Bail

[Orlong]

While I think the concept of buying your way out of jail should not be a thing (bail should be eliminated). But since we have it, it needs to be more fair.

I know this may shock many of you, but I think people who have more money should be required to pay more in bail money. It should be based on a percentage of your assets instead of a flat amount, and it should be the same mandatory percent for every person who committed a given crime. For instance everyone arrested for burglary should have the same bail. Not 1% for this guy and 5% for another.

Having bail set as a dollar amount is unfair to poor people because they are less likely to be able to pay it, where as a rich person isnt affected at all since its like paying a nickle to them.

Also why does courts only require people to only pay 10% of their bail to get out. Why not the whole thing? That never made sense to me. If they only need to pay 10% of it, why not just make the bail 90% less and charge the whole amount?

[BananaHandsB]

While I think the concept of buying your way out of jail should not be a thing (bail should be eliminated). But since we have it, it needs to be more fair.

I know this may shock many of you, but I think people who have more money should be required to pay more in bail money. It should be based on a percentage of your assets instead of a flat amount, and it should be the same mandatory percent for every person who committed a given crime. For instance everyone arrested for burglary should have the same bail. Not 1% for this guy and 5% for another.

Having bail set as a dollar amount is unfair to poor people because they are less likely to be able to pay it, where as a rich person isnt affected at all since its like paying a nickle to them.

Also why does courts only require people to only pay 10% of their bail to get out. Why not the whole thing? That never made sense to me. If they only need to pay 10% of it, why not just make the bail 90% less and charge the whole amount?

Bail exists b/c of the whole innocent till proven guilty idea, and trials being unable to begin immediately after you're arrested. The 10% rather than 90% is probably more of an economic thing. More people would probably sit in jail and not post bail if they had to pay 90%. Paying 10% locks you in, forcing you to pay the 90% later; making more money off bails on the whole.

[Revi]

I think it's already somewhat based on wealth.. No real idea, but that's the impression I've gotten.

I completely agree though, it should be based on disposable wealth in order to be fair. Ideally, it should be as hard to pay for a multimillionaire as it is for a low-income person.

[Vyxn]

While I think the concept of buying your way out of jail should not be a thing (bail should be eliminated). But since we have it, it needs to be more fair.

I know this may shock many of you, but I think people who have more money should be required to pay more in bail money. It should be based on a percentage of your assets instead of a flat amount, and it should be the same mandatory percent for every person who committed a given crime. For instance everyone arrested for burglary should have the same bail. Not 1% for this guy and 5% for another.

Having bail set as a dollar amount is unfair to poor people because they are less likely to be able to pay it, where as a rich person isnt affected at all since its like paying a nickle to them.

Also why does courts only require people to only pay 10% of their bail to get out. Why not the whole thing? That never made sense to me. If they only need to pay 10% of it, why not just make the bail 90% less and charge the whole amount?

the court doesn't require the 10% that is what the bail bondmen requires you to pay him as he puts upfront the rest of the bail

[Deleted]

Yeah, locking up minor criminals isn't expensive at all.

[OnlineSamantha]

Bail isn't for getting out of jail after you're sentenced. It is for getting out of jail between the time that you're charged with a crime and sentenced to jail for it.

[Noradin]

Bail exists b/c of the whole innocent till proven guilty idea, and trials being unable to begin immediately after you're arrested. The 10% rather than 90% is probably more of an economic thing. More people would probably sit in jail and not post bail if they had to pay 90%. Paying 10% locks you in, forcing you to pay the 90% later; making more money off bails on the whole.

Well, over here it is based on your income and wealth (and set by a judge). I don't know which purpose setting them to 10x the amount but exspecting only payment of 10% of that would serve aside from making the bail appear more impressive to the general public (yes, I'm basically calling it deceit, but then the justice system of the US is about revenge not about penance, so maybe some deceit makes it more just).
You get it back when you show up for the trial, thus you can't strictly make any money from bails and certainly any plans to do so would be unconstitutional.

[drwelfare]

They have answer questions about things like income and assets. That can determine it, also someone with property, assets and a job is less likely to run off that someone with no place of residence and $20 to their name.

10% is through a bondsman, and they keep that %. You can do a property bond or pay the full amount to get out, when you complete court they will release what was held for bond.

Also paying a full bond can get you a lower bond (put up $10k yourself vs 10% of $20k to a bondsman) but you might be looked at as having money therefor able to pay a bigger fine

[Sunseeker]

There should be bare minimums and maximums for certain crimes in your system. A person who makes nothing shouldn't be able to get out of jail for murder for $10 bucks. A person who gets a DUI who makes a million a year shouldn't be charged half a million for a DUI.

[PACOX]

So keep potentially innocent people locked up until their court date? Hold even more people in already over crowded jails? Money is just collateral to keep your ass from running.

[Drsolders]

For foreigners who may not understand bail is not paying to get forgiven for your crimes, you still go to trial. It is so that you don't have to sit in jail for the time between you get arrested and get to your trial.

Also bail isn't set in stone, it can and sometimes is raised or lowered, and can be denied. Also you don't usually have to put up all of it, like 10% when you go through a bondsman. The only reason bail is set is so people don't run. Also you aren't entitled to it, nor are you required to pay it. You can sit a cell for a couple days if you want.

[drwelfare]

Stop breaking the law and you won't have to worry about bail.

Charged with a crime your innocent of, falsely accused, or on the wrong side of a police office who does not know the law. Good to have an option to get out to help protect your life instead of waiting months for court

[Drsolders]

Charged with a crime your innocent of, falsely accused, or on the wrong side of a police office who does not know the law. Good to have an option to get out to help protect your life instead of waiting months for court

If you ever have to wait MONTHS for the initial part of your trial I think you need a better lawyer because the 6th amendment comes to mind.

[drwelfare]

If you ever have to wait MONTHS for the initial part of your trial I think you need a better lawyer because the 6th amendment comes to mind.

Most lawyers ask for you to waive your right to a speedy trial.

[Deleted]

So seems people don't really understand it that much.

Say I am accused of snatching a purse, and my bail is set at £100,000 (stupid numbers, but let's pretend). I can pay that amount myself, the full £100,000, to the court. Then, they let you out, and you get a date to reappear in court. No matter whether you are innocent or guilty, you will get all of that money back.

Now, most people can't pay £100,000 straight up like that, so bail bondsmen exist. Instead of paying the full £100,000 to the court, I could pay £10,000 to a bail bondsman and he or she will put up the other £90,000 for you. You don't get that £10,000 back. The reason you don't get that £10,000 back is because it's the guy's fee. Obviously, there is a risk you won't show up to court right. In that case he loses all the money he put up to bail you out. Now, in most cases you won't run away because otherwise the court wouldn't have allowed to to pay bail and get out, in which case the guy keeps your £10k, gets his £90k back. He's made £10k, and everyone is happy, except you because you're still going to court.

[Drsolders]

Most lawyers ask for you to waive your right to a speedy trial.

Of which you are free to decline to waive it. It may be at your detriment, but no one is forcing you to give up your rights. It isn't the state trying to take them it is the individual idiotic enough to say I don't want one of our basic rights.

[Sunseeker]

Most lawyers ask for you to waive your right to a speedy trial.

Speedy is relative. Faster and sooner is not always better.

[TrumpIsPresident]

Had a bounty hunter come to my door just a few months ago asking questions about a man who gave his brothers address when he posted bail which was a house down the street.

Turned out this guy molested a younger family member and then disappeared after being arrested.

1st degree bullshit: A kiddy diddler is even granted bail to being with.
2nd degree of bullshit: No ankle monitor.

[drwelfare]

1st degree bullshit: A kiddy diddler is even granted bail to being with.
2nd degree of bullshit: No ankle monitor.

Locally in 2 separate trials people were found Not Guilty of child molestation last week. Both had been arrested over a year ago, should they have sat innocent in jail for that time, if so how should the state compensate them if found not guilty?

[Drsolders]

Had a bounty hunter come to my door just a few months ago asking questions about a man who gave his brothers address when he posted bail which was a house down the street.

Turned out this guy molested a younger family member and then disappeared after being arrested.

1st degree bullshit: A kiddy diddler is even granted bail to being with.
2nd degree of bullshit: No ankle monitor.

Can be in some cases not all cases, same goes with ankle monitors. In some cases they aren't given them.

- - - Updated - - -

Locally in 2 separate trials people were found Not Guilty of child molestation last week. Both had been arrested over a year ago, should they have sat innocent in jail for that time, if so how should the state compensate them if found not guilty?

At any time they could have used their rights, the state has 6 months to present a case (in some cases like murder a little more). If he didn't invoke his rights it was his fault.