Something is really wrong with the system when billionaires have their bail set at 1 million. If he wanted to flee and forfeit his bail money, his net worth would be impacted about the same as the average American getting a parking ticket.
Sure it will. Put a 50% net-wealth bail on him (500 mil). Accept shares if he doesn't have cash.
You will say it's not reasonable.
But then it is reasonable to put a $50k bail on a poor person, which doesn't even have that money? In this case the bail is >100% net worth.
And if the shares lose value while he's out on bail? Our defendant just lost their incentive to reclaim them.
If he actually flees, the US government could easily seize most of his assets.
$1 million is a fairly high bail, generally in the ADW/manslaughter/sexual assault neighborhood. A court is not set up to handle a $1 billion bail, as you’re suggesting. That sort of money isn’t just moved around like that ($1 million is difficult enough), and the court would almost certainly mishandle it.
How about setting it at $100m? That doesn't sound unreasonable given the situation.
Not mishandling is easy: you put it in a locked escrow account and don't touch it. It the depositor had to borrow against assets to secure the deposit, then let reasonable interest accrue against the principal and deduct.
Just like if you always fine people $100 for speeding, then average folk will generally adjust their behaviour and millionaires will be able to race around and not give a f*.
There are tons of poor people stuck in jail awaiting trial for relatively minor crimes because they can't afford what would be a trivial bail amount to most HN readers. A rich person who commits a much more severe crime gets to sleep at home, or can flee if they think they don't have a good chance of winning without a big financial impact. Is that just?
It seems like there could be a lot of unexpected drawbacks to such an approach, since on the other end it’s harder to justify a high bond for a destitute, transient murderer, for example. If you’re okay with $100 million for this guy, it follows that you’d also have to be okay with $10 for him. Otherwise justice is partial and biased, even more so than it is now. Ignoring net worth seems safer, but again, I don’t know.
Assuming that $10 is high enough to ensure that the destitute, transient murderer will show up for trial, why shouldn't I be OK with it?
What you allege, that people happily plead out while innocent, does not happen. It just doesn’t, and it’s something I’ve heard repeated a lot by people who haven’t been inside. I was in a position to advise dozens of inmates on their cases during my time, and not once did that ever happen.
The truly innocent folks (and it’s hard to tell) were happy to sit to get their day to prove it or wait for the charges to get dropped. I’ve seen inmates rip up a plea bargain and throw it in the prosecutor’s face after sitting in county three years. Inmates are not dumb cattle looking for the first door. They understand what signing a plea bargain does. Even beyond that, innocent people are almost never arrested in the first place. There are very, very, very few innocent people in jail. I hate to break it to you, because I know it undermines liberal sensitivity and view on the world (which I know because I’m liberal, I’m not critiquing). You’re also coming at this from the perspective that assumes everyone should be able to bail out, which isn’t true. Would you revisit total bail denials, too?
Re: $10, how can you make that assumption? It’s disappointing that I’m being downvoted so heavily for pointing out that a seemingly minor change which is reactionary to one case could have implications far beyond intention. Being upset and changing things because of one billionaire is the very definition of mob-style reactionary grievance. There’s more to consider than just him, and I agree it sucks. This is a complicated issue and the easy engineering fix is very likely not the right one.
Oh, I see. Guess this conversation is pointless, then.
(Edit: I’m out of posting quota for today, but I at no point said what you’re claiming I’m trying to tell you in even the most uncharitable interpretation.)
The felony conviction rate in the US is around 70%. That doesn't sound to me like "innocent people are almost never arrested in the first place."
The rate of false convictions for people on death row is about 4%. That's for by far the most scrutinized cases out there.
According to this article, it's believed that somewhere between 2% and 8% of convicted felons are innocent people who pled guilty: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-peop...
Maybe we have a disagreement over what number constitutes "almost never"?
I'm trying to talk about the real problems bail causes in the justice system, and you're trying to tell me that it doesn't matter because basically everyone who gets arrested is guilty anyway. That's not substantive, and it's only superficially civil.
ETA: Well, we can't necessarily write the rules however we want; there are Constitutional restrictions. In this case, the case could be made that increasing bail for wealthy suspects violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law. That's a different argument from the one you're raising, however.
That's a life sentence there so in theory he could try to make a run near the end of his trial...a year or two in hiding. What does he have to lose, his good name? But then he has so much money that even if he was left with $10mil he could in theory start Spanish lessons. The judges should make the super rich to pay for Marshals /FBI to watch them while in bail.
I doubt any judge will show mercy to him and common sense (not always right but..) says there's a LOT of paper trail incriminating him. It's a huge company and lots of salespeople, lots of payoffs. Not done with a wink and a nod.
One millionaire got a $54,000 speeding fine commensurate with his income and another got approximately $200,000 fine based on memory of exchange rates.