You’re really confused. Getting out on an affordable bail is not ‘giving criminals an excuse to commit more crimes.’ Those released on bail remain accused of crimes—not convicted for one thing. For another low income individuals, particularly persons of color, are disproportionally charged with higher levels of crimes compared with whites accused of committing the same offenses and are more likely to be held without bail or effectively without bail by having an unaffordable bail set for them. While awaiting trial, they risk losing jobs, places to live, custody of their children and other significantly negative effects—because they couldn’t come up with a couple of thousand dollars. BTW, innocent people are arrested, convicted abs serve sentences for crimes they did not commit every single day.
In this case—someone who had already skipped bail—yes, that is someone who should not have had easy access to bail.
but they don't give consideration to the level of crime committed. What would've made more sense is to say, "This guy is a repeat multiple offender. Make his bail higher." I can understand maybe the first time, then raise it the 2nd time, but the 3rd time, cmon! Do something more!!!!
You’re really confused. Getting out on an affordable bail is not ‘giving criminals an excuse to commit more crimes.’ Those released on bail remain accused of crimes—not convicted for one thing. For another low income individuals, particularly persons of color, are disproportionally charged with higher levels of crimes compared with whites accused of committing the same offenses and are more likely to be held without bail or effectively without bail by having an unaffordable bail set for them. While awaiting trial, they risk losing jobs, places to live, custody of their children and other significantly negative effects—because they couldn’t come up with a couple of thousand dollars. BTW, innocent people are arrested, convicted abs serve sentences for crimes they did not commit every single day.
In this case—someone who had already skipped bail—yes, that is someone who should not have had easy access to bail.
but they don't give consideration to the level of crime committed. What would've made more sense is to say, "This guy is a repeat multiple offender. Make his bail higher." I can understand maybe the first time, then raise it the 2nd time, but the 3rd time, cmon! Do something more!!!!
I'm not disagreeing but I don't think that you are seeing the point: The ability to stay out of jail pending trial is almost entirely a matter of money. And this should not be the case. Unfortunately it is.
Often, too, it is difficult to predict with a high degree of accuracy who will violate the terms of their bail and commit another crime.
Consider a 40 year old married man, with a good, professional job, a wife, 2.5 kids, a clean record, although as a kid, he did his share of petty vandalism and under age drinking, a little pot--like a lot of kids. But he came from a 'good home' and wasn't arrested until as an adult: Arrested for driving under the influence. Being jailed until trial could well mean that he loses his job, his family loses their home, and the marriage falls apart. EVEN IF he wasn't really under the influence (as determined at trial). We tend to have a lot of sympathy for this man who leads a life that on paper, looks exactly like what we think it should look like: married, children, good job, clean record. We'd think it was a travesty for him to lose his life because someone pulled him over and arrested him for one little offense.
Now, suppose he makes bail, continues with his job, wife, kids, etc. And drives drunk and smashes into a kid on a bicycle. Or an old man crossing the street. Or a woman and her children on the way home from school. We'd be outraged that he was allowed to drive again!
Now consider a different 40 year old who had a rougher start in life, dropped out of school, had some petty convictions for tagging and weed but it made it harder for him to achieve economic security. But he makes it! He finds a nice partner and they marry, have a couple of kids, just put a down payment on a house. He gets into an apprentice program, becomes a journeyman electrician and.....gets pulled over under suspicion for driving under the influence. Because he is a little slow to produce his license (he isn't under the influence, so he's confused as to why he was stopped), he gets slapped with resisting arrest. He can't make bail and has to sit in jail pending trial and he loses his job, his family, and that nice little house they were just getting ready to move into.
OR: Consider a young mother, driving her kid home from soccer practice. She is pulled over because she's driving erratically. Cop believes she's under the influence. What is really going on is that she has (as yet) undiagnosed diabetes and has very low blood sugar. She's jailed, and can't make bail because she's newly separated, has just started a new job and her soon to be ex uses this as an excuse to get full custody of their kid.
Which person deserves to have their life destroyed because they can/cannot come up with a few hundred or a few thousand dollars?
Here's a link (yes, it's the ACLU) that explains the issue much better than my poor examples:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/smart-justice/bail-reform
