question: Why are Americans allowed to pay bail to get out of jail?
comment: Its important to note bail is only offered prior to conviction. It's been established that the government can't force you to stay in jail until trial unless you are judged to be a huge risk of fleeing or reoffending. (Ie the courts can't declare you "guilty" without being proven guilty) At the same time, the courts want to give you an incentive to show up for trial to make it easy for them. Requiring you to put down a reasonable sum of money, to be returned only after a successful court appearance, does that job.
passages: Michael Jackson famously argued for lower bail in his trial concerning alleged child sexual abuse, for which he eventually won the court case.
   In 2006, Congress passed the Adam Walsh Amendments (AWA) to the 1984 Act in response to a highly publicized case of sexual abuse and murder of a child. The amendments provide that any persons accused of a crime involving a minor must be confined, under curfew, and must report regularly to a law enforcement agency.
   Many advocates for placing harsher restrictions on bail enforcement and decreasing the amount of detainees out on pretrial release point to the argument that allowing bail greatly increases the risk of allowing arrestees out on bail to skip their trial (known as "flight risk"). However, a study conducted by Gerald R. Wheeler and Carol L. Wheeler published by the "Review of Policy Research" finds that this is hardly the case. The article focuses on bail reform in the United States and specifically targets the relationship between being released on bail and the flight risk of arrestees not showing up to their trial. Since many opponents of bail reform during the time believed that allowing bail would result in a decrease of arrestees showing up for their trial dates, this article tests that belief by analyzing randomly selected felony cases in Houston, Texas. The paper concluded that the flight risk of arrestees out on bail was extremely minimal, as only 2% of all defendants on pretrial leave avoided their trial date. The study also concluded that the effect of pretrial status, whether a criminal was detained or not before their trial, did not have an effect on the ultimate conviction.
   Moreover, a court's decision to grant or deny bail has a direct impact on the outcome of a criminal case. Incarcerated defendants are significantly less able to help in his/her defense for freedom in comparison to someone on bail who is unrestricted or perhaps conditionally restricted to home confinement. They are also unable to arrange meetings with suspected witnesses, and/or provide their attorney with important information about the case, thus creating logistical barriers. Furthermore, the paper finds that because more defendants are now less likely to be allowed a pretrial release, the prosecution's bargaining position is enhanced in plea negotiations, where incarcerated defendants are promised time off in exchange for their cooperation or plea of guilty. People that are denied bail are more likely to plead guilty in thoughts that they will lose at trial. Those denied bail are often sentenced to longer amounts of time than those who are granted pretrial release.
   A research program based in New York City tested the effects of a pretrial release agency and deposit bail. An analysis of the data accumulated over the course of the program indicated that the program was poorly executed by judges, and that bail reform initiatives were perceived by some judges as allowing preventive detention. 
  
  In 2008, the New York Times wrote "posting bail for people accused of crimes in exchange for a fee, is all but unknown in the rest of the world".
  
  Section::::Federal law.
   New York has seen the development of organizations such as The Bronx Freedom Fund to aid in the release of accused individuals who primarily possess less than $1,000 and have a bond at $1,000 or greater. 
  
  Section::::U.S. state law.:Virginia.
   Some scholars have questioned why certain states do not implement certain bail reforms, but chose to enforce others. Kyle Rohrer of the University of Oregon School of Law answers this question in his paper published in the "Oregon Law Review". He finds that bail reform is difficult to put into place because many judicial officers do not want to take the risk of releasing an arrestee pretrial because the defendant may never show up for his trial or, even worse, commit an additional crime while on pretrial leave. If this were to happen, the public would blame the judiciary officer, thus making judiciary officers reluctant to spearhead bail reform. Rohrer furthers; however, that the need to create vacancy in overcrowded prisons outweigh the flight risks of arrestees out on bail, he believes that states should work to employ bail reform to create a more efficient prison system.
   The prohibition against excessive bail in the Eighth Amendment is derived from the Virginia Constitution. That prohibition applies in federal criminal prosecutions but, as the Supreme Court has not extended that protection to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth Amendmeent protection does not apply to defendants charged in state courts.
   Chief Justice Vinson summed up the Constitutional issue by stating: “It is not denied that bail for each petitioner has been fixed in a sum much higher than that usually imposed for offenses with like penalties and yet there has been no factual showing to justify such action in this case...Such conduct would inject into our own system of government the very principles of totalitarianism which Congress was seeking to guard against in passing the statute under which petitioners have been indicted.” 
   Section::::Criticisms of bail.:Unnecessary incarceration.:Attorney access.
   Section::::Criticisms of bail.:Unnecessary incarceration.:Socio-economic effects.
  
  Whether a result of pre-trial detention or not, incarceration has adverse effects resulting in many defendants' inability to maintain employment, access mental and physical healthcare, and engage in constant communication with their family and friends.
   The 1966 Act was particularly criticized within the District of Columbia, where all crimes formerly fell under federal bail law. In a number of cases, persons accused of violent crimes committed additional crimes when released on their personal recognizance. Even after being arrested on additional charges, some of those individuals were released yet again.
   BULLET::::- Compulsory detention: When cash bail has been abolished, it has led to more (but not most) defendants being detained without an offer of release through posting bail (if they could afford it). This is reserved for serious crimes, which would normally result in bail being too high for the defendant to pay unless they were wealthy.
  
  Section::::Reform.:Abolition of cash bail.
   Section::::Criticisms of bail.:Racial bias.
  
  Moreover, bail policies and bail decisions have been demonstrated to be applied disproportionately harmfully against black and Latino defendants, particularly males. This can be attributed to internalized racial prejudices among judges and bail officers, and also to how current bail policies fail to protect them from such discrimination. When combined with the bail system's favor towards the wealthy, it is found that people of color of low socioeconomic backgrounds suffer most in the justice system, a further violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
   Section::::Criticisms of bail.:Effect on trials.
   BULLET::::11. Conditions of release – many varied non-monetary conditions and restrictions on liberty can be imposed by a court to ensure that a person released into the community will appear in court and not commit any more crimes. Common examples include: mandatory calls to the police, regular check-ins with a Pretrial Services Program, surrendering passports, home detention, electronic monitoring, drug testing, alcohol counseling, surrendering firearms.
   Section::::Criticisms of bail.:Unnecessary incarceration.:Criticism of the bail bond industry.
   Most U.S. states have similar provisions for preventing excessive bail. For example, similar prohibitions are contained in the Connecticut Constitution and the Constitution of Hawaii.
  
  Section::::U.S. state law.:Georgia.
  
  In 2016, a Federal Court began to evaluate the "pre-set" bail system of Calhoun, Georgia. The involvement stems from a history of lacking consideration for the accused citizen's financial means while making a final bail determination. In 2017, Sally Yates became involved in the ongoing case.
  
  Section::::U.S. state law.:Michigan.
   When considering granting bail, the police and courts take into consideration factors such as: the persons likelihood of showing up to court, the nature of the offence, the persons past conduct, whether the person will offend again while out on bail, and the risk of evidence/witnesses being tampered with. Certain offences (such as violence, drug-dealing, or repeat offenders) automatically disqualify persons from being granted bail. People who have previously breached their bail or the conditions associated with it are less likely to be granted bail again.
  
  Section::::Scotland.
   In 46 US states, as well as the Philippines, a commercial bail bondsman can be paid to deposit bail money on behalf of a detained individual. This practice is illegal in the rest of the world. Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon and Wisconsin have outlawed commercial bail bonds, while New Jersey and Alaska rarely permit money bail.
  
  Section::::Australia.
   Congress repealed the Bail Reform Act of 1966 through its passage of the Bail Reform Act of 1984, codified at United States Code, Title 18, Sections 3141–3150. Unlike its predecessor, the 1984 Act law permits pre-trial detention of individuals based upon their danger to the community, not solely upon the risk of flight. (f) provides that only persons who fit into certain categories are subject to detention without bail: persons charged with a crime of violence, an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death, certain drug offenses for which the maximum offense is greater than 10 years, repeat felony offenders, or if the defendant poses a serious risk of flight, obstruction of justice, or witness tampering. There is a special hearing held to determine whether the defendant fits within these categories; anyone not within them must be admitted to bail.
   Section::::Canada.
   Section::::Criticisms of bail.:Unnecessary incarceration.:Juror bias.
   Criticism of the practice of giving bail in the United States tends to be directed at the system of cash bail. One of the most common complaints is that a defendant's chance of being released pre-trial is determined by how wealthy they are, rather than how much of a risk they are to the public or judicial process. A further argument is that it results in unnecessary pre-trial detentions, when many defendants can be trusted to appear in court without incarceration or with less drastic monitoring. The unnecessary incarceration also puts defendants at risk of being wrongly convicted or drawn further into crime. The system has been further accused of being inconsistent, affected by racial bias and having undesirable effects on wider communities.
   In pre-independence America, bail law was based on English law. Some of the colonies simply guaranteed their subjects the protections of that law. In 1776, after the Declaration of Independence, those states that had not already done so enacted their own versions of bail law.
  
raw_presuppositions: Americans are allowed to pay bail to get out of jail
raw_corrections: Americans cannot bail out after conviction or if they are judged to be a risk of fleeing or reoffending.