
Cops are making fewer arrests since N.J. got rid of cash bail - lacksconfidence
https://www.nj.com/data/2019/11/cops-are-making-fewer-arrests-since-nj-got-rid-of-cash-bail.html
======
pjc50
Like a lot of pieces of the "justice" system, cash bail was more effective at
creating poverty and crime than deterring it. The UK got rid of it years ago
for all but exceptional circumstances.

~~~
gizmo686
What qualifies as "exceptional circumstances"?

Cash bail claims to be the middle ground between "we trust you enough to show
up in your own" and "we distrust you enough to incarcerate you until this is
resolved."

~~~
avianlyric
In the UK you always get bail by default, without condition.

The exceptions to this are pretty much just murder, manslaughter, sexual
assault, and some drug offences.

In short not being bailed is an exception. This is done on the basis you
haven’t actually been found guilty of crime yet, thus the state can’t limit
your liberties as you’re innocent until proven otherwise.

You read more here: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-
guidance/bail](https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail)

~~~
goodluckchuck
That doesn't answer the question. You also get bail by default in the US,
"without condition." However, the definition of bail is literally collateral
or security that you provide to ensure your return. So to say that you get
bail in the UK is just to say that the UK does the same thing.

There's this implication that poor people can't make bail because they're
poor, which is utterly false and made in bad faith by most who imply it.

If a person is not released on their on recognizance in the US (i.e. without
bail), then bail is set by the court based on 1) extent to which the person is
a flight risk / risk to public safety, and 2) the person's ability to pay. Let
me say that again, the amount of a cash bail is based on the defendant's
ability to pay.

If a person is only a mild flight risk, then the judge will choose an amount
that is within the defendant's financial means, but also sufficient to
encourage them to show up. If a defendant proves they they are poor, then this
amount is be very small. However, if they prove they are poor and the judge
still sets a bail that they cannot reach without borrowing from friends and
family or a bondsmen, then that also says something. It means the judge
determined they're too much of a risk to trust on their own. The point of cash
bail is often to make the defendant accountable to friends, family, bail-
bondsmen... which encourages them to show up.

A confounding factor is that wealthy people are rarely a serious flight risk.
An illegal alien charged with DUI may have friends who he can hide with,
skills he can use to work anywhere, and the knowhow to "stay off the radar."
An accountant who charged with DUI, however, can be tracked by their phone and
bank accounts, likely has far more to lose by fleeing (a paid-off house, a
family that lives in town with them, a job that reports their employment to
government, etc.). These are all factors that go into the amount cash bail.
So, it might look like "he's getting out because he can pay despite being
charged with the same crime" when the real reason is that "the judge picked an
amount he can pay because he's not a serious flight risk."

~~~
ummonk
If a person has $10 in savings, what level of bail would you posit both
prevents them from fleeing and allows them to make bail?

------
prepend
I had to bail someone out once. Both misdemeanors both set to statutory bail
of $350. Since it was so low, I just went to jail with $700 to bail them out.
The cashier said I had to pay $810 as there was a $110 fee to fund some police
initiative. The $700 was paid back when the bailee showed up. The $110 was a
fee lost even if the bailee was acquitted.

I never knew about this fee, when I complained to my city council member he
said not to commit any crimes.

There are many rackets just finding inefficiencies in justice that I’m glad to
see we’re slowly chipping away at them.

~~~
merpnderp
This seems unconstitutional since bail isn’t punishment as no one has been
found guilty. Your city councilman is not a moral person.

~~~
prepend
I agree on both counts. I didn’t vote for that person but he’s still in
office.

------
peterwwillis
Once I was pulled over for a tail light out, and it turned out my license was
expired. In DC, this means you immediately go to jail. Once I arrived at jail,
they informed me that if I had $80 cash on hand, I could go free and show up
for trial; otherwise it could take up to 24 hours for me to see a judge, who
would then tell me I could go free until trial.

If I were someone else, without cash on hand, with a temporary job and kids, I
would have missed work and not been able to pick up my kids from school and
feed them, to say nothing of paying hundreds to get my car out of an impound
lot. I realized then that the justice system is a machine that creates
poverty.

~~~
AlexTWithBeard
The problem here is not with bail though. The problem is with mandatory jail
time for expired license.

~~~
rkangel
To be fair, it's actually "automatic arrest for DRIVING without a licence".
That doesn't seem completely unreasonable.

~~~
thomascgalvin
Thousands of people are driving on licenses they do not know are expired.
Throwing them in jail is one-hundred percent absurd.

------
lacksconfidence
Link to study:
[https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_New_Jersey_Repo...](https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/PSA_New_Jersey_Report_%231.pdf)

~~~
jgmjgm
Awesome. Thanks for this. I really didn't like the visualization in the
article since it was unclear if it was just a seasonal effect and there were
no confidence intervals. The report is much, much better.

Perhaps useful to note that the results hold for minor/non-indictable
offenses. However, I'm out of my depth on the more nuanced legal aspects in
the report.

------
tvaughan
Chesa Boudin, San Francisco's new District Attorney and son of two former
members of the Weather Underground, ran on a progressive platform that
included ending cash bail. This is part of a broader movement of judicial
reform advocates who advance their policies by taking the District Attorney's
office. [https://youtu.be/GbILs4N4bLE](https://youtu.be/GbILs4N4bLE)

------
pmoriarty
I wonder how many fewer arrests they'd make if they got rid of asset
forfeiture.

~~~
Mountain_Skies
Isn't one of the big issues with asset forfeiture that the police are able to
do it without actually charging you with anything? Instead they charge the
asset itself.

~~~
r00fus
> Instead they charge the asset itself.

It's a ludicrous assertion, to be sure. Imagine: "we're not holding you, but
only the iron in your blood".

------
mxuribe
It looks like the change to the bail side might be good (avoiding pushing ever
more people into poverty, which some believe pushes some people into more
crime, etc.). But a little nervous about the use of algorithms here.

~~~
Wohlf
The alternative is the unknown human biases of random judges. At least an
algorithm can be audited and changed.

~~~
blaser-waffle
Judges are elected and can be recalled in many states. Their stances and rules
are usually public, too.

Why would someones proprietary codebase be more accessible than public court
documents?

~~~
moate
The process/decision tree is open and transparent. There's still going to be
the potential for implicit bias in the system, but there's no way to remove
that entirely from the process (I guess unless you move to a luck based system
in which the decision is just made randomly, but nobody would like that)

~~~
rob-olmos
I have doubts the algorithm would be a decision tree, or capable of being
contained in one. I feel like at some point it would use or be an ML model.

Would a model also be open and transparent? It would at least be open &
testable, but I'm not sure about transparent for easily identifying any
biases.

------
ummonk
>Now, judges weigh whether to lock somebody up, slap an ankle bracelet on them
or release them without conditions with the help of a public safety
assessment.

This seems very reasonable. Either somebody is too dangerous to let out, or is
safe but might flee in which case ankle monitor seems like a better bet, both
because it keeps people from rotting in jail for being too poor to make bail
and because bail isn’t as good a deterrent to flight as an ankle monitor. And
if someone is safe and isn’t a flight risk, just let them out without bail.

------
newnewpdro
California did this then it got pushed to a 2020 ballot initiative SB10 after
an opposing coalition collected > 575,000 signatures in 70 days.

[https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article224682595.html](https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article224682595.html)

------
bitcurious
I imagine that the kind of administration that's willing to end cash bail is
also the kind of administration that pushes for community policing, so I
wouldn't draw any conclusions.

~~~
jMyles
Is community policing tied to fewer arrests? I haven't ever seen hard numbers
on this. According to Derecka Purnell and Marbre Stahly-Butts[0]:

> Community policing is an empty phrase. A Washington Post report showed that
> law enforcement use of force in half of police departments with consent
> decrees. Asking police officers to strengthen community relationships —
> including by doing things like playing football with children or handing out
> ice cream — does not reduce their power to harm anyone.

0: [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/the-police-
cant-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/opinion/the-police-cant-solve-
the-problem-they-are-the-problem.html)

