>

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.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I 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. >

The 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.
Further, 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.
Misdemeanors 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.
And 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.
Source: 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. >

The 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.
"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. >


The vast majority of the people who are charged, are guilty though.

This 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. >

No 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.
Also, 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. >

Pleading guilty is not equal to being guilty at all. >

It doesn't matter.  The criminal liability you face is the same. >

But your entire argument hinges on the your opinion that people that are guilty that are released continue to commit crime.
That seems like an incredibly important distinction. >

I 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
justice system.
As 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. >

Then 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"? >

While 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."
An 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. >

Fair 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. >


Fixing the horrific public defender system is another extremely high priority.

What do you think the issue is with public defense? >

The 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.) >

Norway doesnt have that many criminals. >

You 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.
All 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.
Additionally, 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.
Bail 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. >

ok, 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? >

Yeah, that's a pretty good way to put it. >

mmk 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 >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/zero_z77 (3∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

In 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.
It's fucking awful.  We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.
Example with dozens of arrests 
Example of beating a man to death 8 days after being released on bail for a felony
Related WSJ Article >


We have people with dozens of arrests just immediately popping back out on the streets to continue their crime sprees.

Which they could also do if they have any money to post bail... >

In practice you're either going to have to hold A LOT more people behind bars pending trial.
Or you're going to have a bunch of criminals running around victimizing people. After we release them for some stupid reason.
Both 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. 
The cash bail is not a perfect system. But it does at least find some middle ground between the 2. >

We're ALREADY holding a lot of people behind bars. Way more than we should. This wouldn't increase that.
Letting criminals go, in general, is better than holding them at the risk of holding innocent people who should be in jail.
It'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. >


Way more than we should.

That'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. >

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and you want us to hold more. >

That is completely irrelevant. There isn't some target incarceration number or percentage. If 99% of this country committed murder, 99% would be in prison. 
We can have the highest incarceration rate in the world (we don't) AND still be not sending enough people to prison. 
Why do people like you constantly compare incarceration across the world as if it makes a point? Because it doesn't. >

Do you believe the United States has the most criminals in any country, not accounting for total population? >

Every country has different laws. So the whole premise of comparing across borders and how it impacts incarceration rate is irrelevant. >

Lol 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. >

I 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. 
If 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. >

Right, 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. >

You 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. 
You 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. 
Solitary 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. 
I 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. >


Cash bail creates fewer victims than no bail

Gonna 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. >

I think you're misreading. No bail means everyone has to stay in jail. Cash bail creates fewer victims of the state >

The OP proposes an alternative to cash bail in his post that is not the same as everyone has to stay in jail.

There'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. >

I 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 >

I think you know what OP meant and are being needlessly pedantic about his wording. >

I know what OP meant, yes. Why is it pedantic if two people are literally arguing opposite points using the same words? >

I 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. 
I would be genuinely surprised if you think cash bail needs to be eliminated in all cases. >

I did but I have been convinced otherwise. Significantly reduced but not removed. >

Ah 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.
I 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.
Glad you are here to have that discussion. >

Maybe 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. >

So 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. 
So do you have a better way to ensure people show up to court? >

What 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. 
I'm sure other states have similar procedures, but I don't know for sure. >

I know some places have done it, and without issue so far! >

Yes. >

Lol. I agree with this post. I lol because we were just discussing this same topic last week at my work. >

I'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 >

We've tried this; it's been an unmitigated disaster.
That 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. >

That backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.
And 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. >


That backpack example is still perfectly relevant because it's horrific and unacceptable. It's also FAR from the only example.

"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.

And actually where the US has tried bail reform it has generally worked well.

Tell it to the crime rates in NY. >


"There are plenty of examples, but I'm not going to give them" only works on people really new to the internet.

This 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. >

What 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." >

You could source what “this” means, when it was “tried”, and why it was an “unmitigated disaster”. >

Like I said, look at crime rates in NY. >

I don’t understand why you’re having a tough time with this. I’ll provide an example. 
Let’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. 
Got it? >

I did that. Keep up. >

You hadn’t posted any links nor do I see any now. >

Every 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.
The 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.
All 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? >

But 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.
If your deemed a physical threat to others due to the crime, you dont get offered cash bail. >

If they aren't a threat, why do we care? >

Because our criminal justice system still wants to punish offenders? 
Idk what the point your trying to make is? Do you think crimes shouldnt be punished? >

And 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. 
You 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? >

I 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. 
However, 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. >

A 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. >

Those factors exist in every single bail analysis in every single U.S. state. >

But often aren't used. Bail decisions tend to be extremely arbitrary, as we give judges tools to decide but no actual restrictions or requirements. >

So why do you think that they'll be properly used if the judge doesn't have bail as an option?
Basically: 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?
Judge'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. 
That's just practical reality of having a system administered by humans. 
At 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. 
Is 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. >


All I can say is there's a reason it's been almost universally used

That 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. >


The US is one of the only countries in the world that relies mostly on a cash bail system for pre-trial detainees.

"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. 
The number is way smaller for misdemeanors, the vast majority of which don't involve significant pre-trial incarceration at all.
Most places have it as an option, although they use it less, but for even more "release the rich" reasons than the US. >

Not saying you are wrong, but do you have any more recent data than 2004? >

While 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). 
I 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. >

So 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. >

I 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.
As 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.
From 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. >

Okay, 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. >

Eliminating 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?
The 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. >


The problem isn't cash bail.

It's not the only problem but it's absolutely one of the biggest ones. >

Bad 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. >

There's no evidence it causes a rise in crime rates. >

Bail 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.
If 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. >

While 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 >

There's no evidence it raises crime rates. >

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. >

Its a good thing until the cell become overpopulated or the prosecutors become too sturborn >

Then what incentive do you propose we use to entice people to show up for their court dates? 
You 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. 
That’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. >

Terrible 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. >

My 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 >

Cash bail is one more thing on the list of things that Americans think is normal but is actually batshit insane. >

I'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. >

Judge should be held responsible for release..... >

Judge should make the final call but the standard should be release until trial. >

What’s the alternative? Ankle monitors? >

Allowing people to not be imprisoned based on the severity of the crime and likelihood to flee >

Assuming 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).
Putting 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. >

In 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. >

In 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 >

Exactly wtf else do you expect Dog the Bounty Hunter to do for a living? >

your argument is flawed. People are released if are deemed not a threat to the general public. And there are not a flight risk.
If 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.
So, what's your alternative >

As 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. >

Cash bail is not because of them being a danger to society … it’s to ensure they will show up for future court dates. >

If we did that then we would have more people commiting crimes, so no. >

This has proven not to be the case. >

I know this because I am a criminal >

where would you then keep everyone incarcerated… >

I 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. 
The 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” >

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. >

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 >

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. >

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. >

John Oliver made a bit about this recently, i recommend watching it >

It's there because of all that innocent until proven guilty in court. >

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 🤷 >

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. >


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. >

What would you need to see to make you change your mind? >

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. >

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. >

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. >

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. >

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. >

Aww, must if hurt a feeling. Where they triggered?