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: 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]