Comments on: Bail abolition, Google ads and holding without bond, cont’d

By: cecil

cecil — Mon, 25 Jun 2018 16:07:30 +0000

In reply to Hugo S Cunningham. Not guilty is not guilty regardless of cause. Maybe make bail refundable based on the state charging someone else? After all, if they decide that someone else is probably guilty doesn't that confirm the innocence of the first charged? But I still say the right path is not guilty means not guilty.

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Sun, 24 Jun 2018 11:59:10 +0000

Here’s a radical thought: adjust bail rates to amounts that defendants can (barely) afford, thus giving them overwhelming incentive to show up in court.

Of course, that would destroy the entire industry of bail bondsmen, bounty hunters and so forth, and thus the chance for anyone except lawyers to profit from criminal proceedings. It would also make it difficult for criminal lawyers to get money up front, so it will never happen. It would destroy the purpose of our entire legal system: to make a buck off the schmuck caught up in it.

Bob

By: David C

David C — Sat, 23 Jun 2018 15:18:45 +0000

In reply to Hugo S Cunningham. This doesn't seem like it would kick in very often. If there's no probable cause to think they did it, how was an arrest warrant issued in the first place?

By: Hugo S Cunningham

Hugo S Cunningham — Fri, 22 Jun 2018 13:04:20 +0000

The 10% that a defendant typically pays to the bail bondsman is like an interest payment on a loan– non-refundable. It amounts to a heavy fine– morally problematic when a defendant is innocent. There should be a mechanism for the State (not the bail-bondsman who was performing a service) to reimburse defendants for bail costs in cases of actual innocence– though not in cases of “reasonable doubt” or jury nullification. Perhaps juries could be empowered to recommend reimbursement, but with independent review by a panel not connected with the trial. Making victims whole for the State’s errors is a most worthy expenditure of taxpayers’ money.

By: Jason Paige

Jason Paige — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 18:27:38 +0000

Finally some common sense on bail reform. Those trying to do away with bail are truly spreading a false and misleading narrative. People are not in jail because they are poor. They are in jail because they are accused of committing a crime. That being said, bail is the keystone in our criminal justice system that ensures justice for all parties. It ensures that the accused can be released pretrial to best prepare for their defense. It ensures that the victim will get his day in court and a chance a justice. It ensures that they public will be kept safe because there is someone supervising and responsible for the accused. And lastly, it ensures that our system gets a chance to work. When the defendant fails to appear the system fails and no justice is served.

Every legitimate third party peer reviewed study ever done on the bail industry and pretrial release has shown that when a defendant is released on a financially secured bond, they are more likely to show up and less likely to commit another crime while out than any other form of release. It is time to stop treating the criminals like victims and trampling on the rights of crime victims.

If you eliminate bail, you end up with two options. Release for FREE (paid for by the taxpayer) or detention. After you release everyone for free and they violate, they will then be detained. Thus increasing detention levels. There is a reason that the Federal system detains more than 70% of defendants. Is that what we want at the local level? I dont think so.