>

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?
/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.