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, 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.