Hacker News Reader

Comment by BizarroLand | Hacker News Reader

I mean, it makes sense since the bail bondsmen have business licenses and likely some form of insurance and credentialing with the courts to cover the differences. All the court really cares about is if someone is liable/responsible/trustworthy.

View on HN

It's also a form of regulatory capture - your options are "come up with (for example) $10,000 bond, cash, to give the court", or "irrevocably give this person $1,000 cash, who in turn only has to give the court $3,000". And not for nothing, its not an industry with a sterling reputation. Indeed, the ABA, the ACLU, and even the National District Attorney's Association are against the industry.

Multiple states have no insurance requirements for either the writing of the bond, or the recovery of a fugitive, and more states beyond that have no credentialing or training or licensing requirements for recovery agents.

I guess it's a question if whether you miss bail of the bail bondsmen can recover 100% of the bail despite having only lost 30% of it. I bet I can guess which it is.

Would the bondsman only lose 30%? From this discussion, they only have to post 30%, but the other 70% could become due when the terms of release are not met.

That's still a better deal for the bondsman, but it's also reasonable. If you don't show up for court, it doesn't seem likely that you'll show up to deposit the other 70%... But if you don't show up for court, the bondsman probably hasn't left, and they will be available to pay the rest of the bail amount.

So per AI, generally, the bondsman is responsible to the court for the full 100%. However, they are also given, depending on the state, between 30 days and 2 years to find you and bring you before the court before the court will collect on that surety, which is another inequity.

Of course, most bond contracts say that the bondsman can begin civil recovery against you for that full amount too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com