So, the example had to be Jamal? Huh, imagine that.
How ridiculous. Of course the algorithm will include “how much they have to lose”- that is the entirety of its purpose. It will surely include how long you’ve lived in the area, if you have close by family and employment. Undoubtedly priors and your probation status would be included.
And as noted above, Mom is probably not putting up $5k for bail. She’s probably giving a bail bondsman $5k forever so he’ll cover a $50k bail.
And putting up her house as collateral. Which if “Dave” (it’s pretty damn racist to use “Jamal” isn’t it?) skipped, she’d lose her house and the $5000.
And if you cannot make bail, you cannot work. You cannot make car payments, mortgage or rent payments, credit card payments, alimony, child support… and you could locked up for many months before trial So, even if you actually did nothing wrong, you face financial ruin and lose all personal possessions.
I have almost no knowledge of how the system works, nor how bail bondsmen operate but… Don’t judges set the bail amounts to match the wealth of the accused? I thought a poor guy would get a small amount, while a rich guy got a larger one, relative to their wealth.
Please, fight a little ignorance here. I’ve never interacted with the criminal courts beyond jury summons’.
Seems to me this part is mixing together two different issues. I think we should reform our justice system so that the freedom of (presumptively innocent) people is not dependent on whether or not they can come up with a certain amount of money.
Separately, I tend to agree with the OP that setting conditions on what legal activities a (presumptively innocent) person can do before trial seems unjust, and we should probably look at curtailing the ability of The System to tell Bob what he can and cannot do before his trial, beyond the obvious stuff like having to show up for his court dates.
Each of those things seems it’s worth doing on its own.
I predict the initial iteration of this policy will last until a some abusive boyfriend slips past the algorithm and murders his ex-lover and her family.
New Jersey has a similar algorithm-based system (according to a Planet Money episode), and supposedly it includes 9 factors, some of which are:
- Do you have any bench warrants outstanding on you?
- How old are you? (people younger than 23 are more likely to commit another crime while on bail)
- Do you have a prior conviction for violence in the past X years?
They didn’t mention any of the factors you proposed, but they could be in there too.
I think it is based on the crime. For a small crime, low bail. For something like murder, might be $2 million bail or no bail permitted at all.
And the knee-jerk reaction will lead to people being locked up for weeks on littering charges and shit.
Some situations are no-win. 
Typically, neither the defendant’s income nor net worth is a consideration in determining bail. Judges tend to consider severity of the charge, perceived flight risk, and perceived risk of further criminal activity–obviously super arbitrary.
Here’s a pretty decent overview: How Is Bail Amount Determined? How Are Bonds Set? | Nolo
To play devil’s advocate, doesn’t having money and property in the area make one less of a flight risk? If I own a house and have a good paying job in the area, I’m not going to give that up to flee a DUI charge.
If I don’t have any money or any job, it would be easier to live under the radar, especially in a different state where my home state may not even chose to extradite.
However, I agree that it is terribly unfair for someone to sit in jail for months on a relatively minor charge simply because they are poor.
Exactly. Having deep roots in the area is going to make you less of a flight risk. At a certain level of wealth it flips though. If I have mansions all over the world, have a private jet and can run my corporation from some non-extradiction country, I am a greater flight risk.
That is a factor, but the main factors are severity of the crime and flight risk.
Certainly those are factors that influence bail decisions…but those are distinct from ability to pay, which is typically not taken into account. I have a home, a family, a reliable job in my community, a profession…those speak to my flight risk (no to mention that I’m white, educated, and would have a private lawyer arguing on my behalf) without a *direct *considerationon whether or not I have or can raise money for bail.
Yeah I caught that too.
As I recall, George Zimmerman, the Florida “neighborhood watch” volunteer who shot Treyvon Martin, was released on bail and then was hauled back into court when it was discovered that he had a bank account that he did not disclose at his initial bail hearing. I think his bail was revoked, at least for a while,
I assume that the reason he needed to disclose the account was because how much money he had was a consideration (at least in Florida).
Here is the bail schedule for Placer County, California (do a Google search for others):
http://www.placer.courts.ca.gov/fees/2018%20Felony%20Bail%20Schedule%20FINAL.pdf
Only for pretty major crimes, though. Someone with those means might flee a rape or murder or major fraud charge. They’re unlikely to do so for a DUI.
I generally think that ending cash bail is a good idea, although I share the OP’s concern about subjecting people who haven’t been convicted of anything to unreasonable conditions of bail.
It seems like a real solution would have to also put some teeth into the right to a speedy trial. A temporary stay in jail while things are worked out isn’t totally unreasonable. Languishing behind bars for years without a trial is unconscionable.
I thought the whole point of bail was ensuring you show up for your trial. Skip town; lose your bail.
If that’s the case (is it?) then I think that GPS monitoring anklets would make bail obsolete. Just give them an anklet and cut them loose. Maybe give them conditions to follow (no alcohol, hold a job, whatev), as well.