How would this improve the system? This would mean that only rich people who can bail themselves out would be able to await trial as free men/women. Poorer people would stay in jail and presumably lose their jobs.
The idea of ensuring someone shows up to trial by holding onto something they value isn't terrible, but the implementation certainly is. If you want to set bail, why is it based mostly on the crime and not on the wealth of the suspect? $1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to someone living hand to mouth.
> $1000 of bail means nothing to a billionaire and everything to someone living hand to mouth.
This is surely true, but also irrelevant since bail is set in relation to the individual's means. Pretending that a rich person could ever have such insignificant bail is disingenuous.
This was undoubtedly also because she was a flight risk. But this is the case with all super-wealthy people who have means to flee the jurisdiction (private jets or access to other private transportation).
This doesn't mean a rich person will have a high bail amount for all types of crimes, but this would be taking into consideration their ties to the community (own a mansion in town? You're probably not going to leave it behind. Ditto for your high-paying job.) Not saying any of this is fair — just that this is how the bail-setting factors get applied.
Pre-trial supervision instead of money bail when the community risk doesn't preclude release in the first place. This is, incidentally, already in place in DC.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/when-it-c...
I think the non-profit system might deserve some exploration. I posted above about a TED talk I watched recently on the subject and their numbers look quite interesting. It'd be great to see it replicated elsewhere.
Oh wait, the Copenhagen Ethicists[1] would clutch the pearls at the mere discussion of that, too.
But that wasn't core to my point, which was that the criticism of bail bonds lacks a coherent value system and model the problem such that can consistently identify improvements, and instead, just responds with outrage at every proposal.
The critics not only don't lack such a vision, there is a fairly consistent outline of an alternative proposed, and it's even had an implementation in the District of Columbia for a couple of decades.
Edit: The point isn't whether you can refactor to a better system. The point was the lack of a coherent model for what local changes would make it better or worse, and why.
It has little direct effect but draws attention to the issue.
And to the groups Google worked with.
One of which is also a prime backer of the active CA legislation to begin adopting the alternative model in CA.
It's probably a good idea for the penalties to be the same in society regardless of wealth.
It is important to be able to sufficiently deter people from committing various crimes/infractions, and this is one way to do it. In the US, we have "points" that go on your record, which means that rich people can't get speeding tickets that frequently — you eventually lose your license. And if you're going 25 over the limit, you can be charged with reckless driving.
It's reasonable to disagree.