This is something I thought about today after reading a CNN article about a guy in Kansas City, MO who had been charged with committing at least 12 murders. The article, Man charged in killings of 12 women and girls, indicated that no bond had been set, so obviously the guy couldn’t walk around free. But this got me to thinking: why are bonds set in the first place?
Say you have a criminal, and that criminal is in jail. You know he committed the crime he is charged with, but you just need to provide the appropriate evidence to the court at the trial, which is several months away. The judge sets his bond or bail (I don’t know which is the appropriate term) at $25,000 or some other dollar amount, someone pays it and the guy can remain out of jail until his trial. Why is that allowed? If the police and other authorities know someone has committed a criminal act, why are they allowed to pay some sort of fine to get out of jail until their trial? Is this just a way for the courts or jails to make money, or does it actually make more financial sense to let a criminal walk if it’s going to be a long time until his or her trial? Perhaps bond is permitted on the assumption “all men are innocent until proven guilty?”
The police may THINK the guy is guilty, but it hasn’t been proven yet. We don’t imprison people unless their guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the function of a trial.
The prupose of bond is to ensure the appearance of the accused at trial. It’s not a judgement on innocence or guilt – it’s merely a mechanism to say, “If you don’t show up at trial, you will forfeit $X.”
Bond is not forfeited if the accused makes his court appearences, even if he is found guilty.
People are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law. The fact that the police believe someone is guilty isn’t enough, that is why we have trials.
Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted of a crime. Until that happens, the courts must balance the rights of the accused with the safety of the public. When someone isn’t a flight risk, why keep them in jail?
Courts don’t make money off of bail… it’s given back the the suspect after he/she shows up to trial. It’s an incentive for them to go to trial in fact… if you put up a million dollars, and you skip your trial, you lose the million. The different bail amounts are basically based on the severity of the crime and the flight risk of the suspect. (those are 2 examles, there are others) If it’s a millionaire charged with murder, and the millionaire has a private jet and accounts all over the world, he may be held without bail because he’s a flight risk, or he may have a really high bail amount and also have to turn in his passport.
There are a lot of specific laws as to how bail can be set. I don’t know them all, and what all of the circumstances are.
As for why it’s even allowed? I’d go with your guess of innocent til proven guilty. I can think of some other guesses, but I imagine other people here will give you the correct answer without guessing. I’m guessing. I guess.
I had assumed that allowing someone to get out of jail was related to “innocent until proven guilty,” although I hadn’t realized that you forfeited the money just if the person fled - I had always thought that you actually paid all of it at the time the person was let out of jail until trial. Bond sounds kind of like making a deposit on an apartment.
This discussion would probably not be complete without reference to the “bail bondsman.” It is his occupation that means that sometimes people DO pay a fee, regardless of whether they show up or not.
Let’s say you’ve been arrested and charged with mopery. The court sets bail at $5,000. If you give the court $5,000, you can go home until your trial. If you fail to show up for the trial, the court keeps your money. If you show up, you get your $5,000 back.
You don’t have $5,000 to put up.
So you turn to your friendly neighborhood bondsman. He has the cash to put up. So he guarantees your appearance with his $5,000.
For that you pay him a flat fee – typically 10%, or $500. That money is his. He keeps it as a fee for risking his $5,000. If you show up at court, your business with the bondsman is done; he’s $500 richer and you’re $500 poorer, but at least free instead of in jail for months on end.
If you skip trial, then the bondsman loses his $5,000 to the court. He won’t be happy with you.
The way it works in the US, unless the accused is weathy or perhaps pledges as security a piece of real estate with considerable equity, the bond is purchased for maybe 10% from a bonding company.
Bonding companies do not want to lose their money and if the accused skips, they are usually hunted down. The law permits, or enough gray exists within US law, bondsmen to do just about anything they want to get their man. Skipping bail is much like trying to skip out from the mob. . .
And don’t forget, even if the crimial skips town, the matter is far from “over”. If the rich guy that posted a million dollars to get out of jail skips town, not only is he now out the million, but also he has a warrant out on his head. This is the true use for bail - usually only the hopelessly guilty or hopelessly stupid will forfeit $x to avoid a court appearance.
IANAL but I DID learn from Law & Order ( ) that if the defendent represents a serious flight risk or other extreme circumstance (prior criminal record…seriousness of charge etc…)…he can be “remanded” over for custody…no bail.
Interesting FAQ of sorts at this website of a bond bailsman.
Another reason why courts favor posting bond is to reduce jail occupation. Many jails are overcrowded and it costs the government to house them. In my area, that is about $50/day.
The judge has to make a decision as to the likelihood of the accused showing up for trial, based on factors like[ul][]How rooted in the community is he? Does he own a home, have a job, local relatives?[]How heinous is the crime? Bail jumping isn’t often done for minor offenses; the fine might be less than the bail[]Does the accused have a family to support?[]Does he have a history of bail jumping?[]Does he have a criminal record?[]Would the amount of bail present a sufficient hardship to his finances if forfeited?[/ul]
As for why it’s permitted in the first place, let’s go back to the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The implies that the right to post bail was already so well-established that the framers of the Constution found it necessary only to state what could not be done.
Keep in mind that the majority of crimes on the books are not the type that would send you to prison, or even jail for that matter. Many will put you on probation or suspended sentencing or community service, etc. (Unless you’re habitual or something)
What sense would it make to keep these people in jail while awaiting their trial, when even if they are guilty, they would not have to be in jail.
You see, a long time ago, the government could lock someone up for a ‘crime’ and say the trial will be held in oh about three years from now. You stay in jail and because you are there your farm goes belly up and someone, like a friend of the governor or maybe the governor would then take you land or other business and then later at the trial fail to produce any evidence of wrong doing.
But guess what? Even though you never did anything wrong you still lost out because you weren’t friends with, or didn’t’ bribe the royally appointed governor. Sometimes people do abuse their governmental authority.
Be thankful that government can’t do that now.*
*Offer not valid if you are labled an enemy combatant.
) that if the defendent represents a serious flight risk or other extreme circumstance (prior criminal record…seriousness of charge etc…)…he can be “remanded” over for custody…no bail.