View Full Version : No Bail Required Now In CA: What Could Possibly Go Wrong
Bailey Guns
08-28-2018, 17:20
Most people now arrested for non-violent crimes will not be required to post bail under a new law signed by Gov Brown. Each county will set their own procedures but, it sounds like most people arrested will be released after about 12 hours. They did this to make it more fair for everyone, regardless of economic status. Just when you think that shithole state can't get any worse, it gets worse.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/28/california-to-become-first-state-eliminating-bail-for-suspects-awaiting-trial.html
sellersm
08-28-2018, 17:26
Yep, same state that's passing AB 2943! https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB2943
Shooter45
08-28-2018, 17:35
I'm sure no problems will arise out of this...
What if it was a straw crime?
Releasing criminals
Attracting illegals
All while banning guns
Can’t pretend these are just well meaning people who are misinformed.
I'm unsure how I feel about this. Any point/counter point articles up yet?
Anything to put Dawg the Bounty Hunter out of business. [ROFL1]
California doesn't understand the 1st rule of holes - When you find yourself in one, put down the shovel.
Instead, they're doubling down and going for a larger shovel. [dig]
Gcompact30
08-28-2018, 19:11
Get ready CO is next to fall in line with CA......
Get read CO is next to fall in line with CA......
Boy-oh-boy, I can't wait.
[hahhah-no]
Haven't read into this bill.
I do caution standing up for the status quo, or assuming that the existing system we has is anything but a massive fuck-up.
Has anyone here logically thought about all of the issues, benefits, detriments of bail, or do you just assume its good 'cause we have it, and 'merica?
People either shouldn't be released at all, or they should be released pending trial.
With a presumption of innocence, bail (if you're not aware) usually imposes a permanent cost upon the innocent. That doesn't seem to fit our presumption of "American Justice", which in reality, is anything but.
Agree completely. Why should 2 people arrested for the same minor crime be treated differently because one has money and the other doesnt?
But who is going to pay for all of the nifty SWAT equipment and massive pepper sprayers for all of the Bail Enforcement Agents roaming the country abducting people who missed a court appearance or haven’t paid the Bondsman what they charged so they didn’t have to sit in the county lock up while waiting for the courts to get around to hearing their case?
Great-Kazoo
08-28-2018, 20:37
Haven't read into this bill.
I do caution standing up for the status quo, or assuming that the existing system we has is anything but a massive fuck-up.
Has anyone here logically thought about all of the issues, benefits, detriments of bail, or do you just assume its good 'cause we have it, and 'merica?
People either shouldn't be released at all, or they should be released pending trial.
With a presumption of innocence, bail (if you're not aware) usually imposes a permanent cost upon the innocent. That doesn't seem to fit our presumption of "American Justice", which in reality, is anything but.
People should be released with a reasonable bail amount attached to their awaiting trial. There's untold numbers of arrest made where they post bail from $o - $500K and still don't show up. What makes you or anyone in the judicial system believe a no bail, cause everyone's equal, mentality will have offenders actually appear when their court date is due
Pick me up because I failed to appear, and you'll just have to let me out again.
Have fun with that!
Aloha_Shooter
08-28-2018, 21:20
The point of bail is to give the accused an incentive to return to court for his/her trial but still enable him/her to take care of things at home or work while awaiting trial. It's better than incarcerating people indefinitely simply because they are accused. Bail is supposed to be set based on risk of flight so someone who can afford more pays a higher bail or may not even get bail if the crime is serious enough. I don't have a problem with the design of the system and don't see either extreme of bailless incarceration or California's new policy as being better.
Bailey Guns
08-28-2018, 21:47
People aren't being treated differently based on economic status when they're required to post a bail. No more so than some people can afford a Mercedes while some can only afford a used...whatever. The reason for posting a money-based bail amount is to insure the defendant shows up in court (as has been pointed out already). There are ways of lessening the economic impact for those who make less money already. Not to mention the fact that maybe you shoulda thought of that before you did the crime. Will a very small percentage get charged without committing a crime? Maybe.
This is just another leftist scheme that's along the same lines as wealth redistribution. Leftists in this country go out of their way to coddle criminals...they always have...while rarely, if ever, mentioning the impact the various crimes these criminals commit have on their victims.
Not to mention that rich people who can afford to post high bail amounts are really not a big burden on the system. The burden comes from repeat offenders who often don't show up for court and who have very high recidivism rates and those who often commit more crimes while out on bail.
I'll concede that there may be a problem with the current bail system. I don't see this as a fix at all and my guess is that like so many leftist programs, when this fails miserably, the left will wonder what went wrong and bitch that someone needs to come along and fix it.
Haven't read into this bill.
I do caution standing up for the status quo, or assuming that the existing system we has is anything but a massive fuck-up.
Has anyone here logically thought about all of the issues, benefits, detriments of bail, or do you just assume its good 'cause we have it, and 'merica?
People either shouldn't be released at all, or they should be released pending trial.
With a presumption of innocence, bail (if you're not aware) usually imposes a permanent cost upon the innocent. That doesn't seem to fit our presumption of "American Justice", which in reality, is anything but.
Completely agree.
Bailey Guns
08-29-2018, 06:28
Much like a lottery, it taxes hardest on the poorest.
Seems to me it taxes those who commit crimes the hardest.
Scanker19
08-29-2018, 06:44
This catch and release bullshit is exactly what’s going on here in Albuquerque and it’s getting really old really fast. Unless you get a DWI then it’s like an instant 50k.
Great-Kazoo
08-29-2018, 07:51
Until/unless the justice system compensates people for bail when they are innocent/not convicted, it will be a travesty no matter how you slice it. And even then, it would have it's issues.
I have serious problems with your fate, freedom, and finances being completely owned by a single individual, who has incredibly high rates of personality disorders, narcissism, and is likely burnt out and full of various strong biases. That one single person gets to make an arbitrary call, without guidelines or realistic review, premised on nothing in particular, who decides if the innocent accused is released, or suffers a $25,000 permanent fine, a $50,000 permanent fine, or a $500 permanent fine. I have seen indescribably stupid shit from judges. Now, I've never been arrested mind you; I'm not "jaded" - but if you get accused of a bullshit accusation, you have a not-insignificant chance of standing before one of the worst pieces of shit the country has, who gets to power-trip on your fate. This isn't American, we were intended to have our fate controlled by a pool of our peers. That's not the American system.
I think people fail to realize bail isn't free, even if you show up and prevail. You still lose 5-10%, forever. Is that not a fine imposed by your government, without trial, appeal, or review; just an assumption of guilt considering the fact you will never recover it in any circumstance?
And you got it - criminals commit crimes. But so does 100% of the American population. Every. Single. Person. Every single fucking person has committed multiple felonies, whether or not they are aware of it. The difference between a few of those in prison and you, is simply that they pissed off someone who had enough power to bury them (the wrong person). Sure, most of the people in the justice system are shit holes and career criminals; not all of them. So is it okay to sweep problems under the rug because the innocent are a minority? Do you think it's more acceptable to presume guilt and strictly enforce punishments at the cost of 1/10 innocent thrown in to the fire, or is it better to presume innocent and release 1/10 innocents at the cost of 9/10 guilty potentially getting free? Legitimate question, what % of accused constituting innocent people do you consider acceptable for the American justice system to rape and throw into the fire.
My answer: 0%. That's what we were founded on.
I understand all the crap you dealt with when it involved questionable LE, the judicial system etc. Having been as a youth on the wrong side of the law, i know one is only as guilty or innocent as the lawyer you can afford. As well as get the right judge.
Sure the system is rigged, aren't they all.
That's been going on since the judicial system has been around. But to say No Bail and actually believe people will show up in court is a pipe dream.
Agree completely. Why should 2 people arrested for the same minor crime be treated differently because one has money and the other doesnt?
Having/not having money shouldn't factor into it. It should be based on flight risk. And if you follow high profile bond/bail you'll notice judges set the amounts higher for defendants who have money to create incentive.
CA is a state full of illegals who would have no incentive to return for trial. They are effectively removing the consequences by completely eliminating bail/bond. Even if petty. They are going to be turning loose a ton of theft (identity and physical) suspects who are free to go out and victimize more taxpayers.
This change isn't for the benefit of the avg Joe hard working guy who gets caught up on a minor charge. It's for the criminal illegal underclass that is exploited for political power.
It's reverse Broken Windows. And they know it.
Sounds similar to police departments report crime less, to look as if there is less crime in their districts. Stuff like this seems rational under ideal circumstances, but are often instituted at the wrong time.
BushMasterBoy
08-29-2018, 09:26
Get real, it is harvest time. Somebody has to bring in the crops from the fields. The peasants feed the powers that be, same as ever. California is the fifth largest economy in the world.
Bailey Guns
08-29-2018, 09:34
That massive chip on your shoulder is really weighing you down, foxtrot.
I know how the system works. I've been on both sides. I've been falsely accused and sued for $17 million. It's not perfect, I'll concede that. This isnt the way to fix it.
The overwhelming majority of people jailed are given bail according to a set bail schedule. And many of those people are subsequently released on their own recognizance if they're in jail long enough to see a judge.
ChadAmberg
08-29-2018, 12:44
Until/unless the justice system compensates people for bail when they are innocent/not convicted, it will be a travesty no matter how you slice it. And even then, it would have it's issues.
I have to agree 100% with this. I just read about a case where a poor woman went to court for something. She could plead guilty immediately with a thousand dollar fine and probation costs. Or her nonrefundable bail + other costs just to go to trial was even more money she did not have. She was almost assuredly innocent as she had proof of identity theft, but could not afford to prove it. And now has a criminal record.
As much as we hate people getting away with things when they're guilty, poor people are absolutely fucked over all the time. My uncle spent years in jail because he was boned by the system and couldn't afford to defend himself. That was thirty years ago, and his life is still completely screwed over by it.
Zundfolge
08-29-2018, 13:33
I think people fail to realize bail isn't free, even if you show up and prevail. You still lose 5-10%, forever. Is that not a fine imposed by your government, without trial, appeal, or review; just an assumption of guilt considering the fact you will never recover it in any circumstance? That's what we were founded on.
Is that 5-10% what you pay the bail bondsman? Because if that's the case the state can weasel out of that by claiming that no, you borrowed the money at interest, so its not taken by them, its taken by the bail bondsman (an independent contractor) and if you'd just pay the full bail yourself you'd have gotten it all back.
Bailey Guns
08-29-2018, 14:04
Like it or not that's the fee bondsmen charge for their service. I'm not defending bondsmen but that's the reality.
And in regards to ChadAmbergs post, I've never heard of non refundable bail. The bondsmen fee isnt refundable but bail should be.
Zundfolge
08-29-2018, 14:09
Like it or not that's the fee bondsmen charge for their service. I'm not defending bondsmen but that's the reality.
And in regards to ChadAmbergs post, I've never heard of non refundable bail. The bondsmen fee isnt refundable but bail should be.
I agree, the bondsmen should be able to charge for their service. But the problem has become that bails are routinely set so high that the only way the vast majority of arestees can pay them is to go through a bondsman. If the average person can't afford to make bail on their own, doesn't that start to rub against the 8th Amendment?
Having/not having money shouldn't factor into it. It should be based on flight risk. And if you follow high profile bond/bail you'll notice judges set the amounts higher for defendants who have money to create incentive.
CA is a state full of illegals who would have no incentive to return for trial. They are effectively removing the consequences by completely eliminating bail/bond. Even if petty. They are going to be turning loose a ton of theft (identity and physical) suspects who are free to go out and victimize more taxpayers.
This change isn't for the benefit of the avg Joe hard working guy who gets caught up on a minor charge. It's for the criminal illegal underclass that is exploited for political power.
It's reverse Broken Windows. And they know it.
Agreed.
Bailey Guns
08-29-2018, 14:45
The average arrestee is usually a DUI or some other low level misdemeanor. Bail for these types of offenses rarely exceeded $1000 back when I was working the street. I don't know what the schedules are now. Not only that but I think the image of the average, falsely arrested, honest, hard working poor person being abused by the system is probably not accurate. Not saying it doesn't happen.
More likely, though, the person is "poor" based on lifestyle choice. They chose to not get an education, chose not to look for a job, chose to spend money on other things or chose to commit crimes to support themselves. Over and over and over I'd arrest or cite people for various things like no insurance or failing to register a car. They'd tell me they didn't have the money. But inside the car they had a nice cell phone, couple cartons of cigarettes, cell phone, fast food wrappers, etc. Sorry...if you can afford that shit and the Jordan's you're wearing you can afford basic insurance or registration or whatever. Again...not saying it applies to all but I feel confident in saying that's typical.
Poor decision making is responsible for a lot of the woes most people suffer...not the system.
And, I think were blurring the distinction between the system and corrupt people administering the system. I think the system is basically OK. I think there are far too many corrupt people in the system. Look no further than the recent and current leadership at the DOJ and FBI as evidence of that.
How many profitable industries have grown up around the judicial system? From the bond system to community service, home detention, rehabilitative education, and ultimately the private prison systems. Too many people are getting wealthy off of the tax payers and people who make bad choices. At least when I over pay for some bad purchase, I have some good memories or some actual property.
Justice should be swift and related to the crime committed, but only after the defendant has been convicted. Sadly that is not what is happening. Legislators only have one tool; making laws. Criminal laws only create one thing; criminals. They have made so many laws that we are all criminals whether we are charged and convicted or not. Lawyers run the system and they have no incentive to do anything other than make more money and take more power from the free citizens of our nation.
I don't have any solutions but I am drawn to the words of Dick the Butcher; "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
[Sarcasm2] Sort of.
The bondsman isn't technically necessary. He is a service to defendants. Probably also saves the taxpayer money since the defendant isn't in custody awaiting trial. Cost of the bond is paid by defendant/family.
I would be far more supportive of this if CA had passed a bill limiting bail based on income/net worth. Then at least all defendants would have some skin in and a reason to appear. Hey, that would still be progressive, right?
Also more likely a defendant could post his own bail and not have to purchase the bond, lessening the impact of a bad arrest/charge.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.