Hacker News Reader

Comment by noodlesUK | Hacker News Reader

What I don’t understand about the opponents of things like bail reform is that very few other countries have a similar system to the USA at all. A determination is made about whether the person charged is a flight risk, a danger to the public, etc. If they are determined to meet those criteria, they are remanded. If they don’t, they are bailed. Why does money have to have anything to do with it?

View on HN

>Why does money have to have anything to do with it?

Short answer: Bounty hunters.

If you jump bail, they get part of the bail payment for capturing you. It's a long standing privatization of law enforcement in the US.

Also bail bondsman. They provide the bail bond for people who can't afford to pay (which surprise is the majority of people). For a % of course.

It's all a bit...predatory.

I think this is the part of the system that I find the most distasteful. If you're charged with a crime, you do everything right, you get bailed, you get found not guilty or the charges are dropped, you don't get the money you paid the bondsman back. It's horrifying.

And for Americans living paycheck to paycheck they don't have the option to wait it out. They have to get back to work or be homeless.

What one can do is pay for their own representation and when acquitted, file a tort to recover financial damages from the entity who picked the fight.

That is what I did when I faced this scenario.

Takes a long time. Speedy trials suddenly slow down. Pressure to get a person on more charges goes up. Offers get better. Requests for court appearances increase in frequency and more.

Wait until you find out anyone could get pissed at you and start filing pro se lawsuits, forcing you to defend.

And if they’re judgement proof there’s nothing you can effectively do.

Illinois, and several other states, do not allow bail bondsmen. I understand why people would want to prevent this predatory business, but then there's also the concern that a larger percentage of felony defendants fail to appear in court after being released on bond.

The bail bond industry should be illegal. Its existence alone is a compelling argument against cash bail.

The theory of bail is that someone who is to trap the charged individually financially, by locking up as much of their liquid assets as possible behind a promise to actually show up to court. If people are needing to take out loans to pay bail, the bail was set too high. If the accused doesn't have enough assets to meaningfully pin them down with bail, cash bail is inappropriate. In a system that was effectively setting cash bail, the only scenario where someone would take a loan out would be to cover unexpected expenses between arrest and trial.

But that's not how bail is applied in the US. Cash bail is set absurdly high, because the prosecution knows that the individual is going to get a bail bond, and thus the 10% needs to be a significant hit, and the remaining 90% needs to be enough to convince a bounty hunter to chase someone down.

This isn’t entirely correct. Generally American policy tends towards increasing financial suffering on the poor and middle classes. Paid bail is another in a long line of such.

Why does money have to have anything to do with it?

There are two justice systems in the US, one for the rich and one for the others. In effect, this is one cog in the machine of systemic racism, as minorities tend to not be part of the rich class.

Not to mention most jurors have very little understanding of the law, even if the law is explained to them, then bias kicks in. Yes, we are all human, but the rules of evidence must be followed, not the rule of bias.

Fun fact - the judge can override the jury’s guilty verdict but not override a not guilty.

jury nullification is a thing, something the court tries to convince you that it isn't.

It's the same justice system.

The unfortunate fact is that as the prosecutor in the OP lays out, it is not State's job to make sure every single legal advantage is pressed to the fullest.

Acquiring solid legal representation is a big financial barrier, but that's something we do help with as a society - there's public defenders, then there are civil programs for people up to 400% of the poverty line.

Unfortunately everything in the USA is underlain with financial cost and incentive. It is a hardscrabble life for those who live hand-to-mouth and extremely easy to game for those with means.

Bail lets you out if can get anyone, relative or a bail bondsman, to vouch for you in a material way. Under other systems, same guys who are prosecuting you decide if they feel like letting you out. In US, you can still be released on your own recognizance if the system believes you are not a flight risk. But even for substantial crimes like robbery, where there are reasons to believe you a flight risk, you still can be let out if someone trusts you enough to lend bail money.

No, defendants who are deemed a flight risk or danger are not offered bail.

Danger yes, flight risk no. If you have a pending drunk driving charge, you might skip state. But if your brother puts up a bond, it's less likely that you will let him down to escape relatively minor penalties. Or a bail bondsman can verify that you have a job / sufficient local ties to take a risk on you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com