Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 03 2018, @09:52PM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @11:08PM (7 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 03 2018, @11:08PM (#730015) Journal

    I specifically described a tactic used by prosecutors across America to get innocent people to plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.

    And it worked because the defendants couldn't pay for bail. Still works out that way.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday September 03 2018, @11:14PM (6 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Monday September 03 2018, @11:14PM (#730017)

    And it worked because the defendants couldn't pay for bail. Still works out that way.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @11:26PM (#730023)

      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)

        by Whoever (4524) on Monday September 03 2018, @11:39PM (#730036) Journal

        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

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:09AM (#730040) Journal

          It's not just up to the judge.

          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

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:16AM (#730044)

          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

          by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:11AM (#730074) Journal

          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

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 03 2018, @11:46PM (#730038) Journal

        but he's obviously implying that the "algorithm" will deem everyone a flight risk

        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.