In some places in the US (Oregon?) there are no bail bondsman. I would guess instead of a $50,000 bail for a particular defendant, where 10% would be paid for the bond, the courts would just demand payment of $5,000 to the court. It’s better for the defendant, actually. The 10% fee to the bail bondsman is non-refundable. You are paying a fee of $5,000 and risking another $50,000. When you post $5,000 with the court, you get it back at the end of the case, assuming you don’t fail to appear. In Washington, I’ve seen Judges order “Bail is set at $50,000 bond, or $5,000 cash to the court.”
I’m wondering why we don’t have storefront bail bond businesses here like they do in the U.S. It seems like you need to have a friend or family member post bail for you, you can’t go to a guy who will do it for a fee.
If the bail exceeds the likely fine for a crime, it would make sense for the defendant not to run away. Why forfeit a $900 bail over a crime that is likely to result only in a $400 fine?
You know what they say about family… “You can choose your friends…”
I’m curious how the process works. If the person skips bail, as I understand it, the full value of bail is forfeit. What’s the point of chasing them down yourself, other than to beat the crap out of them? Or is there a sliding scale, like 10% forfeit each day they miss?
I knew a fellow once who had free-lanced in “pharma” at one time. he told me of the time he was arraigned. The judge asked the prosecutor and the defendant how much money the defendant had to his name. $1,000 was the answer. Judge set the bail at $5,000, and was very very annoyed (but couldn’t do anything) when the guy’s girlfriend proceeded to count out $5,000 in cash for his bail.
To let people that have not yet been convicted continue about their lives until such time as they actually get convicted and punished. Being held for at least weeks if not months (with added financial costs from missing work and likely being fired) can easily be as, if not more, severe punishment than actually being guilty of many crimes. As long as the incentives in the bail system creates a reasonably high chance of appearing in court it’s in society’s best interest to have people continuing on with the productive parts of their lives. Then there’s the people that actually ARE found to be not guilty or have charges dropped when new evidence comes to light before trial . All the time locked away is a social cost in those cases.
If you bring in the offender, you then plead with the judge to reinstate the forfeited bail and return it to you.
Personally, I would have put her on hold while I pulled up and cued the appropriate recording, had her repeat her request, and played a thoroughly over-the-top Mark Hamill Joker laugh back at her as loud as the speakers could handle.
When I was falsely charged of a DUI, I was arrested and jailed for 48 hours. The bail bond was just $250, but I didn’t know at the time that they would keep me in jail for more than a few hours and be doing an anal cavity search, putting me in a chain gang with other inmates for transport to a high security prison and so forth. I also didn’t know about bail bond agents since I had no prior arrests, so I wasted my one phone call on leaving a message on my parent’s answering machine.
Looking back, I’d rather have paid the $250. When I later learned about “released on recognizance”, I was chagrined because I have a clean record and they certainly could have done so in my case, but I think the main purpose of my arrest was to ruin my holidays. Doing some online research, I found that the arresting officer had a track record of dealing badly with the public.
Just to add, I wasn’t actually on holiday per se, but it was a holiday weekend. I think “released on recognizance” is used for those special cases where they arrest a celebrity, a professional or another law enforcement officer because they’re caught red-handed and the officer has no choice but to arrest them. Bail is used for the rest of us.
What if the judge suddenly then said, “Oh, so that’s how you want to do it? I’ll change that bail to $40,000, then?”
You would be wrong. I see it all the time.
Of course each state is different and has different bail guidelines. For instance here it would have to be extraordinary circumstances to have bail put on a DUI. You are only in custody for as long as it takes for processing and to get a responsible sober adult to come get the drunk.
I have known a lot of people who are not celebrities who were ROR’d. Including several first time DUI offenders. The second DUI in 10 years is a felony, so those people are normally remanded with bail set.
The reason we don’t have them here in Canada is that offering bail for someone for profit is a criminal offence. 
Only individuals who have a personal connection to the accused can post bail on their behalf, and only out of the goodness of their hearts, not to turn a buck.
This is what bail bondsmen are for. They take your $5,000 (for good) but they accept the risk of the $50,000 so you don’t have to, and they chase down anyone who jumps bail.
My wife got released on her own recognizance for a DUI when she was drunk and pissing on herself, and the officer gave her a ride home. We aren’t celebrities.
In NY the Bail Bondsmen aren’t illegal, in fact I believe a defendant has a right to a bond bail but, the court started habitually setting cash bail at 10% of bond, which kinda put the bondsmen out of business for the reasons stated above.
There are still some near every criminal courthouse but not many.
I’m curious about the public policy basis for this approach. The US & Canada both inherited the English legal system, more or less. Yet on this topic we’ve gone diametrically opposed.
Certainly this isn’t the only area of US/Canadian legal differences, but it’s interesting to me because bail & bondsmen seem to go back to near the Magna Carta days.
I’m not defending the US approach; I’ve long thought that bail bondsmen acting as quasi-vigilantes is not a good idea.
Have you any good info or links on topic?
If you’re charged with an offense the court will usually set some kind of bail amount. IIRC in California, for example, there’s a Presumptive Bail Schedule which the courts will use as a starting point in determining the amount, say $1M for murder or $5K for forgery. If you can afford it, you can deposit that entire amount with the court; and you get it back after trial whether you are acquitted or convicted. Presumably, in the latter case, the court will deduct any fines owing and so forth. In this case there is no bond involved.
The notion of a bond comes into play when the services of a bail bond company is used. You, the defendant, pay them ten percent of the bail amount–$100K or $500 in the examples above. In turn, the bail office promises to pay the entire bail amount to the court in the event you don’t show up for trial. In surety insurance terminology, you’re the principal, the bail company is the surety, and the court is the obligee. The ten percent you pay the bail company is like an insurance premium; it’s gone forever regardless of the trial outcome.
Newsreaders often screw up when reporting high profile arrests, saying that so-and-so is “being held on a million dollars’ bond”, or whatever. Obviously if the defendant is in custody there’s no bond.
Bail is a common inheritance from England, for both Canada and the United States.
Bail bondsmen, offering bail for profit, is a US invention.
Bail isn’t specifically mentioned in Magna Carta, but there is a provision in the Statute of Westminster 1275, which attempted to prevent some of the abuses of bail. So, bail was clearly established sometime in the 13th century.
The right to bail, and the principle that bail should not be excessive, was one of the issues in the English Civil War and the glorious Revolution, being mentioned in the English Bill of Rights. That prohibition on excessive bail was the inspiration for the 8th Amendment.
So that’s where common law countries like Canada and the US got the principle of bail.
However, bail for profit appears to be a uniquely American invention, dating back to California in the late 19th century. See the wiki article on Bail Bondsman.
As for why we don’t have it in Canada, it’s simple: we hate free enterprise. 
Actually, the policy reason seems simple enough: the power to arrest an individual is one of the most serious intrusions on individual liberty imaginable. Allowing a private business to acquire the right to arrest, as part of a contractual arrangement for profit, seems repugnant to the liberty of the individual and the rule of law. Only a government agent, subject to laws regulating arrest and the direct supervision of the courts, should have that power.
Here’s the most commonly cited description of bail bondsmen’s powers under US law, given by the majority in a SCOTUS decision, Taylor v. Taintor :
This passage is technically obiter, but has been widely cited.
The idea that an accused person is in the custody of a private business; that the private business can arrest him without warrant; can break into his house; all by virtue of a contract of bond; strikes me as repugnant to the rule of law and due process protections for the liberty of the individual.