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: 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?