What to do about bail?

[The Stars Tremble]

It should be one law for all. But the only ways bail can be set fairly for every suspect, while also being "one law for all" is to set bail at zero. Or to deny it equally to everyone.

Right wingers are outraged about release without bail, so let's consider the only fair alternative. No bail for anyone! The State (ie local state or federal govt) should fund speedy trials for everyone who requests one. Any suspect who directs their defense to make such a thorough case that they need more time, simply has to accept the penalty of imprisonment before trial. The most controversial aspect of this approach is that we need to spend more on judges and other court officials, and on public defenders. A competent defense team can surely work up their case in six to eight weeks, but we need to cut their case load by increasing their numbers.

And even if bail isn't reformed at all, and remains a luxury for the rich, we still need to hasten the trial process. It is simply unacceptable that suspects who can't afford bail have to spend a year in jail, with no compensation for that if they are later found not guilty.

The Sixth Amendment begins "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." If only they had been more specific about what constitutes "speedy."

 

[ttwtt78640]

It should be one law for all. But the only ways bail can be set fairly for every suspect, while also being "one law for all" is to set bail at zero. Or to deny it equally to everyone.

That is a fact, but having bail of $X still effectively denies it to those who can’t come up with $X.

Right wingers are outraged about release without bail, so let's consider the only fair alternative. No bail for anyone! The State (ie local state or federal govt) should fund speedy trials for everyone who requests one.

Define “speedy trial” and how/why that benefits someone who must depend on a poorly funded defense.

Any suspect who directs their defense to make such a thorough case that they need more time, simply has to accept the penalty of imprisonment before trial.

Only if they are unable to have an affordable bail amount set. With no bail - that is not an issue at all.

The most controversial aspect of this approach is that we need to spend more on judges and other court officials, and on public defenders. A competent defense team can surely work up their case in six to eight weeks, but we need to cut their case load by increasing their numbers.

That has been deemed too expensive, so most folks get ‘plea deals’ instead.

And even if bail isn't reformed at all, and remains a luxury for the rich, we still need to hasten the trial process. It is simply unacceptable that suspects who can't afford bail have to spend a year in jail, with no compensation for that if they are later found not guilty.

That could be fixed by automatically awarding those held pre-trial at least $1K/day for that state imposed involntary ‘service’.

The Sixth Amendment begins "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." If only they had been more specific about what constitutes "speedy."

Exactly, but that is why ‘plea deals’ are used (abused?) in so many (most) cases. If the outcome of their “trial” is known in early and in advance then their “trial” becomes a very ‘speedy’ affair.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

That is a fact, but having bail of $X still effectively denies it to those who can’t come up with $X.



Define “speedy trial” and how/why that benefits someone who must depend on a poorly funded defense.

Well exactly. I did define speedy as 6 to 8 weeks, but if I was an innocent man held without bail, I'd actually want it to be quicker than that. My counsel should work on my case, exclusively, and however long that takes is what I define as "speedy".

Only if they are unable to have an affordable bail amount set. With no bail - that is not an issue at all.



That has been deemed too expensive, so most folks get ‘plea deals’ instead.



That could be fixed by automatically awarding those held pre-trial at least $1K/day for that state imposed involntary ‘service’.



Exactly, but that is why ‘plea deals’ are used (abused?) in so many (most) cases. If the outcome of their “trial” is known in early and in advance then their “trial” becomes a very ‘speedy’ affair.

If we're going to spend tens of billions of taxpayer money, I'd rather spend it on more courts and better public defenders ... than on compensation to people who beat the rap because they had a good lawyer.

Tho I suppose we could have both. That still leaves the problem of wealthy defendants taking the best defense counsel, since choice of counsel is considered a right. We can't make every defendant participate in a lottery of public defenders. Or can we?

 

[Mr Natural]

If you can’t come up with bail money, maybe you shouldn’t commit the crime.

Is that too hard to figure out?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well exactly. I did define speedy as 6 to 8 weeks, but if I was an innocent man held without bail, I'd actually want it to be quicker than that. My counsel should work on my case, exclusively, and however long that takes is what I define as "speedy".

Very few are “held without bail”, yet quite a few are unable to post the required amount. Almost nobody (expect the well off) can afford decent legal council with no income for 6 to 8 weeks.

If we're going to spend tens of billions of taxpayer money, I'd rather spend it on more courts and better public defenders ... than on compensation to people who beat the rap because they had a good lawyer.

You might, but the politicians and lawyers don’t want that additional public expense or competition.

Tho I suppose we could have both. That still leaves the problem of wealthy defendants taking the best defense counsel, since choice of counsel is considered a right. We can't make every defendant participate in a lottery of public defenders. Or can we?

Nope, since public defender pay (and service) generally sucks the donor class would never allow that. Despite being able to easily prove that I was not guilty of the charge since the state had no physical evidence or witnesses to the alleged crime (and I had two witnesses to support my ‘alibi’), my assigned public defender suggested that I accept a ‘plea deal’ and offered to help me get a ‘good’ one.

When the case went to trial (3 months later) the judge dismissed the charge citing the state’s complete lack of evidence - I never had to testify or call any witnesses at all. Despite spending 3 days in jail (until getting bail set at $0) I got zero compensation from the state.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

If you can’t come up with bail money, maybe you shouldn’t commit the crime.

Is that too hard to figure out?

Hey, it's obvious you're very poorly educated on the subject so I'll break it down for you like I'd explain it to a child.

Bail is what you pay BEFORE YOU ARE CONVICTED OF A CRIME, so whether you're innocent or guilty, your ass is in jail until you pay for bail, so what you're saying is we should lock up poor people without trial while the rich should never have to see the inside of a jail cell.

I assume you've got a cool million sitting in the bank just in case you're falsely accused of murder?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hey, it's obvious you're very poorly educated on the subject so I'll break it down for you like I'd explain it to a child.

Bail is what you pay BEFORE YOU ARE CONVICTED OF A CRIME, so whether you're innocent or guilty, your ass is in jail until you pay for bail, so what you're saying is we should lock up poor people without trial while the rich should never have to see the inside of a jail cell.

I assume you've got a cool million sitting in the bank just in case you're falsely accused of murder?

OK, but does that mean you favor no pre-trial detention or having a judge set a bail/bond amount?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

OK, but does that mean you favor no pre-trial detention or having a judge set a bail/bond amount?

I think only in very rare cases, like when the crime is very serious, the evidence is overwhelming, and the person is a flight risk, should there be pre trial detention. These people have not been convicted of a crime yet, so innocent people can sit in jail for months or years.

Rich people should be more likely to get pre trial detention instead of less likely as they typically have the resources to flee.

 

[anatta]

what to do about bail? impose it

How are Bail Conditions Imposed? | Pender Litigation

Bail conditions can be imposed, but only if they are clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, the least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the accused’s risks regarding the statutory grounds for detention in s. 515(10): securing the accused’s attendance in

www.penderlitigation.com

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think only in very rare cases, like when the crime is very serious, the evidence is overwhelming, and the person is a flight risk, should there be pre trial detention. These people have not been convicted of a crime yet, so innocent people can sit in jail for months or years.

Rich people should be more likely to get pre trial detention instead of less likely as they typically have the resources to flee.

OK, but isn’t that supposed to be what we have now? Obviously, the evidence will be said (by the state) to be strong otherwise why did they bring a criminal charge which they must prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’?

Flight risk to avoid trial (barring any prior evidence of it) is also fairly subjective, is a homeowner less likely to flee than a renter or more so since they could sell that asset?

 

[ttwtt78640]

what to do about bail? impose it

How are Bail Conditions Imposed? | Pender Litigation

Bail conditions can be imposed, but only if they are clearly articulated, minimal in number, necessary, reasonable, the least onerous in the circumstances, and sufficiently linked to the accused’s risks regarding the statutory grounds for detention in s. 515(10): securing the accused’s attendance in

www.penderlitigation.com

Hmm… “Crown Council”?

 

[AGENT J]

If you can’t come up with bail money, maybe you shouldn’t commit the crime.

Is that too hard to figure out?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

OK, but isn’t that supposed to be what we have now? Obviously, the evidence will be said (by the state) to be strong otherwise why did they bring a criminal charge which they must prove ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’?

Flight risk to avoid trial (barring any prior evidence of it) is also fairly subjective, is a homeowner less likely to flee than a renter or more so since they could sell that asset?

It's not really what we have now. A rich person will almost never have to spend any time in jail pre-trial while most poor people will. A rich person waiting for his murder trial will walk free while a poor person waiting for his pot possession trial could sit in jail for months. It's wildly unevenly applied and it's all driven by money instead of merit.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's not really what we have now. A rich person will almost never have to spend any time in jail pre-trial while most poor people will. It's wildly unevenly applied and it's all driven by money instead of merit.

OK, but that’s how the donor class wants it. Of course, that is true of a lot of ‘our’ public policies.

 

[anatta]

Hmm… “Crown Council”?

th source? what's the difference? everyone around here looks at the source and never the info. not grumbling at you in particular
but things like How bail is set shouldn't even require a source, I did so because cashless bail is clearly a bad idea, because it's not just for "non violenet crimes", Theive s and crooks and pickpockets are a bane on society as well

If you simply use a revolving door of absolutely no consequences for being locked up, it's an invitation to continue petty larcency.
Stuff like this is obvious and has been used since like the 19th century in the USA -not to be cruel but to protect society from wanton disregard of the law.
I understand they aren't proven guilty but probable cause has gotten them locked up- bail isnt perfect but it's better then revolving door arrests

 

[bomberfox]

If you can’t come up with bail money, maybe you shouldn’t commit the crime.

Is that too hard to figure out?

You arent too familiar with the subject are ya?

 

[bomberfox]

I would scale bail amounts to ability to pay. You cant make a poor person suddenly cough up thousands of dollars.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I would scale bail amounts to ability to pay. You cant make a poor person suddenly cough up thousands of dollars.

Really? Why not scale them to likelihood of the accused committing more crime before trial?

 

[noonereal]

It should be one law for all. But the only ways bail can be set fairly for every suspect, while also being "one law for all" is to set bail at zero. Or to deny it equally to everyone.

Right wingers are outraged about release without bail, so let's consider the only fair alternative. No bail for anyone! The State (ie local state or federal govt) should fund speedy trials for everyone who requests one. Any suspect who directs their defense to make such a thorough case that they need more time, simply has to accept the penalty of imprisonment before trial. The most controversial aspect of this approach is that we need to spend more on judges and other court officials, and on public defenders. A competent defense team can surely work up their case in six to eight weeks, but we need to cut their case load by increasing their numbers.

And even if bail isn't reformed at all, and remains a luxury for the rich, we still need to hasten the trial process. It is simply unacceptable that suspects who can't afford bail have to spend a year in jail, with no compensation for that if they are later found not guilty.

The Sixth Amendment begins "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." If only they had been more specific about what constitutes "speedy."

Let's not forget the 8th, "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted."

Locking someone up to live in that violet world is indeed cruel and unusual punishment for most inmates.

It's simply not a perfect world my friend.

 

[mrjurrs]

It should be one law for all. But the only ways bail can be set fairly for every suspect, while also being "one law for all" is to set bail at zero. Or to deny it equally to everyone.

Right wingers are outraged about release without bail, so let's consider the only fair alternative. No bail for anyone! The State (ie local state or federal govt) should fund speedy trials for everyone who requests one. Any suspect who directs their defense to make such a thorough case that they need more time, simply has to accept the penalty of imprisonment before trial. The most controversial aspect of this approach is that we need to spend more on judges and other court officials, and on public defenders. A competent defense team can surely work up their case in six to eight weeks, but we need to cut their case load by increasing their numbers.

And even if bail isn't reformed at all, and remains a luxury for the rich, we still need to hasten the trial process. It is simply unacceptable that suspects who can't afford bail have to spend a year in jail, with no compensation for that if they are later found not guilty.

The Sixth Amendment begins "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." If only they had been more specific about what constitutes "speedy."

Bail should not exist. If the person is a danger to the community or a flight risk, they can stay in jail until trial. If they are not a danger to the community or a flight risk they can go home.

Bail keeps innocent poor people in jail and allows rich guilty people to walk free until trial.

 

[Roadvirus]

I would scale bail amounts to ability to pay. You cant make a poor person suddenly cough up thousands of dollars.

So we'd have to release a murderer without bail or with small bail just because they're poor...even if they could be a threat to society if they're released?

 

[bomberfox]

So we'd have to release a murderer without bail or with small bail just because they're poor...even if they could be a threat to society if they're released?

You think charging more than someone can pay is going to do anything better? I kinda dont get it. Either way we are essentially basing bail on the ability to pay just with the current system only those who can afford bail can get it.


You also dont seem to understand what bail is by assuming the one being charged for bail is actually the murderer.

 

[Roadvirus]

You think charging more than someone can pay is going to do anything better? I kinda dont get it.

Go look at my bail fail thread in the Law and Order forum.

 

[bomberfox]

Go look at my bail fail thread in the Law and Order forum.

Sure.

 

[anatta]

8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
``
bail came from English common law
almost all first offender of non-violent crimes get released on own recognizance
If you have a conviction, and get arrested again -depending on the severity you might get bail or own recog again.

None of this is "excessive"