The bail industry may be about to be over?

Great Debates
21

You can have a bail system without having private parties involved in both posting bail for profit and having broader legal authority to arrest individuals than is given to the police.

As Lord Feldon notes, it’s only the US and the Phillipines that use this system. It would seem that other countries have ways to ensure the attendance of an accused person in court without giving a legal power to arrest to individuals based on a contract. So there certainly are alternatives, which a cross-jurisdiction comparison will show.

In Canada, for instance, we have a well-functioning system of bail, where the money has to come from family and friends who are willing to vouch for you. The amounts for bail are much lower, precisely because there is no private bondsman available to post large sums. Our system is also geared to releasing on one’s own recognizance and promises to appear, rather than money bail. If someone skips, then that is a matter for the police, with all the normal legal restrictions on their conduct to protect an accused, not for some private party who is in it to make a buck and is not subject to those types of legal restrictions when arresting the individual.

In fact, lending money for bail for a profit is the one specifically prohibited activity in our Criminal Code’s definition of obstruction of justice:

[QUOTE=Criminal Code]
139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
[/QUOTE]

22

In my jurisdiction, a person charged with a crime must be brought to trial within five months of the charge being brought if they are confined pursuant to that charge. A delay exceeding five months allows the accused to forever avoid prosecution.

Now, it’s true that the five-month clock is tolled by any actions taken by the defense that delay the prosecution. In other words, if the defense requests a delay of trial because they need more time to investigate or interview witnesses, that delay does not count against the five months. And it’s true that there are times the prosecution plays games with that system, announcing that they are ready for trial even when they are not just to force the defense to “take the time-out,” as it were.

But while I agree there is a problem of coerced guilty pleas, I do not agree that “YEARS!” is a reasonably summary of the problem. Months, yes.

23

I could have sworn it was 12 months in Virginia. Still, you’re the lawyer.

Still, I’m always of the opinion that faster is better than slower and even months of detention without trial is a wrongful thing. And it’s impossible to state with authority that the years thing doesn’t happen.

24

I’m not sure they can prohibit bounty hunters from other states because of interstate commerce issues. But I could be wrong.

25

Va Code §19.2-243:

Same for a misdemeanor in circuit court.

And no, faster is seldom better than slower for the defense. The strong majority of defense cases get better with time, not worse.

Now, I grant that “years,” is possible. But it would be very unusual. For example, the clock does not run if a mistrial occurs. So we might imagine some case that deadlocks five successive juries creating a years-long confinement. But that would be a very very unlikely extreme.

26

So if you’re arrested by the police your liberty costs you $10,000. Nice. :rolleyes:

“BUT, the court clerk gets to keep 10% of the bond amount for their trouble”

“Their trouble” ?!? in other words, a person arrested by the police funds the court clerk’s salary?

27

So aside from a government person rather than Dog Breath, there is no difference between the for-profit court system and the for-profit bail bondsman. Pathetic.

People should not be held for ransom. Requiring a surety and even requiring a reasonable and affordable cash deposit makes a lot of sense, but not refunding the deposit when the accused abides by the terms of interim judicial release is grossly offensive.

Your system should not prey on people.

28

Nope, not allowed. A bounty hunter who tries to apprehend a fugitive in Illinois can be charged with kidnapping. Only law enforcement are permitted to take those actions.

http://www.bountyhunteredu.org/illinois/

29

So what reasonable and affordable bail should be set for accused murderer X or accused rapist Y?

30

Gee, the bail bountyhunter has an image problem? Who’d think. (But at the same time, yeah, as if folk running for-profit prisons should skeeve me out less, or I should applaud the highest incarceration/penal restriction rate among the major western nations…)

As in other states as mentioned, in my jurisdiction we mostly use the Pretrial Services Office, a public entity, to manage the case of defendants who may be short of liquid cash at hand. The person then has to accept being under PTS’s supervision terms until the trial happens and he gets what he put in back, PTS does not take a cut; it gets its cut from forfeits. We have not outlawed bondsmen altogether but demand is low as the public option is a better deal for the average case.

Speaking of bail bondsmen, reminds me of an observation I had back c. 1990… the Baltimore Yellow Pages (remember Yellow Pages? I mean real big, fat Yellow Pages? OK…) had something like 14 pages of ads and listings under the big bold heading “BAIL”. Of course actually living IN Baltimore one could see how it would be such a high demand industry…

The Illinois court’s cut is ONE percent at the end of the equation (10% of 10%). A bail bondsman gets to keep the whole ten percent. This because the court is NOT for-profit.

31

It is up to the court to decide on a case by case basis if a person should be granted interim judicial release, and if so, what the terms should be.

32

Thanks for the correction. 1% is less nasty than 10%, but it is still preying on accused and presumably innocent persons. If you want to take a chunk out of them once they are found guilty, be my guest, but not until they are found guilty.

33

That’s a different issue. The point Muffin and I are making is that if accused rapist is set free on bail, dutifully attends every single court appearance, and is acquitted, he should get all his bail money back. The bail is a means to ensure the accused doesn’t skip, not a judicially enforced ranson.

34

Not only that, it incentivizes the court to impose higher bails because the district he/she is a part of and is elected from sees a greater profit. That’s shady as fuck.

35

A profit of 1% is still a profit. Lower than the Dog & Beth guys, but still a profit.

Just like retail profit margins are always low, but they rely on volume and repeat customers. :stuck_out_tongue:

36

Court clerks are elected? :confused:

37

It varies by state, but in Illinois they are.

38

Ah yes, I had forgotten this Pit thread: Fuck you, Rowan County (KY) Clerk Kim Davis and its chatter about elected court clerks.

Really, it’s hard for me to keep track of all the wacky things you guys down south do! :wink:

39

The reason we have a bail system is that it makes defendants morelikely to appear in court. Defendants who were freed on their own recognizance are less likely to appear in court.
Once they have failed to appear in court those who received bail from the bail industry are fifty percent less likely to remain at large for over a year.
This means less criminals on the streets at no additional costs to taxpayers.

40

After practicing in the criminal justice system for a few years, I think that the bail industry needs to be destroyed, burned, and then burn the ashes again. It offers absolutely nothing to the system except to enrich people who are generally of no higher character than the criminals they serve.

One simple step: have the courts accept a 10% cash deposit for the bail amount that is refundable after trial. If a person is found guilty, then any fines or costs come out of that amount. If a person is acquitted, the money is returned in full. Fines are paid, forfeited bail goes into the public coffers, there is already an agency (the police) who are getting paid to arrest fugitives in the proper way, and the accused are not forced to deal with these shady entities.

Win, win, win, and win.