It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


The Cali economy will take a hit this puts Bail Bondsman out of biz .




posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: toysforadults


The Cali economy will take a hit this puts Bail Bondsman out of biz .


So what? Bail bondsmen, payday loan vendors, pawn shops, and cash advance providers are all loan sharks. They prey on vulnerable, fearful, and desperate people. They're all scum and should be put out of business.



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I want to see if there is a correlating increase in crimes as this takes affect



posted on Aug, 29 2018 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

If you are a criminal, or fugitive and or illegal alien etal.

Run to Cali.

Excessive bonds are capable of being reduced, zero bond reduced society and justice. Oh, leave out the victims rights..

Mg



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 12:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


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.

I actually like this, except for a couple of details.

Freezing assets less an allowance would lead to issues with what a reasonable allowance is. Many people need access to their assets to continue to make a living; there are cases where freezing assets could result in the inability to fill orders from a personal side business, for instance, and that could have long-term issues with the person's brand. That in itself would be punishment. Therefore, the only realistic way to implement this would be to have all expenses approved by the court, which would lead to more bureaucracy.

The typical criminal thug does not have assets that can be frozen. Their assets may be in the form of a stash of drugs... do we confiscate the drugs? And if we do, that brings up the question of why the drugs weren't already seized as illegal contraband. Some don't even have assets... they live in public housing, often under the name of a relative who lets them stay there and have no money in banks. There may be nothing to freeze, so do we just incarcerate them for being poor and accused of a crime?

Good idea, but there's a lot of devils in those details.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 05:57 AM
link   
The real problem with the just us system is its over complicated and convoluted processes and unjust laws like the drug war and victimless crimes

Get rid of this crap and the problems work themselves out

Then its reserved for cases where its actually necessary



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Well, if bail was working as intended, a person with no means to pay bail wouldn't be given bail in the first place.

I think that what we could do in that case, is treat it similar to a warrant. If someone is out on bail and they get arrested again anywhere in the country, they must sit in jail to await trial. This does give the criminal element one free crime, in a sense, but the bail system was already allowing for that.

If someone has no means to pay a bail, and is accused of a crime, a single accusation shouldn't be enough to incarcerate them. But if they get out and are accused of another crime? I think it's reasonable for the court to step in and jail the person while awaiting trial then.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 06:42 AM
link   
How long befor this new system that grants judges greater power is considered racist/classist because these judges incarcerate more pore and/or minorities ahead of trial than they do the wethly and white?

The next fix will be to illimante pre-trial incarceration. It's the only way to insure fairness... so why not just cut to the chase and make that leap now.

Oh but wait there's more... if we are going to illimante pre-trial incarceration. Why burden the system with arrests in the first place if the arrested are going to be set free as soon as they are put in front of the judge? Instead the police should just hand out tickets for all crimes and the accused would need to show up at a later date for trial.

But than again what happens when our racist/classist police force starts ticketing a disprepositionate number of pore and/or minorities (we all know they will)? And It might be an undue punishment of the innocent pore if they are pulled out of work for a day or so to appear for their trial... They might loose their job. That's no big deal for the rich cause they likely set their own hours of work, but the pore often have very strict work schedules.

Lets cut to the chase yet again and illimante trials for crimes all together. Those trials dispretionatly effect the pore and minorities more so than the rich and white so their illimation makes sence.

But if there are no trials for ticked crimes than the innocent never have a chance to face their accuser and clear their name. Thats a big NO NO in our society... only one thing we can do to fix that while at the same time not give the wealthy and white an unfair advantage... illimante ticketing for crimes all together ... the police can go around blowing their whistle and wagging their finger at people in the act of committing a crime.

But what happens when our racist/classiest police force is accused of waging more fingers at the pore and/or minorities as compared to the rich and white (we all know they will)? Only one thing to do at this point but illuminate the police force.

But wait now that we dont have a Justice system any more what's going to stop the racist/classist rich and white from taking advantage of the pore and/or minorities (we all know they will)?


All roads lead to the rich having an unfair advantage... its just one of the many perks of being rich. We can waist all our time and energy throwing ourselves against those rocks with out making a dent in them or we can make peace with this fact.

One thing is for sure the ACLU has plenty of work ahead of it. Fighting injustice is a job as secure as the mortician's.
edit on 30-8-2018 by DanDanDat because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
I find it ironic that in the land of the free you only get healthcare if you have money, only get justice if you have money and only get an education if you have money.

I think it's a good example of how the soviet, socialist monarchy of the UK has things better. (IE if you are a flight risk or risk to the public you don't get bail, if you aren't you probably do, regardless of whether you are rich or poor).



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

I'm not interested in being a slave so you can have free things



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: DanDanDat

If minority communities stop living the gangster life there will be less of them in jail



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I think if bail is all about ensuring someone will return then there are other ways to do it

There has to be other ways



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

How so?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: SprocketUK

I'm not interested in being a slave so you can have free things


How free are you when you can't buy your way our of jail before you have even been proven guilty of a crime?



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


If someone has no means to pay a bail, and is accused of a crime, a single accusation shouldn't be enough to incarcerate them.

I would say that would depend on the crime they are accused of and the amount of evidence they have against them.

You do realize that, according to our justice system, the police can get a call for a bank robbery, arrive to find a person standing in the bank, holding a gun in one hand and a bag of cash in the other, be identified by twenty witnesses while he's still inside the bank, be caught on bank cameras robbing the bank, and be taken into custody inside the bank... and he is not yet a bank robber; he is still a suspect in a bank robbery. He becomes a bank robber when a judge or jury says he is a bank robber.

That holds whether the suspect is pretty obviously going to be declared guilty of a major crime, as in the above example, or just accused of slapping a guy for spitting in his face with no other witnesses. In the former case, I feel confinement is warranted; in the latter, not so much. However, if one simply does away with the whole concept of bail, one then takes the risk of allowing the suspected bank robber to rob more banks and possibly kill innocents as well.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: DanDanDat

If minority communities stop living the gangster life there will be less of them in jail


I thought you didn't want to entertain that argument.



posted on Aug, 30 2018 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Under the current system bail can be denied either due to the nature of the crime or preliminary evidence presented. I'm not saying we should get rid of that. Only that we change the concept of bail when it would normally be given, because it has the potential for and often does become a punishment outside of a guilty verdict.




top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join