What qualifies as "exceptional circumstances"?
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."
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!