The title says it all. I’m tempted to think that bail is merely blatant discrimination against the poor, but I’m hopeful that there’s more to it than that. At first glance, bail seems like a get-out-of-jail card that only the wealthy or the well connected can afford in many cases. If you’re rich enough (or well connected enough) to pay your way home, then that’s fine and you’re free to go home. But if you’re poor and you only know poor people, well, then, you’re staying put. Am I missing something?
The only defense of bail that I’ve heard goes something like, “The person who pays the bail forfeits that money if the accused doesn’t show up for trial.” But I can’t believe that someone who believes that s/he’s better off not standing trial wouldn’t gladly forfeit any sum of cash if they both thought that there is a serious chance of being convicted and a decent shot of fleeing the country, etc.
Fight my ignorance on bail. Is there another purpose of bail besides the one I’ve listed? And do I understand the above defense of bail, or have I misrepresented it?
Andrew Lister comes to mind as an example of why that fails. Money is of little value to someone facing the better part of his life in prison. Far better off to forfeit bail and run in their mind.
Prosecutors do ask for and sometimes get bail denied based on flight risk. But it’s reasonable in the majority of cases not to make someone be away from their job/ business/ farm while awaiting trial, and most people have enough investment in where they live to not want to abandon house, family, etc. Bail or bond (the difference anybody?) is essentially proof that the accused has strong incentive not to run.
That’s why bail is not always offered. There’s no universal offer of bail to every criminal defendant.
Bail is set when, at a bail hearing, the judge determines that the individual is not dangerous to the community, and that the bail set will ensure the defendant’s return.
If neither of these conditions are true, the defendant is “remanded to custody” to await trial in jail. If a defendant has ever skipped town on bail in the past they are an automatic flight risk and can’t get bail in my state.
most people who get out on bail pending trial are not rich murderers, but every day folks charged with less serious crimes like DUI, shoplifting, assault, or drugs. Sometimes it’s only $500. I imagine it varies in different jurisdictions. I’ve had many clients who were poor who got to remain free pending trial with no bail or very small amounts.
My sister in law was arrested for numerous items, among them failure to appear. She called us wanting us to post $5,000.00 to get her released on bail. This was ten percent of the whole amount, so we would have had to sign for $50,000.00. Not having that amount of cash on hand, I would have had to have probably put my house up as collateral to get her out.
She would have disappeared within minutes of being released, leaving me with a huge second mortgage. My wife understood, and we did not post the bail. Some of my in laws decided from that moment on that I was a cold hearted bastard for making her sit out few weeks in jail awaiting trial, after which she plea bargained down to a one year sentence.
Me pointing out that they had not stepped up to post the bail did not win me any friends in that camp.
BTW, remember that there’s a third option: RoR, “released on recognizance”. Many “solid citizens” with a job, house, family, etc, will get this and not pay any bail. Particularly if they are charged with something nonviolent and minor enough that they will probably be given probation even if convicted. There’s a reasonable assumption that they will show up for trial, rather than abandon everything they already have.
That seems even more unfair, in a way. The rich guy who can afford it doesn’t even get bail. But it’s a pragmatic mechanism to avoid having to remand an excessive number of people awaiting trial because you expect that without incentive, they are simply going to flee the jurisdiction.
It’s not discrimination against the poor because your ability to pay (evidence of one’s net worth) is supposed to be taken into account. So, a rich person will pay a higher bail than a poor person for allegations of the same exact crime. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be. It’s also understood that you may not be able to pay the bail but you can afford to pay a bail bondsman. Keep the middlemen in business.
The court sets bail – the amount of money you must raise to be released.
The money you put up is your bond. It’s a more general term for money put up to show good faith.
Stockbrokers are bonded, for instance, which means there is money put up somewhere if they steal your money, and tree services also are bonded to pay you if they screw up. It’s a type of insurance, but the main factor is that the money is kept in escrow until needed.
Thus bail bondsmen, who put up the bail money for a client. They’re on the hook if you skip town.
But part of the reason for bail is -------- lets say you had posted it and she had skipped. The bondsman would have had you to help track her down for a reduced amount/reduction of the whole 50k. This bounty hunter/skiptracer thing they show on TV isn’t the norm - especially the former; most bailjumpers are “caught” by the relatives who put up everything they have. It helps courts get defendants back and generally helps the system along.
Yes – and no. Most bondsmen require you have equity equal to the whole amount or find it among your relatives. Most will require certain legal documents so that should you skip House A and Car D become their property. Bondsmen are not gamblers - they may take some chances and they do lose out now and then. But for the most part its a profitable (if somewhat nerve-racking) business.
(One branch of my family was in and out of jail a lot related to alcohol and I got to know the one family of bondsmen pretty well)
Bail, IMO, is more closely related to the severity of the crime. In other words if the crime is serious enough to be worth ‘skipping town on’ then a wealthy person will be given higher bail to compensate for their better means to escape. But for lesser crimes & misdemeanors bail will usually be the same regardless of the wealth of the individual (as it should be).
True enough, had I been foolish enough to post bail, I would have hunted her down and dragged her back by her hair before I would have lost my house. It was easier to leave her where she was. If my other sister in law wanted her out so badly, she should have put her house up. The second sister in law has not spoken to either my wife or me since we “let Laurie rot in jail.” This does not upset me…
Maybe this is too obvious for everyone here but it hasn’t been stated yet. So just call me “obvious”.
The judge sets the amount of bail, and here’s what happens:
You put up the entire amount yourself. You show up for trial. The total amount of bail is returned to you. So it costs you (essentially) nothing.
You pay a bail bondsman 10% of the amount of bail, he puts up the 90%. You NEVER get that 10% back, even if you show up for trial. That 10% is the bail bondsman’s fee for putting up the 90%.
You are making a lot of assumptions that are not true. Maybe your only exposure to the issue is from TV shows or maybe just high profile large cases. That is not unusual. Most court proceedings are too boring to make it into the news. Most of the times when you hear about bail it is very high in high profile murder cases.
Bail is not a punishment. It really is to ensure that the defendant shows up for court.
Fleeing the country is not the only option. Most of those who don’t show up for court simply don’t show up for court. They stay at home and hope to not get picked up and sometimes give fake names when they come in contact with cops. Believe it or not, many people who get arrested are not responsible citizens.
Bail is not only set by flight risk, it is also set by severity of the charge. I know here in New Jersey there are bail guidelines that a judge must set. He has leeway within those guidelines but can never go over the upper limit. If the initial judge (usually a local judge) makes a mistake there is a bail hearing in a day or two. Sometimes the bail is lowered or dropped completely.
Most bail is in the hundreds of dollars or a couple thousand. Many people I have seen arrested have no problem making their bail. I don’t see too many rich people. It is true that murderers and such have a better chance of making bail if they are wealthy since bail is high for the most serious charges. That is a very small percentage of those that have bail set against them.
And everyone has the opportunity to appeal the amount of bail. Often they succeed and bail is reduced or eliminated.
There can be other conditions of bail that don’t involve money. Such as no contact with the victim or turning in your passport.
I don’t know whether just loaning someone money for bail is illegal, but what you see on TV with them actually hunting down the people skipping bail and dragging them back to justice is illegal up here. It’s kidnapping.
