Two California Democratic state lawmakers submitted legislation that could do away with bail for most criminal suspects. The new bills add to the state’s latest move to provide further protection of criminal suspects.

According to the Associated Press, the pieces of legislation being considered in Sacramento may have county law enforcement officials choose if suspects, based on their threat to public safety, opt to use alternatives to jail such as home detention or monitoring bracelets.

Additionally, if a judge does decide that suspect must monetarily pay for bail for a serious crime the individual is charged with, the amount must be based on the defendant’s income as opposed to an established bail schedule that differs from county to county all over the Golden State.

“It fundamentally transforms a broken cash bail system that punishes poor people for being poor,” Oakland Democratic Assemblyman Rob Bonta said.

Both Bonta and Van Nuys Democratic State Sen. Robert Hertzberg submitted bills that would put forth a whole new system.

The news of the potential overhaul of the bail system comes as California correction officials revealed last week new regulations that will increase the chances of early release for hundreds of state prison inmates.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation secretary Scott Kiernan reiterated Gov. Jerry Brown’s remarks on the measure, saying the new law is “a durable solution” for prison overcrowding.

“Through rehabilitation, we are creating hope in our prisons by giving inmates the opportunity to change and acquire skills and tools to be productive members of our society once they leave prison,” Kiernan said in a statement.

Additionally, California’s state legislature passed sanctuary state legislation Tuesday that Gov. Brown appears ready to sign.

The bill, prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using any of their resources to help with federal immigration enforcement. Local California law enforcement would be barred from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status or giving federal authorities access to interview a person in custody or aiding them in immigration enforcement.



http://dailycaller.com/2017/04...t-criminal-suspects/

I wonder if they will keep high bail for truly heinous crimes like daring to disagree with a leftist.

I can’t comment on the content or motives behind this proposal, but I will absolutely state that bail bond practices as I’ve seen them are definitely broken. The original purpose of requiring accused persons to post bond as a condition of not staying in jail until trial is/was to ensure that they show up for trial, nothing more. In actual practice, however, it’s often viewed by prosecutors and others as a way of inflicting additional punishment before anyone is found guilty of a crime.

A particularly egregious example was in the Freddy Gray case when several Baltimore police officers were charged with various crimes in connection with the arrestee’s death. They ended up paying huge sums of money to bond agents due to politically-motivated charges and unreasonable bail bonds. What was the likelihood that any of those charged were going to skip the country and not appear for trial? I believe that any reasonable assessment and answer would have been zero.

I realize that most people who are required to post bond are no doubt guilty of something, but bail bonds are not supposed to be based on whether they are guilty or not.

Which brings up another issue. The cost of securing bond should be refunded by the gov't if there is a failure to convict.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Which brings up another issue. The cost of securing bond should be refunded if there is a failure to convict.

That would definitely throw cold water on some of the abuse.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I can’t comment on the content or motives behind this proposal, but I will absolutely state that bail bond practices as I’ve seen them are definitely broken. The original purpose of requiring accused persons to post bond as a condition of not staying in jail until trial is/was to ensure that they show up for trial, nothing more. In actual practice, however, it’s often viewed by prosecutors and others as a way of inflicting additional punishment before anyone is found guilty of a crime.

A particularly egregious example was in the Freddy Gray case when several Baltimore police officers were charged with various crimes in connection with the arrestee’s death. They ended up paying huge sums of money to bond agents due to politically-motivated charges and unreasonable bail bonds. What was the likelihood that any of those charged were going to skip the country and not appear for trial? I believe that any reasonable assessment and answer would have been zero.

I realize that most people who are required to post bond are no doubt guilty of something, but bail bonds are not supposed to be based on whether they are guilty or not.

I agree. We should have them take their iphone, flat screen TV (min 55" to qualify as collateral), Jordan's, and rims off their ride. Pretty much would ensure most of the destitute criminals will show up for court. Cause how are you going to be a baller without the above items?

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Which brings up another issue. The cost of securing bond should be refunded by the gov't if there is a failure to convict.

Which branch of government? The judicial that sets it or the executive (prosecutor) that requests a certain amount?

Also in a felony case it is often a local district court setting the bond, but the case is not resolved until the county circuit court. So is the local jurisdiction on the hook for the refund or is it the county?

In some jurisdictions if you get a 10 % provision on your bond then you do get it back once the case is over.

The above is not meant to be sarcastic, as I generally agree with Sigfreund's post.

If it's used to insure the appearance (which is the purpose), you know the suspects in the lower income are probably a larger risk of failing to appear so then they will whine is discriminatory.

At least the backlogs in the courts will be rectified as few will actually show up for the case to be heard.

The problem with that is you cannot hold the criminal justice system accountable because of a failure to convict especially in a jury trial. There is really no way to predict which way a jury or even a judge will rule. Look at the OJ Simpson case for proof of that. We can debate all day long about the competency of the District Attorney or Police misconduct in that case but it is my belief that the jury was not going to convict him no matter what.

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I wonder if they will keep high bail for truly heinous crimes like daring to disagree with a leftist.

Or if you don't agree with Climate Change.

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
If it's used to insure the appearance (which is the purpose), you know the suspects in the lower income are probably a larger risk of failing to appear so then they will whine is discriminatory.

At least the backlogs in the courts will be rectified as few will actually show up for the case to be heard.

Just give the bad guys a "get out of jail free" card after an arrest, and forget the whole Court system.

If you don't want to do the time, then don't do the crime....

I'm sympathetic to some guy that's really not guilty of something and has to go through this (a minority I think), but aren't we talking about removing one of the reasons for staying out of trouble? Jail time has been reduced or minimized for a bunch of 'minor crimes' now let's be sure and not make it sting at all by eliminating this aspect too. I'm thinking the career criminal will be able to show he doesn't have the income to pay a bails bondsman his fee. I certainly wouldn't want to be in the bail bond business in California if this goes through.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
Which brings up another issue. The cost of securing bond should be refunded by the gov't if there is a failure to convict.

Which branch of government? The judicial that sets it or the executive (prosecutor) that requests a certain amount?

Also in a felony case it is often a local district court setting the bond, but the case is not resolved until the county circuit court. So is the local jurisdiction on the hook for the refund or is it the county?

In some jurisdictions if you get a 10 % provision on your bond then you do get it back once the case is over.

The above is not meant to be sarcastic, as I generally agree with Sigfreund's post.

Then perhaps the solution is to do away with bail bonds men altogether and reduce bonds accordingly.

To expand on this, bonds men subvert the purpose of bail. The idea (as I understand it) is that you put up your property that was forfeit if you failed to appear at your trial, thus incentivising you to appear. But a bondsman subverts that, because there is no more incentive, since the money you pay the bondsman is forfeit regardless of whether you appear or not. Thus creating economic loss even if you are acquitted or the charges dropped.

Plus it doesn't really aid anyone anyway since judges have simply increased bond requirements, knowing you will most likely go to a bondsman anyway.

With bail you have skin in the game. With a bondsman, you are just skinned.

quote:

Originally posted by satch:

quote:

Originally posted by Fenris:
I wonder if they will keep high bail for truly heinous crimes like daring to disagree with a leftist.

Or if you don't agree with Climate Change.

There are some crimes that are so unspeakable, there should not even be a trial, just sentencing and execution.

It is also important to remember that many states have two purposes for bonds built in to their rules of criminal procedure. One, of course, is ensuring the defendant's appearance at subsequent court proceedings. The other is to ensure the safety of the public. That is often the justification behind higher bonds, regardless of the defendant's history (or lack thereof) of non-appearance for court proceedings.

Even considering only the goal of ensuring a defendant's appearance it is not an exact science. How much money would I be willing to lose in order to have the opportunity to flee the jurisdiction? That would probably depend on 1) how much money I have, 2) how serious the charges are, and 3) what I perceive my chance of acquittal to be.

One solution, I suppose, would be to have the arraigning judge do a review of the evidence to see whether the case is strong or not. If it is a serious crime (by whatever definition the legislature sets), and if the presumption of conviction is high just deny bond all together.

If it is not a serious crime and/or the case appears to be weak then default to a personal bond where no money is put up at all.

Of course that system would still have its flaws as any human system does.

Got to agree with Sigfreund.

While the bail system in theory is not a bad one, in practice it is rife with abuse and is a genuine civil liberties issue.

I like the theory behind income based bail amounts, but I wonder how you would check and enforce with any reliability

quote:

Originally posted by DaBigBR:
I like the theory behind income based bail amounts, but I wonder how you would check and enforce with any reliability

I guess you could check with the IRS to see how much taxes you paid on your drug sales the previous year.

Ya, why not. The populace assholes already voted a few times to let thousands of assholes out of the prisons and jails. Many crimes that were serious before are no longer serious. Next, the libtards will ban prisons and jails.

The elected assholes of the shit state are only concerned about the precious illegals and criminal assholes.

The other side of the coin.

California murder suspect raises unprecedented $35M bail via friends.

A California woman accused of killing the father of her two children is expected to be released from jail Thursday after posting an unprecedented $35 million bail raised by wealthy friends, family and business associates with ties to China.

Tiffany Li pleaded not guilty to murder and directing her boyfriend and another man to kill Keith Green and dispose of his body. Prosecutors say she feared losing custody of her children.

Li was arrested in May in Hillsborough, a wealthy suburb 20 miles south of San Francisco. She was reportedly arrested in May in her mansion that featured a fleet of exotic cars including a Rolls-Royce and Ferrari.

Li's attorney says people connected to her mother raised $4 million in cash and pledged $61 million property.

“I was surprised at the number of people that came forward,” her attorney said. “She is well-liked in the community and is a straight shooter. I think people believe she is not guilty.”

California requires twice the bail amount if property is used instead of cash. She must remain on house arrest and submit to round-the-clock electronic monitoring until her September trial if she's released Thursday.

“Somebody told me it’s one of the largest bails to be posted in the United States,” District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe told The Mercury News. “I have to imagine it’s one of the larger ones. Certainly for San Mateo County it’s without precedent.”


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017...ail-via-friends.html