>

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.
/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.