What am I missing? Especially since it’s basically a deposit that you get back anyway, you don’t even have to really pay, you just have to have money. How is this just an accepted part of society?
What am I missing? Especially since it’s basically a deposit that you get back anyway, you don’t even have to really pay, you just have to have money. How is this just an accepted part of society?
Comments
That wasn’t the original goal, but aye, that’s what it has become.
It’s just a lot easier than any alternative. Bail is frequently granted shortly after the arrest. Any other method of bail would slow down the process greatly, which would leave many people stuck in prison while their bail is sorted.
Easier for a judge to just see 50 arrestees in a session and grant them each bail after a few second’s thought
This is why bondsmen exist. They front the money for you, you show up for court and everyone is happy, you just have to pay the bondsman usually 10% afterward.
This is also assuming a bond is set. People can and do do things for which they can be held without bond. Could have a billion in the bank and if you don’t have a bond set, oh well, rot in jail until court.
After conviction, bonds are irrelevant. They’re only there as a means to enjoy a bit of freedom before trial. You can’t bond your way out of a sentence.
Bail bonds made it worse. Bail amounts depend on your lawyer – worse the lawyer (as it is for the poor), higber is the bail. And worse, the bail bonds are mostly required by the poor and it is a full payment, not just a deposit.
Rich people who can afford to post bail by themselves and have a lower amount on top get away more easily
some places are getting rid of it in a way because that. there is basically assumed to be no cash bail for any but extreme cases now. you’re not missing anything.
Bail is one way to stay out of custody while waiting for a trial. In general, people should only be held in custody before a trial when there is evidence or at least reasonable belief that they will flee the jurisdiction, or that they are violent and might hurt others while awaiting trial. Bail therefore should only be affecting people in these situations.
Many places (several US states) give free/$0 bail/”ROR” to people who don’t have money to afford more.
Bail doesn’t always come back. If we pay a bondsman the 10% fee or if the court accepts a 10% option, then there may not be any return. If there are court costs or other fees, that money is deducted from any bail returns.
I’d definitely rather have the right to place some money or property up as collateral instead of sitting in jail waiting for a trial. Even though I could assert my right to a “speedy trial”, I don’t want to spend any longer than necessary in custody.
It’s supposed to be an amount of money that you can reasonably come up with, but it would hurt really bad if you lost it.
That way you can get out of jail and resume your life, but you’ll almost certainly return for the trial. You get your money back after the trial ends.
We tend to set the floor too high on bail now, so a lot of people can’t afford it and sit in jail for minor charges. We’ve also decided that it’s unreasonable to set bail high for rich people, so it ends up being a trivial expense for them.
There’s been a big push in recent years toward getting rid of bail because it mostly just punishes poor people now.
Yes, fines as punishment for crimes is even worse.
All of this should be linked to a person’s net worth so it impacts everyone equally.
Theoretically it was intended to ensure the defendant would have a need/reason to return to court vs simply holding the defendant in jail while awaiting a trial.
>What am I missing? Especially since it’s basically a deposit that you get back anyway, you don’t even have to really pay, you just have to have money. How is this just an accepted part of society?
The money you have to have is commensurate with your circumstance. And that you get it back is entirely the point. What alternative do you think would be better?