I don't blame the Bail/Bondsmen for being a little upset over this.


Suspects awaiting trial in California will now have their bail eliminated, according to a bill signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday.

In lieu of bail, suspects will be gauged under a risk-assessment system, although the details of the program, which will take effect in October 2019, were not immediately clear.

Suspects looking at serious, violent felonies won’t be eligible for release prior to trial but the majority of suspects arrested for nonviolent misdemeanors will be let go within 12 hours of being booked, according to the legislation.

The bill gives officials 24 hours to determine whether other suspects should be released before trial. That time can be extended by 12 hours if necessary.

“Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly,” Brown said in a statement, according to The Sacramento Bee.

Brown's signature gives the state's Judicial Council, the policy-making body for California's courts, broad authority to reshape pretrial detention policies.

Each county will use the council's framework as a basis to set its own procedures for deciding whom to release before trial, potentially creating a patchwork system based on where a suspect lives.

Senate Bill 10, the formal title of the legislation, was approved by the legislature earlier this month, according to The Sacramento Bee, but faced significant opposition from the bail industry prior to Brown's signing on Tuesday.


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...-awaiting-trial.html

I would be interested in the Risk assessment tool. The only people who have some skill in this department are human beings who have worked in the field a long time. Older Judges are often pretty good at determining things like this. Having said that some stupid checklist will be used.

I predict it will fail.

More liberal bunk driven by the people who live in gated communities.

I'm curious what these serious offenses that will be no bail are. There are some constitutional questions there. I guess we'll get to see what happens to their failure to appear rates.

They just started something similar here, all I know is from this article:

https://qctimes.com/news/local...2c-3e3abcebde54.html

Bail reform, prison reform, leniency in sentencing reform. I just don't get this bizarre need to avoid removing criminals from society. It's like a liberal fetish.

Already happening in NJ and people would be shocked to see what criminals are being released after an arrest.

Don't know about this system but KY has a unique system where it also doesn't allow bondsman but instead defendants (usually) only have to post 10% of the bond with the Court (instead of the bondsman). Takes out the middleman I guess.

The only validity of the “bond schedule” approach to setting bail bonds based on the seriousness of the crime for which someone is arrested is its simplicity. The purpose of a bond, whether it’s in connection with a criminal case or appointment to a government office (as was common at one time) or another reason, is supposed to be to ensure that someone complies with a legal obligation. In criminal cases, it’s supposed to ensure that the accused appears in court at the designated time—and that’s all. It’s not supposed to act as additional punishment before they’re convicted of the crime.

What was the genuine likelihood that any of the Baltimore police officers charged in the Freddy Gray case were going to skip the country and not go to court? And yet they were hit with huge bonds for political reasons that required them to spend large amounts of nonrefundable money to say out of jail.

Yes, we all know that most people who are arrested for offenses serious enough to require them to go to court are guilty of something, and many of them are indeed flight (or no-show) risks. If the rule of law and the principle of “not guilty until proved guilty” is to have any meaning, however, then bonds in criminal cases should be set based on a realistic assessment of that risk, not, “Okay, you’ve been arrested on a Class 4 felony, so your bond is X.” And part of that assessment should include what a certain amount of money means to the individual. I could post most bonds with cash I have lying around and losing it wouldn’t deter me for a minute if I decided to skip court.

There are many reasons why people lose respect for our criminal “justice” system, and the common bond system is one.

This will also shorten the time that ICE has to apprehend the illegals.

Figures

You can't make a mockery of a mockery. It's beyond ridiculous. California's slide is continuous and irrevocable.

Bail bonds companies will be out of business soon after. A whole industry wiped out.

If I recall, this was created because too many poor black people are in jail in CA, and that's not fair. CA has passed so many pro-criminal bills that perps now know CA is ripe for the pickin'. The sheer stupidity of CA does not surprise me anymore.

We are so screwed.

I would think, somewhere, somehow, eliminating bail would run afoul of the Constitution?

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

quote:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

If I no longer have the ability to post bail because of whatever reason, wouldn't run contrary to the 8th?

Not if they're being released. Note the work excessive in there. I don't think zero would be considered excessive.

And somewhere back the SCOTUS decided that actively dangerous defendants can be held without bail.

When it becomes apparent that the majority of defendants don't bother showing up for trial, and that there is a rash of crimes by pretrial defendants out on recognizance, there will be pressure to go back to the bail system.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I would think, somewhere, somehow, eliminating bail would run afoul of the Constitution?

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

quote:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

If I no longer have the ability to post bail because of whatever reason, wouldn't run contrary to the 8th?

What could go wrong?

If you don't have people skipping bail what will the Dog do for employment, how many jobs will be lost in the Bail Recovery Agent clothing wear companies.

I was considering the opposite: a DUI person who has one or two on his record and gets arrested for another after causing an accident; release or hold until trial?

But then again, what if you plan to dispute a vehicle ticket. Do you pay the "fine" (which is a bail if you choose to fight it)?

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Not if they're being released. Note the work excessive in there. I don't think zero would be considered excessive.

And somewhere back the SCOTUS decided that actively dangerous defendants can be held without bail.

When it becomes apparent that the majority of defendants don't bother showing up for trial, and that there is a rash of crimes by pretrial defendants out on recognizance, there will be pressure to go back to the bail system.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
I would think, somewhere, somehow, eliminating bail would run afoul of the Constitution?

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

quote:

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

If I no longer have the ability to post bail because of whatever reason, wouldn't run contrary to the 8th?

Make the release point Gov. Brown's property, at 1 AM.