7 ms·

This is better for everyone. Either someone is safe to release pending trial, or they aren't. Either they're a flight risk, or they aren't. How much money some

by mabbo 3y ago

This is better for everyone. Either someone is safe to release pending trial, or they aren't. Either they're a flight risk, or they aren't. How much money someone can afford to put up does not change those things.

ianhawes 3y ago
Under what obligation does someone have to return to court other than the threat of a FTA warrant?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  That’s it, same as if a bounty hunter comes for you due to cash bail and a bail bondsman. That dance is an unnecessary private industry Rube Goldberg contraption when you already have a judiciary who can determine boolean bail and law enforcement for retrieval. (extended family works for a bondsman in a Midwest state, familiar with the system)
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    The bounty hunter isn't going to collect any money since there was no cash bail involved...so we don't even get that anymore. No one cares anymore if you don't come back for your court date, you just go somewhere else and even when you are re-arrested for some other crime, they simply don't care.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      It sounds like you’re saying cash bail fixes this because they can’t afford the bail and are held indefinitely until their court date.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        The only point that I made here is that without cash bail, there are simply no bounty hunters to consider at all. They don't exist, because there is no economic basis for their existence. How we get people to appear for their court date when they have no reason to, is another story all together, and I have no idea. Obviously, someone living unhoused in society without assets to freeze or a home to confiscate, doesn't have much reason to show up. They are also the ones that couldn't pay bail anyways.
    - orwin 3y ago
      Does it really work like that in the US? You don't get judged in abstentia? Also, suspended sentences aren't automatically unsuspended if you get arrested a second time for similar crimes? I thought suspended sentences were a big thing in modern countries.
      - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
        It is usually just petty crime, and even if they make a judgment, they are just happy enough that the person is now some other jurisdictions problem. So let's say you have a warrant in Sitka Alaska, but in the mean time you've moved to Seattle, Sitka is like "this guy is Seattle's problem now, whatever we decide here we aren't going to pay to have them sent back." They won't hold a trial in abstentia, they'll just issue a bench warrant and move on to the next case. All bets are off if you make it to a federal offense (e.g. stealing USPS mail). The feds don't mess around.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  Getting arrested (again) with an open warrant used to be a big deal. Now at least in King County WA...plenty of people are getting arrested with warrants already out because they didn't appear in court (usually in another state that isn't interested in extraditing)...and they are simply being released again with a new court date. It is a bit ridiculous.
  - nxm 3y ago
    Your tax dollars at work
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The question confuses obligation with consequence. Also, eliminating cash bail (the requirement for up-front payment of cash for release on bail) doesn't necessarily have any impact on the penalties for violating bail. (While the federal system retains cash bail as an option, it doesn’t have the regulated minimum percent of the bail penalty as an up-front payment system feature that most state systems have in one form or another, and its quite possible to have 0% cash bail in a situation with a specified money bail penalty, and—aside from occasionally producing confused public commentary when people unfamiliar with the federal system read news about a case like that—it works fine.)
xeromal 3y ago
I don't know if I agree with this comment. Small things like cash bail keep people honest and you're assuming a binary scenario. Let's say I'm selling my car privately on craigslist and the guy wants to drive my car. If he gives me his ID or the keys to his car, I'll let him take it for a spin. (Let's assume I don't want to ride with him because I'm doing something else). Most likely, he'll return because the headache of stealing my car is greater than the worth he'd get out of taking it. Sure, the odds aren't 100% he'll return it but they'll be high. Now if he shows up, has no ID, has no cash deposit, or anything else he can leave with my, the temptation to just take the car is definitely more than when I have something of his. Cash bail has definitely been corrupted but I do think it serves a purpose of keeping people honest just like a lock on your house keeps people honest.
- chaps 3y ago
  Do yourself and watch a public bond hearing. Guaranteed you'll be surprised by not just how much it's been "corrupted" but also how routine it is.
- bandushrew 3y ago
  Thats pretty much the argument in favour of it. The argument against it is that it makes life harder for everyone except those who have spare cash hanging around. Coincidentally, those who have spare cash hanging around may not value it as highly as their freedom, so they maybe are still likely to ditch and run? Which means that bail is really only a good motivator for that sweet spot of accused criminal who both has enough cash available to be able to put it up, and has so little cash available that getting their bail back quickly is hugely important to them. Except that they dont get it back quickly anyway, it can take quite a long time...so ehh...
  - Consultant32452 3y ago
    What percentage of people granted bail are unable to post it for financial reasons? I don’t know the answer, but if the system is a good fit for the vast majority of people who ever get arrested, then I would consider that a good system. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.
Karellen 3y ago
Maybe if someone has nothing to lose they are a flight risk, but if they have $100k on the line, they won't be? Or are you suggesting that incentives don't actually exist, and you can't change anyone's behaviour ever by offering them rewards or punishments for acting in certain ways?
- chaps 3y ago
  Maybe if someone has nothing to lose they are a flight risk, but if they have $100k on the line, they won't be? Same exact question can be asked about someone who's poor with a $500 bond. That same $500 will be trivial to pay for someone who's not poor. In what world is this anything but systemic punishment for being poor?
  - proc0 3y ago
    Just because a good portion of criminals are poor, doesn't mean that a good portion of poor people are criminals. Thinking that poverty causes crime is treating poor people like animals that have no freewill, and are at the whims of their environment. In fact, most poor people are not criminals, so punishing criminals IS NOT punishing poor people.
    - chaps 3y ago
      Are you seriously suggesting that keeping a person in jail for two years, who hasn't been given trial, solely because they can't pay $2,000 isn't effectively a punishment against being poor?
      - proc0 3y ago
        > solely because they can't pay $2,000 It's not "solely" because we're talking about someone already committed a crime. This punishment is not JUST for a poor person, it is for a poor person who is a criminal. Whatever judgement we attribute to the matter, saying this is a punishment for being poor is effectively saying poor people are basically criminals. This isn't a double standard between rich and poor, but rather a double standard between rich criminals and poor criminals, which in my opinion is lower in priority compared ot things like helping poor people who don't commit crimes and are good people.
josephcsible 3y ago
The more you stand to lose by fleeing, the less of a flight risk you are.

by mabbo 3y ago

ianhawes 3y ago

Under what obligation does someone have to return to court other than the threat of a FTA warrant?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
That’s it, same as if a bounty hunter comes for you due to cash bail and a bail bondsman. That dance is an unnecessary private industry Rube Goldberg contraption when you already have a judiciary who can determine boolean bail and law enforcement for retrieval. (extended family works for a bondsman in a Midwest state, familiar with the system)
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  The bounty hunter isn't going to collect any money since there was no cash bail involved...so we don't even get that anymore. No one cares anymore if you don't come back for your court date, you just go somewhere else and even when you are re-arrested for some other crime, they simply don't care.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    It sounds like you’re saying cash bail fixes this because they can’t afford the bail and are held indefinitely until their court date.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      The only point that I made here is that without cash bail, there are simply no bounty hunters to consider at all. They don't exist, because there is no economic basis for their existence. How we get people to appear for their court date when they have no reason to, is another story all together, and I have no idea. Obviously, someone living unhoused in society without assets to freeze or a home to confiscate, doesn't have much reason to show up. They are also the ones that couldn't pay bail anyways.
  - orwin 3y ago
    Does it really work like that in the US? You don't get judged in abstentia? Also, suspended sentences aren't automatically unsuspended if you get arrested a second time for similar crimes? I thought suspended sentences were a big thing in modern countries.
    - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
      It is usually just petty crime, and even if they make a judgment, they are just happy enough that the person is now some other jurisdictions problem. So let's say you have a warrant in Sitka Alaska, but in the mean time you've moved to Seattle, Sitka is like "this guy is Seattle's problem now, whatever we decide here we aren't going to pay to have them sent back." They won't hold a trial in abstentia, they'll just issue a bench warrant and move on to the next case. All bets are off if you make it to a federal offense (e.g. stealing USPS mail). The feds don't mess around.
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
Getting arrested (again) with an open warrant used to be a big deal. Now at least in King County WA...plenty of people are getting arrested with warrants already out because they didn't appear in court (usually in another state that isn't interested in extraditing)...and they are simply being released again with a new court date. It is a bit ridiculous.
- nxm 3y ago
  Your tax dollars at work
dragonwriter 3y ago
The question confuses obligation with consequence. Also, eliminating cash bail (the requirement for up-front payment of cash for release on bail) doesn't necessarily have any impact on the penalties for violating bail. (While the federal system retains cash bail as an option, it doesn’t have the regulated minimum percent of the bail penalty as an up-front payment system feature that most state systems have in one form or another, and its quite possible to have 0% cash bail in a situation with a specified money bail penalty, and—aside from occasionally producing confused public commentary when people unfamiliar with the federal system read news about a case like that—it works fine.)

xeromal 3y ago

I don't know if I agree with this comment. Small things like cash bail keep people honest and you're assuming a binary scenario. Let's say I'm selling my car privately on craigslist and the guy wants to drive my car. If he gives me his ID or the keys to his car, I'll let him take it for a spin. (Let's assume I don't want to ride with him because I'm doing something else). Most likely, he'll return because the headache of stealing my car is greater than the worth he'd get out of taking it. Sure, the odds aren't 100% he'll return it but they'll be high. Now if he shows up, has no ID, has no cash deposit, or anything else he can leave with my, the temptation to just take the car is definitely more than when I have something of his. Cash bail has definitely been corrupted but I do think it serves a purpose of keeping people honest just like a lock on your house keeps people honest.

chaps 3y ago
Do yourself and watch a public bond hearing. Guaranteed you'll be surprised by not just how much it's been "corrupted" but also how routine it is.
bandushrew 3y ago
Thats pretty much the argument in favour of it. The argument against it is that it makes life harder for everyone except those who have spare cash hanging around. Coincidentally, those who have spare cash hanging around may not value it as highly as their freedom, so they maybe are still likely to ditch and run? Which means that bail is really only a good motivator for that sweet spot of accused criminal who both has enough cash available to be able to put it up, and has so little cash available that getting their bail back quickly is hugely important to them. Except that they dont get it back quickly anyway, it can take quite a long time...so ehh...
- Consultant32452 3y ago
  What percentage of people granted bail are unable to post it for financial reasons? I don’t know the answer, but if the system is a good fit for the vast majority of people who ever get arrested, then I would consider that a good system. There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

Karellen 3y ago

Maybe if someone has nothing to lose they are a flight risk, but if they have $100k on the line, they won't be? Or are you suggesting that incentives don't actually exist, and you can't change anyone's behaviour ever by offering them rewards or punishments for acting in certain ways?

chaps 3y ago
Maybe if someone has nothing to lose they are a flight risk, but if they have $100k on the line, they won't be? Same exact question can be asked about someone who's poor with a $500 bond. That same $500 will be trivial to pay for someone who's not poor. In what world is this anything but systemic punishment for being poor?
- proc0 3y ago
  Just because a good portion of criminals are poor, doesn't mean that a good portion of poor people are criminals. Thinking that poverty causes crime is treating poor people like animals that have no freewill, and are at the whims of their environment. In fact, most poor people are not criminals, so punishing criminals IS NOT punishing poor people.
  - chaps 3y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that keeping a person in jail for two years, who hasn't been given trial, solely because they can't pay $2,000 isn't effectively a punishment against being poor?
    - proc0 3y ago
      > solely because they can't pay $2,000 It's not "solely" because we're talking about someone already committed a crime. This punishment is not JUST for a poor person, it is for a poor person who is a criminal. Whatever judgement we attribute to the matter, saying this is a punishment for being poor is effectively saying poor people are basically criminals. This isn't a double standard between rich and poor, but rather a double standard between rich criminals and poor criminals, which in my opinion is lower in priority compared ot things like helping poor people who don't commit crimes and are good people.

josephcsible 3y ago

The more you stand to lose by fleeing, the less of a flight risk you are.