Unless the police currently are sitting around donut shops, adding the responsibility of tracking people who don’t appear at court to the police means hiring a significant number of new cops. Given the state of municipal budgets that seems like a big stretch. So you either have more wanted fugitives on the street or you have to pay alot more to higher new police.
Its usually fairly high, in the case of flight risks and proportional to income. That guy who wiped out a family in a DUI case, had a large bail set and passport surrender.
Declan
I know that the bounty hunter TV shows are popular right now, but what proportion of wanted fugitives is actually captured by bounty hunters working for bail bondsmen as compared to the proportion captured by police? (I don’t know, I’m asking.)
Interesting question – wouldn’t a bail jumper* have a warrant out on him as a fugitive anyway*? Making any potential interaction with LE that involves running a check an opportunity to grab them. The question would then be if there is evidence that bountyhunting makes for a significant effect vs. those who get nabbed because eventually they screw up and are caught in a traffic stop or held for questioning for some other offense and it pings the system.
I am the last person to advocate for higher government spending, but basic functions of government are:
- arrest people who are violating court orders, and
- set bond at an amount that will reasonably ensure an arrestee’s appearance in court.
Further, the bond amount posted can pay for that search. It’s not like the police put up roadblocks for a guy that doesn’t appear for a DUI charge. I have been to client’s homes, the address listed on court papers, where they did not appear and have warrants for their arrest. Just go pick them up.
Do you mean the bail-bonds industry or the bounty-hunter industry? Those are two different things.
Either one.
Why not just set the bail to be 10% of the usual amount in the first place?
The whole point to bail is to get people to show up in court. As such, the bail should be low enough that a person (with help from friends and family) could pay it, and high enough that the person won’t decide to run anyway (or that their family would help track them down if it comes to it).
The bail industry is what enables these unpayable amounts in the first place; once you eliminate that, you can set the amount to be reasonable to start with (i.e., $10k instead of $100k).
Because people undergoing criminal prosecution should have at least a possibility of staying out of jail until a legally valid settlement or verdict is reached?
Except many other countries manage this without have either a bail-bonds industry or a bounty-hunter industry. So, laudable though the objective is, it’s not a sufficient justification for having these two industries.
Again, other countries and even some States have bails but neither bail bonds nor bounty hunters. The people scratching our heads aren’t amazed by the existence of bails, but by the other parts.
You could probably even make it less than 10%, since bail bond fees are not refundable. I would guess that $500 of good money that the defendant might get back is actually more effective than $500 of bad money kept by the bondsman no matter what.
You would guess incorrectly, defendants who are released on commercial bond are 18% less likely to fail to appear in court then defendants who are released on government bond.
In those places that do not have bail bonds they have more people who don’t show up for court and more fugitives on the street. For example, Philadelphia has effectively outlawed bounty hunting and as a result in 2010 had 47,000 unserved arrest warrants. In contrast bounty hunters pick up 97% of fugitives that jump bail.
Without the bail industry, the Bad News Bears would have had no uniforms.
That is not a reason to have a private industry catching fugitives. It is a reason to put a boot in the ass of the police chief who is not catching fugitives when it has been shown that they can easily be caught.
I see it around here all of the time. I have clients who have warrants out for them and I urge them to turn themselves in. They live full time at the address on record in their court file, but they don’t get arrested until they are pulled over for a traffic infraction or have an interaction with the police where they are accused of another crime. Drive by their damn house and you can find them.
That is just sloppy and lazy police work, not a need to enrich private individuals to do the job that the taxpayers are already paying for.
Unserved arrest warrant != jumped bail
The majority of those unserved arrest warrants are for people who got a parking/traffic ticket and failed to pay it. The next chunk are going to be those arrested for petty offenses and released on their own recognizance. Very very few of them are going to be things bounty hunters are interested in.
You don’t get a bench warrant for unpaid parking tickets.
I live in Maricopa County Arizona, known for its racially profiling, grandstanding, keeping inmates in tents in the desert lunatic Sheriff Joe Arpaio. As part of his neglecting his official duties (efficiently operating the county jail system, augmenting municipal police protection and serving warrants) he allowed, literally, 10s of 1000s of warrants to go unserved in order to free up deputies for his “illegal immigration sweeps.”
Until a couple of bounty hunters mistakenly hit the wrong house in a full scale forced entry a few years ago, hurt or killed (don’t recall) the resident and caused a major scandal and crackdown, they did a booming business here doing the job the duly elected official outright refused to do.