The problem with bail and unequal justice

[TheDrake]

Bail is suggested to serve an important role in getting people to return for their court date. It just makes sense, law and order proponents say, and it prevents the need to incarcerate someone without bail until they can clear their name. California and New York has eliminated cash bail for non-violent crime, including felonies. No doubt proof positive for some that liberal states are launching a tsunami of crime.

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond. Meanwhile, others have to choose between pleading guilty in order to escape pre-trial incarceration. It seems if you were going to have a cash bail system, it ought to scale according to net worth in order to provide the same incentive to appear and the same impact on one's life (or at least closer).

article

Is bail so unreasonable? Absolutely out of line sometimes.

In 2017, prosecutors allege, Humphrey, robbed and threatened an elderly neighbor at their residential hotel. At the time, Humphrey struggled with drug and alcohol addiction. He made away, prosecutors said, with a $5 bottle of cologne.

After his arrest, he was charged with robbery, elder abuse, and theft. The judge referred to a bail schedule and set his bail at $600,000. (It was later lowered to $350,000 on appeal.) Bail schedules often provide the judges a reference based on the type of crime and a recommended bail amount to accompany it, a practice that focuses more on the alleged crime than the individual circumstances.

But, you know, the law and order acolytes will say, what if you let him out without bail or a bail he can afford to pay and he threatens on of his neighbors again, OR WORSE!!!

That's the court case that got things changed in California. I think most people have no idea how brutal the bail system is for people in maximum debt, bankruptcy, or single parents.

Part of what makes things tricky to understand such things, is that advocates on either side of the issue will resort to the most egregious anecdote when making their case. Absolutely cases exist where somebody released on a non-violent charge went on to commit a violent crime. But if you really believe in "innocent until proven guilty", don't you have to accept a certain level of bad outcome?

Relying on "common sense" is a big part of the problem here. Of COURSE releasing more criminals means having more crime! Except when you look at actual data, you find this is a pretty small number.

The data now reflect: 2 percent of the nearly 100,000 cases related to the state’s changed bail laws, between July 2020 and June 2021, led to a rearrest on a violent felony while another case was pending. That’s down from nearly 4 percent from the prior data set. The new numbers reflect 2,051 arrests of someone for a violent felony after their release from custody or following arraignment on an initial charge.

Many of those rearrested after being released had been pending trial on charges involving property, larceny and drugs.

Should the impact of 2% reoffending lead us to imprison the other 98% awaiting trial?

One non-profit group says no.

23019 people have been bailed out thanks to The Bail Project

[msquared]

Of course you should. One crime is one crime too many. Lock them up, as long as they are not middle age white males, and throw away the key. Just remember they would not be there if they were not guilty.  I mean the police are never wrong, never corrupt.

[Tom]

On the topic of cash bail, there was a case here in Madison just last week where a young man shot someone at a bar because the other guy refused to "step outside" and fight him. Bail was set at a million dollars.

So my question is this: why? What is the possible point of a million dollar bond?
If the primary reason for bail is to allow people whose lives would be horribly disrupted by being held in prison before a guilty verdict -- those who would lose their jobs, or be unable to care for their families, while being held -- to put their affairs in order, and the primary reason to deny bail is the risk that these individuals might either flee justice or commit further crimes before trial, what does an absurdly high bond accomplish?

If you need to put your affairs in order, will you have a million dollars on hand? If you have a million dollars on hand, do you need to walk free? Let's say you take up a collection to pay that bond: are you less of a threat to the public if you're able to scrape together money by appealing to others? If you're enough of a flight risk or likely danger that your bail needs to be unattainably high, why have the option at all?

I genuinely don't understand the argument here in favor of punitive bail, and would love for someone to try to justify it to me.

[Aris Katsaris]

The law, in its majestic equality, allows both poor and rich people to avoid jail by paying a million dollars.

[Pete at Home]

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

No doubt proof positive for some that liberal states are launching a tsunami of crime.

Wrong. The proof positive is in the rise in crime & lawlessness in those states. Stores closing down because of unceasing robberies.  High-profile cases where someone that should have been held for trial, ends up out on a pittance of bail, and killing a bunch of people.

"Meanwhile, others have to choose between pleading guilty in order to escape pre-trial incarceration"

Yes; that's an actual problem.  But it's not something worth discussing with folks that make garbage up (the drastic problem of millionaires skipping bail) or poison the well with bad faith like this--

One crime is one crime too many. Lock them up, as long as they are not middle age white males, and throw away the key. Just remember they would not be there if they were not guilty.  I mean the police are never wrong, never corrupt

or who stick poison pills into the argument:

I genuinely don't understand the argument here in favor of punitive bail, and would love for someone to try to justify it to me.

Clearly not "genuine," since Tom's hell-bent on the assumption that the high bail is "punitive." If he could walk away from that assumption and ask instead why the bail was set so high in this case, I'd be happy to explain it to him. But there's not a gram of good faith on this thread.  It's a trap.

That's not to say that high bail isn't sometimes set specifically in order to be punitive.  That happens, and it's wrong.  But that's not the issue here in the case Tom cites.

"The law, in its majestic equality, allows both poor and rich people to avoid jail by paying a million dollars."

A million dollars per dead body is the maximum bail allowed to be set under Wisconsin law.  That's a silly Wisconsin thing. When that freak ran over sixty people & killed 6-7 in Waukesha, those bail project freaks actually started a gofundme to bail him out.  Because progressive anarchy is their objective.  And anyone who disagrees with killing white people at a Christmas parade must be racist. Because they had it coming after finding Rittenhouse not guilty. Huddle in your houses & let your cities burn, until you all agree to a new constitution.

No bail should have been offered for the Waukeha freak, who had committed violence while already on bail for running over his baby mama while on bail for yet another offense. He ran over her because she wouldn't marry him in order to not have to testify against him.  So he attempts murder against a witness in a previous case, and they let him out on a thousand dollars bail. And then actually offered bail for him while on mass murder? That's broken.

There are problems with the bail system and it should be reformed, but Progressives should be locked out of the discussion since they bring no good faith to the table, and their intentions are entirely malicious.

[Tom]

A million dollars per dead body is the maximum bail allowed to be set under Wisconsin law.

Can you explain to me why it would be better if the maximum bail limit were five million dollars? Or fifty million? Remember, the choice to allow bail at all is a boolean one, so the cost of bail is ultimately an arbitrary judgment.

Quite frankly, it sounds to me like your main complaint involves whining about the fact that bail was offered at all to individuals that, in hindsight, you believe should have clearly been kept locked up. But cash bail doesn't solve that problem, and -- to reiterate -- I genuinely don't understand why anyone thinks it does.

Stores closing down because of unceasing robberies.

You may want to stay up to date on this topic. We've spoken fairly often here how it turns out that many of these stories were partly or completely fictionalized to deliberately swing the national conversation.

[Tom]

The proof positive is in the rise in crime & lawlessness in those states.

I'd actually like to see some evidence that crime has risen disproportionately in states and cities that have done away with cash bail. In fact, the numbers I find in a quick search suggest the opposite: that crime decreases by around 3% in such areas compared to other regions over the same period, and recidivism declines by around 7%. I understand that this isn't the narrative, but you surely recognize that ALEC-pushed narratives are very frequently cynically distorted.

[jc44]

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

[Pete at Home]

Quite frankly, it sounds to me like your main complaint involves whining

Typical Tom.

Not an ounce of good faith in the progressives here.

Is anyone here actually interested in why a million dollar bail for the restaurant shooter could be appropriate, or is this discussion just a trap for abusive Progs to insult & demean those who disagree?

[Pete at Home]

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.

But a crime were the bail was merely $5000, would probably involve a much lesser crime, or incense, putting down $5000 wouldn’t be a problem, it’s fine.

In 2010, I had several cases where people had bail around $5000, and I went to court for them and asked for the bail to be reduced, and it was. They had family and friends to speak for their place. In the community, they had jobs. And unlike the restaurant shooter, they didn’t post some huge risk to the community.

With the restaurant shooter, there’s probably no way most people will put that sort of bail together without a bail bondsman. The bail bondsman acts as Insurance. But I can’t believe you all don’t know about this. bondsman privately going after people, making sure they haven’t skipped town.
It’s in the bail bondsman’s financial interest to make sure the accused shows up for trial.

When I went into alcohol rehab in Georgia, my Las Vegas attorney was incompetent and didn’t show up for hearing, so my bail bondsman was down my throat, making sure I flew back to Vegas to take care of things. That’s how it works.

[Tom]

Is anyone here actually interested in why a million dollar bail for the restaurant shooter could be appropriate...

I've already asked. Specifically, what is the requirement of an unaffordable amount of cash bail securing?

[Tom]

(I should note that I do not consider bounty hunter job creation to be a public good and end goal. Not that I think that's going to be advanced as an argument.)

[Pete at Home]

None of the progressives in this discussion show any interest at all in the basic purpose of making sure the accused shows up to trial, or preventing a string of crimes while waiting for trial.

Tom says I'm "whining" because I think the restaurant shooter should not have been offered bail in the first place.

Someone with so much rage that he shoots into a public area, because someone won't come outside and fight. There's a clear public threat there, but in response, Tom doesn't address those issues, just poisons the well by calling me a whiner.

Typical progressive behavior.

Then Tom wants to look at some proggy study to gaslight us about how crime is really going down.  Yes, obviously people will stop even reporting crime when the system isn't doing anything about it. 

Typical proggy.

I point to walmart & CVS shops being closed in the inner city California, and Tom waves his hands and says I should generally "read up" on it without pointing to any factual sources.

Typical Proggy.

Factors courts should consider when offering bail:

Is it a first offense? Are there prior convictions for the same thing.

Threat posed to the public.

Cooperation of the accused -- for example, did the accused turn himself in? If so, that's a strong argument that the accused will show up for trial.

Has the accused previously jumped bail or refused to show up for a hearing?

Does the accused have a job?  Progs bring up loss of jobs as a reason to get rid of bail.  But I bet you'll object if I suggest having a job should be a bail factor. Am I right?  Neely would still be alive if he'd been he'd been held.

Is the accused in school, or caring for kids?


DJQuag blows off all the killing and suffering by saying that Europe does just fine without bail, but I'll bet you that Neely and the Waukesha mass killer would not have been walking the streets in Europe.

It's like when Progressives talk about how Portugal handles drugs.  They point to a working system, and then they swap for anarchy.  they don't put in Portugal's safeguards.

[Pete at Home]

Is anyone here actually interested in why a million dollar bail for the restaurant shooter could be appropriate...

I've already asked. Specifically, what is the requirement of an unaffordable amount of cash bail securing?

It means that if the accused is released, that someone has a million dollar incentive to make sure he shows up to trial. But you said you don't see that as a public good, since you don't care if he shows to trial. Progressives point to flaws in the system, and then replace it with a system that creates anarchy.

But when progressives have it in for the accused, they don't follow their own rules. Neely's killer (a student with 1 week left to gradiation) just turned himself in, and has been given $100,000 bail. Which I'm sure Tom will handwave his way around by blaming me in some way, like he always does.

[Tom]

Tom says I'm "whining" because I think the restaurant shooter should not have been offered bail in the first place.

Well, no. I say you're whining because you don't seem to have any actual criteria for denying bail, but like to retroactively object to people who committed crimes while out on bail -- while using that excuse to perpetuate the ineffectual tradition of cash bail. Again, the question here isn't whether this guy should have been denied bail for being the sort of person who'd shoot someone else for refusing to fight him; the question is whether this guy should have been granted bail, as he was, but had that bail set at an absurdly high amount.

It means that if the accused is released, that someone has a million dollar incentive to make sure he shows up to trial. But you said you don't see that as a public good, since you don't care if he shows to trial.

Look at your second sentence quoted above. Identify what's wrong with it, and I'll continue.

Edited to add: Why would I feel the need to "handwave" cash bail for the murder of Jordan Neely? Do you think I support cash bail for people I think are bad, despite specifically saying that I think punitive cash bail is unproductive? If his killer were a flight risk, does anyone here think that $100K is going to prevent that flight? Does anyone here believe for a moment that right-wingers are not going to crowdfund Daniel Penny's bail for him within moments? What is being "secured" by this $100K? Is there some amount that would make a difference to the danger Daniel Penny ostensibly poses to society?

[Pete at Home]

Why would I feel the need to "handwave" cash bail for the murder of Jordan Neely? Do you think I support cash bail for people I think are bad, despite specifically saying that I think punitive cash bail is unproductive?

Because you're not capable of being consistent or honest except briefly & occasionally when pushed. Even here, you use the word "murder" where even Alvin f-ing Bragg doesn't charge beyond manslaughter because there's no evidence of intent to kill, and strong video evidence that he tried to save Neely's life.

Me: "I think the restaurant shooter should not have been offered bail in the first place."
Tom: Well, no. I say you're whining because you don't seem to have any actual criteria for denying bail, but like to retroactively object to people who committed crimes while out on bail"

The restaurant shooter, pumpkin. Has not committed crimes while out on bail. I said based on his history, he was likely to.

[Tom]

Again, Pete, just to be clear: you are debating whether or not people should be granted bail, not whether or not people should have to pay money for bail. I am interested in arguments for the latter that do not simply amount to job security for bounty hunters (on the grounds that bounty hunters are not actually statistically any more effective than police, who are already a sunk cost.) The question is never "is this a bad person who shouldn't have bail" but rather "should this person who is not a serious flight risk or danger to the public have to pay through the nose for bail?"

[jc44]

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.

That isn't exactly the argument you advanced previously ("Absurd") and if you had suggested that bail should be based on some % of total/usable wealth then that would nullify many of the points raised on this thread.

[Pete at Home]

Again, Pete, just to be clear: you are debating whether or not people should be granted bail, not whether or not people [handwaving]
The question is never "is this a bad person who shouldn't have bail" but rather "should this person who is not a serious flight risk or danger to the public have to pay through the nose for bail?"

If you agree with me that is the question, then why are you whining about the restaurant shooter having a million dollars bail?  Clear danger to the public, and possibly a flight risk too.

Neely had 42 open charges against him, including a felony, and one battery misdemeanor for breaking the nose of a 67-year-old woman. Neely had no job to lose.  This is the sort of crap that happens with Soros-bought prosecutors.  But the Marine who turned himself in, with no criminal record, and 1 week to finish his university degree, gets put on bail for $100k.

[Pete at Home]

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.

That isn't exactly the argument you advanced previously ("Absurd") and if you had suggested that bail should be based on some % of total/usable wealth then that would nullify many of the points raised on this thread.

Pay attention to context & stop moving the goalposts. "Absurd" responded to the idiotic claim that a multimillionaire out on $5000 bail had no incentive to show up to trial.  For a minor charge with a mere 5k bail, the arrest warrant on top of the bail would probably suffice.  For a murder/Attempt murder charge, where the millionaire actually might have net incentive to flee, obviously wealth would need to be considered to balance that out.

[jc44]

There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond.

Absurd. A millionaire has property that the government can seize. A millionaire has business that would be discredited by a standing arrest warrant that the judge would issue in normal states.  Drake can't point to millionaires paying their bail & not showing to court.  I caught him on this falsehood before, and here he is repeating it again.

So if I follow that argument correctly only poor people skip bail and/or offend during the bail period so they should be locked up without bail but rich people can be let run free without the need to pay bail?

No. If the restaurant shooter was a multimillionaire, then there would be a chance of him skipping bail, so the bail should be raised.

That isn't exactly the argument you advanced previously ("Absurd") and if you had suggested that bail should be based on some % of total/usable wealth then that would nullify many of the points raised on this thread.

Pay attention to context & stop moving the goalposts. "Absurd" responded to the idiotic claim that a multimillionaire out on $5000 bail had no incentive to show up to trial.  For a minor charge with a mere 5k bail, the arrest warrant on top of the bail would probably suffice.  For a murder/Attempt murder charge, where the millionaire actually might have net incentive to flee, obviously wealth would need to be considered to balance that out.

I didn't move the goalposts and there was no mention of the proposed charge at the time you called it absurd.  This is the first point in the discussion where the $5000 bail was "obviously" for a misdemeanour.

[Pete at Home]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

I was responding to this asinine claim:

"There is obviously a problem in that the severity of the financial consequence is trivial for some and impossible to raise for others. A millionaire has no additional incentive to show up for their $5000 bond."

I listed the additional incentives to show up for the $5000 bond. You then pretended that I'd said that those incentives sufficed and that millionaires shouldn't have to pay bail at all.

Judges should set the minimum requirements that will get the suspect to trial.  That's it.
What has a $5k bail that you think a millionaire would skip bail to escape?
Think harder.

[TheDrake]

Typically how people meet this bail is to mortgage a parents house with equity and get get the $100k for a bail bondsman to put up the million. They are agreeing to bounty hunt the guy if he doesn't show up, so the state doesn't have to do it. So in answer to the question, the bail bonds company would lose out in either the zero bail or the no bail scenarios.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-insurance-bail-jails-insight/u-s-bail-bond-insurers-spend-big-to-keep-defendants-paying-idUSKBN2BI1BP

[Tom]

If you agree with me that is the question, then why are you whining about the restaurant shooter having a million dollars bail?

Think about it for a second. Presume, for the sake of argument, that I sincerely disapprove of cash bail and consider it ineffective and unethical for precisely the reasons I have advanced, and only the reasons I have advanced. Why might I use a recent, real-world example of a ridiculously high bail that no one seriously expects anyone to pay as an example of the way punitive cash bail does not accomplish its stated goals?

[Pete at Home]

Typically how people meet this bail is to mortgage a parents house with equity and get get the $100k for a bail bondsman to put up the million. They are agreeing to bounty hunt the guy if he doesn't show up, so the state doesn't have to do it. So in answer to the question, the bail bonds company would lose out in either the zero bail or the no bail scenarios.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-insurance-bail-jails-insight/u-s-bail-bond-insurers-spend-big-to-keep-defendants-paying-idUSKBN2BI1BP

So you’re collaborating with Tom’s BS construction that I’m trying to save bail bonds companies?

Obviously , I think that someone should be able to hand their house or car title to the court & cut out the bail bondsman there too. property would be surety enough. Bail bondsman should only be involved when the accused can only come up w partial cash, and the bondsman feels confident that he can get the accused to trial without criminal incident.

[TheDrake]

Obviously if what you really care about is someone coming back on their court date, an ankle monitor would do more than bail. But it should be applied equally, anybody charged should get one, whether it is the crypto fraud dude or the guy caught with some weed. Violent criminals should be held if we think they are likely to hurt someone else. Bail doesn't stop a guy from taking a swing away someone new.

Again, I'm responding to Tom's question about what the difference is between painfully high bail and no bail.

[Pete at Home]

Obviously if what you really care about is someone coming back on their court date, an ankle monitor would do more than bail. But it should be applied equally, anybody charged should get one, whether it is the crypto fraud dude or the guy caught with some weed.

I’m glad that you’re actually engaging in the issue.

I disagree that it should be applied equally. Cryptofraud man needs to be kept away from certain locations, so needs more security & monitoring. Guy caught with some weed shouldn’t even be in court first place. That’s just stupid.

Also, if somebody has a history of tampering with their monitor or similar crimes, we’re back to bail or some other leverage. Or holding him until trial.

Any one size fits all solution is going to end up wasting money and over confining some people, while letting others escape. bail is grossly overused, but there are cases where it’s the best option.

Neely had kidnapped a 7-year old girl, broken an older woman’s nose. He had no job to lose. He shouldn’t have been out on the subway to begin with.

[Tom]

Any one size fits all solution is going to end up wasting money and over confining some people, while letting others escape. bail is grossly overused, but there are cases where it’s the best option.

So once we agree that all one-size-fits-all solutions that involve arbitrary cutoffs are going to result in individual injustices, let's look at the actual abuses. What abuses do we think are minimized through the current system of cash bail? Which are exacerbated?

I personally don't think that this kind of analysis is going to result in a solid argument for cash bail, but again I welcome someone to make the attempt.

[Pete at Home]

Any one size fits all solution is going to end up wasting money and over confining some people, while letting others escape. bail is grossly overused, but there are cases where it’s the best option.

So once we agree that all one-size-fits-all solutions that involve arbitrary cutoffs are going to result in individual injustices, let's look at the actual abuses. What abuses do we think are minimized through the current system of cash bail? Which are exacerbated?

I personally don't think that this kind of analysis is going to result in a solid argument for cash bail, but again I welcome someone to make the attempt.

Getting rid of any cash bail is just one more arbitrary cut off.
While it’s grossly over, used in many jurisdictions, there are situations where it’s the best or the only available guarantee that a particular person will show to trial.

[Tom]

What would those situations be? I'm trying to imagine a scenario where someone would normally flee or rob a liquor store, but you've charged them precisely the right amount so that they don't.

[Pete at Home]

What would those situations be? I'm trying to imagine a scenario where someone would normally flee or rob a liquor store, but you've charged them precisely the right amount so that they don't.

Look, Tom’s trying to imagine!😂 fat chance.

So you would just let somebody back out if you thought they were likely to rob a liquor store? I wouldn’t. Bail only works for somebody who has something to live for.

I already told you my own situation where I went back for a bail situation. I’m trying to imagine a situation where you read what I said, and honestly processed it. 

[Pete at Home]

Good example of a crime where cash bail would bring an accused to court:

Prostitution would be the most obvious one. Obviously, she wants money. Sentence is low. Threat to the public, usually low.

that’s the most obvious one.

[Tom]

And, to clarify, you don't think the prostitute would otherwise show up, under penalty of further and harsher arrest? And, based on your previous statements, you believe it would be sensible to set the bail for a very wealthy prostitute to something in the tens of thousands, to be sufficiently motivating?

[Pete at Home]

And, to clarify, you don't think the prostitute would otherwise show up, under penalty of further and harsher arrest? And, based on your previous statements, you believe it would be sensible to set the bail for a very wealthy prostitute to something in the tens of thousands, to be sufficiently motivating?

I practiced criminal law in Vegas for enough years to know how that works.

in 2008-2012 when I practiced, it was  obvious which prostitutes paid an attorney, $900 to do the hearing for her, versus which ones have an attorney that’s on a $20,000 retainer. $2500 is enough to get a garden-variety prostitute into court, while I believe $10,000 was the magical number to get the platinum back in. I’m not sure about platinum since I only represented them in a federal hearing in Wisconsin when the FBI and IRS rendered on over to local PD for mild torture when she refused to testify against her pimp. So there my clients weren’t even the defendants.

The third type of prostitute in Vegas, the courtesans, often owned their own houses, and I never heard of a case involving one. I knew about them, because they lived on my street, and one of them asked me to handle her divorce. I said no because I had just eaten Thanksgiving dinner with her husband.

So as best, as I can, tell, Vegas doesn’t prosecute the individual courtesan types. Just the ordinary and platinum prostitutes who mostly live out of hotels or double as strippers.

[Pete at Home]

One of the courtesans on my block was a registered preacher who did marriages on the strip. I had no idea she had another gig until her husband told me.😂

[jc44]

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

[Pete at Home]

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

And/or

You don’t need both, silly.

[Pete at Home]

If they’d busted the ordinary courtesan type, like my neighbors, I would’ve gone in and pleated ties to the community, and depending on the judge, would have got her out without bail.. I was successful with such motions in all the cases where the feds weren’t involved. I did beat the feds once with an elderly gentleman who had been busted in his own garage on a televised sting operation. But I failed in cases where there is an immigration, hold, and another, where a former prostitute was being extradited to Louisiana. (I did beat her extradition, though, but it took me four days in court, for which I got paid $50.)😂

[jc44]

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

And/or

You don’t need both, silly.

OK - bear with me here - I don't understand the US system (I'm not sure I understand the UK system for this sort of thing either) - are you saying that if you don't turn up to court "all" that happens is you lose your bail money (which is what you seem to be implying)? I was assuming that you lost your money and you ended up being charged with some sort of "fleeing justice" offence.

[Tom]

You do. Cash bonds are just an extra incentive to show up.

Edited to add: when you're out on bail, all kinds of requirements and conditions can be added. You can be prevented from carrying a weapon, or required to show up for twice weekly drug tests, prevented from leaving the state, or forced to wear an ankle bracelet. Failure to comply with these additional conditions also counts as bail jumping, which in Wisconsin can be either a misdemeanor or a felony and can carry up to a $10K additional fine in addition to other charges (and multipliers, if multiple conditions are violated.) But, again, none of these options, which most people would comply with to avoid rotting in jail for multiple weeks before they're even found guilty of anything, are available in most situations unless they're willing and able to pony up an arbitrary amount of cash.

[Pete at Home]

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

And/or

You don’t need both, silly.

OK - bear with me here - I don't understand the US system (I'm not sure I understand the UK system for this sort of thing either) - are you saying that if you don't turn up to court "all" that happens is you lose your bail money (which is what you seem to be implying)? I was assuming that you lost your money and you ended up being charged with some sort of "fleeing justice" offence.

Yes. In that sentence, the AND is appropriate. You lose your bail, and they write out an arrest warrant for you. And if you use the bail bondsman, then the bondsman hast to produce you, or loses a whole bunch of money.

[Pete at Home]

You do. Cash bonds are just an extra incentive to show up.

Edited to add: when you're out on bail, all kinds of requirements and conditions can be added. You can be prevented from carrying a weapon, or required to show up for twice weekly drug tests, prevented from leaving the state, or forced to wear an ankle bracelet. Failure to comply with these additional conditions also counts as bail jumping, which in Wisconsin can be either a misdemeanor or a felony and can carry up to a $10K additional fine in addition to other charges (and multipliers, if multiple conditions are violated.) But, again, none of these options, which most people would comply with to avoid rotting in jail for multiple weeks before they're even found guilty of anything, are available in most situations unless they're willing and able to pony up an arbitrary amount of cash.

All these are things that can be done. But Soros prosecutors don’t do them, except to their political enemies, to whom they also applied cash bail, as to Penny.  Bragg the Soros prosecutor who is prosecuting Penny now, didn’t apply any of those things to Neely who had 41 misdemeanors, and a felony, including breaking an old woman’s nose, and kidnapping a baby. All in the subway. Neely could have had an ankle monitor & have been banned from the subway. Then he would still be alive. See the New York Times article I just cited on the Neely thread.

[Tom]

I'm not actually sure that you can be banned from the subway as a bail condition in New York. Many cities specifically guarantee access to mass transit, because again part of the whole point of bail is that people remain able to do their jobs before trial.

[jc44]

Returning briefly to Tom's question - you believe that the the ordinary threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and imposition of cash bail was required in these cases to get the accused to turn up in court and otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

And/or

You don’t need both, silly.

OK - bear with me here - I don't understand the US system (I'm not sure I understand the UK system for this sort of thing either) - are you saying that if you don't turn up to court "all" that happens is you lose your bail money (which is what you seem to be implying)? I was assuming that you lost your money and you ended up being charged with some sort of "fleeing justice" offence.

Yes. In that sentence, the AND is appropriate. You lose your bail, and they write out an arrest warrant for you. And if you use the bail bondsman, then the bondsman hast to produce you, or loses a whole bunch of money.

OK - then I'm confused by your "And/or. You don’t need both, silly." - I'll grant I mistyped by original question due to rewriting it a couple of times but I thought it was still parseable. I'll restate:

Returning briefly to Tom's question - In these cases (the prostitution ones) do you believe that the threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and therefore the imposition of cash bail was required to get the accused to turn up in court as otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

Given that the threat of additional prosecution already exists does you previous "And/or. You don’t need both, silly." still apply and if so could you expand for the hard of thinking please?

[Pete at Home]

I'm not actually sure that you can be banned from the subway as a bail condition in New York. Many cities specifically guarantee access to mass transit, because again part of the whole point of bail is that people remain able to do their jobs before trial.

His job being extorting subway passengers & being a general menace?

[Tom]

His job likely being irrelevant to whether it's permissible to ban someone from public transit in New York City as a condition of bail.

[Pete at Home]

Returning briefly to Tom's question - In these cases (the prostitution ones) do you believe that the threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and therefore the imposition of cash bail was required to get the accused to turn up in court as otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish?

I think that in many of these prostitution cases,  that the threat of additional prosecution was inadequate and therefore the imposition of cash bail was required to get the accused to turn up in court and that otherwise they would have simply attempted to vanish, or just gone on with their routine without showing up to court.

Whether they actually attempt to vanish or not, isn’t necessary to impose bail.

I can tell you in my own case, that I have active (misdemeanor) arrest warrants out in two locations that I often visit for business or to see friends and family. When I had a bail arrangement with either, I went way out of my way to take care of things. But since the court returned my bail when I showed up to court, and only many months later, called me in for court (in my mind unreasonably) I took the warrant and lived with it. Since misdemeanor offenses can’t get you extradited, and since I don’t have money to have a lawyer, take care of it.

So as a former defense attorney, and as a defendant, I know there are cases where bail works. It’s one of many tools that should be used, intelligently.

There were other items of criminal justice reform that I supported Stacey Abrams for. Some reason they seem to a fallen between the cracks. There’s the punitive extortion of fees & programs that cost the family members of the accused. They were going to reduce the extortionate amounts, charged to families and friends of defendants in jail for telephone contact, for instance. Does anybody know or care what happened to those? It seems like Progressive only care about prisoners rights to the extent that they can wreak havoc and anarchy on the working class.

[Pete at Home]

His job likely being irrelevant to whether it's permissible to ban someone from public transit in New York City as a condition of bail.

You’re the one that brought up jobs as the reason he can’t be banned. Make up your mind. Relevant or irrelevant? Is this one of those progthink situations where facts can only be used for one side of the argument, and not the other?

[DJQuag]

His job likely being irrelevant to whether it's permissible to ban someone from public transit in New York City as a condition of bail.

You’re the one that brought up jobs as the reason he can’t be banned. Make up your mind. Relevant or irrelevant? Is this one of those progthink situations where facts can only be used for one side of the argument, and not the other?

No. If I'm right, he means the legislature has to make laws that affect the state, not the one person in need of mental health care who is threatening to hurt people on the subway. In a city like New York, for people without money, if you tell them they can't use the subway they will lose their jobs. Giving them an outrageous bail is just a different way of going about that.

[TheDrake]

I think this is generally the problem. People tend to want to use outlying anecdotes to justify things like three strikes laws.

Look at this murderer! If there had been a there strikes laws, he wouldn't have been out on the street! Other people point to some poor sap with three minor drug offenses and say, he lost 20 years of his freedom and for what?

How many people do our laws help and how many do they hurt? I don't think it is valid to tune our laws to the level where they allow nobody who has offended to go free under any circumstances. Nor should we allow everyone to go free. Added in the mix is that nobody has proven anything by bail time. So if anyone wanted to convince me about cash bail being a good thing, I'd want to hear about the number of people harmed and how. How many more no shows occur in states that have reduced or eliminated cash bail. This includes foreign nations that are directly comparable, like Canada. Because there are a lot of negatives to holding someone who is not proven guilty based on cash, including pressure for people to quickly plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit.