comment
stringlengths 1
9.9k
| context
listlengths 0
835
|
|---|---|
>
Eh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”"
] |
>
Ok yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those."
] |
>
There's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk"
] |
>
I think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public."
] |
>
John Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure."
] |
>
It's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it"
] |
>
I work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are "detainers" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are "frequent fliers"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.
The reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.
So why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'.
Also, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court."
] |
>
The reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷"
] |
>
If someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic.
I think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a "hostage" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a "tax" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.
In practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.
Either way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.
To your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, "This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail."
What followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a "speedy trial", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.
Waiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head."
] |
>
What would you need to see to make you change your mind?
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be."
] |
>
I don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place.
I work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA).
So now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them.
Say what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?"
] |
>
Sorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix."
] |
>
The first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards."
] |
>
Who determines if a criminal is safe or not?
The harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game.
It’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail."
] |
>
No. Everyone should have to post bail.
Bail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime.
The gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals."
] |
>
All, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization."
] |
>
Aww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?"
] |
>
Id say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?"
] |
>
There should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public"
] |
>
If the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless."
] |
>
Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.
Why? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me."
] |
>
But creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial."
] |
>
they can hold you indefinitely with no redress,
But that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent."
] |
>
Sure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not."
] |
>
Its directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials."
] |
>
They have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse."
] |
>
Actually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?"
] |
>
Actually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems
Your argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly
This is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright
I believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society
Instead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case."
] |
>
Actually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes"
] |
>
LIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times
So I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held."
] |
>
Example: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time"
] |
>
And what was his sentence?
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k."
] |
>
45 days in jail.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?"
] |
>
They already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail."
] |
>
Example: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail.",
">\n\nThey already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue."
] |
>
Cash bail is usuwthe result of a lawyers argument - but even a compelling argument isn't as good as a real financial incentive.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail.",
">\n\nThey already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k."
] |
>
I agree with you OP. There's definitely better alternatives available to us today. I think cash bail was one of the better options we had back then. I mean, it's still good today, but I'm sure we do have better options now because of our current level of technology.
I'm curious, what would you replace cash bail with OP?
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail.",
">\n\nThey already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nCash bail is usuwthe result of a lawyers argument - but even a compelling argument isn't as good as a real financial incentive."
] |
>
They can lose their freedom…by being placed in jail for longer.
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail.",
">\n\nThey already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nCash bail is usuwthe result of a lawyers argument - but even a compelling argument isn't as good as a real financial incentive.",
">\n\nI agree with you OP. There's definitely better alternatives available to us today. I think cash bail was one of the better options we had back then. I mean, it's still good today, but I'm sure we do have better options now because of our current level of technology.\nI'm curious, what would you replace cash bail with OP?"
] |
>
It’s completely tangible. You say the issue is that people can skip town which is the issue.
But I can pay bail and still skip town either because someone else pays it for me and I don’t care about them losing money or because I’m rich enough for money not to later. This is forgetting that most people already can’t just skip town at the drop of a hat
The purpose of bail is to generate revenue
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail.",
">\n\nThey already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nCash bail is usuwthe result of a lawyers argument - but even a compelling argument isn't as good as a real financial incentive.",
">\n\nI agree with you OP. There's definitely better alternatives available to us today. I think cash bail was one of the better options we had back then. I mean, it's still good today, but I'm sure we do have better options now because of our current level of technology.\nI'm curious, what would you replace cash bail with OP?",
">\n\nThey can lose their freedom…by being placed in jail for longer."
] |
>
Can someone explain to me why we even have bail? Can’t someone just run away after being realsesd to another country shy don’t we just detain them until court
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail.",
">\n\nThey already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nCash bail is usuwthe result of a lawyers argument - but even a compelling argument isn't as good as a real financial incentive.",
">\n\nI agree with you OP. There's definitely better alternatives available to us today. I think cash bail was one of the better options we had back then. I mean, it's still good today, but I'm sure we do have better options now because of our current level of technology.\nI'm curious, what would you replace cash bail with OP?",
">\n\nThey can lose their freedom…by being placed in jail for longer.",
">\n\nIt’s completely tangible. You say the issue is that people can skip town which is the issue.\nBut I can pay bail and still skip town either because someone else pays it for me and I don’t care about them losing money or because I’m rich enough for money not to later. This is forgetting that most people already can’t just skip town at the drop of a hat\nThe purpose of bail is to generate revenue"
] |
>
|
[
"/u/SenlinDescends (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.\nAll comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.\nPlease note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nI may be wrong but isn’t the purpose of cash bail (at least officially) to provide a disincentive to the person not showing up to their court date? In other words you get the money back if you come when summoned after release.",
">\n\nThe incentives are a bit more complex. Most people have to use a bail bondsman. Such bondsmans are paid 10% of your bail by you, and they pay your bail. In the event you show up, the bondsman gets his money back. You do not. Thus, eliminating the incentive you pointed out.\nFurther, those who believe themselves likely to be found guilty must weigh the cost of potentially years of their freedom vs the bail, even if they could pony the whole amount.\nMisdemeanors often have bond in the thousands. It doesn't matter if you would get it back if you don't have it to pay in the first place. So you take the 10% option above, and there is suddenly little incentive for you to show up.\nAnd now, you're out hundreds or even thousands to the gears of 'justice', and will never see it again, even if you are completely innocent.\nSource: I have used a bail bondsman for this exact reason, on charges that were later dismissed by the prosecution for lack of evidence. My bond was $500, which I had to borrow from three people to get. I never saw that again.",
">\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though. The thought of letting every criminal out on the street again after they've committed a crime is an atrocious thought. Even the small amount who do end up being released end up continuing to cause a ton of crime, because it most often the case that a mjaority of the crime is committed by a small minority of individuals.\n\"Catch and release,\" policies colloquially refer to criminals getting off easy, are already proving to be responsible for allowing a lot of seriois criminal offenders to offend again. Eliminating the need to remand people until an investigation is done, would be an absolute disaster.",
">\n\n\nThe vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.\n\nThis is so patently and provably false, through absolutely the bare minimum of research, that I'm genuinely not sure whether you're parodying this position or actually hold it. Never mind the fact that even if it was true - or even if literally every single person charged was truly guilty exactly and fully as charged - a person's freedom shouldn't be conditional on their wealth.",
">\n\nNo it isn't false. 90% of defendants who go to trial enter a guilty plea. Fewer than 1/2 of 1% of criminal defendants were acquitted. That constitutes the vast majority of cases. Where a defendant weren't found guilty of some sort of criminal liability.\nAlso, a person's freedom is conditional on whether, or not, there is reasonable doubt to their innocence of a crime that has been committed, serious enough to warrant being held in custody longer than 24 hours. Evidence that a person committed a crime is often substantiative enough to tip the scale against their innocence. You can be reasonably guilty enough to denied bail.",
">\n\nPleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all.",
">\n\nIt doesn't matter. The criminal liability you face is the same.",
">\n\nBut your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.\nThat seems like an incredibly important distinction.",
">\n\nI am of the opinion that people who commit certain types of crimes are extremely likely to continue to commit crimes. It is evidenced by the fact that a significant portion of the worst criminal offenders almost always have a lifelong long history of interactions with the criminal\njustice system.\nAs a matter of fact, in Canada, nearly all of the worst violent offenders have long criminal histories. If they were locked behind bars they wouldn't be shooting up the streets.",
">\n\nThen why is 90% of defendants of all crimes plead guilty even relevant if you're only talking about defendants that commit \"the worst violent offenses\"?",
">\n\nWhile I am opposed to bail I can give you one argument why getting rid of bail can be irrelevant. All getting rid of bail does is shift easy access to release from \"can you afford it off enough to get bond\" to \"can you afford a good enough lawyer.\"\nAn acquaintance of mine was arrested for supposedly pulling a knife on his neighbor and threatening to kill him. He was arrested and because we live in New Jersey which did away with bail he would either be released or held depending on how the judge ruled. He is low income and had a public defender who had no opportunity to speak with him prior to the hearing. The prosecutor argued that because he had a criminal conviction in the past he should be held, that conviction was for public drunkenness and probably long enough ago it only shows if searched for. His public defender was completely thrown, didn't ask what the conviction was for and the judge ruled that he be held. He was eventually shown to be innocent, charges were dropped but he spent five days in jail because he couldn't afford a good lawyer. Had there been bail involved he could have gotten someone to post it and he wouldn't have risked losing his job for not being there.",
">\n\nFair enough! I definitely don't think eliminating cash bail would fix everything, it's just the one particular flaw I'm focused on right now. Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.",
">\n\n\nFixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.\n\nWhat do you think the issue is with public defense?",
">\n\nThe way public defense works in Norway (my country of origin): You can pick any lawyer that will have you as a client. The state pays the cost at a standard (which is good) rate. Lots of law firms are competing to get cases. To the best of my knowledge, you're not allowed to pay extra to the lawyer beyond that standard rate (so rich people don't get better lawyers.)",
">\n\nNorway doesnt have that many criminals.",
">\n\nYou misunderstand how cash bail is supposed to work. For starters, bail is supposed to be set at a price the defendant can afford, but one that also hurts. The point is to deter people from running after they get out on bail. Another interesting thing is that you're supposed get that money back once you get cleared by the courts.\nAll that being said, there are some extreeme cases, like the one you mentioned. And the issues that lead to those cases definately need to be corrected.\nAdditionally, not every case warrants bail and bail can be denied depending on the situation. For example, if you've skipped bail before or have been issued a bench warrant in the past, it is likely that bail will be denied outright, and you will simply be detained until trial. If it is a minor crime and you are not considered a flight risk, they may simply trust you to show up in court after they let you go, and won't make you pay bail at all. Another potential option is to put you on a house arrest program, but that has it's own set of risks & complications. It all depends on the circumstances.\nBail serves as a middle ground between outright detention and implicitly trusting someone to not run. In my opinion, getting rid of bail will simply result in more people being detained because the court won't have a moderate option.",
">\n\nok, so would you say I should rephrase this so that it isn't eliminated, but that we're reducing its use? Try and set up safeguards from it being applied where it doesn't need to be, but still keep it as an option for cases where there's question but no immediately clear threat?",
">\n\nYeah, that's a pretty good way to put it.",
">\n\nmmk I think that's enough to earn a delta. As others have pointed out, it's a system that needs to be in place, I think we just need MORE systems so that doesn't have to be the default one. Δ",
">\n\nConfirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).\n^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards",
">\n\nIn practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.\nOr you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.\nBoth are very bad. I would argue the criminals re offending waiting on a trial is much worse. Criminals are hard enough to catch as it is. Why on earth would you want to have to do it several times. \nThe cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2.",
">\n\nWe're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.\nLetting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.\nIt'd be a lot better to have a system that requires justification for why someone should be behind bars at ALL steps of it, not just the end.",
">\n\n\nWay more than we should.\n\nThat's a baseless assertion. If anything, were not holding enough, given that most crimes are committed by people with prior criminal records. If the system appropriately jailed people, most crimes would be committed by people without criminal records.",
">\n\nWe have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more.",
">\n\nThat is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. \nWe can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. \nWhy do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't.",
">\n\nDo you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population?",
">\n\nEvery country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant.",
">\n\nLol then I'm guessing you believe the US has the most oppressive justice system in the world? We can still point out that our incarcerated population is far too high and there are failings in the justice system. We can compare these things across countries and see what systems help and which don't. You don't need to reinvent the wheel because you don't like the data.",
">\n\nI think your replied to the wrong person. I have no problem with the data. I am not the one saying we need to reduce incarceration rates because there is some ideal incarceration target. \nIf 20% of the population commit murder, 20% end up in prison. It doesn't matter if that means our country has 10x the incarceration rate as the OECD average.",
">\n\nRight, you're saying people that commit crimes should be in prison. And since the US has the highest prison population, the logical conclusion would be we have the most criminals.",
">\n\nYou can actually see the factors why and which bail is considered by a court, like New York, in plain rules all can access and read including detainees. \nYou really should never just select bail or a type of guarantee based on whether a detainee is considered safe or not. That’s not the only factor to determine pretrial detention, rightfully so. Otherwise many will end up in jail for a long time, even if they haven’t posed a specific threat relevant to the charged crime. For example, a domestic abuse convict may not deserve detention if charged with shoplifting, for good reason. \nSolitary confinement too is separate and part from bail, which is decided by a court. Solitary confinement is determined by a warden, the prison’s administrator. Each prison must have procedures including court access if solitary confinement is challenged, for example health, safety and need. \nI think your solution is too limited. Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail, which is argued plenty. Not as much as more flexible release, but better than restrictions and high penalties. For example, New York considers several factors beyond your recommendations that I believe are much fairer and more accurate a situation than whether a detainee for one accusation is considered today of some sort of poor “history” and the unproven “severity” of the accusation.",
">\n\n\nCash bail creates fewer victims than no bail\n\nGonna need a citation on that. And even if it's accurate - innocents being victimized by the state hold greater weight than innocents being victimized by individuals.",
">\n\nI think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state",
">\n\nThe OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.\n\nThere's a number of better ways this can be handled, but I personally like letting freedom be the default, with prosecutors being able to argue for someone to be held until trial based on their history or the severity of their crime. Still far from a perfect system, but would go a long way to creating less victims and making justice feel like justice again.",
">\n\nI know, but I'm saying the other poster was comparing \"cash bail\" to \"no bail\" meaning not allowing release. They mention flexible release in another part of their statement",
">\n\nI think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording.",
">\n\nI know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words?",
">\n\nIn Seattle we have activist judges granting tiny bail amounts to violent criminals. We also have a non-profit in Seattle whose primary mission is to pay the bail for anyone who cannot afford it.\nIt's fucking awful. We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\nExample with dozens of arrests \nExample of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony\nRelated WSJ Article",
">\n\n\nWe have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.\n\nWhich they could also do if they have any money to post bail...",
">\n\nI think there should be reform, but I think that cash bail or no bail needs to be in place for certain offenses and repeat offenders. \nI would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases.",
">\n\nI did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed.",
">\n\nAh okay good. I commented because I used to have similar beliefs a while back. But once I started learning how law and the judicial system works, I started to change my views on it.\nI definitely believe in reforming the system to better address things like racism and classism to the best of our ability. But it seems many people want their extreme views (not saying you but others out there) applied throughout the system. I’m not saying we need to appeal to the middle, because I think that’s just as bad. But rather there needs to be serious discussions about what works and what doesn’t and how to give true justice for all.\nGlad you are here to have that discussion.",
">\n\nMaybe you could have the option of either a)cash bond or b) tracking system. That way, those who don’t have bail money can have another option.",
">\n\nSo i see conflicting articles with some saying 1 percent others saying up to 5 or 6 percent but that is how low the \"wrongful conviction\" percentage is. I do agree that high bail sucks and I have been personally affected by a close person receiving a crazy high bail and being stuck in jail bc of it. However, we shouldn't just decide to let everyone go because a few may be wrongfully there. The point is to make it so that people who have broken the law are brought to justice and convicted. Without either holding on to them or making it very difficult to not show up (charging them lots of money) there is no way to guarantee they will be brought to justice. The bail system more-so works to have people pay a bondsman and thus the bondsman company works very hard to find the person so that they can get their money back if they try to skip out. This helps ensure people show up to court. \nSo do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court?",
">\n\nWhat you describe is already the case in some states. For example, in WA, the legal presumption is \"release the defendant on their promise to come to court,\" and it's up to the prosecuting attorney to make an argument for bail. \nI'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure.",
">\n\nI know some places have done it, and without issue so far!",
">\n\nYes.",
">\n\nLol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work.",
">\n\nI've thought this for a while. Either someone's too dangerous to be out or not. Being rich doesn't make them a better more trust worthy person",
">\n\nEvery solution creates its own set of problems. Bail is a solution to a problem: not every person charged with a crime needs to be held until trial, but if released, many won't appear for their day in court.\nThe bail system creates a financial incentive to show up, and often an interested third party who has put their money up and has a vested interest in ensuring that the bailed person shows up.\nAll too often reform crusaders focus on the problems created by a solution and ignore the problems that solution was intended to address. Doing away with bail simply reinstates the prior problems. Do you have a proposal for how to address the issues which bail bonds solved without using bail bonds?",
">\n\nBut the issue is that cash bail isnt there to hold/not hold someone dangerous, its to stop ppl from running away and not showing up for their trial.\nIf your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail.",
">\n\nIf they aren't a threat, why do we care?",
">\n\nBecause our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? \nIdk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished?",
">\n\nAnd until they’re actually convicted, they are presumed innocent. So if you’re going to lock people up without/before trial, you should have a very good reason for doing so. \nYou know who they are, even if they go on the run they’ll probably resurface eventually anyway, and you can deal with their failure to show up then. Most countries don’t have this cash bail system, why would the US be so unusual that it wouldn’t be able to do without it?",
">\n\nWe've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.\nThat backpack example is getting pretty tired too. The fact that there are thousands upon thousands of arrests made every year and people have to keep going to that one example should tell you how well the system actually works.",
">\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well. Other countries have also implemented similar systems, and it worked there too.",
">\n\n\nThat backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet. The point is that \"Yes, 9,999 cases went right, but this 1 went wrong\" isn't the condemnation you think it is.\n\nAnd actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.\n\nTell it to the crime rates in NY.",
">\n\n\n\"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them\" only works on people really new to the internet.\n\nThis is a bit the pot calling the kettle black isn't it? If you want to make this accusation at least provide sources for your own claims.",
">\n\nWhat do you want an example of? Someone paying bail? Let me see if I can find that news story: \"Man gets arrested, pays bail, and returns to court at scheduled date.\"",
">\n\nYou could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”.",
">\n\nLike I said, look at crime rates in NY.",
">\n\nI don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. \nLet’s say we’re talking about affordable housing and I say we should get rid of single family zoning. You could come back with “they tried abolishing single family zoning”, “at x place”, but it failed because of long public comment periods. Then provide a link to whatever source you used. \nGot it?",
">\n\nI did that. Keep up.",
">\n\nYou hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now.",
">\n\nI agree that cash bail desperately needs a reform. Yes, it provides an incentive for the offender to return to court, but a “pay to be free” system is in direct violation of a citizen’s constitutional rights. \nHowever, what I have an issue with is what is the alternative? Money and personal liberty are so enmeshed in society that I can’t think of a feasible, realistic alternative.",
">\n\nA lot of places have tried removing bail entirely, and instead judge people based on a variety of factors, particularly severity of the offense, history of the accused, and other factors.",
">\n\nThose factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state.",
">\n\nBut often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements.",
">\n\nSo why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?\nBasically: you're going to get more of the same that we have. People of \"good character\" with \"standing in the community\" (i.e. rich white people, mostly) will be considered eligible for release without bail... and what's the option for the rest of them?\nJudge's are people. They don't want to feel responsible for someone getting out and hurting someone else. They are always going to be biased about who they let out or how much bail to set. \nThat's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. \nAt least with bail, we're giving them an option (or in most cases, actually mandating it) to release people with a veil of pushing the responsibility to external monetary/legal forces. \nIs it \"fair\"? No. Is it better than the alternatives? All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used, and that's because a lot of people think it is. Ultimately it's like democracy: a terrible system that's better than the alternatives.",
">\n\n\nAll I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used\n\nThat is completetly false. The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.",
">\n\n\nThe US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.\n\n\"Mostly\" is just wrong. Less than half even of pre-trial felony decisions involve bail being posted. Edit: It's around 40/40/20 no-release/bail/recognizance. \nThe number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.\nMost places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more \"release the rich\" reasons than the US.",
">\n\nNot saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004?",
">\n\nWhile it is a complex question involving many externalities, it does seem that there should be a better system for those who are not flight or safety risks (electronic bracelets maybe, I don’t know). I do have a problem with your example though. This example is not a demonstration of problems with cash bail as much as violations of a person’s constitutional rights (sixth amendment among others). \nI think q better way to frame the issue (in my mind) is that cash bail seems sometimes to be a way to force someone to pay to enjoys those rights we are supposed to be guaranteed.",
">\n\nSo there definitely are other issues to consider with my example(like why it took over three years for a trial), but cash bail was a key part there.",
">\n\nI understand what you mean but I am suggesting that cash bail is not the issue its the excuse. The issue is lack to a quick and speedy trial. There are many times that we hear people argue about what the authors of the constitution meant about some clause or amendment, but it seems clear to me that they would have unanimously agreed that for a regular crime, three years without access to a trial is completely unacceptable.\nAs others have said bail is supposed to be an incentive to appear at court (presumably because the prosecution realized it could not prepare quickly enough to justify holding these accused in jail), an obvious externality is that those without means end up spending more time in jail without having had their day in court. In addition to quick/speedy trial, this also (arguably) violates equal treatment clause and with potential bad outcomes such as innocents pleading guilty to low level crimes rather than wait two or three times the statutory maximum just to see a judge.\nFrom all of this, my point is just that cash bail wouldn’t be much of an issue if the constitutional rights (of the accused) were being upheld in the first place. Of course eliminating or restructuring cash bail may be a way to reduce some of these constitutional breaches, its hard to say.",
">\n\nEliminating cash bail is a disaster waiting to happen. There are going to be some problems with every solution, but common sense has to prevail. If someone is guilty and there is a preponderance of evidence against them, what motivation do they have of returning for their court date if there is no monetary risk to them or their loved ones? Or committing more crimes, since their number is \"up\" already, should they actually go to court?\nThe problem isn't cash bail. The problem is that prison isn't the deterrent it should be. Most career criminals aren't even afraid of jail. They have friends, gangs, drugs, basketball courts, TV. We can't even keep drugs out of our prisons! It's ridiculous. Making it easier to stay out of jail after you've committed a crime does not make us safer. It can't. It's lunacy.",
">\n\n\nThe problem isn't cash bail.\n\nIt's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones.",
">\n\nBad idea. This would result in a massive increase of bail jumping and therefore compounding legal trouble cause not only would they be facing charges they were booked for but now also bail jumping. Also putting a tremendous strain on law enforcement to find these ppl who dont want to be found. I literally dont see any upsides to this.",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates.",
">\n\nOkay, OP hates cash bail. But also suggests that they should be released UNLESS the DA (I assume is what OP meant by attorney) can make a compelling argument for the person to be held until trial. In order for that to happen, the law requires the DA be given time to investigate the charges and prepare their argument. A defense attorney has to be appointed too. The current wait period for bail bond hearings is two weeks. So OPs suggestion would require a two week wait for every crime, including public intoxication, shoplifting, like lower level stuff. Maybe one week but still, with no bail bond option, the defendant would have to be held until the DA has time to prepare.",
">\n\nBail needs major reform, but the purpose of putting a price tag on it is to provide a financial incentive to actually show back up to court.\nIf you remove that incentive, you'll greatly increase the number of people who don't return for court dates. In other words, eliminating it completely is not the best version of reform.",
">\n\nWhile no cash bail is progressive, if you look in cali it leads to a lot of criminals getting out and then committing more terrible acts before they go away, 3 sheriff's have been killed by people on release when if cash bail was in place they would he in jail",
">\n\nThere's no evidence it raises crime rates.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nIts a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn",
">\n\nThen what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? \nYou mention that the fear of being a felon on the run should be enough, but many people have outstanding warrants that they just seem to forget about. With a cash bail, there is an incentive to appear and not forget; also, if you don’t, the court can use that money to at least subsidize the cost of returning you to the courts. \nThat’s not to say I like cash bail. But most alternatives are either cost prohibitive or rely on the accused person doing what they are told, which is probably not a big deal if you are innocent, but for those that are guilty of already breaking the law, do you expect them not to take a chance and hope they are forgotten about.",
">\n\nTerrible idea. When progressives like The Young Turks see how bad it is in practice you know it's a bad idea. They still argue for cashless bail on \"victimless\" crimes like shoplifting but even that has downstream effects that drive businesses out of already disadvantaged areas.",
">\n\nMy crappy cousin has been to jail a couple of times for misdemeanor assault and was released all 4 times because we could come up with around $1,500. I didn’t want her back for that dollar amount and the boyfriends she battered definitely didn’t want her back for free. Plus anyone dumb enough to bail my equally dumb “I’m probably not going to make it to court” cousin out deserves to loose $1,500",
">\n\nCash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane.",
">\n\nI'm not really familiar with the Kalief Browder case, but a quick search showed that the family was able to borrow the money for bail, but he wasn't released due to a probation violation. It appears that he was more a victim of a broken trial system (refusing a plea deal and having his trial repeatedly delayed) and horrendous jail conditions.",
">\n\nJudge should be held responsible for release.....",
">\n\nJudge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial.",
">\n\nWhat’s the alternative? Ankle monitors?",
">\n\nAllowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee",
">\n\nAssuming the system isn't rigged against certain persons, no bail makes more sense to me. If the system you are operating in is just then having someone who has committed a jail-able offense should be kept in a cell until trial (being afforded basic rights like legal council, speedy trial, and good treatment).\nPutting effort in to making an unjust system more tolerable seems like a waste of effort and that energy and use of human resources would be better spent on a vetting process for those who enter the justice system, along with reallocating budget for regular mental health check-ups to make sure that enforcement personnel stay with in parameters of some standard that someone smarter than me. You would probably need a bipartisan board of psychologists, making standards in the realm of mental fortitude, stability, and grit.",
">\n\nIn the US Federal System the presumption is in favor of granting release. It has been this way for at least 15 years. The US Atty must provide reasons, that the Judge accepts and the defense can rebut for the Court to require bail or bond. I don’t know what states have adopted this, but I’m sure there are at least some.",
">\n\nIn the middle of reading “The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of color blindness” by Michelle Alexander so this thread has been interesting to say the least",
">\n\nExactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living?",
">\n\nyour argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.\nIf you want to take money out of the equation you'll have to state a better way to ensure that they'll come back. After all, the money goes up the richer the guy is and the more incentive the accused has to disappear.\nSo, what's your alternative",
">\n\nAs others have made salient arguments you also need to consider that if a suspect skips state sometimes the bail money is used to retrieve them. As for people lacking in funds there is a process that allows non violent people to be released without bail if they do not have the money. As is non violent offenders who get released without bail have been known to go out and commit more crimes sometimes on the very day of release.",
">\n\nCash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates.",
">\n\nIf we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no.",
">\n\nThis has proven not to be the case.",
">\n\nI know this because I am a criminal",
">\n\nwhere would you then keep everyone incarcerated…",
">\n\nI think bail should be collateral based on a percentage of your net worth. Maybe that means your car, your house, etc. if you own little? Then you have little to hold for collateral. \nThe whole point of bail is you get the money back after you appear in court. It’s like a “imma hold onto this so you show up” not “swipe credit card to escape jail”",
">\n\nEh I feel like that's a lot more complicated than you're making it seem considering net worth. It's going to create a lot of judgement calls, and unfortunately a lot of judges take the chance to get those.",
">\n\nOk yeah it would be complicated and there would need to be assessors and things but I understand the need for collateral. The point is that you don’t lose it. I do however think everyone should have either a “free” or “not free” pretrial judgement (similar to today, bail or no bail) but collateral should be considered regardless. Or maybe an ankle monitor? Idk",
">\n\nThere's no cash bail in the UK. Bail is granted upon flight risk as well as severity of the crime alongside risk to the public.",
">\n\nI think cashless bail has been misunderstood by both the public and by policymakers. In practice you can't get rid of it completely, but we should be curbing its abuse cases (which unfortunately are becoming its normal cases.) For example in LA and a couple other cities they tried to institute a no bail system for perceived minor crimes and it resulted in some people committing misdemeanor property crimes, getting released with no cash bail pretrial, and then continuing to commit misdemeanor crimes and being released again. There has to be a middle ground between no bail release and pretrial detention with no opportunity for release. Cash bail fills this role. Bail amounts that effectively say, you can't leave jail need to be gone for sure.",
">\n\nJohn Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it",
">\n\nIt's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court.",
">\n\nI work in a jail, and I know a bit about the system. About 20% of our population are \"detainers\" awaiting their arraignment. Many of these are \"frequent fliers\"; they're constantly in and out and are held in the mean time because they're likely to reoffend while awaiting trial, they're a flight risk, or they're known for missing court. There's a lot more than that supervised in the community awaiting trial; Probation and Parole check on them. These are in a middle ground- there's a chance they might cause trouble, but not so much that it warrants being locked up. They may also be set free on recognizince until their court date if it seems like they're the type that'll be good and show up for court.\nThe reason for bail is to give extra incentive to behave. Some amounts are small; I've seen bails of $50 and $25. I've also seen $250,000. The person doesn't have to post it themselves; someone else can pay it. If the person shows up to court the bail is returned to the person who posted it. If not it goes to the state. The idea here is the person who posts the bail is gonna make sure they show up, if they use a bail bonds agency that agency will hunt them down and bring them to court.\nSo why aren't more people released on recognizince? Well, you're typically dealing with difficult people who typically don't do what they're supposed to and like to say 'f*** the system'. \nAlso, the system is stupidly complex and nobody really seems to understand it...we just work there 🤷",
">\n\nThe reason for bail is to insure that the accused show for court, or the cash is help fund their capture. Bail is refunded if the accused shows for court. It is normally set at 10% cash or a property equity that is 90% higher. There are options to help obtain bail such as bail bondsman. The their behind it is that if someone cannot afford bail, what reason would they have to stay or show for court. A defense lawyer will argue for release on own recognizance or a very low bail depending on the threat to society they are that is determined by the judge. If we let the threats loose on the streets, witnesses may be tampered with, other crime committed. Are we as a society ready to just trust people to just show up for court for every offense? Many don't show up on bail now, why let everybody out, if we do, go back to the old west days and put an open bounty on their head.",
">\n\n\nIf someone is determined safe to be released until trial, it shouldn't be on the condition that they can come up with enough money, it should just be automatic. \n\nI think you're misinterpreting what the cash bail is actually for. It's not a \"hostage\" that's intended to get the person to show up in court, or a \"tax\" to pay for the courts to deal with you more leniently.\nIn practice, it's essentially a payment for the cost of recapturing you, should you choose to run away. If you are wealthier, you have greater means with which to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you. If you've been charged with a more serious crime, you have more incentive to run away, making it likely that it'll be more expensive to recapture you.\nEither way, the function of bail is to enable the justice system to release most folks, pending trial, without shifting the burden of doing so from those accused of crimes to the taxpayers they are accused of crimes against.\nTo your specific example, Kalief Browder's family were able to raise bail. Kalief wasn't eligible for release even were bail to have been posted, because he had already violated his probation for a previous felony offense, causing his probation officer to put a probation violation hold on him (essentially, saying, \"This guy has a track record of not following the terms of release from incarceration already; he's not eligible for bail.\"\nWhat followed was an incredible failure of the justice system, but bail wasn't the element that failed. Kalief spent a tremendous amount of time in solitary confinement (known to be incredibly deleterious to mental health) and waited three years for a trial, which certainly does not seem to meet his constitutional right to a \"speedy trial\", in addition to suffering violence from the guards, etc.\nWaiting three years for a trial isn't acceptable if you're not in jail during that time ... getting beaten by guards is not acceptable if you've already been convicted, nor would 400 days in solitary confinement be.",
">\n\nWhat would you need to see to make you change your mind?",
">\n\nI don’t completely disagree with this sentiment but came here to say the amount of people that don’t go to their court date is absolutely bonkers. And that is with the current system in place. \nI work at a small-ish department in the Midwest and I would say 90% of the warrants we have to process are Failure To Appear (FTA). \nSo now that person lost their bond money, has MORE charges filed against them. And will be heading back to jail once the cops find them. \nSay what you want about the incentives/penalties but there is no quick fix.",
">\n\nSorry, u/Zanzan567 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\nDirect responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. \nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.",
">\n\nThe first paragraph does not prove the title. The purpose of bail is to ensure that people prosecuted for misdemeanors and felonies do not flee as long prison sentences and the death penalty give them incentive to do so. If this was the case, then a much greater percentage of violent felons who are indeed factually guilty would never be brought to justice. Cases in the second paragraph are anomalies, in certain counties in certain states. Instead, bail should be - as it often is, but perhaps remain and be more so the case - a combination of how much they have and how much of a flight risk they are. It should be on a scale so that everyone does in fact afford freedom pending the trial, unless the person is A.) literally penniless so bail cannot mathematically possibly be assessed or B.) is facing the possibility of life without parole or the death penalty or even life with parole or decades, or has previously fled or has offended while on bail.",
">\n\nWho determines if a criminal is safe or not? \nThe harsh reality of cash bail is that the poorer you are, the more likely you are to commit a crime. So if you can’t afford a cash bail, then statistically, there’s going to be less criminals on the streets. It’s a brutal stats game. \nIt’s not fair, nothing about this society is. But just letting criminals go because their crimes weren’t necessarily violent will just mean more crime, it just will, just because of the poverty of the people who tend to commit crime. And crime hurts the poor more too. Most poor people just want to live and work, they don’t want to be harassed by cops OR criminals.",
">\n\nNo. Everyone should have to post bail.\nBail is there to ensure you show up to court. Letting people go, just means they won't show up. Want to avoid paying bail? Don't commit a crime. \nThe gutting of the justice/police system is the beginning of anarchy and the end of civilization.",
">\n\nAll, must of hurt a feeling. Were they triggered?",
">\n\nAww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?",
">\n\nId say for nonviolent crimes at the least yes. Ankle monitor high risk. Dont release more serious offences that put a great risk to general public",
">\n\nThere should be no bail. They should all be held until trial regardless.",
">\n\nIf the state accuses you of a crime they should to get imprison you without recourse? Doesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.",
">\n\n\nDoesn't seem very 6th amendmenty to me.\n\nWhy? The 6th amendment just says the trial needs to occur swiftly, not that you cannot be held until said trial.",
">\n\nBut creating a system where if the state accuses you of crime, they can hold you indefinitely with no redress, is exactly the sort of thing that the 6th amendment, and jury trials in general are designed to prevent.",
">\n\n\nthey can hold you indefinitely with no redress, \n\nBut that isn't the case. If you were held indefinitely that is breaking your 6th amendment rights, but if you are held for some reasonable amount of time until the trial it is not.",
">\n\nSure but that problem is orthogonal to the one on bail. I agree that there need to be more judges and quicker trials.",
">\n\nIts directly pertinent to the bail question, if people are being held for years in prison without due process, simply because they don't have enough money to post bail, then that is, reason enough to end that practice. That is a deadly serious deprivation of liberty with no oversight, and no recourse.",
">\n\nThey have this in New York that's why Adam Bennefield was able to get out and murder his wife, only idiots/criminals would think that they need to get rid of bail, My question is which one of those 2 are you or is it both?",
">\n\nActually Bennefield was able to murder her because prosecutors ignored clear signs of a threat that would've justified denying release in his case.",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because there was no cash bail and he didn't exhibit as many signs or at least they didn't rise to the level that the prosecutors felt was necessary to hold him which will/has happened a lot if you have no cash bail systems \nYour argument is it was the prosecutor's fault and my argument is that will happen all the time that's why we need cash bails if you put it in the hands of people there will be mistakes constantly \nThis is already happened in multiple places where weak prosecutors have allowed violent criminals to go ROR or were freed outright \nI believe that if you're for no cash bail then you are essentially a proponent of (or at least don't care about) releasing violent criminals back into society \nInstead of eliminating cash bail they need to eliminate cash bail for certain low level non violent crimes",
">\n\nActually he was able to murder because they ignored clear red flags. As I said. He had previous arrests for violent crimes and should have been held.",
">\n\nLIke I said without cash bails it is guaranteed that will happen over and over and over, and has actually happened already multiple times\nSo I can say without a doubt (Since there is already empirical evidence proving it) that eliminating cash bails will only result in violent crimes like murders and rapes happening when they would have never happened because the criminal would have been locked up at the time",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nAnd what was his sentence?",
">\n\n45 days in jail.",
">\n\nThey already do surety bonds on lesser crimes. Crimes that dont carry much or any sentence and bail jumping is still an issue.",
">\n\nExample: my friend was arrested a state over for dui. Bailed out for 3 k. He would had never went to court if it wasnt for losing that 3k.",
">\n\nCash bail is usuwthe result of a lawyers argument - but even a compelling argument isn't as good as a real financial incentive.",
">\n\nI agree with you OP. There's definitely better alternatives available to us today. I think cash bail was one of the better options we had back then. I mean, it's still good today, but I'm sure we do have better options now because of our current level of technology.\nI'm curious, what would you replace cash bail with OP?",
">\n\nThey can lose their freedom…by being placed in jail for longer.",
">\n\nIt’s completely tangible. You say the issue is that people can skip town which is the issue.\nBut I can pay bail and still skip town either because someone else pays it for me and I don’t care about them losing money or because I’m rich enough for money not to later. This is forgetting that most people already can’t just skip town at the drop of a hat\nThe purpose of bail is to generate revenue",
">\n\nCan someone explain to me why we even have bail? Can’t someone just run away after being realsesd to another country shy don’t we just detain them until court"
] |
Wow, is this good news I'm reading?
|
[] |
>
Lula is hope for a better world!
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?"
] |
>
He is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!"
] |
>
Luckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds …."
] |
>
Also have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up"
] |
>
Can you send me your source so we can discuss?
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!"
] |
>
Don’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?"
] |
>
“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.
Oh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government.
Your bias is showing, my guy.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha"
] |
>
Real change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy."
] |
>
Canada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎"
] |
>
The amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting.
And the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace."
] |
>
Think about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.
Like a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris."
] |
>
It is stomach-turning.
No matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc.
TBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor"
] |
>
Trees are a renewable resource.
It doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.
You have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber."
] |
>
Trees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too."
] |
>
No, "management" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was."
] |
>
Well, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources."
] |
>
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)
"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.
Mr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.
Mr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant "One more inch" of land to Indigenous peoples.
Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something."
] |
>
Sounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5"
] |
>
Sorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption."
] |
>
Paying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else."
] |
>
They just pocket the money instead
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step."
] |
>
Not if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead"
] |
>
Reality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.
Same goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money."
] |
>
I really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money."
] |
>
Some? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership."
] |
>
Last time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress."
] |
>
Wasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this"
] |
>
Yes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run."
] |
>
Unrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso."
] |
>
Raoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at."
] |
>
The world needs to follow Lula’s example.
It’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest."
] |
>
Brazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.
How is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her."
] |
>
I’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet.
To me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.
Edited for shit sentence structure
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!"
] |
>
Unfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure"
] |
>
Lula is not socialist though lol
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity"
] |
>
Lol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol"
] |
>
I'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud"
] |
>
Social democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is."
] |
>
I legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers"
] |
>
The more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency"
] |
>
but let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way."
] |
>
LULA LULA LULA
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages."
] |
>
Sounds very promising
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA"
] |
>
THAT should rally the right winger wealthy.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising"
] |
>
As far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.
I'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy."
] |
>
Lula is a hero.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article."
] |
>
I truly hope this goes as intended.
While I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go !
I will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t
The money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation
Hope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero."
] |
>
I agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides"
] |
>
As if being "indigenous" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.
Already happened several times, actually.
Just see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.
These are politicians, being "indigenous" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.
For my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of "how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land" needs real solutions.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT."
] |
>
That would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity.
You seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions."
] |
>
I am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are."
] |
>
Quite the sea change in Brazil. Had Bolsonaro won, those people would be packing their things around surrounded by a smoldering Amazon.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.",
">\n\nI am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!"
] |
>
Proceeds to get bought out
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.",
">\n\nI am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!",
">\n\nQuite the sea change in Brazil. Had Bolsonaro won, those people would be packing their things around surrounded by a smoldering Amazon."
] |
>
Why is homeboy in the back holding an ashtray in his mouth?
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.",
">\n\nI am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!",
">\n\nQuite the sea change in Brazil. Had Bolsonaro won, those people would be packing their things around surrounded by a smoldering Amazon.",
">\n\nProceeds to get bought out"
] |
>
That’s their lower lip wrapped around a disc. I believe it’s called a lip plate. It’s a traditional body modification that has been invented independently around the world a few times. In South America the largest plates are worn by the greatest orators and war chiefs, such as Chief Raoni of the Kayapo tribe shown in this picture, a well known environmental campaigner. Most are made of light wood.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.",
">\n\nI am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!",
">\n\nQuite the sea change in Brazil. Had Bolsonaro won, those people would be packing their things around surrounded by a smoldering Amazon.",
">\n\nProceeds to get bought out",
">\n\nWhy is homeboy in the back holding an ashtray in his mouth?"
] |
>
I legit thought he was holding something. Did not know our lips could stretch like that. Ouch.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.",
">\n\nI am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!",
">\n\nQuite the sea change in Brazil. Had Bolsonaro won, those people would be packing their things around surrounded by a smoldering Amazon.",
">\n\nProceeds to get bought out",
">\n\nWhy is homeboy in the back holding an ashtray in his mouth?",
">\n\nThat’s their lower lip wrapped around a disc. I believe it’s called a lip plate. It’s a traditional body modification that has been invented independently around the world a few times. In South America the largest plates are worn by the greatest orators and war chiefs, such as Chief Raoni of the Kayapo tribe shown in this picture, a well known environmental campaigner. Most are made of light wood."
] |
>
About time
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.",
">\n\nI am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!",
">\n\nQuite the sea change in Brazil. Had Bolsonaro won, those people would be packing their things around surrounded by a smoldering Amazon.",
">\n\nProceeds to get bought out",
">\n\nWhy is homeboy in the back holding an ashtray in his mouth?",
">\n\nThat’s their lower lip wrapped around a disc. I believe it’s called a lip plate. It’s a traditional body modification that has been invented independently around the world a few times. In South America the largest plates are worn by the greatest orators and war chiefs, such as Chief Raoni of the Kayapo tribe shown in this picture, a well known environmental campaigner. Most are made of light wood.",
">\n\nI legit thought he was holding something. Did not know our lips could stretch like that. Ouch."
] |
>
And just like that, the conservatives ate probably talking civil war.
|
[
"Wow, is this good news I'm reading?",
">\n\nLula is hope for a better world!",
">\n\nHe is a politician. He will do everything and anything to show he is the good guy ! Truly hope this time around show results. Cuz the last time his government lead to a broken economy a rise of right wing extremism and at shit ton of money missing from public funds ….",
">\n\nLuckily he has a proven track record of fighting for social progress and unions. Right wing extremism reactionaries will always rise when leftist leaders stand up",
">\n\nAlso have a awesome track record of not keeping track of public money in place and using those progressive policies to further funnel money into his Allie’s and him self pretty awesome IMR !!!",
">\n\nCan you send me your source so we can discuss?",
">\n\nDon’t you have google ? Or u are going to reference the fact they annulled the sentence just because it was second conviction (bullshit law) and not because it wasn’t true ? Ask the investors if they got their money back hahaha",
">\n\n“Even though Lula is not in the dock, it his government and his political machine that are there on trial,” Cesar said.\nOh so it wasn’t Lula… just some people left over from his government. \nYour bias is showing, my guy.",
">\n\nReal change against deforestation may really start now, humans are choppin this trees so damn fast💨 They must be chopped down before too late. Save the world🌎",
">\n\nCanada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.",
">\n\nThe amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. \nAnd the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.",
">\n\nThink about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.\nLike a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor",
">\n\nIt is stomach-turning. \nNo matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc. \nTBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.",
">\n\nTrees are a renewable resource.\nIt doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.\nYou have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.",
">\n\nTrees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.",
">\n\nNo, \"management\" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.",
">\n\nWell, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.",
">\n\nThis is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)\n\n\n\"As Ms. Wapichana performed the ritual, Indigenous people and government officials enthusiastically chanted\"Yoohoo! Funai is ours!'' - a reference to the agency she will lead. Environmentalists, Indigenous people, and voters sympathetic to their causes were important to Mr. Lula's narrow victory over former President Jair Bolsonaro.\nMr. Lula has more control in designating Indigenous territories, which are the best-preserved regions in the Amazon.\nMr. Lula is under pressure to create 13 new Indigenous territories - a process that had stalled under Mr. Bolsonaro, who kept his promise not to grant \"One more inch\" of land to Indigenous peoples.\n\n\nExtended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Indigenous^#1 Lula^#2 Amazon^#3 Bolsonaro^#4 environmental^#5",
">\n\nSounds like a move in the right direction. I just hope the indigenous leaders have what it takes to fairly manage the land and won’t fall into corruption.",
">\n\nSorry to say these brazilian indians have always been corrupt. Its more of a stunt than anything else.",
">\n\nPaying deforesting farmers to reforest would be a good first step.",
">\n\nThey just pocket the money instead",
">\n\nNot if the money has strings attached and they get prosecuted for misusing the money.",
">\n\nReality is harsh in these developing countries. In things like agrarian reforms, poor farmers are handed land by the government that in the end is illegally sold to big farmers and then new protests arise asking for more land. This has been going for decades.\nSame goes for the “Protected Reserves” of the natives. Everyone is just about the money.",
">\n\nI really hope this works out. Seems like Lula has at least some priorities straight. A rare sight in today's world leadership.",
">\n\nSome? Across the board he has amazing ideals, hopefully the Bolsonaro supporting military doesn't step in here and prevent progress.",
">\n\nLast time he was president Brazil had the largest economic growth in 30 years. Brazil became a net creditor and was taken off the world hunger list. I think lula is more than qualified to deal with this",
">\n\nWasn’t all that growth due to a commodities bull run.",
">\n\nYes it was, he also piggybacked off of the Plano Real implemented by Fernando Henrique Cardoso.",
">\n\nUnrelated, anyone know what’s going on with the person on the left in that photo? Asking here because I have no idea what to google, I’m really curious about what I’m looking at.",
">\n\nRaoni Metuktire, indigenous leader of the Kayapo people. He was candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2020 for his lifetime defense of the Amazon rainforest.",
">\n\nThe world needs to follow Lula’s example.\nIt’s the only way to assure that our children’s children will have a planet that they can live on with clean air and clean water. It’s in the best interest of all concerned. I’m sure mother nature will reward us for looking after her.",
">\n\nBrazil is giving us the best news in the world recently. It really is time to crack down on ecological murder.\nHow is destroying an ecosystem not a crime of the highest order?!",
">\n\nI’m all for the support Ukraine is getting but an equal amount from all western nations should go to this administration to protect it’s forests. For the sake of our planet. \nTo me, this is a great way to start the year of the rabbit. Heal this motherfucker.\nEdited for shit sentence structure",
">\n\nUnfortunately Lula is further left than most western nations, who will dismantle Socialist nations at first opportunity",
">\n\nLula is not socialist though lol",
">\n\nLol what do you think the workers party is? Do some research bud",
">\n\nI'm Brazilian, pretty sure I know what Workers Party is.",
">\n\nSocial democrat then, either way my statement stands regarding western powers",
">\n\nI legit taught Brazil had giving up giving a fck about the Amazon forest and its indigenous people, that's really good news for so early in his presidency",
">\n\nThe more I read, Lula seems quite the 180 for Brazil and in a good way.",
">\n\nbut let that not be their main focus, only for foreigners applauded. For years loggers, prospectors and farmers have been carrying out atrocities with indigenous peoples at the level of Nazi Germany.this should be the main focus. genocide, the rape of girls, the invasion of villages.",
">\n\nLULA LULA LULA",
">\n\nSounds very promising",
">\n\nTHAT should rally the right winger wealthy.",
">\n\nAs far as I've heard, reforestation of the Amazon isn't possible, because it's a fragile ecosystem that can't regrow once the nutrients have been washed away by rain.\nI'll take a few million years to grow back, not the four years mentioned in the article.",
">\n\nLula is a hero.",
">\n\nI truly hope this goes as intended. \nWhile I full hearted agree Bolsonaro had to go ! \nI will say that Lula been there before and said he did it . But when actually looking at it . he didn’t \nThe money went to every one pockets and very little to the actual conservation \nHope I am wrong … but corruption runs rampant in my country and everyone finds a way to funnel money out and consequently fking the whole thing up .. from both sides",
">\n\nI agree, I think people don't understand the deep corruption that was not only a part of Bolsonaro's administration, but also Lula and PT.",
">\n\nAs if being \"indigenous\" makes them the purest of souls that cannot be corrupted.\nAlready happened several times, actually.\nJust see Operation Nambikwara where 15 leaders collected fees to allow miners and loggers into their territory. Or the case of Chieftain Damião Paridzané from Xavante clan that received nearly a million per month from 'ruralists' and loggers to exploit his clan's land. The Operation Warari Koxi, where the Federal Police found several Yanomami natives working with illegal miners devastating the forest to illegally extract gold from their reservation. The chieftan Darlan Guajajara de Sousa who used his tribe as headquarters for drug traffic... and goes on and on.\nThese are politicians, being \"indigenous\" is just a part of their identity. Take that news with a grain of salt and for what it's worth: a publicity stunt.\nFor my part, what I want to see is the Federal Police going hard against illegal miners, drug dealers and illegal loggers operating in the Amazon region, and increasing spending in satellite and radar monitoring. Furthermore, the very hard conundrum of \"how to give opportunities for natives to thrive without destroying their identity and land\" needs real solutions.",
">\n\nThat would be a fair point, if the appointed indigenous leaders were appointed solely because of their identity. \nYou seem to know a lot about indigenous peoples from Brasil, so you probably know who Raoni, Sonia Guajajara em Wania Wapichana are.",
">\n\nI am so excited for this! I was a kid when Ferngully came out and ever since watching that movie I have been furious at the lack of care for the Amazon and other forests globally. I am hoping and praying these will be the first steps towards actual protection for the Amazon!",
">\n\nQuite the sea change in Brazil. Had Bolsonaro won, those people would be packing their things around surrounded by a smoldering Amazon.",
">\n\nProceeds to get bought out",
">\n\nWhy is homeboy in the back holding an ashtray in his mouth?",
">\n\nThat’s their lower lip wrapped around a disc. I believe it’s called a lip plate. It’s a traditional body modification that has been invented independently around the world a few times. In South America the largest plates are worn by the greatest orators and war chiefs, such as Chief Raoni of the Kayapo tribe shown in this picture, a well known environmental campaigner. Most are made of light wood.",
">\n\nI legit thought he was holding something. Did not know our lips could stretch like that. Ouch.",
">\n\nAbout time"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.