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: 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]