SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Rich-and-poor-treated-the-same dept.
California Governor Jerry Brown has signed Senate Bill 10, the California Money Bail Reform Act, eliminating cash bail in the state:
An overhaul of the state's bail system has been in the works for years, and became an inevitability earlier this year when a California appellate court declared the state's cash bail system unconstitutional. The new law goes into effect in October 2019. "Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly," Brown said in a statement, moments after signing the California Money Bail Reform Act.
The governor has waited nearly four decades to revamp the state's cash bail system. In his 1979 State of the State Address, Brown argued the existing process was biased, favoring the wealthy who can afford to pay for their freedom, and penalizing the poor, who often are forced to remain in custody.
[...] Under the California law those arrested and charged with a crime won't be putting up money or borrowing it from a bail bond agent to obtain their release. Instead, local courts will decide who to keep in custody and whom to release while they await trial. Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.
Bail agents disapprove.
See also: California's 'cautionary tale' for others considering no cash bail system
California's bail bond empire strikes back
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @10:09PM
If (skincolor != white) {nobail_for_njiggers();}
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @10:24PM (51 children)
Bail money provides an incentive for the person who is charged to appear in court.
This move to no bail money is going to really mess up the court process.
California : if there is a way to fuck something up, they will find it and implement it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Monday September 03 2018, @10:41PM (22 children)
Bail money provides a way for the rich to pay enough to disappear quietly and the poor to rot in jail for the lack of it or spend far more than they have paying a bondsman (you know you don't get that back even if you're not guilty, right?).
An ankle bracelet can accomplish the same thing for a hell of a lot less.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by black6host on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:19AM (10 children)
Just read an article recently on the Guardian website. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/28/digital-shackles-the-unexpected-cruelty-of-ankle-monitors [theguardian.com]
The gist of it being that ankle monitors can be counter productive (can cost a great deal of money, especially if you don't make much, money you'll never get back, just like bail) and not give a break to someone that you think it might. I mean really, $840.00 a month? I pay less than that in rent.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:46AM
Peasant.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:03AM (4 children)
"money you'll never get back, just like bail"
.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Bail money is refunded when you appear in court.
The only portion of bail money you lose is the 10% fee a
bail bondsman charges if you use his services.
Have you ever had to make bail ? No.
I have, and I know what I am talking about, and you don't.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:23AM
The way bail tends to get inflated, that 10% could be a pretty big chunk of change. And thoroughly unjust if you turn out to be not guilty.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:56AM (2 children)
So your bail is set at $100k. You lose $10k or have to rot in jail. Not a great outcome for poor people.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:07AM (1 child)
Not a great outcome for most people in the USA.
Seems more like you're picking an arbitrarily high bail amount just to argue against bail.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:48AM
Q: Who decides whether a bail amount is "arbitrary" or justified? A: Not California judges anymore.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:19AM
That's when they're being used punitively or as a 3rd party scheme to make a zillion bucks off of people who face, more or less, debtor's prison if they don't pay.
If properly done as free to the defendant, it wouldn't cost the state even as much as keeping them in jail awaiting trial would.
In other words, they could be a cost saving measure for all concerned, or a mony making scam for a connected company with no sense of ethics.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:01PM (2 children)
Just tried to read the linked article in the LA Times web site and got:
Am I correct in translating this as "we need to make our web bugs, user tracking, script injection, and streaming ads GDPR compliant before we can foist them on you, until then no content for you"?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:04PM
I'd say that was accurate.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday September 05 2018, @09:37PM
Or simply, "we aren't playing ball with GPDR and don't care enough about European web visitors to change."
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:00AM (2 children)
"the poor to rot in jail for the lack of it or spend far more than they have paying a bondsman (you know you don't get that back even if you're not guilty, right?)."
*
The bail bondsman charges a 10% fee.
You do NOT lose the entire amount of bail.
So if the bail is $10,000. The bondsman charges $1,000. Some people cannot afford to get out of jail, some can, some prefer to stay in jail rather so they accumulate credit for time served. There is not one single scenario that applies to all situations. This includes the reality that even rich people cannot always
get bail, because a judge does not always grant bail.
Read and educate yourself :
https://bailbondsnetwork.com/faq.html#4 [bailbondsnetwork.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:50AM
I know how bail and bondsmen work. You don't get the money you pay the bondsman back, as I said. It can be a hell of a big 'fine' when you aren't even guilty.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:01PM
So if that person can afford the $1,000 premium but can't afford the $10,000, has the bail been set fairly? The point of bail was supposed to be that the defendant places up something of value temporarily to assure the appearance in court. No appearance and you lose something of significant value to you. So why didn't the court just charge the $1,000 bail to that defendant and cut the bondsman out of it? Why aren't the defendant's means considered when it comes to recognizing what might be an equitable amount that will keep them to their court dates?
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:23AM (3 children)
So you would support the idea of people being forced to wear a tracking bracelet even before they have been found guilty of any crime? And that will apply to everybody who is detained and awaiting their day in court?
I don't think that you have given this much thought.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:31AM (2 children)
I would support it more than I support being actually kept in jail or being forced to pay 10% of a dreadfully inflated bond to a bondsman that you will never get back,
I would prefer if it cannot be activated and no data logged unless and until you fail to appear. It should issue a visual and audible alert when it is activated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:07AM (1 child)
Perhaps the option for either method would be good?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:09PM
Then you're right back to the rich paying their way out of jail - which is part of the problem they're trying to solve.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:35PM (2 children)
A reminder phone call, cheaper yet. Places that have tried it found out that a lot of people with chaotic lives and mental health problems would be more likely to show up if the court system acted like a dentist and simply pinged them. A good "Pretrial Services" department can do more and accomplish more.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:02PM (1 child)
yes, in many cases that would be enough.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Wednesday September 05 2018, @03:06PM
The Establishment candidate for DA here advocates just that and even mentions dentists as his analogy.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:08PM
sjames brought up the issue of what this is all costing the taxpayers.
it's typical for jailing someone to cost $60/day and in expensive areas like New York it can approach $200/day.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122986066 [npr.org]
https://santabarbara.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=05bf1da9-a734-43e0-93fd-54ca33867e77.pdf&From=Granicus [legistar.com]
Jailing people who aren't public safety threats is drunken-sailor financial mismanagement.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @10:44PM
Bail money may provide an incentive for the rich people who can pay it. In all but the most trivial cases, bail is set far higher than a normal person can pay. Yes, it is supposedly unconstitutional, but courts usually don't care. You can try to sue them, but since you can't afford bail, you won't be able to do that either.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday September 03 2018, @10:57PM (22 children)
There are other incentives, too, like not getting arrested or tracked down by bounty hunters and being denied bail the second time around. Presumably, the algorithm will include "failure to appear" in its calculations, and the more serious crimes will not allow for any bail at all.
One thing this will definitely do is put an end to the following prosecutor tactic for giving innocent people criminal records:
1. Arrest somebody poor for a serious charge, relying on falsified evidence (e.g. bogus statements from police officers, always easy to come by) as necessary.
2. Judge puts forward high bail that is well beyond the ability of the defendant to pay.
3. Prosecutor goes to the innocent defendant and gives them the following options: Rot in jail awaiting trial for the better part of a year (costing them any assets, job, etc they might have), go to a bail bondsman (which will cost them something like 15% of the bail amount even if they're completely innocent), or plead to a lesser charge that appears to be less costly than even attempting to fight it.
4. The innocent defendant almost always takes the deal, because pleading to a crime they didn't commit is their only possible way to not have their life completely ruined. What the prosecutor didn't tell them is that it is now legal to discriminate against that defendant in employment, housing, car loans, etc, so they're still screwed. Also, since they were probably fired or cut off from public assistance now, they have now way to pay the fines, so they're going to jail or actually committing more serious crimes in order to stay out. Meanwhile, the prosecutor got to claim another scalp, the courts got to avoid a costly trial, and the system continues.
Another factor to consider: Who is more likely to flee the jurisdiction rather than face trial under the current system, a multimillionaire murderer with a private jet who can make cash bail no problem, or a nobody low-life who got into a bar fight?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @11:01PM (9 children)
Unless, of course, it doesn't. For example, consider this scenario. Rich person is denied bail. Their expensive lawyer gets the judge to override the algorithm.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 03 2018, @11:05PM (8 children)
I specifically described a tactic used by prosecutors across America to get innocent people to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.
How is that related to a scenario I specifically acknowledged existed under current law of rich people successfully using their money to avoid trial?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @11:08PM (7 children)
And it worked because the defendants couldn't pay for bail. Still works out that way.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 03 2018, @11:14PM (6 children)
So let me get this straight: Released-on-recognizance, with no bail paid, still allows coercion based on the cost of paying bail. Does this make any sense to you?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @11:26PM (5 children)
I don't know why you can't or won't understand this, but he's obviously implying that the "algorithm" will deem everyone a flight risk, keeping them all in custody and releasing nobody. Rich people will be able to afford lawyers to fight the algorithm, but poor people, unable to afford
baillawyers, will still be forced to sit in jail for months (losing assets, job, etc.), or plea bargain.(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday September 03 2018, @11:39PM (3 children)
And I don't know why you are determined to misrepresent the situation, but the change in law provides specific rules on who should be denied parole and who should be held. It's not just up to the judge.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:09AM
My view is that condition will fall apart when it hits the courts. Mandatory sentencing only worked against poor clients, for example. I suspect this will end up being more of the same.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:16AM
I'm not (mis)representing the situation at all, just clarifying the arguments being advanced so they can be supported or opposed on their merits, rather than on repeated misunderstandings.
Thexalon seemed to be repeatedly missing khallow's implicit point, and khallow kept failing to make it explicit, so I restated it as clearly as I could.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:11AM
That's not actually true -- or at least not true depending on what you mean by "specific." Yes, minor crimes (misdemeanors) generally get released, while very severe crimes don't, but it seems there's a pretty significant "gray area" in the middle to be resolved by algorithms and courts.
Possibilities for abuse are definitely still there (note my other post below about the ACLU changing its mind and opposing this bill for that reason).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @11:46PM
Keep in mind that we routinely have "tough on crime" politicians even in California. Only takes one of them in the right place to tighten up bail algorithms (perhaps coupled with a few high publicity crimes committed by people let out by an algorithm) and then you're at the above point where everyone is deemed to be a flight risk, except for the people with good lawyers.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Whoever on Monday September 03 2018, @11:37PM (1 child)
Bail bondsmen have little incentive to track people down. It's quite typical for the bail bondsman to only pay 5% of the bail amount for no-shows.
The old system did 2 things:
1. Put money into the coffers of companies that provided bail bonds.
2. Extracted false guilty pleas from people who could afford neither the bail nor the time away from their jobs.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:40PM
3. Got the lawmakers campaign contributions from bail bondsmen. They are large and reliable donors.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:01AM (3 children)
While there are good reasons to get rid of the abuses of the bail system, there's no guarantee that this new system will end much of the type of abuse you mention. Notably, the ACLU (which helped in initial drafts of this bill) has come out against it [reason.com] because they fear the amount of leeway for courts in setting policy for release could now just result in poor people (as well as others) just staying in jail... With no option to pay to get out until trial. Which (if it happens) means they will likely lose their jobs and experience many of the things you mention anyway... Or take a deal to get out and suffer the consequences as you mention.
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:21AM (2 children)
If judges abuse poor people it'll be more obvious than the current shifting of blame to the distraction of the broken bail system. It's now obviously and undeniably the judge's fault or whomever designed the policy. Also, ankle bracelet tech is getting better and cheaper.
I'd like to see some data on the people who skip and actually lose their money... That is the group you study and devise clever methods to identify and manage them.
This isn't about POOR PEOPLE - there are middle class people who can be screwed over by bail or turned into poor people by the process despite being innocent.
This is a HUGE victory. period. You can't address all side issues before you can make progress; that is often used as a tactic to kill any progress. It is always some kind of whack-a-mole problem!
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:18PM (1 child)
Judges - the (in)justice system in general, really - already abuse poor people. It's obvious as hell. It's been a staple of the US (in)justice system for as long as I can remember, and probably before then. Very little is done about any of it.
These abuses come in many forms:
And then there's the icing on the cake: Society's embrace of retribution rather than rehabilitation.
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:52PM
I wrote "MORE obvious. The judges reflect the culture in which they live, as they should. Good luck making Americans wake up or turn into decent human beings; the majority of them are closer to Trump than human.
(Score: 4, Informative) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:21AM (5 children)
Better part of a year? Some are rotting for four years awaiting trial.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:06AM (4 children)
I think that those who spend multiple years in jail while awaiting trial have previous records that preclude bail, or extremely high bails. Note that I said "I think". It seems that on our local level, things generally move along pretty quickly. People with clean records get released on personal recognizance, or a low bail. People with some record get a higher bail. People with a long record get high bails. And, the seriousness of the crime has a strong influence on top of previous records. And, of course, the odd person out gets screwed over because he pissed off the wrong people.
Things may not work the same everywhere, so I'm not trying to make a case for New York, or Washington, or anyplace far from Texarkana. Around here, if you spend more than a year in jail, you're almost certainly a hardened criminal, charged with a major crime - but even those cases are usually finished within a year.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:54PM (3 children)
https://www.redstate.com/sarahquinlan/2018/04/10/due-process-denied.-1300-louisiana-held-four-years-awaiting-trial [redstate.com]
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/19/us/alabama-kharon-davis-speedy.html [nytimes.com]
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:59PM (2 children)
Good enough. From your second link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Louisiana
Moral of the story is - don't go to either Mexico or Louisiana, and get in trouble. You're not going to be treated the same way you would be treated in any of the other states, commonwealths, possessions, or territories.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:04PM (1 child)
Uhhhhhhh - that's a first. I scanned back over my submission, then hit "submit". What appeared is only half of what I typed out. Let me try this again.
And, it doesn't work! I hit preview submission, and half of my post is still missing. Let me pick it up at the point that text dissappears, and preview that:
Reading that page, it looks like an old time good ole boy's club - investigating cop cross examined by his own daddy? Crap. Dambamalama - I don't know what to say about that state.
First link takes a little bit of - what should I call it? Understanding? Louisiana is unique among the United States. Their legal system is not based on old English common law. It is based on Napoleanic law, like Mexico. You will recall, I presume, that we bought that swamp from Napoleon when he was strapped for funds. Prior to Napoleon's possession of Louisiana, it was claimed by the Spanish.
The rights that every other state recognizes, are twisted and skewed in Louisiana. You have rights, but they're not really recognizable as the same rights that every other state recognizes.
Habeus corpus? Well, sure, if you demand to see the body, we can arrange that. But, the judge didn't go to the same legal schools as some Yankee, nor has he had the same experience in his career as a western judge. "Yep, we got the body, right here, and it's going to stay right here, until we say different!"
Of course, federal law trumps Louisiana law, just as it does any other state. But, we've not seen the feds going into Louisiana to straighten things out, either.
The wikipedia has the beginnings of a real article on the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Louisiana [wikipedia.org]
Moral of the story is - don't go to either Mexico or Louisiana, and get in trouble. You're not going to be treated the same way you would be treated in any of the other states, commonwealths, possessions, or territories.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:17PM
I figured it out. I failed to properly close the quote tag. The system handled that problem oddly, it seems. Lost everything between the improperly closed tag, and the end of the URL. Hmmmm . . .
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:53AM
Citations needed.
TFA mentions the possibility of simply not arresting minor offenders. For instance - shoplifters. I lived in town for a couple years when I was a kid. A number of those city kids had sticky fingers. I witnessed a kid caught for shoplifting. The store manager called a beat cop who was just outside. The manager and the cop gave the kid a Stern Talking To - and let him go. Both the manager and the cop knew the kid's parents, and I suppose that one or both may have talked to the parents afterward. And, no, the parents weren't wealthy, or influential - just regular working people.
What happens today when a shoplifter is caught? You might expect the manager to chase down and tackle the kid, while an assistant calls a cop, who shows up with weapon drawn. The kid is going to jail. There will be an arraignment, hearings, and some kind of sentence that includes probation officers at the least.
FFS - it's not necessary to send a kid to juvenile hall for stealing a piece of penny candy. Petty thieves need to be dealt with by the community, not by the state.
Shoplifting and petty theft aren't the only minor offenses that often turn into arrests and convictions, but they lead the list.
Bail bondsmen, among others, have been profiting off of the outrageously high arrest and incarceration rates here in the US. We really need to turn the whole process down a few notches. Let's turn it down from 12 to about 5, alright? At 5, we'll still lead the world in incarceration rates, I think. But, let's get down to 5, and maybe we can discuss turning it down to about 3, where the 2nd through 10th place nations are.
Next step: Maybe we can close down all the private prisons, and mandate that the state take responsibility for all of it's prisoners. There is still room for lowlifes to profit off of human misery, but the profit margin will get a lot slimmer. Judges won't be bribed into keeping a private prison filled anymore!
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:59PM
People show up for court in the rest of the world, without cash bail.
Bail that is impossible for the arrestee to raise isn't an incentive, it's jailing a legally innocent person.
People do show up in jurisdictions that have implemented bail reform. Both DA candidates where I live support it.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:47PM
"Bail money provides an incentive for the person who is charged to appear in court."
Or as John Oliver showed when he covered this topic on Last Week Tonight, bail money is used by the rich as a get out of jail free card. They post bail, and leave the state before the court date. "A small price to pay." one person was quoted on the show to say.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:12PM
In practice, people show up reliably enough that at least one charity has been able to stay in business posting bail for people. I forget their name but vaguely remember them being on the East Coast.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @10:40PM (2 children)
No bail so they will keep everyone in jail now? That should be fun!
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 03 2018, @10:56PM
Insert your preferred sci-fi reference.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:24AM
No, what it means is that the court can't require money as a condition to let somebody out of jail while awaiting trial. The courts can still seize passports and subject defendants to supervision and tracking rather than sitting in jail.
The problem with the previous system is that you'd have people who couldn't afford to pay the bail sitting in jail for sometimes many months during which time they couldn't work and would lose everything. This is before they even had a trial and regardless of whether or not they were guilty. So, in many cases they'd just plead out get community service and a criminal record, but the record might be suspended and they wouldn't lose their house.
Meanwhile the wealthy would have little trouble fronting the money for bail and would be released pending trial. Even snakes like Manafort, he must have been a real dumb ass to get caught witness tampering, but he had the funds to get bail and was under supervision awaiting trial when he got caught.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jelizondo on Monday September 03 2018, @11:19PM (1 child)
The poor have to labour in the face of the majestic equality of the law, which forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
- Anatole France
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:13AM
And, for the very poorest and very richest, not pay taxes.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Farkus888 on Monday September 03 2018, @11:29PM (4 children)
It is well documented that making an algorithm do it doesn't remove the prejudice. As an example using an address in the algorithm will tag poor and minority neighborhoods as more likely to reoffend. It is true because poor people have fewer resources to rebuild a legal life around a criminal record. It is also self fulfilling since holding them makes it harder for them to keep their existing jobs.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:25AM (1 child)
It this isn't about reoffending, it's about appearing for your trial. Repeat offenders for misdemeanors will probably still get ROR as long as they show up for their trial and serve their sentence/pay their fines.
(Score: 2) by Farkus888 on Wednesday September 05 2018, @07:19PM
I understood that completely. This is a new system so there is no data on its performance yet. Similar systems are already in place for parole boards to use and that is a documented shortcoming that they have. While it isn't exactly the same I'd wager it is close enough that some places will even use the exact same software. Why develope Black Mirror style people score software twice.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:49AM
You write about prejudice as if it was a bad thing. But it's often just a word for experience that somebody wants to remove from consideration. If your address indicates that you're less likely to appear for court, well the truth sometimes hurts. Just like driving a BMW makes you more likely to be an a-hole.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:32PM
As another example, if arrest records are included in the inputs as "objective" data, then discriminatory policing gets baked into discriminatory detention.
Nerds can help policy makers a lot here. Demanding transparency is one way. Another is asking insightful questions.
http://www.arnoldfoundation.org/statement-by-the-laura-and-john-arnold-foundation-in-response-to-the-report-on-bail-reform-issued-by-the-leadership-conference-on-civil-and-human-rights/ [arnoldfoundation.org] is not definitive but will get you started on the tree of issues involved.
Done right, they can make things better for minorities: https://justicesystempartners.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2017-Yakima-Pretrial-Pre-Post-Implementation-Study.pdf [justicesystempartners.org]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Snotnose on Monday September 03 2018, @11:36PM
If you have a habit of being an asshole, or your one criminal charge is being a major asshole, then you get to stay in jail. Out on "bail" and commit another crime?
You get to stay in jail a while. Otherwise, go back to your life until the trial/plea bargain. Granted, this gives judges a whole lot of power, but IMHO the bail system, especially with bail bondsmen, is incredibly stupid.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @11:39PM (22 children)
Bail should be proportional to wealth and crime, but seems to be a hard concept for some. Traffic tickets should be calculated the same way, in some countries they do that already. Everyone fucked to the same level, but not the same plain amount.
So they propose that now the one with the best legal team that feeds the right data into the algorithm, wins. Guess go can pay best teams...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:16AM (17 children)
Your proposal sounds like socialism.
I prefer the new way - no bail. Get rid of that nest of vipers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:20AM
Socialism that only applies to those charged with crimes? So the rich and therefore powerful who generally don't get arrested can carry on accumulating wealth, while the poor and frequently arrested have their wealth confiscated and redistributed?
It sounds like the least effective form of socialism ever.
(Score: 2, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:37AM (15 children)
Watch you language, son.
And the terminology you use sounds like communism** or nazi++ propaganda.
What you have in common is the appeal to emotions and the definition of the "other" in terms that can be used to justify eliminating/killing them.
**
Invectives against capitalism from the communist era include: reactionaries, rotten, leeches, vipers (as a metaphor for "enemy of The People")
++
Invectives against jews in Nazi time include: bedbug, poodle-mops-dachshund-pincher (bastard mixed-bred dog), tapeworm, viper/poisonous snake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:22AM (4 children)
"And the terminology you use sounds like communism** or nazi++ propaganda."
-
What makes you think you have the right to lecture people on the language they use ?
You are not the arbiter of what language is correct. We are all adults here and we are allowed to
say what we want to say.
You are experiencing delusions of grandeur if you think it is up to you what should or should not
be said.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:39AM (3 children)
The right to free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:48AM (2 children)
"The right to free speech."
*
Obviously you are lonely have no life so you come here to provoke people.
Kill yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:02AM
Time to take my medication, I'm talking to myself again (liers! thieves! Go away and never come back!)
Hard times, but this too shall pass; with the passing away of the sufferer if not otherwise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:09AM
Trollolololol what a daaaaay
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:29AM (5 children)
"Watch you language, son."
*
Or WHAT ?
What the fuck are you going to do to make me not say words you don't like ?
I'd like to see you try to shut me up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:37AM (4 children)
Ignore you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:33AM (3 children)
But you are not ignoring them are you? You are actually telling them what they can say and continuing to argue about it when they don't want to listen to you.
However, I read your original quote as humour - if you meant it as fact then you are out of line. People can say express their views on this site and we are proud of that fact.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:01AM (2 children)
That was my answer to her "Or WHAT ?" question. Apologies, should have quoted to be clearer.
1. Aren't I free to take whatever decision I like in this regards?
2. please read again my comment. At no point I say "Never speak like that again".
I said " better watch you language [just in case you didn't intend to sound like that]: your expression form has strong resemblance with communist and nazi propaganda. Here are some examples of resemblance points."
Do you assert the resemblance is not there?
Or do you assert the warning is undeserved?
Before I confirm or deny, which "original quote" exactly are you referring to?
Out of line... exactly how? I don't think you are implying I'm not "of the people" so that "my views are unacceptable for the soylentnews line", therefore I'm a bit in a puzzle about how to interpret your remark.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:25AM (1 child)
I'm not implying that, but if you were serious in saying "Watch you(r) language, son." - which I don't think you were - then you were telling someone else that they shouldn't express their opinion. Upholding free speech means allowing those who express an point of view to which we object to say what they wish.
However, I think that this exchange is something of a storm in a teacup - I don't think that any offence was intended by anyone, certainly not by myself, and we are 'arguing' over trivial comments. Have a good one, and I'll see you in a later thread!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:48AM
Probably due to my non-native English.
I literally meant "Watch your language" as in "Watch your form of expression/how you are saying it" and not "Watch what you are saying/the meaning of your speech".
I admit I'm failing to see any storm at all and indeed no offence was meant.
Mmmmhhh... again I'll take the excuse of my non-native English situation, I'm quite often at lost in finding the right words I need to express the fine nuances I actually intend. Trivial as they may be for native English speakers, I prone to overreaction in this regard, especially when the communication is in writing and any non-verbal clues on the intended meaning are missing.
(comments like: "Kill yourself." aren't helping either. Not that I expect or demand any kind of help)
You too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:41AM (3 children)
Snakes (biblical,) leeches (any parasite) are extremely common metaphors for many exploitative professions predating both those modern labels (nazi/commie.) Hell, a leech IS also an adjective!
Just because billions of people get those metaphors over the centuries... and some groups you do not like ALSO get it and use them too doesn't in anyway make one like them... see guilt by association.
If fairness, equal rights, equal enforcement of law are socialism, then the constitution is socialist... and the new testament (bible) way more so. BTW, day fines are FAIR by simple mathematics; just learn how percentages work and why we use them... Americans are so bad at math they think absolute values are more fair than % OR somehow equal application of law is communist.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:08AM (2 children)
But the "Get rid of that nest of vipers." sounds like any of those individuals/groups along the history willing to use violence to eliminate others, does it not?
("Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by bussdriver on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:13PM (1 child)
Exterminate cockroaches... clean up the infestation... Any of the classic metaphors all involve some lower life form we do not deal with in a nice way. Taking the metaphor more literally always leads dehumanization and results in behaviors rarely allowed on fellow humans. Wartime propaganda ALWAYS uses such tactics; otherwise, a large number of soldiers will not put in the necessary efforts to win.
That said, violence and terrorism are highly effective for humans (essential elements of warfare;) it is never ruled out completely by almost everybody so it always comes down to setting thresholds. Playing games with classifications becomes very important in crossing those thresholds -- that is , for the minority of people who are consistent with their boundaries. Most humans are hypocrites on their professed thresholds; therefore, they are inconsistent and easily redefined. (Far worse if they do not view hypocrisy as bad.)
Saying something sounds like it might advocate violent actions - it might to you and not to another because it's metaphorical.
Another dimension is that putting all the rest aside, it may be a justifiable remedy just looking for rationalizations (and by extension recruit more like minded people to aid in bandwagon rationalization. You don't question it so much when the crowd agrees even if you got them to agree for very different reasons.) The same reasoning should be logically applied from mild to extreme cases which is what makes Nazi so useful but are sadly over used poorly to the point that fools shut down any discussion that legitimately brings them up. (Also sad, are those who see them as "good people" and then miss the points being made; likely not bright enough to switch the extreme case into a relevant case for themselves.)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:33PM
I would not have objected to "Makes those vipers obsolete" or to "Get rid of their social (dis)function".
Putting "get rid" and "vipers" together was too close to suggestion of a violent elimination.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by qzm on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:45AM (3 children)
Interesting theory.
I am looking around for the evidence that wealthy people commit the vast majority of crime, which would seem to be the outcome your thoughts would lead to, however I am having trouble finding such evidence, perhaps you could help by pointing some out?
I am sure you will be happy when some drifter rapes and kills your child, and is let out for the price of their shoes, since they dont have any money.. and then just walks away, as they would.
BTW, bail IS proportional to wealth - it is assessed based on the risk of flight, wealth, and type of crime.
The game people play is that the very poor tend to get proportionately higher bail because they have a higher risk of flight if they do not have an established situation which would give them a reason to stay..
This is claimed to be 'unfair', even though they have a significantly higher no-show percentage even now, WITH the higher proportionate bails.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:26AM
And honestly, wouldn't you admit that it's not ideal?
It may be the best possible compromise, but it's a compromise, and it's not perfect.
The situation when one has been accused of a crime, ideally, would be one where there is a figure which the court would reasonably accept to guarantee appearance, which is also a figure that the accused can provide without extraordinary hardship. And for some people, that's not hard to do, it works very well. They put down enough money, not so much they can't do it, but enough that they don't want to see it go byebye. So when the trial date comes up, they are very likely to show up, get their money back, and defend themselves (or plead, as the case may be.) All as it should be.
But this can break down, on either end. You could have a defendant who is just so wealthy that this breaks down - they don't mind to write off the bail, and they can flee to another jurisdiction very easily. And at the other end - a defendant who is very poor doesn't fit so well either, for the reasons you wrote. If you set a bail amount they can actually come up with, it's too low to deter flight. The bail system breaks down there.
And the bail bondsmen occupy the space that leaves. It's not a great system when you look at it on that level. And more and more people, unfortunately, are on that level.
The most important thing has to be to address the underlying problems that cause such poverty; but given that we aren't likely to solve that overnight, it makes sense to me to try and find some other way to deal with the people for whom the bail system doesn't work.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Tuesday September 04 2018, @05:49AM (1 child)
Oh dear, we need to forgive rich people first.
If someone enters your house and steals your valuables, you are the only one affected. If a banker steals, hundreds of thousands lose their homes [cnn.com]. Technically, yes the poor commit more crimes, but the crimes of the rich affect more people, like causing a recession [wikipedia.org].
If you screw financially, you file for bankruptcy and may $deity have mercy on you. Bankers screw, they get bailed out to the tune of 16.8 trillion dollars [forbes.com]. Try that one for size.
We need to stop thinking that because we are capitalists, anything rich people do is best. No, there is a lot of rich people [propublica.org] abusing the system: hiding income to avoid paying taxes, moving income offshore and other things that hurt everyone. They can get away with "white collar" crime which affect a lot of people. We need to start jailing the bastards as they did in Iceland [bloomberg.com]
And no bail for the bastards!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @10:46AM
This is how you steal and get away with it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_Global [wikipedia.org]
https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/mf-globals-shortfall-no-surprise-some-say/ [nytimes.com]
Nobody has gone to jail for their involvement in these illegal transfers.
If you take someone's money without permission and put the full amount back later you're still guilty of theft.
http://fortune.com/2013/11/15/how-mf-globals-missing-1-5-billion-was-lost-and-found/ [fortune.com]
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:02AM (23 children)
Someone established with car, home, job, and family can probably pay bail for something like a DUI. They have a lot to lose by skipping out and never returning. They can pay bail, and will almost certainly show up for trial. If it's a serious crime bail money can become a problem or be denied at all.
Some homeless guy with no money has nothing to lose by skipping out. He can't pay his bail, and will stay in jail until trial. If you let him out you can't go to his home to find him, he has no job to show up to, he has really zero reason to not go to a different state.
I don't really see a problem with this.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:34AM (22 children)
The problem is someone who cannot afford bail may spend a year or more in jail awaiting trial for a charge that may only have a fine, or have a short sentence, if found guilty. They will have had their entire life turned upside down for being arrested, not for being found guilty. Should someone who can't afford $500 bail rot in jail until the court system gets around to having a trial?
If the homeless guy you're worried about doesn't show up for his trial he will be remanded the next time he's stopped by the police. He's not getting away with something that has no recourse or remedy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:38AM (1 child)
Do you really think they are not going to sit in jail for a year or more? That is still going to happen.
It is an interesting experiment. Shall be interesting to see how it works out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:28AM
Yes, but if they're in jail, the amount of money they have won't be as significant a factor. If they're sitting in jail for that long, it will be because the charges are particularly serious and the case is particularly complicated, not because they lacked the funds to post bond.
No system is perfect and some innocent people are going to be sitting behind bars awaiting trial, the question is whether we strive to keep those situations to cases where the defendant might be dangerous.
People being in jail for long periods over such a relatively small amount of money was never the intent, people being in jail for large sums of money is somewhat intentional. However, even there, a million dollar bail isn't much if you're worth a billion dollars, but it's also more than what a poor person might make in an entire lifetime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:16AM (11 children)
Once again the irrational and uninformed are appealing to emotions. The entire premise to your little scenario is obviated by that little pesky Sixth Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed
The Ninth Circus would have a field day if the accused sat for a year on a minor charge. Try again libby.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:33AM (2 children)
Not necessarily, it depends upon the case. It's the prosecution and the court's end of things that are subject to that clause, not the defense.
There are times when the defense takes time due to needing to conduct a proper investigation of the details as well as tracking down additional witnesses or dealing with hard to get experts. In which case, justice would require more time.
But, that doesn't mean that this means that somebody should be sitting in jail while that happens. Only defendants that represent a threat, witness tampering or flight risk should be in jail awaiting trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:48AM (1 child)
You are correct that the defense could delay. However, that is entirely on the shoulders of the defendant. If he demands a speedy trial, the state has no recourse but to deliver one. If it does not or cannot, the state cannot keep the defendant jailed indefinitely. The OP wanted to make things sound that the defendant could be sitting for a year for minor infractions involving "just a fine."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:40AM
The other thing that happens is that sometimes there's multiple attorneys over the course of the proceedings, usually not so much for misdemeanors, but with felony charges sometimes the original attorneys leave or are reassigned and the new attorneys have to start over familiarizing themselves with the case.
Really, any amount of time beyond what it takes to schedule an arraignment is too long to be in jail pending charges unless there's something about the defendant that warrants having them in jail while the case is pending. Having the defendant sitting in jail makes the whole process of mounting a defense significantly less convenient as the attorney has to go to visit the accused and phone calls are a pain.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Arik on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:10AM (6 children)
Barker V Wingo would be an interesting case for you to take a look at. The prosecution got their first continuance (permission to delay the trial) in October of '58. Barker's trial was delayed repeatedly for almost 5 years while the prosecution pursued his alleged partner in crime separately, because they believed that after being convicted, the other guy would then be willing to testify. For various reasons, the trials (two hung juries before the final trial) of the other accused man wound up taking years. Barker's lawyer did object to this at times, but he was overruled, and Barkers trial didn't even start until October of '63.
As the prosecution had hoped, they were indeed able to get the other guy to testify against Barker after he was convicted, and Barker too, was ultimately convicted. He was sentenced to life in prison.
He appealed on the speedy trial issue, the court of appeals shot him down. His lawyers managed to get another appeal certified, and another court of appeals shot him down again. The US Supreme Court eventually reviewed the decision, and he lost yet again.
So no, it's not impossible to sit in jail for a year waiting for your trial.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 04 2018, @06:37AM (2 children)
In Canada, the Supreme Court recently (2016) ruled that the maximums are 18 months for Provincial Court without a preliminary hearing and 30 months otherwise due to our similar right, section 11(b) of the Charter. Quite a few court cases have been thrown out due to this ruling, including murderers.
Other differences, excessive bail is seldom required and only people considered at risk of flight are usually remanded into custody. I went through the court system a long time ago, before the Charter, and just had to regularly report in.
The courts usually reward double time for time spent in remand, so spend 6 months in remand and get sentenced to a year and you've done your time. Remand is one of the shittier ways to do time. You don't have the same privileges as the sentenced have, instead you just wait for trial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:30PM (1 child)
"Tough on crime" federal conservatives ended that practice some time ago.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:00PM
Tried to. Courts still award it sometimes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:17PM (1 child)
Your example is from the 50's, and the guy was found guilty anyway? Got something a bit more relevant, say from the last 10 years, and the guy wasn't convicted?
Pragmatically speaking it makes sense his appeals didn't take. If the dude was found guilty and got a life sentence, what difference does it make how long the trial took? Civil rights, yeah, but he would've wound up in the same place.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:16PM
The issue is not the length of the trial, the issue was the 5 year wait in custody before the trial even began. It takes some particularly impressive mental gymnastics to find that consistent with a right to a speedy trial.
The case is a little muddled as a precedent, as it appears that the accused may have initially not objected to the prosecutions delay because they thought it might work out in their favor, but the decision does not rely on that fact. It explicitly prescribes a subjective test, whether or not the judges buy the prosecutors excuses, and reject ALL objective standards here.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:05PM
For a year? Kalief Browder endured three, and not long ago I read about a case that had stretched to ten.
Jails, many people aren't aware, are worse places than prisons. Since they're hypothetically for short stays they don't have even the crappy programs or recreation that prisons do.
Imagine what would happen to your life if you couldn't go to work for a week.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @09:13AM
> would have a field day if the accused sat for a year on a minor charge.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=usa+years+awaiting+trial [lmgtfy.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday September 04 2018, @08:08AM
Unfortunately, that problem isn't at all theoretical. A few years ago in Atlanta, a large number of misdemeanor charges were dropped on the grounds that the defendants had been locked up awaiting trial for longer than the maximum possible sentence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday September 04 2018, @11:46AM (6 children)
No. There's a right to a speedy trial. All they have to do is use it. Could speedy be a few weeks? Sure. A year? Not so much.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday September 04 2018, @03:35PM (5 children)
Yes, there is, but no one has defined "speedy" in an even slightly reasonable manner. So it's of little use. If any.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday September 05 2018, @03:03AM (4 children)
A defendant should typically be brought to trial in California within 60 days for felony and 30 days for misdemeanor crimes.
CA 1382.
(2) In a felony case, when a defendant is not brought to trial
within 60 days of the defendant's arraignment on an indictment or
information..
(3) Regardless of when the complaint is filed, when a defendant in
a misdemeanor or infraction case is not brought to trial within 30
days after he or she is arraigned or enters his or her plea..
Seems pretty reasonable to me. If someone can't afford $100 for bail for a misdemeanor then they can't be trusted to show up.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 05 2018, @02:49PM (3 children)
I don't see it as even remotely reasonable when it is also the same time that the accused is jailed. In 60 days, a person's entire life can be ruined, and probably will be. Because they were accused, not because they were guilty. In jail, you're not earning, and you're probably leaking money to (a) lawyer(s) like a sieve. In the meantime, your expenses continue - rent, mortgage, family, etc. Even having been arrested may be enough to lose you your job, and you may really need to be out hunting another. Certainly being jailed will generally do it.
As I see it, if the prosecution isn't ready, they have no business detaining 99.99% of the accused any longer than it takes to ID them and let them know what the charges are, IMHO. Certainly in the case of all victimless crimes such as personal drug use, prostitution, etc. If the courts are backed up, then the courts need repair — that's not the responsibility of the accused, and there's no good reason they should be punished for it. The state should, though, as it is the state's responsibility to manage the court system. Letting any part of law enforcement run wild on the citizens is very bad, and that's what's happening now at multiple levels.
The word "justice" becomes a travesty when the system wrecks a person's life right up front regardless of actual determination of guilt or innocence later on. That's besides the fundamental issue of all the bad law, corrupt law enforcement, corrupt prosecutors, incompetent "public defenders", corrupt judges, corrupt legislators, and unsafe prisons that turn the word "justice" inside out on first principles.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday September 05 2018, @03:22PM (2 children)
Well that's only for a Felony case, like murder or kidnapping. Do you really think the state should have to put together a Murder case in less than 60 days? How about if a child is kidnapped? Less than 60 days for that?
Also if the person has no money then what would keep them from simply leaving the state, or in many cases the country?
It seems like you're talking about spray painting a wall or something, not a Felony.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday September 05 2018, @06:12PM (1 child)
No, I think that if they actually need that much time, I think they should put the case together before they arrest anyone. If the basis for the arrest is so weak as to require that much assembly, it needs more work before they presume guilt.
If they catch someone in the act, I don't think they need more than an hour to put a case together, and I'm fine with that. Particularly now that the cops are (or should be) carrying video recording equipment that should always be on.
If the accused wants to take more time in jail after the arrest, I'm perfectly fine with that. No matter how much time it is.
Hard to go anywhere without money, actually. Certainly difficult to leave the country. In any event, if a solid case is built before any arrest, the problem goes away. The issue here, for me, is that they arrest and then do the work they should have already done. If they do it at all.
No. If you have a case ready to take to court, you're ready to make an arrest. If you don't, you aren't. Otherwise it's just abuse of power. That's exactly how I see it. There's nothing in the constitution that implies in any way that accusing citizens should be easy for law enforcement. Quite the opposite.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday September 05 2018, @09:23PM
"No, I think that if they actually need that much time, I think they should put the case together before they arrest anyone."
Or maybe to get a dangerous murderer or kidnapper off the street? The entire point of this is to remove people that are actively destructive from the rest of the public. 60 days prep time is NOTHING for an important trial like murder or kidnapping especially considering the rate of those crimes in some areas. It's nice if you only had 1 incident to deal with, but in how many people get killed in Chicago per day? 5?
"Hard to go anywhere without money, actually."
Not really. Quite a few people got to California from Mexico without money, I'm sure they could get back a lot easier.