Enough With Caging Non-Violent Offenders Simply Because They Can't Make Bail
I blogged about this issue in April.
The LA Times Editorial Board writes that "America's bail system undermines fundamental fairness and justice," and they call for a change. They're right:
Consider two people arrested within hours of each other by police who say the suspects look just like a couple of prowlers who were seen recently creeping around homes that suffered break-ins. Both men are taken to the station, both are booked for first-degree burglary and both are held in jail until being brought before a judge.The judge sets a trial date and consults the official bail schedule -- a kind of rate sheet that lays out how much money suspects must post, depending on the alleged crime and a range of other factors -- and sets bail for each at $50,000.
One suspect pulls together enough assets to hire an insurance company -- a bail bonds firm -- to put up the money, persuading the court that he will show up for trial rather than run away and forfeit his bond. He is released, and over the course of the following weeks, he returns to work, collects paychecks and spends much of his free time with his lawyer, preparing a defense to the charges against him. He rounds up witnesses who can vouch for his whereabouts on the nights of the break-ins.
But the other suspect has no assets to post with the court, or to hire a bondsman to post bail for him. He is locked up in county jail to wait for trial. Because he can't report to work, he loses his job. His lawyer does her best, but he can't help her prepare his defense or track down his alibi witnesses.
"Look," the prosecutor tells him, "I know you did it, so plead guilty and we'll ask for nothing more than time already served." He protests that he's innocent. But he's also stuck in jail and he wants to go home. If he had money, he'd already be there, but he doesn't -- so he drops his defense and gets a felony record.
A key precept of the American justice system is that a defendant's wealth or poverty has no bearing on his treatment or his ability to mount a defense. The bail system, when it is misused, undermines that value.
The bail system, as it stands, is not justice -- it's special prince or princess "justice" for the rich, and "suck it!" for those who don't have money or friends or relatives with money.
The crux of what should be done is in the LAT piece:
Jails should not be used to lock up people awaiting trial just because they can't pay, if their release is not likely to put people in danger.
And I'll add this up here (from my comment below): Paying for ankle monitors for those who cannot afford them (or bail) is cheaper than caging people simply because they can't scare up enough cash for bail -- and the right thing to do.
The editorial makes sense. But it does not offer a system to use in lieu of the bail bond system.
Nick at August 28, 2016 5:25 AM
Actually, ankle monitors would be a system, and we should pay for them for poor people. PS It's also cheaper than caging people.
Amy Alkon at August 28, 2016 7:22 AM
The real problem is that the system was never designed to account for a massive portion of the population to be 'Justice Involved'. Too many laws passed to ensure greater control over peoples lives and behavior and to suck more and more money into the coffers of politicians and bureaucrats. Ferguson MO. gets 60% of its income from fines and police actions (which BTW, fall disproportionately on the lower classes) and too many other governments do the same, that is why the us vs them mentality is growing in America. Somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of the laws in this country are designed for something other than protecting the lives, liberty and property of the citizenry of this country, until we deal with THAT, nothing else is going to matter.
warhawke223 at August 28, 2016 12:00 PM
@ Warhawk
Re: "Too many laws passed to ensure greater control over peoples' lives and behavior . . ."
Obamacare is one of the worst of course. And guess what? Around 15% of its funding is expected to come from penalties and fines against both individuals and employers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/30/how-congress-paid-for-obamacare-in-two-charts/
I heard a new saying at work this week:
"You can have cake, or you can have cock. And we're out of cake."
Definitely screwed.
Canvasback at August 28, 2016 8:00 PM
@ Warhawk
Re: "Too many laws passed to ensure greater control over peoples' lives and behavior . . ."
Obamacare is one of the worst of course. And guess what? Around 15% of its funding is expected to come from penalties and fines against both individuals and employers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/30/how-congress-paid-for-obamacare-in-two-charts/
I heard a new saying at work this week:
"You can have cake, or you can have cock. And we're out of cake."
Definitely screwed.
Canvasback at August 28, 2016 8:00 PM
And watch them use their time at liberty to make plans to skip town, cut off the monitors and flee.
Patrick at August 29, 2016 5:14 AM
I'm not disputing the premise of the article, but after having been burgled a couple of times, I believe burglary suspects should be treated the same as suspects for violent offenses. After the last break-in, the detective said they had a good idea of the group that did it, just no evidence. If probable cause exists, high bail is a deterrent to fleeing and to further property crime. Fewer non-violent burglars on the street equals safer neighborhoods. The push to de-institutionalize non-violent offenders should not include this class of criminals.
Jon Evans at August 29, 2016 7:53 AM
To the gentleman whose house was robbed: I feel your pain. Our houses (so far) have been safe but I'm not going to insult you by giving helpful hints. I understand why you answered the way you did, but excessive bail negates the reason for bail. Everyone is supposed to be presumed innocent (except for Louisiana, where justice runs along the lines of the Napoleonic code, & the defendant bears the burden of proving he/she is innocent), and bail exists to ensure the defendant returns. However justice is not speedy and it's possible for the presumed innocent defendant to spend more time in jail than a guilty plea would warrant. If the person arrested was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, no one would care. But in denying reasonable bail, you're implying that the police never make a mistake. Nobody is that naive. Even if one innocent person winds up suffering the effects detailed by Amy Alkon, it's too many. Besides, there would be no such thing as an alibi. The ankle monitor would give the real location, as in right inside your house, stealing your Dali painting.
Samm at August 31, 2016 1:59 PM
Leave a comment