Bail

[radcen]

I added emphasis to the word above in your post for a reason.

That is a common misconception created by the actions of some public defenders offices in the more over-burdened cities of the country.

Outside of our large crime infested cities are public defenders offices that are working hard for their clients. And they take a bad rap from the myths perpetrated by the actions of a few large cities.

The entire country is not NY, LA, Chicago, etc. (Disclaimer: This is not an all-inclusive list of my opinion of places where this MAY happen... my specific list of cities should not be an issue of debate as much as the IDEA behind it)..(its sad I felt the need to do that on this forum).

Also, by your statement (and I don't mean you hold this opinion) it implies that paid lawyers do not encourage their clients to also take plea deals. Because they do... often.

Paid lawyers are more likely, however, to try a case in court going after even the smallest of perceived weaknesses while a Public Defender won't. Sadly for the paid lawyers, the majority of this time spent is wasted (some displays of this I've seen in court were EXTREMELY pathetic) but it still pays off for them because they can charge more for a trial than for a plea.

But then again, I speak from biased experience because I didn't make an arrest that I wasn't sure of the defendant's guilt (well, except once... interesting story on that one which Im sure will bring out the OMG POLICE ABUSE people... her lawyer wouldn't agree with them though... he thought it was clever.. of course he made money off of it so..) That is not to say I won every case, minor learning mistakes in documentation can bring a person who was legitimately guilty to being "not guilty"... but I used them to learn from.

Great info. Thanks.

And I'm with you on the sadness of having to add disclaimers and/or absurd levels of detail lest somebody want to be argumentative just for argument sake. I grow weary of that a lot.

 

[d0gbreath]

I used to do that often.

You don't get a conviction for DWI and get your license suspended and just drive anyways.....

Thirty days in the hole is SOP for driving on a suspended in most States.

You pay your DWI Lawyer another grand to get the judge to issue you a hardship license. Then just drive anyways.

 

[clownboy]

Don't most public defenders encourage their clients to take plea deals, though? If offered, of course.

Guilty ones, almost certainly.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

I used to do that often.

You don't get a conviction for DWI and get your license suspended and just drive anyways.....

DWI or not, there's clearly a problem when -- the only difference between the "suspended" guy and the "licensed" guy is ability to pay. That has zero to do with "public safety." DWI "restitution" has become a goldmine for local and state governments, and they have gotten ridiculous, particularly over the course of the last 10 or 15 years.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

Don't most public defenders encourage their clients to take plea deals, though? If offered, of course.

Yes, they do.

There is also the not-so-subtle impression that if you want to exercise your Constitutional right to a trial, if you're found "guilty," you will be worse off in the punishment department. I've often heard of defendants pleading "guilty" due to fear of the unknown.

 

[radcen]

Yes, they do.

There is also the not-so-subtle impression that if you want to exercise your Constitutional right to a trial, if you're found "guilty," you will be worse off in the punishment department. I've often heard of defendants pleading "guilty" due to fear of the unknown.

I have read of many such examples.

 

[Caine]

DWI or not, there's clearly a problem when -- the only difference between the "suspended" guy and the "licensed" guy is ability to pay. That has zero to do with "public safety." DWI "restitution" has become a goldmine for local and state governments, and they have gotten ridiculous, particularly over the course of the last 10 or 15 years.

So... poor people should be able to violate whatever laws they wish with no consequences then.... got it.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

So... poor people should be able to violate whatever laws they wish with no consequences then.... got it.

Seriously? :roll:


That's not what I said. Finances shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Why should someone be punished less because they are financially blessed? That's exactly how the system works in practice.

Do you think punishment is "equal" when the poor guy can't afford a fine that amounts to 2 months salary, for example, while the well-to-do guy can pay that without batting an eye?


That smells like the textbook definition of buying justice, to me.


I have no idea what a good solution would be, but to ignore the obvious inequities in a system that can, in theory, ruin someone's life, what is in place now is pathetic.


And you wonder why so many "regular folks" (in ever-increasing #'s, mind you) scoff at what passes for "justice" these days...

 

[radcen]

Seriously? :roll:

That's not what I said. Finances shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Why should someone be punished less because they are financially blessed? That's exactly how the system works in practice.

Do you think punishment is "equal" when the poor guy can't afford a fine that amounts to 2 months salary, for example, while the well-to-do guy can pay that without batting an eye?

That smells like the textbook definition of buying justice, to me.

I have no idea what a good solution would be, but to ignore the obvious inequities in a system that can, in theory, ruin someone's life, what is in place now is pathetic.

And you wonder why so many "regular folks" (in ever-increasing #'s, mind you) scoff at what passes for "justice" these days...

I totally get what you're saying, but to charge one person a higher amount just because they're wealthier, when all else is equal, isn't fair, either.

And no, I don't a perfect solution, either.

 

[Nursmate]

I was reading from my phone at IHOP earlier while waiting on slow service and I had something else to add to the lower part of this post...

You think that bail is about collecting revenue??
You realize bail money is returned when you show up for court and the case is adjudicated right???

You say "Human lives are much more complicated than that" Well I hate to be the one to tell you but bail is much more complicated than the "revenue scheme" you are trying to make it out to be.

I had always thought that if you did not have the resources, you could call a bail bondsman?

 

[radcen]

I had always thought that if you did not have the resources, you could call a bail bondsman?

I've never had to use a bail bondsman, but I think you have to demonstrate some ability to repay. I.e.: assets such as a home, or something (depending on how big the bail is). They don't just hand out money like candy at a parade.

A lot of people have lost their homes by putting them up as collateral for friends or family.

 

[Ockham]

You know what I find funny about the video? (Yes I just did bother to watch).

Is that somehow this woman couldn't come up with 100 bucks to give a bondsman....... and apparently according to my very short Google Search... many people are doing not 10% but 3% bail bonds...

There is even 1% with a payment plan.

You are VERY correct. A bail bondsman would simply need a 10% payment or $100 (plus any filing fees etc...) How is it that this person in the video couldn't scrounge up say $120? Doesn't make sense to me. If the 10% was 1,000 that would mean his bail was set at $100,000, for a suspended license? Not likely.

What we don't hear is --- ok of the 40% in NJ jails who couldn't afford the bail - how many of those people applied to bond and were denied because the previously skipped out on bail and had to be brought in under warrant? We don't hear that statistic from John Oliver. Hmm... It's nice and all to force a narrative and I'm by no means saying the bail system is perfect but, I am saying it's not as one sided as this badly thought out video makes it out to be.

 

[Caine]

I had always thought that if you did not have the resources, you could call a bail bondsman?

Yes, but with a bail bondsman the amount of money you have to put up... usually 10% or so of the total amount, goes to the bondsman permanently.
However, if you can afford the Bail in its full amount. You get that full amount back when you show up at all your court appearances up until the final time when the case is adjudicated.

So.. for example... you have a $1000 bail amount. You put up 10% to a bondsman, $100. The bondsman puts up the remaining $900. When you show up for court for the last and final time for the case, the BONDSMAN gets the $1000 back. But he doesn't give you the $100 back, because he is in business to make a profit after all. Net Profit for the Government: $0.

Now, you put up the full $1000. You show up for all court appearances including the final time. Guilty or Not.... You receive your $1000 back. Net Profit for the Government: $0.

 

[Caine]

Seriously? :roll:


That's not what I said. Finances shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Why should someone be punished less because they are financially blessed? That's exactly how the system works in practice.

Do you think punishment is "equal" when the poor guy can't afford a fine that amounts to 2 months salary, for example, while the well-to-do guy can pay that without batting an eye?


That smells like the textbook definition of buying justice, to me.


I have no idea what a good solution would be, but to ignore the obvious inequities in a system that can, in theory, ruin someone's life, what is in place now is pathetic.


And you wonder why so many "regular folks" (in ever-increasing #'s, mind you) scoff at what passes for "justice" these days...

So... you are blaming "the system" for the actions of the individual.

There are those that can afford to violate certain laws, and there are those who cannot. That is how it is. Those who are less financially stable would do well to remember their position before they decide to commit any crimes.

 

[Goshin]

It can take years to go to trial sometimes.


We have to have some reasonable means of letting persons who have been accused, but not convicted, go free during that time if they are not a significant flight risk nor likely a threat to the community. Just basing it on money or property does seem to be problematic.


I've also known too many scum to get out on bond who should not have.

 

[Nursmate]

Yes, but with a bail bondsman the amount of money you have to put up... usually 10% or so of the total amount, goes to the bondsman permanently.
However, if you can afford the Bail in its full amount. You get that full amount back when you show up at all your court appearances up until the final time when the case is adjudicated.

So.. for example... you have a $1000 bail amount. You put up 10% to a bondsman, $100. The bondsman puts up the remaining $900. When you show up for court for the last and final time for the case, the BONDSMAN gets the $1000 back. But he doesn't give you the $100 back, because he is in business to make a profit after all. Net Profit for the Government: $0.

Now, you put up the full $1000. You show up for all court appearances including the final time. Guilty or Not.... You receive your $1000 back. Net Profit for the Government: $0.

Ugh...what a hassle!! It is so much easier to not get arrested. When you were a officer, did you issue FOP cards?

 

[Goshin]

I had a buddy who shot a man in self-defense. He was charged, but got out on bond.


It took over two YEARS to go to trial, in which he was found not guilty.


If he'd had to stay in jail that entire time, an innocent man would have lost his job, and his family would have lost their primary provider and probably their HOME.


Could be you next time. Worth thinking on.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

So... you are blaming "the system" for the actions of the individual.

There are those that can afford to violate certain laws, and there are those who cannot. That is how it is. Those who are less financially stable would do well to remember their position before they decide to commit any crimes.

So it has nothing really to do with "justice" at all then, in your perspective. It's about revenue.


You have no issue with people who can "buy their way out" of trouble, for all intents and purposes. How the **** can you call that "equal justice under the law?" That's really insane, to me.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

I totally get what you're saying, but to charge one person a higher amount just because they're wealthier, when all else is equal, isn't fair, either.

And no, I don't a perfect solution, either.

No, I don't think you could charge different amounts, either. That would be equally skewed in the opposite direction.


Perhaps something where a "rate of pay" equivalent can be earned with community service might work. For x number of hrs, you earn $y amount towards the fine/fees, etc? Allow all the "criminals" to meet court requirements through a combination of money and/ or community service?

It's not perfect by any means -- but it's a heck of a lot better than what they have now.

 

[Caine]

Ugh...what a hassle!! It is so much easier to not get arrested. When you were a officer, did you issue FOP cards?

Ehh.. No.
Don't even have a clue what that is.. I was only an FOP member for my first year.

 

[Caine]

So it has nothing really to do with "justice" at all then, in your perspective. It's about revenue.


You have no issue with people who can "buy their way out" of trouble, for all intents and purposes. How the **** can you call that "equal justice under the law?" That's really insane, to me.

Funny you should mention "equal justice under the law" because what you are proposing is either giving unequal treatment to those who are poor, by giving them a lesser fine than others..... or giving unequal treatment to those who are financially better off by forcing heavier fines upon them.

Either way, your way is unequal. The current way is across the board the same when not taking anything into account. Then there is the matter of being able to prove ones wealth or lack thereof.... when it came time to be fined.. everyone would claim they are poor and can't afford the standard fines.... Local courts don't have the resources to dig up this information to adjudicate fines for infractions or misdemeanors.

 

[Nursmate]

Ehh.. No.
Don't even have a clue what that is.. I was only an FOP member for my first year.

They are Courtesy Cards issued by cops to good friends. Sometimes Brother Badges are issued. I have two of them and a Brother badge because I work with so many LE. They are helpful with speeding tickets. I was just wondering if this is done in other States.

Mini Badges Curry Favor With Police - 19 Action News|Cleveland, OH|News, Weather, Sports

 

[radcen]

Ehh.. No.
Don't even have a clue what that is.. I was only an FOP member for my first year.

What is an FOP card?

Erp. Never mind. I see the answer above.

 

[ludin]

Fair enough. But what about guys who get their licenses suspended for things like unpaid parking tickets. We really shouldn't be locking them up should we?

It takes a lot of unpaid parking tickets to get your license suspended. they don't suspend you over 1 parking ticket. you have to have multiple tickets and they are not paid.

 

[ludin]

So it has nothing really to do with "justice" at all then, in your perspective. It's about revenue.


You have no issue with people who can "buy their way out" of trouble, for all intents and purposes. How the **** can you call that "equal justice under the law?" That's really insane, to me.

they don't buy their way out of trouble. a bail bonds men will get you out of jail for 10% of the bond price.
that is if you can't afford to pay the full bail price if there even is one. I don't see a judge issuing a bail in the matter of parking tickets unless it is just a gross amount of them.

in that case it is better just to plead guilty a minor civil infraction and then go about your day. you will probably get probation if that and more than likely have served your time already.