California Gov. Jerry Brown signs overhaul of bail system, rich and poor alike are treated fairly

I'm really just on the fence with this issue I could probably be convinced in either direction on weather this is good or bad. I know our just-us system massively disproportionately affects poor people and rich people often walk due to being able to leverage resources against the state.

La Times

California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a landmark bill to overhaul the state’s money-bail system, replacing it with one that grants judges greater power to decide who should remain incarcerated ahead of trial.

The two-year effort fulfills a pledge made by Brown last year when he stalled negotiations over the ambitious legislation, saying he would continue to work with lawmakers and the state’s top Supreme Court justice on the right approach to change the system. The new law puts California at the forefront of a national push to stop courts from imposing a heavy financial burden on defendants before they have faced a jury.

“Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly,” he said in a statement.

It's true that wealthy people can just buy their way out at relatively low cost. The impact of the just-us system on them is minimal.

I already know that you are going to say that if you don't want to face an unjust justice system don't commit any crimes. Not interested. It's a boring long drawn out conversation that will get us nowhere. We already know all the right wing talking points by heart.

a reply to: toysforadults


I am all for this kind of reform and I am a conservative, this ought to be something that is not a party line thing. I agree with you that I don't want to hear " well, don't commit a crime" That is not what is at issue here, what is at issue is that once you commit a crime there ought to be equal justice for all it should not matter whether or not you are poor or rich or famous.

Now having read what his bill does, I do not agree with his approach of eliminating bail.

a reply to: norhoc

Or work for the government.

Our current system is eroding away the foundations of our country with its corruption and unjust treatment of different sects of our society

Eliminating bail does not guarantee fairness. The accused still must face the charges. It may have the opposite affect because judges no longer are required to "set bail" so they can just keep you in jail until trial. The "rich vs poor" argument is much more prevalent in the rich being able to afford competent counsel instead of being thrown into the morass of the "public defender" system where the accused's lawyer doesn't always work in the clients' best interests. I understand what you are saying. It's just that I'm wary that this change will result in an overall increase in "fairness" in areas where it counts the most. The ACLU, while first supporting this issue, is now against it.

As much as we would welcome an end to the predatory lending practices of the for-profit bail industry, SB 10 cannot promise a system with a substantial reduction in pretrial detention. Neither can SB 10 provide sufficient due process nor adequately protect against racial biases and disparities that permeate our justice system.

Unfortunately, this amended version of SB 10 is not the model for pretrial justice and racial equity that the ACLU of California envisioned, worked for, and remains determined to achieve. We oppose the bill because it seeks to replace the current deeply-flawed system with an overly broad presumption of preventative detention. This falls short of critical bail reform goals and compromises our fundamental values of due process and racial justice.

Source

a reply to: schuyler


Agreed

a reply to: schuyler

I agree with your sentiment.

Awaiting further arguments.

Governor Jerry Brown's entire political career has been based on "special interest" groups' "needs"
This will turn out bad for the general population just like all the other Brown induced policies
His father as governor set up enough new water reservoirs that the people of S..Cali would not have to worry
When Jerry took over , in the name of preservation , he shut all of the projects down
It's for the "newts" (that are not even native to S.Cali)

a reply to: toysforadults


California has had a history of being the toughest on crime. They were one of the first to implement the Three Strikes Law and you are out. The results have been overcrowding prisons and higher taxes for petty crimes.

They are seeing that it is not working and are doing things to take it in another direction.
Removing the profit incentive is a good step. Also removing victimless crimes like smoking a plant has helped.

Lowering your taxes is a good thing, no?

a reply to: toysforadults

"judges would have greater power to decide which people are a danger to the community and should be held without any possibility of release in a practice known as “preventive detention.”

This is the problem though... while eliminating the "monetary" inequality of bail, they set it up for further state control and more corruption, giving the Judge more power doesn't eliminate the "inequality" of bail, but gives the judge the power to decide, who is to say they will do so without bias...

leave it to California for more "Liberal Reforms"

a reply to: toysforadults

Anything Brown endorses further screws up our state,this is how liberal leaders work,they do what ever they want,and disregard the citizens,liberals think your money is theirs

I see two sides to this.

Con: the right to bail, except in extreme circumstances, is guaranteed in the Constitution. Bail is not (legally) a punishment; it is a guarantee that the accused will appear in court. If a judge sets bail at, say, $100,000, the accused must then put up that $100,000 as collateral against their up and leaving the country to escape prosecution. When they show up, innocent or guilty, they get the bail money back.

The problem is that the bails are typically excessive. A poor person has zero ability to put up $50,000 so bail bondsmen will loan them that $50,000 for typically 10%, or $5000. Like any loan, they don't get that 10% back. that turns bail into a financial punishment. While a wealthy individual might not have too much trouble putting up A cool million bucks, a poor person might have more difficulty scraping together $1000. Judges are supposed to take this into account, but the real issue then becomes the political kickback when someone accused of murder gets bail of, say, $5000 because that's all he's got, and someone accused of a financial crime with sufficient means might get a bail amount of $500,000. People see that and immediately try to apply it to their own finances: "Does that mean I can kill someone for $5000?" No, it means that's everything the man has, and if he wants it back, he'll show up for trial.

So pro: the present bail system is out of whack and needs to be reworked. Back to that last example, the murderer could literally buy the ability to run with a mere $500, which he likely stole in the first place if he is a serial offender. But someone who is falsely charged and is generally law-abiding is going to lose $500. That's punishment of the innocent in my book.

I'm just not sure this is the way to go about it. I haven't seen all the details, but it sounds like this is headed for the courts at warp speed. It does appear to violate the right to not be deprived of liberty or property without due process.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jacobe001

I agree that making everything under the sun a crime then following the tough on crime logic hasnt worked.

Pretty obvious that

Is this governor Jerry Brown from the Dead Ken's song?

a reply to: toysforadults

Having read the article in full, I have to say that sounds very similar to our system, and it works.

Kick someone in the head, rob a shop at knifepoint, attempt to kill someone, or have a long history of committing petty crimes then decide to go on a shoplifting spree, you can expect to be held on remand - do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Get caught with a joint in your pocket, drunkenly p*ssing in a doorway, or being generally abusive in a public place, just go through a bit of paperwork and it's simply a case of 'we'll be in touch'.

Change can be scary at first; no one tends to like the unknown, but from an outsiders view, the change will more than likely end up being positive in the long run.

That suspected murderers can simply buy their way out of jail under the current system is beyond crazy.

The next change will be non refundable deposits to walk. Say $100 instead of $1000 then $200 then $300 as they make a little more money. Just money to cover the paperwork or something.

i would think the fair way to set bail amounts, is not to leave it to a judges complete discretion. but to set bail amounts as per the value of assets a person has access to and their means. in regards to the seriousness of the crime. so in a case where a person needs currently to come up with $10,000 bail. which for many people is far beyond their means without getting a loan (if they can), since they only make $20,000/year, and rent where they live. for a rich person living in a $5,000,000 mansion and earning say $200,000/year, have cars like Ferraris, should have to pay $6,000,000 or so bail for the same crime. the amount should be just as penalizing (and that also needs to include the same % of fees they may need to pay to get such a loan), no matter how much money you have and earn. unlike now where a poorer person has to stay in jail, because they can not come up with the money. yet for a rich person that same bail is more like pocket change and they are instantly out, there is not even a question of not being able to afford it. and by doing it in that type of way. it is also just as penalizing for a rich person, should they decide to bail jump. since just like a poor person who had to get a major (for them) loan, end up loosing everything. with bounty hunters working to hunt them down and collect on the money owed by bringing them in. the same would be true of the rich person, where they would also loose everything (which makes running, and hiding out a heck of a lot harder to do with no assets), and also have the same pressure put out to catch them and bring them to justice, so that that loan can be reclaimed.

a reply to: toysforadults
In the UK we don't have to pay any money for bail, the only questions are you a risk to society and/or is there a risk of you absconding.
If I'm ever arrested for anything other than under the terrorism act I expect to be out of a police station within 24 hours, that's the max they can hold you here without applying for an extension from a court.
No money changes hands. US law seems like tyranny to me.

originally posted by: norhoc
I agree with you that I don't want to hear " well, don't commit a crime" That is not what is at issue here, what is at issue is that once you commit a crime there ought to be equal justice for all it should not matter whether or not you are poor or rich or famous.

It's not just for those who commit crimes. When bail is being set, it's to secure a court appearance of someone who is ACCUSED of a crime. Arguments can be made for harsh penalties after guilt has been established (though, I'll argue those too), but that's not what we're discussing here. This is punishment before guilt, and that is wrong.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
So pro: the present bail system is out of whack and needs to be reworked. Back to that last example, the murderer could literally buy the ability to run with a mere $500, which he likely stole in the first place if he is a serial offender. But someone who is falsely charged and is generally law-abiding is going to lose $500. That's punishment of the innocent in my book.

I consider the current bail system to be unconstitutional. It is often excessive, and punishes people prior to guilt being established.

What I would instead like to see is whatever assets a person does have (bank accounts, savings, property, etc) frozen under threat of confiscation if they don't appear at trial. With the exception of an allowance set (based on declared income/assets?) to meet living expenses and pay for legal representation. If they run, all of those assets are forfeit, while if they appear they return to that individual.

The concept of bail itself, and taking out loans to meet bail should be eliminated.

originally posted by: generik
i would think the fair way to set bail amounts, is not to leave it to a judges complete discretion. but to set bail amounts as per the value of assets a person has access to and their means. in regards to the seriousness of the crime. so in a case where a person needs currently to come up with $10,000 bail. which for many people is far beyond their means without getting a loan (if they can), since they only make $20,000/year, and rent where they live. for a rich person living in a $5,000,000 mansion and earning say $200,000/year, have cars like Ferraris, should have to pay $6,000,000 or so bail for the same crime.

That is how the system in the US is supposed to work. Judges have immense leeway in deciding bail. It's an area of the law that should get some reform.