Is that the way it’s working for everybody, though? I think a lot of poor people are sitting in jail, because they can’t even afford 10 percent of their bond. And the reason they are sitting is because they are poor; not because the judge wanted to keep them locked up necessarily.
MILO,
QUOTE:
the U.S. Constitution MANDATES that rich and poor have equal rights in this realm.
UNQUOTE
Not necessarily. It would require a long, tedious answer involving state action, suspect classes and court cases, but as a general statement it is not true. The rights of the poor are not protected as strongly as the rich. It’s kinda like the right to counsel. OJ could afford Cochran, Shapiro, Bailey, Dershowitz, while Joe Poor gets some middle aged, exhausted public defender with an unmanagable case load and a bitter heart.
QUOTE:
Why is it so far-fetched to imagine a similar system, where an individual shows he can’t afford a meaningful bond amount; the judge weighs the other (very important) criteria, such as the potential threat to society, and then authorizes some sort of a monitored, meaningful tether?
UNQUOTE
It isnt so hard to imagine because THIS IS THE SYSTEM! I’m afraid that sailor is right about that. Before deciding on the amount of bond, the judge considers all those criteria…he HAS to. he also HAS to consider other alternatives to posting money that exist. For example, in some major counties, they have Pre-Trial Services which is kinda like pre-trial probation. You get out of jail, but are monitored and checked on. They also can put conditions on anyone’s bond. One of the most meaniful I’ve seen is the judge released a defendant, but the condition of bond was that, until the defendant had a job, he would have to spend each afternoon in the courtroom (which was empty 80% of the time.) All these other tethers exist and have to be considered. Of course, that still leaves us with some people being in jail, but it’s a matter of resources again.
QUOTE
And the reason they are sitting is because they are poor; not because the judge wanted to keep them locked up necessarily.
UNQUOTE
With the rare exception of complete denial of bond, EVERYONE is sitting in jail because they cant afford to post. Very rare indeed is the person who says “I COULD come up with the money to post, but I just don’t want to.” Whether they dont have a dollar to their name and need to post $100 or they make 200,000 a year, but bond is set at $5,000,000, everybody in jail cant afford it. Plus, and this is the prosecutor in me:
They are not sitting in jail because they are poor they are sitting in jail BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED A CRIME!!!
absolutely I agree. sugget you contact your local jails and ask for the percentage of folks there waiting for trail, having been unable to post bond. Another route (at least in Michigan), many (if not all) areas have a “community corrections advisory board” and they specifically look at jail utilizations. Ask them what the ratio is in your area. Each county will have some sort of ruling body as well (in MI, it’s county Commissioners), and there’ll probably be a sub committee on Law/Courts/Jail, their meetings (by law) would be open, ask questions.
I believe that you’ll find Milo is correct.
Barring that, keep track of sentencing when it’s published, and look at the number of ‘jail credit’ days. That will give you an idea of how many folks were sitting in jail waiting for trials. It isn’t necessarily the big cases, like the one that caught Milo’s attention. It’s the tons of relatively minor cases.
Hamlet (by the way, if you use around the word quote and then after ward do the same around /quote, you’ll get that neato quote feature we all love so much).
What Milo and I have been saying is that the system isn’t working well. And, certainly in MI (where we both live), he’s correct. And, I suspect the same is often true elsewhere. Aren’t you the person who said they’d been a prosecutor? well, then perhaps you’ll remember that folks are still considered innocent until proven guilty, so your last capitalized objection "They are not sitting in jail because they are poor they are sitting in jail BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED A CRIME!!! " is unresponsive to the situtation - they’re in jail because they’re too poor to raise bail and have been accused of a crime.
It is possible, perhaps even likely that they had committed it, but at that point you cannot make that statement. Innocent people have been accused, sometimes even found guilty of a crime (surely you’ve noticed some of the more notworthy, like the recent guy who was in prison for 30 years despite the FBI’s knowledge that their informant was not telling the truth etc.).
Milo is also correct about the constitution. Your point about the ‘quality’ of defense does not address his objection that if bail is to be granted, that it is not set in such a way so that poor routinely cannot make bail, and rich routinely can.
(Milo what are we doing here? this feels so wrong, can’t you insult me or something??? 
)
As I stated before, the entire basis of the concept of bond is about MONEY. MONEY (or real property), is what is posted to get out of jail. So, of course the rich, by definition, are going to have money to get out, whereas the poor will not. There is no way around it. However, there are other options (as I again stated before) for pre-trial release, that are always considered by judges.
My point being is that there is an unsolvable problem that you and Milo are complaining against. The only way to change it is to change the posting of bond being based on money.
That was why I originally posted, to point out the difference between the structural model of bond (where money is what is posted), and the idea that judges are holding only poor people because they are poor. I don’t believe the system isn’t working, I think it works just fine, but if you want to help the problem, run down to your local jail, put up your money, and get someone out of jail. Then you can follow that person around and make sure he/she doesnt commit any more crimes and appears for every court date.
Finally, as for my half-hearted attempt at levity, when I indicated all people are in jail are automatically guilty, I must have had my sarcasm lock button on off. I will say, however, that everyone arrested and held for a crime (in America) has to appear before a judge within 48 hours (usually) to determine if there is probable cause for the detention, as well as having a second probable cause determination made, either by a grand jury or a judge.
shouting (capitalization) is sarcasm now? Dammit, I didn’t get the memo on that. Sorry, no, your ‘sarcasm’ didn’t come through.
It did, however, when you spout out that I should put up bail for folks. Frankly, since my tax dollars are being spent (at what is it now about $40 per day in my county?) keeping them in, I’m already on the tab, thank you, and that’s my point.
The point, sir, once again, is to not do away with the concept of bail, but to have a more rationalized approach, something that I, (a more than casual observer of the CJ system) have yet to see in operation.
I know who sits on the local CCAB board, I know their phone number by heart, I usually don’t have to introduce myself when calling there, they know my voice. I visit the local jail once a week, my agency gets funding through the Law & Courts committee of the local county. I’ve sat in courtrooms and follow the ‘court actions’ part of the newspaper. I’ve testified at various trials and hearings, both for prosecution and defense. Know all about arraignments etc.
So, instead of dismissing alternate opinions, with ‘it’s all about money’, how about directing some of the attention to the substance of the argument? No kidding, bail is about money/property. We’ve suggested alternatives to the apparent flat rate we see happening (UDAA= x$$, CCW+y$$, etc.), suggesting that they take a closer look (on a more regular basis) than they currently do, as to the “reasonable” part of “reasonable bail”. and so far your answer is ‘they do’ and ‘but it is about money, so what?’ to which we’ve answered “we don’t see that judges routinely take this into account” and “we know it’s about money, but it’s also supposed to be about reasonableness, equal protection etc.”.
**
By George, I think he’s got it!
wring,
It is difficult to argue over whether or not a judge is being “reasonable” in the setting of bond, in the abstract. I can shout: Yes, they are being reasonable, yes they consider everything, no there is no flat rate, to which you reply: No they’re not, no they dont, and yes there is. Not too productive in the abstract.
Your point is to have a “rationalized approach” to the setting of bond? Or a “rationalized approach” to what should be considered to be bond? If your point is the first, we’re back to the “judges are reasonable/no they aint” argument. If your point is the second, which I think Milo joins in, I say what sailor said, give additional alternatives. There are alternatives already in place, which I’ve discussed before.
Now, that I hope I finally get Milo’s point, whether or not somebody is held in custody pending trial should not be a function of the amount of money they have. (am I close Milo?) My response has been that there are alternatives to just posting money, which I’ve mentioned before.
Nearly every person in my local jail has had bail set and reviewed at least 2 times. It is set at the time of arrest, it is then reviewed by the judge, and then it is reviewed again by a judge upon defendant’s motion for reduction of bond. You want judge’s to look at it every day? You want to substitute your idea of reasonable bond for the judges? Or perhaps we should treat people differently based on how much money they do have.
If we want to revamp the idea of money serving as a surety of future conduct and appearance in court, that’s not a bad idea. Instead of a person being able to get out of jail by posting money, perhaps we should allow them release on their word. Wait…we have that, release on recognizance. Milo’s murderer could just tell the judge: Oh sure, I promise to be here for court and not do anything bad in the meantime, and the judge can say: OK, I trust you. Or maybe we could release them after they comply with certain conditions that help indicate their trustworthiness: like having a job, family in the community, and no prior record…Wait…all that is considered too.
Hamlet. Yes, they review, yes they have other options. All of what you say is nice and wonderful and looks really good on paper. reality is quite different.
When I see the sentences in the paper, “3 years probation, x amount of jail time, credit for same number”, this tells me they were held prior to conviction, were unable to post bail and obviously, as a probationary sentence demonstrates, the judge, even after the guilty finding, doesn’t consider them to be a serious risk to the public. Why, then, the x amount of jail time?
Both a rationalized approach to a bond and a rationalized approach to what can be considered to be a bond. Alternatives to cash bonds are not always available (locally, the only person I knew that had a ‘supervised release’ was on a federal, not state warrant)
Perhaps your area is not faced with jail overcrowding? Our judges get print outs about overcrowding. and yet, still we see folks charged with misdemeanors unable to secure bail.
Apparently you don’t see a problem. Others do. Lawmakers in my area certainly do. Jail officials in my area certainly do. Perhaps you might not be looking. Suggest you attempt to find out how many folk are sentenced to “time served” (it’d be a good indicator of some one who was unable to provide bail, and merely took up space in the jail waiting for trial.)
Oh please, Hamlet.
The local murder and the guy’s $1 million bail is what got me thinking about the subject. I’m not advocating that a murder suspect be set free.
(Although, under the money system, a rich murder suspect certainly can be.)
**
Close. Money is an effective means of helping assure that a suspected criminal returns for trial - if they have money. It’s when you don’t that it would seem to be an unfair standard and possibly not justifiable under the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
**
And my response, which I’ve mentioned before, is that the use of these alternatives apparently doesn’t go far enough. Poor people sit in jail because they can’t afford their bond. I don’t believe in many of those cases, it’s by design by the judge, because he sees that person as a particular societal threat or flight risk. Sure, that’s the case a lot of the time. Not always.
My evidence is what I’ve seen in several counties over several years. Like wring, I am a more-than-casual observer of the court system. I’m not holding myself out as an expert, though.
So, like you, all I can provide is anecdotal evidence, not statistical (although it seems someone would have looked at this issue, somewhere).
And as a result of the above, you are right. We’re at an impasse. You say the system works fine and has provisions for those without money. I say the system is still skewed by money.
Yes, jails here are overcrowded. Rare indeed is the part of America where they are not.
I would beg to differ with your assessments. My assertations are not just nice and wonderful, they are reality. Unfortunately I can’t invite you to stop by the morning court call in a local county, but judges are very good about not keeping misdemeanor/nonviolent offenders in jail.
As for credit for time served, I beg to differ again when you say those sentences mean that the judge doesn’t consider them a serious risk to the public. In my jurisdiction, it is commonplace to grant everyone who sat in jail, even for one day, to credit for time served. It is strictly a matter of following the criminal code, an attempt to avoid lawsuits for wrongful detention, and to clean up statistics that people are routinely granted “credit for time served.”
(As an aside, Milo’s original post dealt with a murderer and 1,000,000 bond, not a misdemeanor disorderly conduct person who is in custody for one night to sleep it off, or three days until he gets out.)
example data from Delaware which doesn’t have ‘county jail’ systems. they say
and
again, one thing I think is appropriate and isn’t currently done, is that when a judge enters a high bail for a defendant that has no chance of raising it, there should be a statement indicating the rationale for the defacto denial.
you missed my point about the time served. Yes, they’re required in most cases to ‘give credit’ for the time served. my statement, if you looked carefully was that the person was sentenced to ‘time served’. Which means that they walk out of the courtroom.
Here’s some tidbits from the Illinois Criminal Code that may shed some light on these issues:
[/quote]
When from all the circumstances the court is of the opinion that the defendant will appear as required either before or after conviction and the defendant will not pose a danger to any person or the community, and the defendant will comply with all conditions of bond…the defendant may be released on his or her own recognizance…"
This section shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of relyling upon contempt of court proceedings or criminal sanctions instead of financial loss to assure the appearance of the defendant, and that the defendant will not pose a danger to any person or the community and that the defendant will comply with all conditions of bond.
Monetary bail should be set ONLY (my emphasis) when it is determined that no other conditions of release will reasonable assure the defendant’s appearance in court, that the defendant will not pose a danger to any person or the community and that the defendant will comply with all conditions of bond.
[quote]
In addition to these provisions, judges are required to conduct hearings with evidence presented when denying bail in nonprobationable offenses 725 ILCS 5/11-6.1
Also, the amount the judge sets for bail has to be “not oppressive,” (which Illinois courts have interpreted to include your example of defacto denials of bond) and “considerate of the financial ability of the accussed.”
All these statutes are regularly followed by any competent judge. In addition, a vast majority of judges I have appeared in give statements as to why they set the bond in the amount they set it.
The safeguards are there and they are used.
(I’m tracking down the information from Delaware.)
Oh yes, I almost forgot:
In order for a defendant to be given credit for time served, he has to be sentenced for the amount of credit.
The fact the judge didn’t add any additional time to the sentence does not necessarily mean the pre-trial detention was not proper
well, it’s good that your state points out that setting bail artificially high is defacto denial. Others do not. Suppose perhaps that the law was written that way because it happened there before or they see it happening elsewhere?
In the meantime, here’s some federal data showing a little more than half were released pending trial (then breaks down cash vs. other kinds of releases), 34% ‘detained by the court’ (ie no bail) with breakdowns of why, which leaves an additional 12.3% in the federal system that were neither released nor ordered to be detained. OPtions other than ‘couldn’t make bail’???
still not getting it, are you? I’m talking about the times that it’s exactly the amount of time served. So, either the cosmic forces are aligned so that Joe Blow happens to come up for sentencing at exactly the same time the judge was thinking ‘ya know, I think 48 days in jail is the right amount of time’, et voila, or more likely that the judge sentenced them to that exact number so A. they could be released right then and B. avoid the odd looking sentence “sentenced to 15 days in jail, with credit for 48”. I look at sentences all the time. Typically they are for a period of months (6 months, 3 months, etc.), a certain # of days (either something under 30 or nearly a year), or ‘a year’ (prison sentences of course are more often range of x # months to x + y number of months).
However, checking out the ‘credit for time served’ sentences, you’ll see things like “sentenced to 117 days, credit 117 days”. I think it’s obvious that in those kinds of cases, the judge would have sentenced them to less than those 117 days, but since they’d been there that long, feel compelled to ‘use it all’.
here’s some stuff from Florida which notes
, so even when there’s state law to attempt to avoid what Milo and I have noted, seems it doesn’t always work. This site also notes the common practice of ‘over charging’ a defendant at first, which also then would increase the bond, thereby increasing the liklihood of the person not being able to raise it.
Not true at all, Milo - this could be very constitutional. The easiest way would be to release the accused into the custody of the relative, and the relative promises, under paid of (civil) contempt of court, that the accused will appear for trial. If the accused doesn’t show, the relative is found in contempt and locked up.
Two points. First, there are several mechanisms under which innocent people are locked up. The most obvious involves witnesses - either a material witness warrant, or contempt of court for refusing to testify.
Second, constitutional rights are waivable. If the relative voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court, then there is no problem with locking that person up.
Sua
I think you may be stepping out on a limb there. Sentencing is not an exact science where you decide what a judge would have given if the defendant was not in custody vs. what a judge would have given if the defendant was in custody. not even judges do that.
I also think you misplace your reliance on credit for time served sentences as an indication that there are people held for longer than they should. It is neither obvious nor conspiratorial…It is really convenient for a sentencing judge.
I don’t think we
I think you may be stepping out on a limb there. Sentencing is not an exact science where you decide what a judge would have given if the defendant was not in custody vs. what a judge would have given if the defendant was in custody. not even judges do that.
I also think you misplace your reliance on credit for time served sentences as an indication that there are people held for longer than they should. It is neither obvious nor conspiratorial…It is really convenient for a sentencing judge.
MILO:
I attempted to point out that this is not true. The only time a bond has been set is after the judge has set it, which is after he considered the defendant’s threat to soceity and flight risk. These bond decisions are revisited after the initial setting, usually within a week of initial bond being set.
I actually don’t think we disagree on your main point Milo. Yes it is wrong for non-violent, poor people to be held in custody on a minimal bond for more than a couple days. Yes, there should be more resources available for pre-trial release of defendant’s. Yes, 5 out of 6 people held in custody before trial are there because they can’t afford the bond. Even more importantly, I agree that using pre-trial detention as a method of punishment should not be done either.
But I disagree with the assertion that judges set bond and forget about people, or that judges do not consider all aspects of the case in setting of bond. No matter what pre-trial services you have, or what relatives will be responsible for you you will have people being detained prior to trial. However, these people being detained prior to being found guilty have been given due process and are there because the judge has found there is a risk of them not appearring, or a risk to soceity. The fact money is what has been used as the means to secure release does not change those facts.
check out your local sentencing. “yes sentencing is not an exact science” however - you will find, routinely the types of senteces I mentioned - Less than one month generally stated as a number of days. Over one month generally stated in a number of months. over one year either stated in number of months or number of months/years.
What you won’t find is an odd number of days, such as 83, 97, 64, whatever, except when there is also an exact number of days credit.
think of it this way: when asked to ‘gauge’ time, distance etc, we tend to think in terms of multiple units such as 5 minutes, half hour, 20 miles etc. When some one tells me that they waited 12 and half minutes or that they drove 34 miles, I generally believe they timed/measured it, other wise it would have been something like “I waited at least 10 minutes, I drove over 30 miles…”.
additional data more from Bureau of justice stats
which states that in the 76 most populous counties in the country (data from May of 96), 63% were released pending adjudication, and the other 37% were detained until court case was resolved, but only 6% were straight out ‘denied bond’.
this press release from another year (same folks) gives similar percentages of released/held, but offers a break down on what kind of offenses. Naturally, as we’d hope and expect, murder defendants are far more likely to be held pending trial, however, there was still a substantial number of property and other less serious offenses being held (property was about 29% held).