Anyway, this seems so blindingly obvious it’s amazing it didn’t start sooner and progress faster. We spend way too much money jailing people who can’t afford bail, often having them serve their sentence and then some before trial. When they are in jail they aren’t working, paying their bills, taking care of their families. Moving to a risk-based system that can just say no to high risk detainees, but lets the rest go about their lives before trial sounds incredibly reasonable.
And here I was told in the sign theft thread that I was wrong for stating, correctly, that our system disproportionately punishes the poor and people of color.
Fines and bail hurt the most vulnerable of society and are nothing more than a slap on the wrist to others. Sitting in jail because you can’t afford your bail can cost you your job, living quarters, children, and more (I can’t quote the article because NYT won’t let you copy & paste so I’m just restating what’s already in there). As a society, we do NOT benefit from low-level and non-violent “criminals” sitting in jail.
The number of people we have sitting in jails for weeks, months, even years without a trial is, to me, a clear violation of our constitutional right to presumed innocence.
What is interesting is if someone is too poor to be able to come up with the 10% (if you use a bail bondsmen), it is very unlikely you will have the means to get away if not given bail, kind of hard to flee when you don’t have the means to do so.
To top it off, we are such a jail happy nation. This is a good move. And I agree anyone who can’t afford the 10 percent probably doesn’t have the resources to flee.
OTOH, people without resources are less anchored to their locations (don’t own homes, etc.) making it easier to divest from them. Really, fleeing doesn’t cost that much…
The availability of money (either one’s own or to borrow) has been proved to be a poor proxy for flight risk or likelihood of committing more crimes before trial.
The only people the article could find to defend the old system were bail bondsmen. If nobody else defends it, that’s a pretty good reason to assume the old system was a bad system.
I am curious what the new incentive will be for low-risk criminals to show up to court on their trial dates if they are getting rid of bail. Is it just an honor system type of thing?
Probably the threat of being put in jail and not being released if they violate whatever terms they are given for pre-trial release (electronic monitoring bracelet, not going to specific areas, drug testing, not committing other crimes, etc.).
Jailing should be used to protect society from individuals. (as opposed to prison, which is more about punishment and rehabilitation).
Non-violent offenders (mostly DUI or other intoxication related issues) should be held until they are sober and given a court date similar to getting a speeding ticket.
For other offenses, another way to handle some of this issue is to have a truly speedy trial. If the guy stole a TV from someone and the evidence was clear, the trial (or at least a pre-trial hearing) should happen in 7-10 days, not 534. If it is more ambiguous, a risk analysis should determine if the suspect is released on their own recognizance, signed out to a guardian, fitted for a monitor or kept in a jail.
Both jail (for those convicted of misdemeanors) and prison (for those convicted of felonies) are intended for all of these purposes (jail is also used for pre-trial detention for those not released on bail or through these newer risk-based pre-trial release methods). How successful they are at each purpose is another story altogether. Sometimes, sound-bite politics (e.g. “three strikes”) can prevent more careful consideration of what policies actually make the most sense in protecting the public, deterring criminals, and rehabilitating criminals while not destroying the budgets of governments who need to pay for jails and prisons.
<<<<
Non-violent offenders (mostly DUI or other intoxication related issues) should be held until they are sober and given a court date similar to getting a speeding ticket.
<<<
Somehow, I’m not comfortable with DUI or other intoxication offenders being held only until sober. The idea that they could be released, drink-drive and kill someone while waiting trial, sounds too risky.
Don’t worry, most drunk drivers around here that have money get their charges reduced to parking violations anyway. They pay a lawyer’s fee and a fine, and go on about their lives. Only the poor get at DWI on their records.
But why should even the poor defendants be jailed prior to conviction? Treat the rich and poor the same. If enough jail space is freed up by not jailing people just because they can’t afford bail, the judges have more room to keep people in jail before trial that they think are flight risks or at risk of re-offending, rich or poor.
I don’t have much of an opinion about this either way. However, I think it’s naive to think that low income people are not flight risks. Having little money doesn’t always translate into not being able to “disappear”. My housekeeper has two grown low-income sons who somehow manage to travel to different states when they want to.
Aren’t there states with “three strikes” laws? If so, I can imagine someone facing a 3rd Strike would be a serious flight risk. (A strike can be as “low crime” as stealing a pizza.)
The idea is that someone who is a flight risk does not get bail at all. Someone who is not a flight risk does not have to stay in jail just because he can’t afford bail.
Some of the “three strike” laws are/were absurd in terms of how they cause expensive prison space to be used inefficiently relative to the future risk of someone committing more crimes and how serious those crimes may be.
@momofjandl:
Well said, that is my point exactly, the only other reason not to grant bail is if the person is felt to be a threat, like if they arrest someone who appears to be a serial killer, would be pretty stupid to grant them release, bail or no bail.