Cops are making fewer arrests since N.J. got rid of cash bail
nj.com
nj.com
Cash bail claims to be the middle ground between "we trust you enough to show up in your own" and "we distrust you enough to incarcerate you until this is resolved."
The exceptions to this are pretty much just murder, manslaughter, sexual assault, and some drug offences.
In short not being bailed is an exception. This is done on the basis you haven’t actually been found guilty of crime yet, thus the state can’t limit your liberties as you’re innocent until proven otherwise.
You read more here: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail
There's this implication that poor people can't make bail because they're poor, which is utterly false and made in bad faith by most who imply it.
If a person is not released on their on recognizance in the US (i.e. without bail), then bail is set by the court based on 1) extent to which the person is a flight risk / risk to public safety, and 2) the person's ability to pay. Let me say that again, the amount of a cash bail is based on the defendant's ability to pay.
If a person is only a mild flight risk, then the judge will choose an amount that is within the defendant's financial means, but also sufficient to encourage them to show up. If a defendant proves they they are poor, then this amount is be very small. However, if they prove they are poor and the judge still sets a bail that they cannot reach without borrowing from friends and family or a bondsmen, then that also says something. It means the judge determined they're too much of a risk to trust on their own. The point of cash bail is often to make the defendant accountable to friends, family, bail-bondsmen... which encourages them to show up.
A confounding factor is that wealthy people are rarely a serious flight risk. An illegal alien charged with DUI may have friends who he can hide with, skills he can use to work anywhere, and the knowhow to "stay off the radar." An accountant who charged with DUI, however, can be tracked by their phone and bank accounts, likely has far more to lose by fleeing (a paid-off house, a family that lives in town with them, a job that reports their employment to government, etc.). These are all factors that go into the amount cash bail. So, it might look like "he's getting out because he can pay despite being charged with the same crime" when the real reason is that "the judge picked an amount he can pay because he's not a serious flight risk."
If someone is too poor to pay anything, what should they set the bail to?
No, the definition of “bail” being referenced is literally the temporary release of a person awaiting trial. The use you are referring to is also a definition of bail (and perhaps the one most commonly encountered in the US because of its unusual and excessive use of cash bail), a newer one derived from the older one and referring to the surety offered as a condition for bail (in the earlier sense.) But it is never given to people unconditionally, so it clearly wasn't the sense intended (it's given by the or on behalf of the person awaiting trial, on the condition that that person be released.)
Bail is just being released from custody with a promise to attend court later.
The US tends to conflate the two because of the US’s heavy use of bail bonds. This not something common everywhere.
But when the state becomes technologically advanced enough that catching the accused is inevitable cash bail stops being an incentive that benefits the government unless it can be used to actively generate revenue. By disallowing cash bail you are forced to hold everyone that is accused and if you were enforcing bad laws for revenue generation this becomes expensive, not profitable.
The bail system is very profit driven, even on the government side. The existence of bondsmen has tended to increase the bail that is set for nonviolent, almost civil offenses. What becomes exceptional then is basically just capital crimes.
Have you ever tried to evade the law? You can't get a driver's license or nondriver's identification card, as the warrant prevents you from renewing or they stall you for arrest; you can't apply for social benefits, as you need ID; you can't take most jobs, as they are linked to your identity; and you can't get a passport and often can't leave the country. Going out can be hazardous as even if you don't need to provide ID you might get arrested for not doing so anyway, and social functions may request an ID either for serving alcohol or for admission.
If you do get out of the country, you'd have similar or worse problems in Canada, and Mexico is far less amenable to undocumented transients than it used to be. Going further south might be an option but you're now talking about relocating to a different culture at considerable expense. Unless you're a well-off murderer the cost-benefit is not in favor of this.
For instance if you have a DUI arrest warrant in Washington, I know Arizona and California will still issue you an ID. I think a license too if Washington hasn't convicted you and removed your driving privilege.
It's quite easy to hide in other states for most crimes, the bigger the crime, the further you need to go. The problem is that, most jurisdictions don't have the funds/means to come get the person(let alone hold them until they can come), so they don't act on the notification when your name is ran, and don't ask the other party to hold you.
I know an executive of a company that has a Florida arrest warrant and travels very freely to every other state. He is not hiding, but he is also not dealing with his Florida issues. I know someone else who left Texas after sentencing, but before checking in to Prison for a decade. She still flies to Texas to see her parents under her new married name.
You might be amazed how many people are living in hiding from something.
California won't issue you a driver's license. My mother sold her car because of this.
About 3 years ago she tried to revert to her maiden name when renewing her driver's license, which resulted in California finding an open Illinois DUI case from the 1970s. As she tells it, there was some miscommunication between her and the DA back then because she didn't realize it was still open until California sent her the renewal rejection.[1] Resolving the DUI from afar would have required more time and expense than she was prepared to spend.
Fortunately, by selling her car she solved two problems. She lives in San Francisco. Her apartment building has no parking, so she was street parking. Keeping and parking a car in the city induced too much anxiety. On balance she's happier and healthier taking the bus and walking. She works as a home assistant and can easily find clients close enough to not require transferring buses. For most people outside San Francisco, though, doing this would be (and is!) much more difficult and stressful. (I once worked with an engineer in Sunnyvale who had an open DUI case in Connecticut. He would bike and walk everywhere, which definitely did not make him happier, though perhaps healthier.)
Around that same time my dad would have been racking up DUIs across the country. For decades he drove without a driver's license. Fortunately he lived in a small town in Alabama and was friendly with the local police and sheriff's deputies. Elsewhere he relied upon the same strategy as many illegal immigrants: never speed and drive very carefully. He also generally avoided the interstates, which would add many hours to our Thanksgiving road trips from Mobile/Pensacola to Tampa.[2] I think at some point in the 2000s he bit the bullet and resolved things in Alabama, but considering he had (and has) open DUIs in several other states I assume Alabama didn't have reciprocal notification and enforcement.
[1] More likely she did what most people have done who end up in the same situation: ignore it and pretend it went away. That was easier back then.
[2] My job was to mind the cooler and toss him beers.
EDIT: Regarding simply getting an ID, some time after moving to SF my mom needed to get a new ID showing her SF residency to apply for some assistance programs. The DMV wanted a copy of her birth certificate from Illinois; her Social Security card and Massachusetts license weren't enough, I guess. I don't really know what the problem was, but apparently she spent several hours playing phone tag and then learned it was going to cost some surprising amount of money. I would have paid the money, but at that point I guess she was fed up and fell back on her old "ignore it" strategy. Fortunately (again), San Francisco had begun issuing city IDs, partly for the benefit of undocumented immigrants. Her city ID sufficed for her immediate needs. I don't know if she ever got a copy of that birth certificate, but she did eventually get a California driver's license.
Anyhow, apropos stricter voter ID laws, people shouldn't assume getting an ID is so convenient as to not constitute any sort of burden, especially if you're under time constraints, such as when showing up to a polling station and being told you need a different form of identification than you had been using for years.
You have a warrant issued and you're fucked. What you're describing is how it worked 30-40 years ago, if that (early 90s was pretty much the end of running from warrants as everything became computerized). People got incensed at the fact people could skip out on (probably ridiculous) legal problems and tightened the thumbscrews. Sure, they might not pay to transport you, but they can refuse to issue you an ID until you transport yourself, and some states will charge you for the transportation and holding fees (though this has recently been challenged in Missouri).
Spank me harder big brother.
I only lasted about a week after I got the letter before I went to the station on my own time. Technically they were supposed to book me and then process the “fix it” paperwork (burned out headlight!) but in their words “the booking room is full and you’d just be released any way; but maybe next time take care of this faster?”
I did send my mom a copy of the letter informing me the warrant for my arrest had been rescinded...
DUIs are more serious as one example. I don’t know the extent to how you need to inform people like employers about it, but it hasn’t seemed to affect life in the medium or long term for people I know irl. The biggest issue is losing driving privileges for a decent amount of time. Which isn’t likely in your situation. Or the ones I’ve been in.
These were my undergrad years and I was in a different state studying (loosely defined). And there’s always a permanent record (short of expungement).
“The background check for the job shows you were arrested; can you please explain?...”
Honestly I don’t know how long stuff like that sticks around. And I’m also glad I never had to find out. It can be a funny story with a framed letter saying there’s no longer a warrant for my arrest. No Rick Perry mugshot pic circulating Facebook...
In that case, not great, but in a lot of other cases the situation now is probably worse.
As an American who's had zero personal involvement with the justice system, I'd never really stopped to consider the practice of cash bail. Thank you!
The subset of people that get arrested and the means and incentives to get them to show up for trial have changed a lot over the years. Not to mention the nature of crime itself.
As government has grown there is more money to fund the police force, legal system, and penitentiaries. Cash bail has moved from a cost minimization mechanism to a revenue source. The larger component to this, I think, is the ease with which someone may eventually be caught; in the early US you could simply go somewhere else.
Now, the government is omniscient and all encompassing, and the power to destroy your life is available to any drooling policeman or prosecutor in any state. You can no longer escape a crooked local government by moving. States work together to enforce their smallest and most objectionable laws and any violation can severely restrict your ability to live your life within the country.
† I think evaluating a lot of societal structures for fascist elements makes sense, the main concept being authoritarianism and suppression. Something does not need to be entirely fascist to have fascist elements.
‡ Though this should not be interpreted as accepting people should not try to improve.
"Fascist" means something much more specific than just "authoritarian". Far from suddenly taking issue with the misuse of the term, I have always chafed at its misuse.
That said, I don't agree with chrisdhoover that "fascist" should only be used in a WWII context. Real fascism existed long before WWII, and still exists today.
“Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy.”
I mean, we have supporters of the US President chanting “lock her up,” and propaganda outlets accusing US Democrats of being “treasonous” and “enacting an illegal coup,” which sounds like preparing the way for “forced suppression of opposition.”
We may disagree with them, but surely we can understand that some of the people using this word are sincerely attempting to use it in good faith.
Wikipedia goes on to discuss the relationship between Fascism and economic policy:
“Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.”
That sounds like the current US administration. The most interesting bit to me is this quote:
“Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.”
Does the US administration believe that liberal democracy is obsolete? As a citizen of a country where we bend over backwards to help people vote, I look at the voter suppression in the US and can’t help but think that America is more interested in “democracy theatre” than democracy, but that’s just an opinion, and I am aware that most Americans vigorously disagree.
Likewise, when the people of America elected Mr. Obama, and there was a vacant supreme court seat plus a hundred other vacant judgeships, I would have thought that the GOP-controlled senate refusing to hear any of the President’s nominations was a sign of their disinterest in democracy, especially in the will of the people who elected and then re-elected Mr. Obama.
But again... I imagine most Americans disagree. That being said, if someone does hold the view that the current administration, or various far-right groups out there have turned away from democracy, even if we disagree with them, can we not accept that they are using the word “Fascist” in good faith?
These days, the preferred insult from the radical left tends to be "fascist", and the preferred insult from the radical right tends to be "socialist".
Both sides are using them as a slang way of saying "scum". But their abuse of these terms doesn't (or shouldn't) actually change their meaning to the rest of us.
Abusing terms in politics isn't new of course but it's not something we should be encouraging or ignoring because there are some legitimate consequences. The obvious one is the disinterest/dismissal it generates when people legitimately do need to raise the alarm because people have been crying wolf incessantly. It also helps the legitimately bad guys to dismiss the attacks and pretend they are just like the moderates facing exaggerated attacks from an hysterical foe.
In my city of Bloomington, IN, we have a city run farmers market with known and admitted members of Identify Evropa (now American Identity Movement).
Digging into what they want mirrors a "white ethnostate" with strong Nazi tendencies. When the call theselves "volkmom" and talk of lebensraum, the idea of fascism isn't some 80 year old quaint idea.
Now, the city cannot remove her, as she has been accused of nothing illegal. And it's a government run market. But last week, was a protest that lead to the arrest (but not detained) of 5 protesters. That ended up in Newsweek.
Where I'm sitting, it's right there and up front.
New movements tend to take on the language of movements that inspire them, or people use those terms on them because they seem to (or do) share many of the same attributes. For example: people who call anyone who suggests a better social safety net socialist, communist, Marxist, or more recently: bolshevik.
Where are we in disagreement? Your example is one I would use to support my own point.
I never knew about this fee, when I complained to my city council member he said not to commit any crimes.
There are many rackets just finding inefficiencies in justice that I’m glad to see we’re slowly chipping away at them.
If I were someone else, without cash on hand, with a temporary job and kids, I would have missed work and not been able to pick up my kids from school and feed them, to say nothing of paying hundreds to get my car out of an impound lot. I realized then that the justice system is a machine that creates poverty.
For a lot of people, that could mean losing a job and all kinds of other consequences.
"Wait, it's $80 *cash*? What if I don't have cash on hand, can I pay by card?"
"Nope - cash only."
"...Do you have an ATM?"
"Nope."
For example, my sister had to pay a speeding ticket and the courthouse only accepted cash and money orders, iirc.
It all depends on where you get arrested/whatever.
Perhaps useful to note that the results hold for minor/non-indictable offenses. However, I'm out of my depth on the more nuanced legal aspects in the report.
It's a ludicrous assertion, to be sure. Imagine: "we're not holding you, but only the iron in your blood".
Like people in the article said, it's not perfect but it's a great improvement over the old way.
Why would someones proprietary codebase be more accessible than public court documents?
Would a model also be open and transparent? It would at least be open & testable, but I'm not sure about transparent for easily identifying any biases.
This seems very reasonable. Either somebody is too dangerous to let out, or is safe but might flee in which case ankle monitor seems like a better bet, both because it keeps people from rotting in jail for being too poor to make bail and because bail isn’t as good a deterrent to flight as an ankle monitor. And if someone is safe and isn’t a flight risk, just let them out without bail.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article224682595.html
> Community policing is an empty phrase. A Washington Post report showed that law enforcement use of force in half of police departments with consent decrees. Asking police officers to strengthen community relationships — including by doing things like playing football with children or handing out ice cream — does not reduce their power to harm anyone.
0: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/the-police-cant-s...