What to do about bail?

[mrjurrs]

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?

And we'd have to let the rich murderer out as well (which is what we already do). Do you have a good reason to discriminate between the rich and poor criminal?

 

[ttwtt78640]

And we'd have to let the rich murderer out as well (which is what we already do). Do you have a good reason to discriminate between the rich and poor criminal?

Nope, the bail amount (if any) should be the same.

 

[mrjurrs]

Nope, the bail amount (if any) should be the same.

So keep poor people in jail?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So keep poor people in jail?

Why do you assume that (normal) bail amounts would be set high? If a judge doesn’t want a suspect released then they could simply deny them bail.

 

[mrjurrs]

Why do you assume that (normal) bail amounts would be set high? If a judge doesn’t want a suspect released then they could simply deny them bail.

Because like bail amounts automatically favor the wealthier person.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because like bail amounts automatically favor the wealthier person.

So do like (fixed) traffic law violation fines. Should we give older folks shorter jail/prison sentences based on some percentage of their remaining life expectancy?

 

[Rawley]

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.

All or nothing, huh? Same for sentencing?

 

[Rawley]

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."

You're comfortable with this?

NY man sprung on no bail in Facebook-posted beating executes wife in front of kids just hours later: cops

Adam Bennefield, 45, is charged with shooting dead 40-year-old Keaira Bennefield while she was taking her young children to school on the morning of Oct. 5, authorities said.

nypost.com

 

[mrjurrs]

So do like (fixed) traffic law violation fines. Should we give older folks shorter jail/prison sentences based on some percentage of their remaining life expectancy?

Huge difference in awaiting trial and already being convicted.

 

[Ivan Denisovich]

I don't know why bail exists. If someone is dangerous they should be required to stay in jail until trial. If they aren't dangerous they should be required to be on ankle-monitoring so they cannot easily run away.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

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.

US prisons do tend to be cruel. Maybe there needs to be more gradation of prison, so prisoners are not exposed to any worse treatment than they gave the victim of their crime. But that's a bit outside the scope of this thread.

Inhumane treatment by other prisoners happens on remand (in jail) too. Bearing in mind that SOME accused are a danger to the community and must be held without bail, we could have 'smarter' jails. I think a step in this direction would be to eliminate county jails: to keep remand prisoners with similarly violent and dangerous prisoners, requires a large number to select from, ie a state jail system.

The eminent risk to the community isn't something I had considered when I started the thread. It does make sense though. One of the purposes of punishment is to reduce the chance of re-offending. Criminals who get caught are intrinsically irrational; they make bad life decisions. We count on lawful imprisonment (ie after conviction) to make them rational in their later decisions, and by and large that is true: recidivism rates are far above general offending rates, but they're still much less than 50% after long terms.

If the accused was arrested and charged for a lesser crime, and they have a good record, it is still necessary to have some bail conditions. Even if that's not putting up money as bond, it could be quite imposing on them. A teacher accused of child sexual assault for instance, would be banned from any contact with children (possibly including his/her own children). A bank employee accused of theft, would be banned from any position of financial trust. In either case, they'd be banned from their occupation until their trial was concluded, and unless they could prove some misconduct by the judge or prosecutor they would never recover their lost earnings. This is of course assuming they're found Not Guilty. They still come out behind.

Financial imposition is the least fair way imaginable, to prevent reoffense and require attendance at trial. It's even less fair than jail!

What I'm thinking now, is severely limiting the places a person on bail can go (eg, home, work, lawyer, doctor, one social haunt) and enforcing this using ankle bracelets. This would reduce temptation to re-offend, make it easy to arrest and charge them if they did, while also serving the main purpose of bail which is to prevent flight from justice.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

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.

There are figures to show that making bail increases chances of acquittal too. I'm not sure if that's because accused who make bail can also afford a better lawyer, or whether it's the "smell of jail" or a loser vibe that juries sense.

Prisoners naturally try to drag each other down to the same guilty hell they're in. Though I've never been put in jail (let alone prison) I know that mindset from friends who've been "in". Anyone who pretends they're better because they're really innocent, gets beaten down and not necessarily physically. Respect or contempt matters just like it does in the outside world.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

That’s an interesting idea, but such determination would seem to require a (nearly whole?) trial to properly determine. Those who can afford ‘professional‘ representation (what you seem to call “rich”) would still be more likely to be deemed releasable.

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

 

[The Stars Tremble]

That’s an interesting idea, but such determination would seem to require a (nearly whole?) trial to properly determine. Those who can afford ‘professional‘ representation (what you seem to call “rich”) would still be more likely to be deemed releasable.

Is it quite unreasonable to expect a higher standard of "trial" at the bail hearing stage?

Most cases are straightforward. Police/prosecutor don't need more time to arrange the facts they already have. So it's only the time required for the defense to arrange their arguments and evidence which can justify a delay.

So maybe the prosecution should be held to a strict time, like 5 working days, and any delay beyond that be allowed for the defense with the defendant waiting in jail.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Is it quite unreasonable to expect a higher standard of "trial" at the bail hearing stage?

Most cases are straightforward. Police/prosecutor don't need more time to arrange the facts they already have. So it's only the time required for the defense to arrange their arguments and evidence which can justify a delay.

So maybe the prosecution should be held to a strict time, like 5 working days, and any delay beyond that be allowed for the defense with the defendant waiting in jail.

OK, but what the prosecution allegedly has evidence deemed sufficient to prove their charges ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and a “poor” accused person has little (or no) access to investigators, the state’s evidence (to date) or competent legal representation.

How “dangerous to society” a person is deemed to be may depend entirely on the current criminal accusation. In that situation they are essentially being tried twice for the same offense - once to see if they ‘deserve to be locked up’ pending trial and again at their actual trial (if that isn’t just ‘rubber stamping’ a plea deal). Obviously, those deemed non-bail eligible would be more likely to accept a plea deal (or bargain) than those able to be released pending trial.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

OK, but what the prosecution allegedly has evidence deemed sufficient to prove their charges ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and a “poor” accused person has little (or no) access to investigators, the state’s evidence (to date) or competent legal representation.

Yes, but I would also like poor accused persons to have better access to legal defense. Legal aid should be so good that even middle class people who could afford a commercial defender, would take their chances with a public defender.

With enough public defenders, each accused would have the five working days to escape bail. Instead of (as currently) waiting in a queue while their defender works on and off, on their case.

I don't often use analogies, but imagine you want an internal wall taken out of your house, the floor taken up and stronger bearers put in there, a fireproof area and a new slow-combustion stove installed. With a safe flue through the ceiling and roof of course. Your builder quotes for five days work and you accept that. WHY would you accept the builder coming and going for four months while half of your house is a mess? You want the builder to be organized, with all the tools and materials they need, and get the damn job done in 5 days. And OK, it's a big job so it might take 7 or 8 days. But not months!

That's what accused people, even those with some money, are expected to accept. And it's mostly because there is a horrible backlog in criminal court. The whole system depends on defendants (particularly imprisoned defendants) caving in and pleading guilty to lesser charges to avoid a trial.

To me, that is the most obscene aspect of delayed justice. It's about saving taxpayer money. We're OK with paying to lock people up, but we skimp on the due process?

How “dangerous to society” a person is deemed to be may depend entirely on the current criminal accusation. In that situation they are essentially being tried twice for the same offense - once to see if they ‘deserve to be locked up’ pending trial and again at their actual trial (if that isn’t just ‘rubber stamping’ a plea deal). Obviously, those deemed non-bail eligible would be more likely to accept a plea deal (or bargain) than those able to be released pending trial.

Exactly! The legal convenience of plea bargaining should not even be legal. It violates "equal punishment for equal crime".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, but I would also like poor accused persons to have better access to legal defense. Legal aid should be so good that even middle class people who could afford a commercial defender, would take their chances with a public defender.

With enough public defenders, each accused would have the five working days to escape bail. Instead of (as currently) waiting in a queue while their defender works on and off, on their case.

I don't often use analogies, but imagine you want an internal wall taken out of your house, the floor taken up and stronger bearers put in there, a fireproof area and a new slow-combustion stove installed. With a safe flue through the ceiling and roof of course. Your builder quotes for five days work and you accept that. WHY would you accept the builder coming and going for four months while half of your house is a mess? You want the builder to be organized, with all the tools and materials they need, and get the damn job done in 5 days. And OK, it's a big job so it might take 7 or 8 days. But not months!

That's what accused people, even those with some money, are expected to accept. And it's mostly because there is a horrible backlog in criminal court. The whole system depends on defendants (particularly imprisoned defendants) caving in and pleading guilty to lesser charges to avoid a trial.

To me, that is the most obscene aspect of delayed justice. It's about saving taxpayer money. We're OK with paying to lock people up, but we skimp on the due process?



Exactly! The legal convenience of plea bargaining should not even be legal. It violates "equal punishment for equal crime".

OK, but why not mandate that their actual trial be made that ‘speedy’?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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."

We really don’t need to reinvent the wheel.

If you don’t have money for bail and no one in your family cares enough about you to bail you out than you should stay in jail because you have nothing to lose and that makes you more dangerous than someone who can afford to post bond.

As far speedy trial, in most everywhere in America you have the right to a speedy trial within 60 days of arrest, the fact this process takes a long time is because defendants know they’re guilty and hope they can get a better outcome by stretching out the process and so their lawyers delay trials. If you want a speedy trial you can have it, most defendants voluntarily waive it

 

[mrjurrs]

There are figures to show that making bail increases chances of acquittal too. I'm not sure if that's because accused who make bail can also afford a better lawyer, or whether it's the "smell of jail" or a loser vibe that juries sense.

Prisoners naturally try to drag each other down to the same guilty hell they're in. Though I've never been put in jail (let alone prison) I know that mindset from friends who've been "in". Anyone who pretends they're better because they're really innocent, gets beaten down and not necessarily physically. Respect or contempt matters just like it does in the outside world.

It can't help that those still in jail often arrive in orange jumpsuits either.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

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.

Add in likely to reoffend

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

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?

Determine the likelihood to reoffend or flee. If low offer bail, if high no bail at any amount

 

[Glitch]

Why do you assume that (normal) bail amounts would be set high? If a judge doesn’t want a suspect released then they could simply deny them bail.

Because denying someone bail without cause would violate their Eighth Amendment rights. If the suspect is a flight risk or a threat to the public, and evidence of that is provided in the court, then a judge may deny someone bail. Otherwise bail should be set appropriate with the seriousness of the crime. Low level crimes should either release the accused on their own recognizance, or pay a small bail amount and released from jail until trial. High level crimes should always include bail, with the cost commensurate to the severity of the crime.