Bail

[radcen]

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?

We could maybe sieze, and eventually sell (after conviction, of course), their vehicles, if the amount becomes high enough. We shouldn't arrest or revoke a DL for parking tickets, though. One, it costs money to incarcerate. Two, it's a total over reaction. And three, while continued bad parking is a dick move, it's not putting anybody in danger and actually has nothing to do with driving safety.

 

[Ockham]

The more I think about this John Oliver piece the more it doesn't make sense. We already know that bail bondsman would need 10% or less - meaning "Miguel" and his wife couldn't afford to get hold of approximately $120 to get him out on a set $1,000 bail. We also know that this was in Brooklyn NY (75th Precinct was briefly shown), yet all we know about Miguel is his first name. Next we see a nice clip of overweight Miguel and his wife and a child on a sofa - a nice sofa. When we see his wife crying about how she had to borrow money from everyone, it's a very nice kitchen with all the amenities and a nice flower and vase in the shot. We can't corroborate "Miguel" because we don't have his real full name, nor even if this alleged arrest took place at all. Therefore there's no way to look in Brooklyn's court cases to find Miguel. For all we know this was a made up story to build a story around - which is what I believe it actually is. The only way "Miguel" wouldn't have been able to get bond is if he had many priors and had a history of jumping bail in the past making him a bad bet to allow a bond. Again, without knowing if Miguel is an actual person and if this is an actual family or if this actually happened at all - it's all just a incoherent story, with a non plausible ending: Miguel having to plead guilty to get out of jail on an alleged 1,000 set bail.

 

[radcen]

The more I think about this John Oliver piece the more it doesn't make sense. We already know that bail bondsman would need 10% or less - meaning "Miguel" and his wife couldn't afford to get hold of approximately $120 to get him out on a set $1,000 bail. We also know that this was in Brooklyn NY (75th Precinct was briefly shown), yet all we know about Miguel is his first name. Next we see a nice clip of overweight Miguel and his wife and a child on a sofa - a nice sofa. When we see his wife crying about how she had to borrow money from everyone, it's a very nice kitchen with all the amenities and a nice flower and vase in the shot. We can't corroborate "Miguel" because we don't have his real full name, nor even if this alleged arrest took place at all. Therefore there's no way to look in Brooklyn's court cases to find Miguel. For all we know this was a made up story to build a story around - which is what I believe it actually is. The only way "Miguel" wouldn't have been able to get bond is if he had many priors and had a history of jumping bail in the past making him a bad bet to allow a bond. Again, without knowing if Miguel is an actual person and if this is an actual family or if this actually happened at all - it's all just a incoherent story, with a non plausible ending: Miguel having to plead guilty to get out of jail on an alleged 1,000 set bail.

I have a very good friend who is an attorney. He says that they get fees/retainers up front because a lawyer is a person's best friend when something happens... until the crises is over and the lawyer is no longer needed. It's just established experience that people will find the money when they truly need it, but are very likely to blow the bill off after everything is done. The attorney is longer important to them.

In that same regard, I can see the same mindset here. They have a nice home, as you say, but bail isn't something they "want", so they're balking at having to actually pay for it.

Logically, it doesn't make a lot of sense... and to be honest I wouldn't 'like' it, either... but a lot of people feel this way.

 

[Gaius46]

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.

You could make the argument that it's more equal to assess fines as a percentage of income or net worth on the idea that the effect that the fine has on people is what should be equal and not the absolute dollar amount. A $100 fine hurts a guy with a $20,000 income a lot more than it hurts a guy with a $100,000 income. While a year in jail hurts both equally, income loss aside.

I'm not sure I buy that argument but I really can't dismiss it out of hand either.

 

[Gaius46]

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

When my brother was on the NYPD he gave us all mini replicas of his badge. I honestly never used it to get out of a ticket because for whatever reason the few times I was stopped I got guys who really weren't looking to write tickets and just let me slide with a warning. My brother was adamant about the fact that most regular cops hate writing tickets and he only wrote the 1 a month his boss was looking for at the last minute. That was back in the 80s and 90s - I think the attitude is different now bacause of all the money tickets bring in.

My wife tried to use the badge to get out of speeding ticket and the highway patrol cop wasn't hearing it. My brother even went to speak to the guy to ask him to cut her a break (she was doing 60 in a 50mph zone) and he refused. So I guess your mileage varies.

 

[radcen]

You could make the argument that it's more equal to assess fines as a percentage of income or net worth on the idea that the effect that the fine has on people is what should be equal and not the absolute dollar amount. A $100 fine hurts a guy with a $20,000 income a lot more than it hurts a guy with a $100,000 income. While a year in jail hurts both equally, income loss aside.

I'm not sure I buy that argument but I really can't dismiss it out of hand either.

The idea isn't wholly without logic, but the crime is still the same, and everything should be based on the crime. The idea behind our justice system is that everybody's treated the same. The fact that some can better afford bail isn't necessarily the system's fault, though I don't think our founding fathers could have foreseen the drastic gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" that we have today, nor could they have foreseen how bloated and prohibitively expensive it has become.

When my brother was on the NYPD he gave us all mini replicas of his badge. I honestly never used it to get out of a ticket because for whatever reason the few times I was stopped I got guys who really weren't looking to write tickets and just let me slide with a warning. My brother was adamant about the fact that most regular cops hate writing tickets and he only wrote the 1 a month his boss was looking for at the last minute. That was back in the 80s and 90s - I think the attitude is different now bacause of all the money tickets bring in.

My wife tried to use the badge to get out of speeding ticket and the highway patrol cop wasn't hearing it. My brother even went to speak to the guy to ask him to cut her a break (she was doing 60 in a 50mph zone) and he refused. So I guess your mileage varies.

Personally, and no offense intended to you or your family, but IMO no sincere law-and-order believer would use something like a badge or card to try and get out of a ticket.

 

[Caine]

You could make the argument that it's more equal to assess fines as a percentage of income or net worth on the idea that the effect that the fine has on people is what should be equal and not the absolute dollar amount. A $100 fine hurts a guy with a $20,000 income a lot more than it hurts a guy with a $100,000 income. While a year in jail hurts both equally, income loss aside.

I'm not sure I buy that argument but I really can't dismiss it out of hand either.

Then it goes to what I said at the end of the post.....

Its one thing to assign court appointed counsel to people based upon their own admission of much or how little they make in income....... typically court appointed counsel isn't viewed as "favorably" as counsel that you pay for out of your own pocket.

But when it comes to receiving a fine...... how many people do you think are going to be honest about making $95k per year when they know the court has absolutely no way to verify the information provided in court???

Everyone will suddenly be poor when it comes to paying for their crimes.

 

[Caine]

When my brother was on the NYPD he gave us all mini replicas of his badge. I honestly never used it to get out of a ticket because for whatever reason the few times I was stopped I got guys who really weren't looking to write tickets and just let me slide with a warning. My brother was adamant about the fact that most regular cops hate writing tickets and he only wrote the 1 a month his boss was looking for at the last minute. That was back in the 80s and 90s - I think the attitude is different now bacause of all the money tickets bring in.

The money tickets bring in do absolutely nothing for the standard patrol officer.... who never sees this money. In fact... I went on a ticket writing strike where I refused to write tickets for several months because of the court costs increasing.. yet again...

 

[Gaius46]

The money tickets bring in do absolutely nothing for the standard patrol officer.... who never sees this money. In fact... I went on a ticket writing strike where I refused to write tickets for several months because of the court costs increasing.. yet again...

Agreed. But management may have different ideas. As I remember ticket writing quotas weren't allowed in the NYPD but "goals" were. I'd think it not too hard for the brass to decide that the patrol officer's ticket goal was bumped from 1 a month to 3 or 5 or something. How or if they can really enforce that given union contracts and the like I really don't know.

It's really in a lot of cases just another form of tax. Thanks for deciding to not play tax man for a few months.

 

[Gaius46]

The idea isn't wholly without logic, but the crime is still the same, and everything should be based on the crime. The idea behind our justice system is that everybody's treated the same. The fact that some can better afford bail isn't necessarily the system's fault, though I don't think our founding fathers could have foreseen the drastic gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" that we have today, nor could they have foreseen how bloated and prohibitively expensive it has become.



Personally, and no offense intended to you or your family, but IMO no sincere law-and-order believer would use something like a badge or card to try and get out of a ticket.

None taken. But speeding and parking tickets really aren't about law and order as much as filling the treasury. Sure there are things you can do with a car that are dangerous but most people drive - safely - in excess of the speed limit and it's really just a matter of who gets picked for a ticket on any given day.

One that used to annoy me to no end when I lived in the city. We had alternate side of the street parking where you couldn't park on one side of the street on a given day so the street sweeper could come by. Where I lived we hadn't seen a street sweeper in years but the tickets were still issued if you dared park on that side of the street between 8 and 11am on Wednesday.

 

[Gaius46]

Then it goes to what I said at the end of the post.....

Its one thing to assign court appointed counsel to people based upon their own admission of much or how little they make in income....... typically court appointed counsel isn't viewed as "favorably" as counsel that you pay for out of your own pocket.

But when it comes to receiving a fine...... how many people do you think are going to be honest about making $95k per year when they know the court has absolutely no way to verify the information provided in court???

Everyone will suddenly be poor when it comes to paying for their crimes.

Missed your last sentence. Sorry about that. You're right and I suppose it'd be kind of silly to tell someone to show up with last years 1040 or a paystub.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Then it goes to what I said at the end of the post.....

Its one thing to assign court appointed counsel to people based upon their own admission of much or how little they make in income....... typically court appointed counsel isn't viewed as "favorably" as counsel that you pay for out of your own pocket.

But when it comes to receiving a fine...... how many people do you think are going to be honest about making $95k per year when they know the court has absolutely no way to verify the information provided in court???

Everyone will suddenly be poor when it comes to paying for their crimes.

Payday loan companies do it, banks do it, credit unions do it.. In seconds. Your claim that there is no way to verify employment and wages in this day and age is ridiculous.

But the thread is about bail and the personal and societal costs associated with being punished BEFORE trial.

 

[radcen]

None taken. But speeding and parking tickets really aren't about law and order as much as filling the treasury. Sure there are things you can do with a car that are dangerous but most people drive - safely - in excess of the speed limit and it's really just a matter of who gets picked for a ticket on any given day.

Agree and disagree.

I agree in the sense that they have certainly evolved in that direction, and it's only getting worse.

Have you ever seen the show Parking Wars? It's actually quite interesting. Most episodes take place in downtown Philadelphia. On the one hand, they do seem to relish towing cars and being hard-asses about payment and penalties, no doubt. It's obviously quite the cash cow for the city.

Where I disagree that it's also apparent that the same people who scream bloody murder regarding enforcement would also scream bloody murder if there were no enforcement and they could never find a place to park in their own neighborhood. There is a legitimate basis for the enforcement.

One that used to annoy me to no end when I lived in the city. We had alternate side of the street parking where you couldn't park on one side of the street on a given day so the street sweeper could come by. Where I lived we hadn't seen a street sweeper in years but the tickets were still issued if you dared park on that side of the street between 8 and 11am on Wednesday.

That would piss me off. Shoot, do most cities even own street sweepers anymore? Ideally, they should repeal the ordinances in those locations, or at least not enforce them if they're not sweeping. To enforce something like that is just a dick move.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

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.

No, I already stated that wasn't the goal. I don't think different fines are the way to go, either.

Why not use Pre-Trial Services, as Oliver suggested? It seems to work well in the locations they've implemented such a system. It's also much cheaper than paying to keep these so-called "criminals" incarcerated. Bail, IMHO, shouldn't be required in the majority of cases. Particularly for non-violent, "technical" offenses.

As the system stands currently, you are already giving unequal treatment to those who are financially better off. That's the reality, in practice.

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.

In this day and age, that is an incredibly weak argument. It certainly doesn't justify "business as usual" and ignoring the problem. IMHO, it contradicts what our justice system is meant to stand for.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

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.

There are lots of requirements to post bail, generally speaking. It's not as simple as just forking over 10%. Often, it totals closer to 20%, for starters. Depending on the location, whomever is bonding out the "criminal" has to meet certain residency requirements, job history requirements, and so forth. There's a lot more "fine print" involved than many people realize.


As to the bolded/underlined... How can anyone, regardless of wealth, consider that acceptable when it applies to our legal system?

 

[ludin]

There are lots of requirements to post bail, generally speaking. It's not as simple as just forking over 10%. Often, it totals closer to 20%, for starters. Depending on the location, whomever is bonding out the "criminal" has to meet certain residency requirements, job history requirements, and so forth. There's a lot more "fine print" involved than many people realize.


As to the bolded/underlined... How can anyone, regardless of wealth, consider that acceptable when it applies to our legal system?

It depends on the crime. some people you want to keep in jail for the night or for a few days. it isn't safe for them to be out on the street until their trial.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

It depends on the crime. some people you want to keep in jail for the night or for a few days. it isn't safe for them to be out on the street until their trial.

I can agree with that. I think, more often than not, that those are the exception, not the rule.

 

[blackjack50]

They locked a guy for driving with a suspended license?? Ridiculous.

The alternative Oliver put forward is both reasonable and sensible. Jailing people for stupid crap either before or after a conviction is wrong.

Driving on a suspended license is a crime. Some people have it suspended due to DUI or other negligent or criminal acts. It depends on WHY he was suspended. Just saying.