Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday September 03 2018, @09:52PM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:01PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:01PM (#730240) Journal

    So if that person can afford the $1,000 premium but can't afford the $10,000, has the bail been set fairly? The point of bail was supposed to be that the defendant places up something of value temporarily to assure the appearance in court. No appearance and you lose something of significant value to you. So why didn't the court just charge the $1,000 bail to that defendant and cut the bondsman out of it? Why aren't the defendant's means considered when it comes to recognizing what might be an equitable amount that will keep them to their court dates?

    --
    This sig for rent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4