh, and on another note - it is a known thing that people forced to stay in jail often get tougher sentences. Which costs the state more. Now, I'm one who generally believes that the length of prison stay doesn't actually affect criminality compared to the fact of a prison stay at all, so...
Meanwhile, keeping people in Jail isn't cheap, especially those who are only acc
-
That's part of the fun with not keeping people in jail. I'm reminded of a case where a teen was kept in jail for well over a year awaiting trial on a misdemeanor theft charge. That's right, they held him for over twice as long as the maximum sentence for his alleged crime.
They eventually realized "oh crap" and tried to get him to agree to a plea bargain of "time served". Keeping in mind that he had a good alibi for where he was at the time of the alleged theft, he refused. The alleged victim meanwhile, ended up returning to his home country, so was no longer available as a witness. And get this - they never did an official lineup or identification of the teen as the perp, only a vague verbal description given by the victim. So they ended up having to drop all charges. He's a free man, having been held in jail for over a year, effectively without any charges.
He sues, and wins several million. Though not for violating his rights to a "speedy trial" because technically he had one - they just kept delaying things. The prosecutor wasn't ready, the PD wasn't ready, the judge is on vacation type stuff.
I'd argue that the cost of a year's worth of jail, in NYC no less, would MORE than cover the cost of the trial. Ergo, by reducing the number of people we keep in jail, we can afford to increase our trial assets, get the trials for those IN jail out of the way quickly, so they're either out quickly or at least know what their stay is going to be. With yet fewer in jail, we can hire even more staff for trials, and not have year long delays before trial unless the investigation really takes that long.
Oh, and on another note - it is a known thing that people forced to stay in jail often get tougher sentences. Which costs the state more. Now, I'm one who generally believes that the length of prison stay doesn't actually affect criminality compared to the fact of a prison stay at all, so...
Meanwhile, keeping people in Jail isn't cheap, especially those who are only acc
Really, we ought to bring back corporal punishment. It's a lot less disruptive and costly to both the recipient and the state.
-
Really, we ought to bring back corporal punishment. It's a lot less disruptive and costly to both the recipient and the state.
Some of the more liberal types have trouble comprehending that if it works while being cheaper to the recipient, it is actually less cruel than jail.
That said, keep in mind that the teen I talked about was most likely innocent, but grinding through a system designed to force people to plead guilty.
-
Some of the more liberal types have trouble comprehending that if it works while being cheaper to the recipient, it is actually less cruel than jail.
That said, keep in mind that the teen I talked about was most likely innocent, but grinding through a system designed to force people to plead guilty.
Sounds like another part of it. They are trying to prosecute people when they have no witnesses, no evidence, and no case. They should figure that out within a couple weeks (or days) and release the person. Or the judge should be a little more judgemental of prosecutors in initial court hearings.
-
if the progressives in California would just abolish the criminal statutes, then they would not need bail. Or cops. Or jails.....................
-
Or the judge should be a little more judgemental of prosecutors in initial court hearings.
The various appellate courts keep ruling against judges in both civil and criminal cases who throw out cases that appear to have no merit before trial. Increasing trend of appellate courts saying "let them have their day in court," which adds to the log jam of cases. The basis for this is that the courts of appeals are saying that, absent a jury waiver, judges cannot rule on the facts of the case, as that it solely withing the purview of the jury. A judge who rules on facts without a jury waiver goes beyond the authority of the position, and is grounds for reversal of any decision. Some have even gone so far as to reverse sentences in criminal cases where judges have imposed harsh sentences, using a prior criminal history (a fact) or the seriousness of the offense (a fact) to justify the sentence.
As to the OP, it seems to me that they are headed to a situation in which pretrial confinement will end up being eliminated in all cases. Judges will hold people without bail. The usual suspects will be outraged by some of these orders, and will push the legislature and higher courts to change the rules for judges to hold people. They will push and push to the point where eventually the authority to hold people before trial will either be explicitly eliminated, or de facto eliminated by making it impossible for the judges to make all of the necessary findings to justify holding the individual.
As far as the backlog of cases, and delays for trials, that's too lengthy a discussion to get into here, and is best discussed with copious amounts of alcohol to help with the pain...
-
Judges will hold people without bail. The usual suspects will be outraged by some of these orders, and will push the legislature and higher courts to change the rules for judges to hold people. They will push and push to the point where eventually the authority to hold people before trial will either be explicitly eliminated, or de facto eliminated by making it impossible for the judges to make all of the necessary findings to justify holding the individual.
That's a very good point. I was only considering the opposite, but it could easily transition into, "out of fairness" we hold everyone, even if they could make bail. Again lowest common denominator, but from a different perspective.
-
That's a very good point. I was only considering the opposite, but it could easily transition into, "out of fairness" we hold everyone, even if they could make bail. Again lowest common denominator, but from a different perspective.
Can you imagine how crowded the jails are going to be if that happens and the cost to build larger facilities?
-
I agree with makattak. Nonviolent crimes should be punished with immediate caning, followed by release. Prison should be reserved for violent crimes, or habitual offenders that repeated caning doesn't "convince" to change their ways.
Practically free, and less cruel than prison.
-
Interesting (intended?) consequence of this new law:
California’s new system, which is slated to be fully up and running by October 2019, is expected to not only eliminate the commercial bail industry, but also add thousands of state jobs, potentially growing the ranks of the public worker unions. The expansion is estimated to cost $200 million a year.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/31/californias-bail-bondsmen-say-new-law-will-totally-kill-business-this-is-bad.html
-
I'm somewhat surprised they didn't do what Illinois did. The state is the bailbondsman. You pay your 10% to the state, they let you out. If you don't show you of course, forfeit your 10%, plus a warrant for your arrest, then you owe the state the 90% after they find you (not)guilty.
If you do show as agreed, once your trial is over you don't get your 10% back. Another way this state makes money off of taxpayers.
-
*Not* allowable. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"
That will go to SCOTUS.
-
They cannot refuse cash. SCOTUS will blow this right out of the water.
-
If you do show as agreed, once your trial is over you don't get your 10% back. Another way this state makes money off of taxpayers.
How is this even legal? Hasn't anybody sued over it being a penalty without conviction?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-bail-bill-met-0610-20170609-story.html
Some googling shows that they've reduced the amount of cash bail needed to get out of jail.
-
They cannot refuse cash. SCOTUS will blow this right out of the water.
Uh, are you talking about the Op?
Because the Op is about them getting rid of monetary bond bail period. They don't care if you would "pay" with cash, check, or gold bullion anymore. They aren't providing a dollar amount at all.
It's more "You can get out if you agree to a GPS monitor". A "cash price" for parole is no longer being set at all.
It's not that they're refusing cash. They aren't setting a price in USD at all.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Firethorn. Wow, that's even worse.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Firethorn. Wow, that's even worse.
How?
Okay, to expand on how I see it.
The program takes over some of the work of bail bondsmen. The state has "pretrial services" which takes a look at the suspect, such as family ties, property, assets, etc... They determine whether or not the person is a flight risk, or a potential danger to others if let out of jail. They make a recommendation to the judge, along with maybe the prosecutor or defense attorney. The judge makes a decision whether to let the prisoner out, and under what non-monetary conditions, such as an ankle bracelet, surrendering their passport, etc... No longer is it "Crime X = $X bail", regardless of the ability of the defendant to pay.
This, done properly, can actually save money while increasing the rate of people showing up at trial, because pre-trial services does things like call people up to remind them that they have court tomorrow. Remember, most criminals are stupid, and jail is expensive.
Anyways, as I see it bail companies ended up distorting the bond process. They converted a bond amount into a bond fee. This allowed bond requirements to spiral out of the ability of the average person to pay, which bond companies love because that just increases their income from that 10% fee. It got quite ridiculous, despite judges supposedly being required to set bond amounts that people could actually pay. You also had some problems in that it was very difficult for judges to deny bail for parties that were obviously at high risk of violence or flight.
It turns out that money isn't actually a good guarantee of people showing up to court. Either they don't have enough assets to put up a serious bond, or they have enough to flee anyways, if that makes any sense. Most things tying people down are family and tangible assets they can't just get rid of, like their house.
By getting rid of cash parole, they can get MORE people out of their jails, at least the poorest drug-addicts and such, who don't need to be in it. This saves a lot of money in that it gets people out of the expensive jails.
It can even improve justice. Imagine this: You're being held on $100k bail, but you don't even have $1k in the bank to tease a bail bondsman into helping you. You are innocent, or at least confident that you can prove a reasonable doubt for the crimes you are accused of. The prosecutor is being an idiot. But, if you don't get out of jail in the next 3 days or so, you are going to lose your job, apartment, and stuff. The prosecutor is offering a plea-bargain with no jail time, but it will be a month before you can go to trial. Do you plead guilty or not?
This *expletive deleted*it actually happens on a regular basis.
-
How is this even legal? Hasn't anybody sued over it being a penalty without conviction?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/politics/ct-bruce-rauner-bail-bill-met-0610-20170609-story.html
Some googling shows that they've reduced the amount of cash bail needed to get out of jail.
Illinois Bail Bond Rules
In Illinois defendants and their families are paying bonds directly to the court without the use of commercial bail bondsmen. The circuit court then is allowed to retain 10% of the bond money that they collected to pay for their administrative costs. See 725 ILCS 5/110-7(f).