
Bail has become a way to lock up the poor regardless of guilt or threat - dsr12
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/its-a-crime-to-be-poor-in-america-bail-reform/
======
Svip
Is it possible to get compensation for wrongful imprisonment in the US? I know
it is in Denmark. The logic being that it shouldn't be 'free' for the state to
imprison someone wrongfully.

In Denmark, you seek compensation after the fact. The exact compensation will
depend on several variables, so I cannot give an exact figure. But I did find
a case where a man was wrongfully imprisoned for five months, and got 141,000
DKK (~22,000 USD) in compensation. Although, the case noted he had sought
500,000 DKK in compensation.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
It is but it is extremely rare. These are systemic problems, caused by the
construction of the system itself and not due to bad actors.

One problem is to have a successful suit against wrongful imprisonment, you
have to prove intent. If somebody accidentally imprisoned you acting in good
faith, the idea is that people make mistakes. There is automatic protection
built into the system to allow prosecutors and LE to do their jobs. If there
wasn't intent but the job they did was sloppy, it becomes a very grey area
because then you have to define "sloppy". Everybody's sloppy to some degree or
another, so the courts have set a high bar here (IANAL, just what I've read).

The second problem is that laws and punishments are set in isolation, as if
they were dealing with an ideal citizen who just broke one law. If you've got
a job, a car, and savings and then you forget to pay your car insurance, a
hefty fine isn't a big deal. If, however, you're poor and have to drive
without insurance just to have a job and eat, then the laws were not set up
with you in mind. It's not malice by one person that causes this. It's apathy
among dozens of people all with different slices of the problem. It's not
clear who would be the person responsible or who would have the supervisory
authority over all of these people to prevent it even if the system were in
place to find restitution.

~~~
thechao
I understand the situation as described. I do feel that many Americans
(including myself) would be happier without intent: the imprisonment of a free
person is a fundamental violation of constitutional rights and, regardless of
intent, is a wrong, which should lead to compensation.

~~~
hvidgaard
That would be a fair take on it. If you wrongfully imprison anyone, they get
compensation. If all evidence points to them, but they was found not guilty,
then they were wrongfully imprisoned and the intent and "why" doesn't really
matter to that person.

~~~
CamTin
This has its own potential problems. Prosecutors might be under even more
pressure to get convictions or plea bargains, since the alternative, if
somebody is already arrested and awaiting trial, is that their bosses
(ultimately elected officials) have to shell out public money for a wrongful
imprisonment case. Not saying the idea doesn't have merit, but all the moving
parts and bizarre incentives of this system make it very hard to make
adjustments without having 2nd or 3rd order effects that may be even worse
than what we have.

~~~
EvilEndures
Prosecutors already only take cases they think they can win via plea bargain.
Part of why convinction rates are so high is Prosecutors ignore any case they
might lose or the defendant can afford a quality lawyer who might cast
reasonable doubt on the verdict.

I doubt repayment for wrongful imprisonment would make that worse.

~~~
CamTin
Prosecutors might only take those cases, but they're not the ones making
arrests. Police are. Once you are already in jail then, under the proposed
scheme, the prosecutor's options become

1) let you out (drop charges) and expose the public purse to wrongful
imprisonment damages,

2) take it to trial and lose, also exposing the public purse to the same
damages,

3) take it to trial and win, which is expensive but at least looks good for
the prosecutor, or

4) plea you out to a lesser charge, preferably one that carries a penalty of
at least as long in jail as you've already served, so as not to expose the
public purse to those damages

The last option is probably the best-looking one for a prosecutor. It's cheap,
quick, and doesn't look bad for their bosses. I would think we would get more
4s and less 1s than the current system. 1s are good for the accused. 4s are
very bad, but not the worst.

Again, I'm not saying reform is impossible, just playing devil's advocate on
this particular proposal.

~~~
scott_s
Not necessarily. We could decide that being in jail prior to seeing a judge or
magistrate that sets bail does not count as wrongful imprisonment; it's the
period of time during which the state has to decide if they really want to
follow through on charging this individual, and if so, wether or not they want
to take the risk of wrongful imprisonment. We could say that only time after a
judge or magistrate has made the bail or no-bail decision would count as
wrongful imprisonment were the individual found innocent.

The time between arrest and bail hearing max out at a few days. Not great if
you're innocent, but much different than the weeks to months before a trial.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
I don't see why any individual is expected to pay for this. Locking someone up
has a cost, and it's done in the interest of the public, so I would think it
is obvious the public should have to pay for it if they are innocent.

If we want to build a town hall, we don't just take the next person that comes
along and force them to build the thing that everyone then gets to benefit
from--that's what taxes are for.

------
jacobr
Sweden actually has a similar problem even without the bail system. Most
people get released awaiting trial, depending on severity of the crime, risk
of influencing the case, etc. The ones who don't end up incarcerated with way
worse conditions than regular prisons while waiting for the trial. You might
end up with a sentence of 1 year after already spending most of it in an
insitution with limited visitation rights, none of the rehabilitation,
education and leisure available in regular prisons.

~~~
candiodari
All European countries have a system that is sort-of a "reverse bail" problem.
You can become a "civil party" to a complaint that you submit to the police.
If you have money, you can force that complaint to get before a criminal
judge, who is forced to ask you (the civil party) why you want this person
criminally punished (e.g. jail), and listen to your response.

So poor people cannot complain about things like government excess or police
brutality, since those complaints get thrown out. Nor can they effectively get
police help, except in very severe cases.

But a rich person can drag you in front of a criminal court for not wiping the
pavement in front of your apartment often enough.

This is a bail system. The money you put down, you get back if the person gets
convicted. Additionally, in some countries the defendant, if convicted, will
need to pay your lawyer expenses (again, if they are convicted).

Pretty much all of Europe.

~~~
nemetroid
> All European countries

> criminal judge

Almost all of Europe uses civil law, where there is no distinction between
civil and criminal courts.

> But a rich person can drag you in front of a criminal court for not wiping
> the pavement in front of your apartment often enough.

> This is a bail system. The money you put down, you get back if the person
> gets convicted.

This is far removed from reality as far as I am aware. Please provide sources.

~~~
candiodari
> Almost all of Europe uses civil law, where there is no distinction between
> civil and criminal courts.

Obviously not true. In fact, this is so obviously wrong I don't know where to
start.

Differences between civil and criminal courts:

* different hierarchy

* different powers (criminal court can, say, order imprisonment)

* different judges

* different parties (defendant vs prosecution for criminal, defendant vs complainant for civil court)

* different standards of proof

* different rights (e.g. the right to a jury trial in some countries)

Even this barely scratches the surface of the differences.

> This is far removed from reality as far as I am aware. Please provide
> sources.

Start reading here, it describes part of the procedure:

[https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partie_civile_en_France](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partie_civile_en_France)

Google suggests this as an English alternative:

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230....](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1958.tb00483.x)

(note there is "partie civile" and "action civile". They are NOT the same,
aren't directly related. Specifically it is NOT the case that the "partie
civile" is the complainant in an "action civile", as one might think. Keep
reading)

The procedure is, generally speaking:

1) complain to the police, get a record or the complaint

2) with the record (which is a number), go to an "investigation judge" (no
need to prove anything or ...), declare your intent to become "partie civile",
register your lawyer, etc. He will tell you the amount of the "bail" for the
case (which is going to be ~1000 euro. It differs from case to case, but not
much)

3) pay the "bail" to the "griffe" (sort-of-kind-of the secretary of the court,
they have an office in every courthouse) and register it

4) take said registration back to the judge you registered with, judge writes
an order

5) write the prosecutor to deliver the order of the investigative judge

Now, the prosecutor is forced to bring the case before criminal court within a
certain amount of time, and is forced to demand a nonzero punishment for
whatever the complaint is (in fact this is one of the ways they get out from
under it: they demand ridiculous punishments so the judge will rule against
them).

The non-obvious and terrible thing for the victims of this system is
misjudging the motivation of the police/prosecution (technically there is a
distinction between the police and the people that do this, but it's
essentially a different department of the same organization...). You might
think the police will try to punish the guilty party, if there is one. That's
technically true, but only in the following sense : they will try to get a
conviction, and with this procedure REGARDLESS of their judgement there is a
guilty party. If they think they can get a conviction, odds are VERY good
they'll pursue seriously. Things that do NOT influence whether they pursue
(and therefore do not influence whether you get convicted) include
reasonableness, whether you're nice to the police, whether there's significant
damages, whether anyone else was involved, whether the police promised not to
do that (which they do, frankly almost always, then bring the case anyway and
get the conviction), ...

An evil way to get ahead in elections in France: use this system to get your
niece to complain against your competition, then point out (perfectly
accurately) that your opponent is under investigation for terrible crime X.
They will go free, eventually (or maybe not), but by that time it has long
since stopped mattering.

~~~
nemetroid
> Differences between civil and criminal courts:

I spoke too broadly - apparently, some countries (including France, Spain,
Poland and Italy) do have different courts for civil and criminal matters.
Other countries do not (including Germany, Sweden, Hungary and Slovakia) [0].

>
> [https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partie_civile_en_France](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partie_civile_en_France)

> Google suggests this as an English alternative:

>
> [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230....](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2230...).

> (note there is "partie civile" and "action civile". They are NOT the same,
> aren't directly related. Specifically it is NOT the case that the "partie
> civile" is the complainant in an "action civile", as one might think. Keep
> reading)

I have only read briefly, but noted two things to start with: the document in
English clearly states that it only describes the French system (even though
other countries are mentioned at times), and it is also 60 years old. But even
so:

> This problem was whether the juge d’instruction was bound to direct his
> investigations against the individual accused in the plaint, or whether he
> could exercise discretion as to the persons against whom he proceeded. The
> question was answered in 1925 in favour of the partie civile. The Chambre
> criminelle held that the juge d’instruction was not master of the
> proceedings. He was seised in personam in respect of the person accused and
> not in rem in respect of the charge as a whole. He was therefore without
> discretion as to whom he inquired against.

This reads similar to what you are describing about the prosecutor being
forced to bring the case forward. However:

> The law of July 2, 1931, was passed in an attempt to remedy some of the
> foregoing abuses.

> ...

> The purpose of this reform was to avoid the infliction of the moral damage
> which usually followed merely from being publicly accused of certain crimes.
> No accusation would now be made unless the juge d'instruction were satisfied
> that there were adequate grounds for it.

The second-to-last paragraph of your post is also not substantiated by that
source.

If this is as common as you claim, it should not be difficult to find recent
sources which support it.

0:
[https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_ordinary_courts-18-en.do](https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_ordinary_courts-18-en.do)

~~~
candiodari
> I spoke too broadly - apparently, some countries (including France, Spain,
> Poland and Italy) do have different courts for civil and criminal matters.
> Other countries do not (including Germany, Sweden, Hungary and Slovakia)
> [0].

Not "some countries" ... All countries have different criminal and civil
codes, and therefore courts, and judges, and lawyers, and ... all different.
I'm pretty interested which country, exactly, only has a single system across
criminal and civil law. Common law has the separation, Napoleonic code has the
separation, see next paragraph for explanation why that's pretty much enough
to declare it true for the entire world.

> I have only read briefly, but noted two things to start with: the document
> in English clearly states that it only describes the French system (even
> though other countries are mentioned at times), and it is also 60 years old.
> But even so:

I feel like, again, I need to quote a bit, not even of "law 101", but the
basic explanation they give when they have someone tour the law faculty. There
are 2 modern law "systems" that pretty much all other law is based upon. One
is Common law, the other is the law introduced by Napoleon, in 1804, referred
to in English as the Napoleonic code, and adopted in all countries he
conquered. To a rough approximation you could say that any country that was
not a colony of Britain has the Napoleonic code as a legal basis (including
countries that claim different for one reason or another, like Saudi Arabia
that claims to have Sharia, but upon even cursory examination that will strike
you as a very hollow claim)

The "partie civil" process is a part of Napoleonic code (references for this,
obviously, are in French legalese).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Code)
(note the separation between civil and criminal courts in a very old document,
which is why it's so widely used) and ... given the mistakes you make ...
perhaps you might consider speaking with a bit less authority ?

> If this is as common as you claim, it should not be difficult to find recent
> sources which support it.

And the resources I pointed out do describe this, and yes, I get it. It's law
... the sources where law is condensed are not free, and cannot be linked to,
ancient books that do describe it are more-or-less in Google books, but
they're still pretty technical and long-winded.

Also, for obvious reasons, most "intro to law" for any particular Napoleonic
code is not in English. The good ones are in French.

------
jillesvangurp
The US never abolished slavery, it just replaced it with prison labor and an
endless supply of poor people that are fed into it on all sorts of minor
offenses that would in most countries not result in a conviction.

I know of no other countries that lock up this large a percentage of their
population and then still manages to rival major war zones in terms of gun
deaths per capita. It's offensive how ridiculously ineffective and cruel the
US prison system is.

Here's the fix: abandon slave labor and bring back prisons under local
government control fully funded out of tax money. Then allow local politicians
to decide what is reasonable to do with that funding. The whole problem is
simply that people are profiting from locking people up and bankrolling the
whole process.

~~~
nojvek
Yep, US has the highest rate of incarceration compared to any other country.
It's kind of insane that 1 in every 1000 people is in jail/prison. Not only is
it a huge cost to the government maintaining that many prisoners, but it's
also a huge drain to the economy to have that many humans contained within 4
walls. Some of them even spending so much time in solitude that they'd rather
commit suicide and end their lives.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_ra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_incarceration_rate#/media/File:Incarceration_rates_worldwide.gif)

We have a long way to go as humanity before we can call ourselves an advanced
civilization that cares for every being on the planet and the planet itself in
a sustainable way.

------
titzer
This is horrible. Instead of bail, they should just have steeper fines for
failure to appear and yet on the flipside the same guarantees afforded to jury
duty as far as employment (i.e. can't be fired for having to appear in court).
That would allow poorer people to keep their jobs and still be present for
court dates. Flight risk is really not as high as the system is designed for.

~~~
mschuster91
> Flight risk is really not as high as the system is designed for.

The system is rigged against the minorities. Look why cannabis was
criminalized in the first place - to target blacks and hippies
([https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-
ehrlichman-...](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-
richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html)). As a politician, keep as
many of 'em in jails as you can, thus showing the white population you're
"tough on crime" and at the same time filling the coffers of your private
prison operator friends with state cash for the jailing.

~~~
StreamBright
This white against minorities narrative breaks down once you understand that
~80% of minorities are DNC voters[1] and Bill Clinton was the number one guy
who f*ed them over the most with the infamous Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994[2].

1\. [http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-
aff...](http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-affiliation-
among-demographic-groups/2_3-14/)

2\. In a speech at an NAACP convention in Philadelphia in July, Clinton
acknowledged that tougher incarceration provisions in the bill were a mistake.
“I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Clinton said. “And I want to
admit it.”

I think this issue has many different angles than just the usual whites vs.
minorities.

~~~
zimablue
The lack of options/failure of the political system does not disprove the
narrative that there were/are racial motives behind some of the systems we
live with today.

"It can't be whites vs blacks, politicians that black people voted for did it
too".

When you actually write out your argument it doesn't make any sense. What if
they were given two options, both of whom would have continued racist
policies? There's also a phenomenon whereby politicians identified with a
specific "outsider" group have a lot more pressure (and ability) to defy the
interests or stereotypes of that group. H Clinton under a lot more pressure to
be hawkish to defy weak women narrative. Obama under a lot more scrutiny about
anything that could be seen as a handout to African Americans. Politicians
from the left often ripping up regulations, because they sedate the left who
would have prevented right candidates from doing it.

Basically, it's way more complicated and your argument doesn't hold water.

~~~
stukh
Nicely put. Your comment reminds me of Rubin and Summers ripping up Glass-
Steagall at the end of the Clinton administration and the current uproar at
attempts to get rid of some banking regulations.

------
captainbland
I think that if there are financial penalties - or similar in the case of bail
- they have to be adjusted to means (don't get me wrong, this can be a
challenge in itself). Otherwise you're basically saying that something is
legal for the rich who could easily make the bail or the fine, but illegal for
somebody poor who cannot make the fine which can have ever worse consequences.
Why should that be?

~~~
cs02rm0
If one person gets their life savings cleared out for a $100 speeding fine,
how do you equate that financial pain to Bill Gates? Why should Bill Gates be
punished more in the same situation for having put the work in to build a
successful company?

You end up with silly (IMHO) situations like someone getting a $290k fine in
Switzerland for 85mph in a 50 zone.

6 months in jail for someone who can't afford a $1k bail is the other end of
the scale though - surely it cost substantially more than that to keep him in
there. I'm pretty certain in the UK we have charities that help people out in
such situations, is there no equivalent provision in the US?

~~~
masklinn
> If one person gets their life savings cleared out for a $100 speeding fine,
> how do you equate that financial pain to Bill Gates? Why should Bill Gates
> be punished more in the same situation for having put the work in to build a
> successful company?

He's not punished "more", he's punished _equitably_. The ultimate goal is not
to collect $100, it's for the offender to not reoffend.

Disposable income is an actual objective and important concept, and if you
ignore it when handing out financial punishment it just stops being punishment
at all for people sufficiently wealthy to not give a single flying fuck.

Having "put the work in to build a successful company" — or just inherited
their wealth — should not make one immune to punishment, yet that's exactly
what happens with unscaled fixed-amount fines.

> You end up with silly (IMHO) situations like someone getting a $290k fine in
> Switzerland for 85mph in a 50 zone.

There's nothing silly about it. If that's a $500 fine for somebody with an
income of 7 figures, it's not a punishment at all and completely fail at its
purpose of making the offender not reoffend: they could get such a fine _every
single day_ and live just fine while an offender on US minimum wage loses _two
weeks worth of work_ on a single fine.

~~~
dismantlethesun
> The ultimate goal is not to collect $100, it's for the offender to not
> reoffend.

If that is the ultimate goal, then fine equitable punishment would include
fines targeting versus ability to pay.

However, if the system is simply seeking recompense for an action then it is
_unfair_ to place a higher fine on someone simply because they have more
money.

For traffic offenses such as speeding, perhaps stopping re-offending is the
goal since speeding always carries a higher risk accidentally harming someone
else.

For a parking meter offense, I think the goal is simple recompense as if you
had put in more money at the outset, you would not have been fined.

~~~
loa-in-backup
The discussion is about bails which are given back if you show up to court.

~~~
dismantlethesun
It seems to me that the discussion diverged quite a bit from the original
posting.

The two replies above mine in this thread are talking about speeding offenses,
which is the thread of discussion that I am responding to.

I appreciate your trying to bring it back to the original posting, but your
reply is a bit too deep within the thread to be effective.

------
JudasGoat
In Massachusetts it is common to have two different ammounts bepending how you
choose to pay. For instance, my bail was $100,000 cash or 1 million bond.
Seeing as bail bondsmen typically require a 10 percent non refundable fee, you
would pay the cash ammount and it is returned upon completion of your trial.
The problem perceived by the incarcerated is that the courts would be likely
to include a fine similar to your cash bail in a resolution to a guilty
finding.

------
snarfy
Financial punishments should be required by law to be a percentage of your
worth/income instead of an arbitrary number. $100 fine can be devastating if
you are living paycheck to paycheck. For others it's a bar tab. Fixed fees
disproportionately hurt the poor.

~~~
zimablue
Setting that scale is nigh on impossible though. Young people with zero in
assets and incredibly rich parents (asset-rich not income). Young people with
no assets and poor parents but massive future earning potential (academic or
sports stars). Old people with massive material wealth in the value of their
houses who will be incredibly unwilling (and make a great newspaper headline)
to move it.

------
cubano
In my experience by far the worse part of the totally racist and unfair US
bail system is the fact that...

... _if you can 't bail out, you don't get any REAL credit for the time you
have spent locked up when you finally go to court and get sentenced_, which
really rubs injury into insult and flies 100% into the face of "innocent until
proven guilty" bullshit we are all told is the way the system works.

Before everyone goes off on how wrong I am, please hear me out from my POV of
over 30 years getting arrested for minor shit all over the US.

For the record, I have probably done time in like...12 different county jails
and been through the systems in each of those places, and have been to state
prison twice (no bail issues in prisons, so I'll leave them out).

So back to my outrageous assertion...am I really saying that the judge gives
you NO CREDIT for being in jail, away from your loved ones, your job
(hopefully you had one), and your freedom, for all those weeks that you will
wait to see him and have your case disposed of?

Yes that is exactly what I'm saying, and here is why. Let's say 2 people get
arrested for, say, felony ketamine possession on Jan 1, 2019.

Richie Rich cries to mommy and get bonded out 10 hours after the arrest, and
the bondsman gives him his first court date (there will be many BTW) 5 weeks
out on Feb. 3rd.

Joe Street is from out-of-town and the police forget to let him get local
numbers from his phone before its stowed away in his property, thus leaving
him totally helpless as far as calling _anyone_ because who in in the hell
remembers out-of-town numbers these days, right?

[I use this example because this exact situation with the phone happened to me
last year here in Vegas]

So Joe is officially fucked. He too gets a court date for Feb 3rd and has to
sit in jail until then. Trust me. If you have never been to county jail 5
weeks will feel approximately like 2 full-fucking eternities to you.

You can't believe how bad the food is...how uncomfortable the beds are...how
bad your cellmate snores...what assholes the COs are...

And mostly how incredibly shit the phone system is...it's expensive as hell (3
bucks for 15 minutes I've seen) and often the speaker or mics dont work that
well due to people smashing it on the wall in frustration.

So you go to court FINALLY Feb 3rd, and there is Richie Rich! Oh man, he sure
looks good in his street clothes and all groomed, while you look like pure
crap with your ill-fitting jail garb..well at least you will be going home
today, you think as you happily sit in the freezing cold holding cell and
listen to people right next to each other scream at almost the top-of-their-
lungs to just talk about their situation.

Your head is pounding and you have been up since 4am sitting on hard-ass
concrete for 5 hours...but HELL YEAH YOU ARE GOING HOME TODAY I'll take
whatever probation they give me today..who cares how much I just NEED TO GET
THE FUCK OUTTA THIS JAIL!

And then, of course...you never even see the judge. This is "arraignment"
dipstick and everyone knows you can't plead at arraignment. Your totally
overworked assigned public defender hands you his card and silently signs
"call me" because its so fucking loud still.

Then, in horror, you look down at the card and see your next court date is
3/18...HOLY SHIT ANOTHER 6 WEEKS ARE YOU KIDDING???

So I could go on relaying horror after horror, but I will stop here and get to
the damn point. At the end, _both you and Richie Rich get 3 years felony
probation!!_

Let that sink in...you have sat in hell for maybe 4 months (sometimes 8 or
9!!) while Richie has been doing his thing in the real world, yet you both end
up with the same sentence.

And that's what I mean when I say that _you basically get no credit for not
being able to bail out._ This is a 100% true story and I have seen it play out
just like this perhaps a hundred times.

~~~
pc86
> _over 30 years getting arrested for minor shit all over the US_

Have you tried not spending three decades committing petty crimes "all over
the US?"

As for your original point - credit for time - you get 1.5x for time served.
_If you 're sentenced to prison._ If you spend weeks in jail but don't
actually get sentenced to prison, there's nothing against which your time can
be credited. Nobody's crediting jail time toward probation.

~~~
wccrawford
Why though? He was on worse than probation for the entire time he was in jail.
Why doesn't that count as time served?

~~~
pc86
If you're incarcerated prior to sentencing, and you're sentenced to more
incarceration, you get a little extra credit, such that a 1-month pre-
sentencing incarceration prior to a year long sentence results in a ~10.5
month incarceration after.

Incarceration and probation are two completely different things, something
that everyone knows and cubano's post conveniently ignores until the end. The
point of the credit is so that you can spend less time in prison if you've
already spent time in jail prior. It is not to get you out of the system
faster so a credit toward probationary time doesn't make any sense.

------
ddtaylor
It's worth noting that bail has been ruled unconstitutional in the Federal
system and replaced by a pretrial service.

------
giancarlostoro
Seems more and more like our legal system is based around people being guilty
until proven innocent. This is so wrong. People who could be flight risks are
the ones who should pay bail.

------
mnm1
Cash bail for nonviolent offenders is human rights abuse and completely
unnecessary in the age of ankle bracelets and gps. I assume it still exists
because people are profiting from this or because of the hate and desire to
punish those simply accused, even if they are innocent. The desire for
retribution and cruelty of such a system are definitely intentional factors,
as much as profit, in the U.S. One should never underestimate hate and racism
or their consequences here in America.

------
zubairq
Denmark is not so clear cut. Here SKAT, the tax system presumes citizens
guilty and they have to prove their innocence. This can mean jail time too for
the citizens

------
rishabhd
Harrowing, absolutely harrowing.

------
jdlyga
Banning setting excessive bail is literally in the constitution. We should
abide by that.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Unfortunately, many parts of the constitution, including this one, have been
re-interpreted into near irrelevance by courts. Excessive bail = bail larger
than that which is typically required which means that that whatever bail is
typically required is by definition not excessive. A more reasonable
interpretation would be any bail larger than the amount necessary to achieve
the purpose that bail is supposed to serve, which experiments by places like
DC have shown for many cases to be any bail larger than zero.

------
throw2016
There is an incestuous network of profit driven companies who benefit from
this. Apart from the bail bonds and insurance companies detailed in the
article there are also private prisons.

All these interests are perfectly aligned to lobby and fund campaigns and
'grow their business'. Their presence and funding of DA and judges is a clear
conflict of interest. This is basically a synergy of corruption and
exploitation.

Corporate drones and funded economists go on about 'freedom' and this is a
perfect example of how markets can produce toxic outcomes for individuals.
Other developed countries do not mix up private interests and profit motives
in their justice system and do not have problems of this scale.

But the worst thing for individuals is once tainted, even wrongly, it becomes
difficult to get back to get back to normal life, be it employment, housing or
credit.

~~~
wang_li
According to ProPublica[1], in 2010 there were 1.6 million people in prisons
in the US. Of those 128,195 were in private prison facilities. According to
[2], the number of federal inmates in private facilities in 2016 was 22,000,
which is down from 27,000 mentioned in the ProPublica piece in 2010.
Additionally, in 2016 the Feds announced the intent to discontinue the use of
private prisons. (Don't know if that has changed in the last two years or
not.)

It doesn't seem like private prisons make any significant portion of the
system.

[1] [https://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-
the-u.s.s-...](https://www.propublica.org/article/by-the-numbers-
the-u.s.s-growing-for-profit-detention-industry) [2]
[https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/18/what-you-
need-...](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/18/what-you-need-to-know-
about-the-private-prison-phase-out)

~~~
throw2016
That Fed announcement was an Obama era directive and was reversed by Jeff
Sessions in 2017 [1]. 8.5% is not a small number and the conflict of interest
is untenable as the scandals have shown.

That this could be reversed inspite of known abuses [2] and serious problems
[3] with the private prison system is extremely troubling. Private prison
operators are one of the largest lobbying groups and spend more than $45
million a year on lobbying. [4]

There have been a series of serious scandals with private prisons [5], judges
[6] and corruption [7] with people sent to prison simply to pad numbers in
private prisons. It's unteneble for a civilized society that believes in rule
of law to allow justice to be vulgarized in this manner and allow a system
known to be corrupt to stand.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/justi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/justice-department-will-again-use-private-
prisons/2017/02/23/da395d02-fa0e-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html)

[2][https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-
for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-
about/?utm_term=.7365ae9c7446)

[3] [http://time.com/5013760/american-private-prisons-donald-
trum...](http://time.com/5013760/american-private-prisons-donald-trump/)

[4] [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-yankovich/be-careful-
pr...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-yankovich/be-careful-private-
prison_b_8144860.html)

[5]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/08/12/pennsylv...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/08/12/pennsylvania-
judge-gets-life-sentence-for-prison-kickback-scheme/)

[6]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/us/13judge.html)

[7] [https://boingboing.net/2013/08/06/judge-who-accepted-
private...](https://boingboing.net/2013/08/06/judge-who-accepted-private-
pri.html)

------
TangoTrotFox
This article is incredibly misleading in numerous ways. You can find details
on pretrial release, like all other issues related to the justice department
from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. This [1] paper is extremely relevant.

The normal process in the US is that an individual's case will be seen by a
judge within 24 hours of their detention and the judge will assign bail.
Contrary to the media, the defendant is often not even present for this
process. They will simply be pulled from their cell or detention area and
informed what the judge decided. And in the vast majority of cases this is
that the individual is released for 'free', or released on personal
recognizance. Even in felony cases some 32% of individuals are released
without financial condition. When bail is set, individuals can generally get
out for 10% of that amount. In some cases they can do it directly through the
court, and that 10% will be refunded once the individual returns to court and
completes their trial. If not they can go to bail bondsmen who take the 10% as
their profit margin, and pay 100% to the court themselves. The bailbonds
companies then get their 100% back from the court once the defendant shows up
and completes their trial. This is where modern day 'bounty hunting' can come
into play -- the bail bondsmen have a strong incentive to ensure that their
clients do not flee.

Bail tends to be set in relation to the criminal record of an individual, the
seriousness of an offense, how much of a flight risk they are, and whether or
not they're likely to be a danger to themselves or others if released. So for
instance of all individuals with no prior convictions 77% are released, 63% of
those with misdemeanor priors are released, but only 46% of those with felony
priors are released. This is also why there are demographic differences in
bails and release rates (age, gender, race, etc). Two individuals may commit
the same crime, but when one has a criminal record and the other does not -
there will be different outcomes. Articles typically try to spin this as
prejudice (as this one did), but it is in no way shape or form prejudicial.

There are also statistics that can be used to, inadvertently, test how
reliable detention vs release decisions are. In particular when there are
emergency releases ( _such as because of jail overcrowding_ ) where defendants
who would not normally be released, are, about 52% end up being charged with
some sort of pretrial misconduct. The rate for those who were intentionally
released ranges from 27% to 36% depending on the release type. Anyhow, there's
an immense amount of other actual information and data on that paper alone,
including things like regression comparison of release rates vs reoffense
rates to see if the systems in place are justified or not. And in some cases
they are not, in some cases they are. I think it's reasonable to conclude that
it's a system that does pretty well, but could be made better.

[1] -
[https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf)

~~~
stukh
Your comment is at odds with my perception of the system of bail in the U.S.
It was quite illuminating. Thanks for the reference to the paper. The system
is much more nuanced than I thought it was. I guess this is the danger of
reducing a complex system to a set of simple black/white statements.

------
guessthejuice
I remember reading about this years ago. It's sad that this problem hasn't
been resolved in all that time.

We already have a legal system that advantages the wealthy ( more money for
better lawyers, experts, etc ) over everyone else. But this bail problem is
egregious and cruel.

But it isn't the poor who created legal system. It isn't he poor who write
laws.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
The system isn't fundamentally flawed though. The problem starts when it's
abused. When people are locked away regardless of whether or not there is any
probability of them leaving the country or otherwise "disappearing" before
their trial. Someone who has a family most likely won't do that, and there's
no reason for them to go to prison until they have been proven guilty of a
crime.

~~~
Nasrudith
There is one radical viewpoint that I believe holds for the law and computer
security practices: if it is abusable it is fundamentally flawed. To give a
deliberately extreme example imagine a law that gave the accusser fifty
percent of the assets of a terrorist and the prosecutor the other fifty
percent with no downsides for a false accusation. Fundamentally there is no
way that said law wouldn't be abused for profit and make a complete hash out
of justice.

------
adrr
Here's solution I came up with bail. Force the government to pay 10% APR on
bail amount. Now the bail bonds companies become risk management companies who
look at the data to determine the risk of flight for the person charged with
the crime. These companies get the interest payment from the government, the
government saves money by not paying to jail someone and the person charged
doesn't pay anything out of pocket.

------
sureaboutthis
What is the alternative then? Let a probable criminal go wander the streets or
disappear altogether? At least these people have some possibility of release
rather than none at all.

While some innocents may be confined to a jail awaiting trial, I'm sure this
is a minority, not the majority. Even then, bail skippers still occur. Let's
quit with the "Oh the poor criminal being treated that way" mentality.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
> "Oh the poor criminal being treated that way"

No. It's the exact opposite. Until they are proven guilty of a crime, it's a
"Oh the poor innocent people being treated that way" mentality, and that is
perfectly justifiable. People awaiting trial should _only_ be locked away when
there's any actual reason to believe they would disappear or commit a serious
crime before their trial.

~~~
sureaboutthis
Thus, the purpose of bail money that people are complaining about. However, as
I said in my post, most people are likely to be guilty of said crime and the
most heinous ones are those you don't want them on the streets.

