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, 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.