• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jerry Brown signs bill eliminating money bail in California

Don't break the law and there's nothing to worry about.

Another moronic statement.

These people havent been convicted of anything. Innocent people do get arrested.

Maybe you're thinking that if the police pick up a *suspect* they should just be sentenced and thrown in jail based on their resemblance to "a guy that robbed a liquor store?"
 
As long as the total rate of people jailed prior to conviction goes down, your point is moot. If even a tiny percent of poor people are not jailed because of this, it must be so.

And what if the total number of victims of crimes committed by those awaiting trial goes up? (Spoiler: It will)

Do we just not care about crime victims anymore?
 
And what if the total number of victims of crimes committed by those awaiting trial goes up? (Spoiler: It will)

But a new study shows two other worrying consequences of the current bail system: more crime and false convictions. Specifically, the study by Arpit Gupta, Christopher Hansman, and Ethan Frenchman found that the assignment of money bail caused a 6 to 9 percent increase in recidivism (when people convicted of previous crimes reoffend) in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and a 12 percent increase in convictions in Philadelphia.

To measure this, the researchers exploited how different judges assign bail and the randomized nature through which judges are assigned cases. This created a natural experiment setting that allowed the researchers to largely isolate bail and its effects.

When they did that, they found bail had some pretty pronounced effects. What’s more, it seemed like the key factor here was whether someone was assigned bail, not how high bail was. So someone’s bail could be $100 instead of $500 or $5,000, and it still appeared to have an effect. “A key implication of this finding is that simply lowering required bail amounts will not ameliorate harms imposed by money bail,” the researchers write.

What’s more, the majority of those affected were very likely poor: “It is important to note that a large majority of arrestees in our sample qualified for representation by the public defender, and therefore are presumably indigent.”

In other words, poor people may plead guilty simply because it’s the only way they can get out of jail quickly — potentially leading to more false convictions as innocent people admit to crimes they didn’t commit. And these convictions, along with the effects of getting locked up in the first place, may also harm people’s abilities to obtain or keep a legal job, pushing them to turn to a life of crime to make ends meet.

There are some caveats to the study. As the researchers acknowledge, it’s possible that they’re not fully isolating bail and its effects. For instance, maybe the recidivism results are partly explained by the arrest record, since that might hinder someone’s ability to get a legal job.

Since the study was done exclusively in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, it’s also not clear if the findings apply nationwide. Perhaps there are technical differences in how bail and courts work in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or throughout Pennsylvania — although, as the researchers note, bail works broadly similarly in these jurisdictions as it does in many other parts of the country, including New York City and Baltimore.
https://www.vox.com/2016/8/24/12415268/bail-jail-prison-innocent-crime
 
Yes, that's the plan. Loosen the grip on those pearls.

It certainly seems like the plan.

Well, that and it is California's way of trying to maintain sanctuary city status even while the state is turning against sanctuary city law. Can't do an ICE hold if a bureaucratic rubber stamp is pushing them back out the door before ICE can be notified...
 
A fine to a poor person can literally destroy their entire life, to a rich person it is just a minor inconvenience. It defeats the entire purpose of fines.
What, in yiur opinion, is "the entire purpose of fines?"
 
I think what would end unequal justice is make fines based on a percentage of a person's wealth/income. Because there is no way in hell that wealthy person is being punished the same way a poor person is when it comes to traffic fines and various other fines. Because if a poor person hypothetically gets a 500 dollar fine for a traffic offense it might mean some bills aren't getting paid.How ever a 500 dollar traffic fine to a wealthy person is basically couch cushion change or one those pennies someone finds on the ground.
Why fine at all?
 
Jerry Brown signs bill eliminating money bail in California


Now the wealthy won't get to walk just because they're wealthy, and the poor won't languish in jail just because they can't muster bail. Other, more legally relevant, criteria will be taken into consideration.

The bail companies will fight it, but hopefully they fail.

Poor people shouldn't be kept in jail when rich walk just to keep bail bonds companies in business.

If used as intended and do the risk assessment fairly, I think this is a good thing.
 
I think what would end unequal justice is make fines based on a percentage of a person's wealth/income. Because there is no way in hell that wealthy person is being punished the same way a poor person is when it comes to traffic fines and various other fines. Because if a poor person hypothetically gets a 500 dollar fine for a traffic offense it might mean some bills aren't getting paid.How ever a 500 dollar traffic fine to a wealthy person is basically couch cushion change or one those pennies someone finds on the ground.

That would be more fair. But how about not doing something that results in a fine in the first place?
 
The article I read said that the ACLU and some other organizations were protesting it, saying it didnt go far enough, but I didnt see their reasons.

Of course they did. Compromise isn't in their vocabulary.
 
This is bail, not a fine. The innocent shouldnt be punished at all, no matter how much $ they have. And they're innocent until proven guilty.

True dat.

Good point. :2wave:
 

But a new study shows two other worrying consequences of the current bail system: more crime and false convictions. Specifically, the study by Arpit Gupta, Christopher Hansman, and Ethan Frenchman found that the assignment of money bail caused a 6 to 9 percent increase in recidivism (when people convicted of previous crimes reoffend) in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and a 12 percent increase in convictions in Philadelphia.

To measure this, the researchers exploited how different judges assign bail and the randomized nature through which judges are assigned cases. This created a natural experiment setting that allowed the researchers to largely isolate bail and its effects.

When they did that, they found bail had some pretty pronounced effects. What’s more, it seemed like the key factor here was whether someone was assigned bail, not how high bail was. So someone’s bail could be $100 instead of $500 or $5,000, and it still appeared to have an effect. “A key implication of this finding is that simply lowering required bail amounts will not ameliorate harms imposed by money bail,” the researchers write.

What’s more, the majority of those affected were very likely poor: “It is important to note that a large majority of arrestees in our sample qualified for representation by the public defender, and therefore are presumably indigent.”

In other words, poor people may plead guilty simply because it’s the only way they can get out of jail quickly — potentially leading to more false convictions as innocent people admit to crimes they didn’t commit. And these convictions, along with the effects of getting locked up in the first place, may also harm people’s abilities to obtain or keep a legal job, pushing them to turn to a life of crime to make ends meet.

There are some caveats to the study. As the researchers acknowledge, it’s possible that they’re not fully isolating bail and its effects. For instance, maybe the recidivism results are partly explained by the arrest record, since that might hinder someone’s ability to get a legal job.

Since the study was done exclusively in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, it’s also not clear if the findings apply nationwide. Perhaps there are technical differences in how bail and courts work in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or throughout Pennsylvania — although, as the researchers note, bail works broadly similarly in these jurisdictions as it does in many other parts of the country, including New York City and Baltimore.


As I read the study that Vox is reporting on I am not finding where the study actually controlled their outcome based on the type of crime committed or the criminal history of the defendant. While they gathered and reported on the data of the top 10 crimes committed, they don't seem to control for the fact that crimes that are highly correlated to gang membership (drug distribution, aggravated assault, etc.) have a higher rate of bail being set, but would also have a higher rate of recidivist crimes. The court tries to determine a rational bail, if any, based on the facts of the individual cases, and all the Vox study tells me is that the court is actually doing a pretty good job of targeting the repeat offenders.

So the study is investigating the after effect of a court process that intentionally selects bail based on estimates of recidivism and flight risk, and found that the court did its job.
 
Last edited:
Don't break the law and there's nothing to worry about.

Or, if you're elected within certain circles in the federal government, break the law and there is nothing to worry about. Clapper and Brennan have demonstrated that handily.
 
Simple solution, no jail before a conviction, but any further crimes while awaiting trial merit the death penalty.
 
Another moronic statement.

These people havent been convicted of anything. Innocent people do get arrested.

Maybe you're thinking that if the police pick up a *suspect* they should just be sentenced and thrown in jail based on their resemblance to "a guy that robbed a liquor store?"

Only a Liberal would think that not breaking the law is a bad idea. :lamo
 
Or, if you're elected within certain circles in the federal government, break the law and there is nothing to worry about. Clapper and Brennan have demonstrated that handily.

There's a two tier justice system.
 
I think what would end unequal justice is make fines based on a percentage of a person's wealth/income. Because there is no way in hell that wealthy person is being punished the same way a poor person is when it comes to traffic fines and various other fines. Because if a poor person hypothetically gets a 500 dollar fine for a traffic offense it might mean some bills aren't getting paid.How ever a 500 dollar traffic fine to a wealthy person is basically couch cushion change or one those pennies someone finds on the ground.
Finland does it for traffic violations.
 
A fine to a poor person can literally destroy their entire life, to a rich person it is just a minor inconvenience. It defeats the entire purpose of fines.

Let's start with abolishing helmet, seatbelt and DUI laws.
 
Let's start with abolishing helmet, seatbelt and DUI laws.

What? Why? They are meant to keep you safe, and in the case of seatbelt and DUI laws to also keep others safe. DUI is one of the most dangerous things you can do.
 
No. It's a strawman. No one is gonna stop caring about crime victims.

Nope, this decision is literally putting the suspect ahead of the victim.
 
What? Why? They are meant to keep you safe, and in the case of seatbelt and DUI laws to also keep others safe. DUI is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

You were just expressing opposition to traffic fines. I agree and those are three good laws to start with.

A $350-$400 fine for not wearing a seatbelt is nucking futs.
 
Back
Top Bottom