Bail Burden Keeps U.S. Jails Stuffed With Inmates

[AkronGuy]

Why spend $7,000 dollars of taxpayer money to keep someone in jail for 6 months when he hasn't even been convicted of a crime...and the crime in that one case being stealing a blanket...

You honestly think that is a good use of taxpayer money?

No, but following your logic, why bother even arresting the guy. It's not about taxpayers money - he stole from a business and that business has the right to have the perp penalized. It's not that I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the guy. I work with homeless people and it's very much a 'there but for the grace of God' thing.... almost anyone can end up homeless with a run of bad luck and no assistance. The problem I have is that there is assistance out there for homeless people. He had options, he chose to steal instead of asking for help.

I think your attitude towards the bail bondsmen was pretty stupid though. They are a legitimate business... I know profit and business are the new Nazis but really, without the private sector, without business, without profit, your liberal utopia is unachievable.... Someone has to pay for your government handouts.

I work with a lot of homeless too, and "there but for the grace of god goes I" is very apt. But at the sametime, in any urban area there's all kinds of outreach. Obviously he's either stupid or he's working another angle.

 

[Ravi]

so if you do not make a claim how do you cover the loss?

$10...I just write it off as a cost of doing business.

Does it become a business loss on a tax balance sheet?
And will that in the long run make others pay more taxes?

Yeah I know I am pushing it a bit

My point is there is not any free lunch, someone always pays.

Expecting the taxpayer's to pay $7,000 + to keep someone in jail that attempted to steal a $10 item is stupid. Extremely stupid.

 

[AkronGuy]

Why spend $7,000 dollars of taxpayer money to keep someone in jail for 6 months when he hasn't even been convicted of a crime...and the crime in that one case being stealing a blanket...

You honestly think that is a good use of taxpayer money?

No, but following your logic, why bother even arresting the guy. It's not about taxpayers money - he stole from a business and that business has the right to have the perp penalized. It's not that I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the guy. I work with homeless people and it's very much a 'there but for the grace of God' thing.... almost anyone can end up homeless with a run of bad luck and no assistance. The problem I have is that there is assistance out there for homeless people. He had options, he chose to steal instead of asking for help.

I think your attitude towards the bail bondsmen was pretty stupid though. They are a legitimate business... I know profit and business are the new Nazis but really, without the private sector, without business, without profit, your liberal utopia is unachievable.... Someone has to pay for your government handouts.

Indeed. Why arrest someone for stealing a blanket? Especially a first time offender. Issue him a notice to appear in court, let him plead guilty or not guilty, and go on from there.

If you listen to or read the article (though maybe it was in part two) you'll discover that in most cases the bondsman don't pay up if their clients don't go to court and they also don't go out and round them up and turn them over to the law.

And they lobby and pay for politicians that keep this system going...the system of ripping off taxpayers.

Why arrest them ? BECAUSE THEY'RE THIEVES YOU MOONBAT ! I need a new car, can I steal yours ? I need a couple hundred dollars, can I steal yours ? So fucking what if he is a first time offender, even more reason to be heavy on him, perhaps he'll think twice before stealing three blankets. And you're stupid to think it'd be wise or pragmatic to give someone who has no connection to the community and nothing to loss a court summons, in no part of the country do they do that.

And if they don't pay up, they should be held accountable, but either way, they serve a purpose. Oh yeah, I need a new washer, can I steal yours ? I need it after all. Also the article only mentioned one situation that it was directly aware of, and provided no citation for the other two it mentioned. And in those two situations, if true, save more money for the taxpayers than their balance owed.

And it's Lubbock, they cannot prove it anywhere else, or they'd mentioned it.

 

[AkronGuy]

$10...I just write it off as a cost of doing business.

Does it become a business loss on a tax balance sheet?
And will that in the long run make others pay more taxes?

Yeah I know I am pushing it a bit

My point is there is not any free lunch, someone always pays.

Expecting the taxpayer's to pay $7,000 + to keep someone in jail that attempted to steal a $10 item is stupid. Extremely stupid.

Yes it becomes a business loss. It's called shrinkage, and we all pay for it.

It was 120 dollars worth of blankets, not 10 dollars worth. But regardless, he had no right to them.

I need a new car and washer, can I steal yours ? Since you feel those that need things are entitled to things they have no right too, you shouldn't mind if I come and get that. Tommorow fine with you ?

No it's not extremely stupid, it's called the law, obey it or go to jail, can't afford to get out ? Oh well, you shouldn't have commited the crime.

 

[AkronGuy]

What's the alternative? Allowing people to steal stuff they need?

Any loser who is so unloved that not one person would put up bail for him, is probably better off in jail. Believe it or not, 3 hots and a cot is comforting for losers.

The alternative is to give them a notice to appear and let them have their day in court to be judged and punished if guilty.

They don't do that for people who have nothing to lose, he's a flight risk. There's no place that would give him a summons. It'd be stupid to do so.

 

[Ravi]

No, but following your logic, why bother even arresting the guy. It's not about taxpayers money - he stole from a business and that business has the right to have the perp penalized. It's not that I don't feel a lot of sympathy for the guy. I work with homeless people and it's very much a 'there but for the grace of God' thing.... almost anyone can end up homeless with a run of bad luck and no assistance. The problem I have is that there is assistance out there for homeless people. He had options, he chose to steal instead of asking for help.

I think your attitude towards the bail bondsmen was pretty stupid though. They are a legitimate business... I know profit and business are the new Nazis but really, without the private sector, without business, without profit, your liberal utopia is unachievable.... Someone has to pay for your government handouts.

Indeed. Why arrest someone for stealing a blanket? Especially a first time offender. Issue him a notice to appear in court, let him plead guilty or not guilty, and go on from there.

If you listen to or read the article (though maybe it was in part two) you'll discover that in most cases the bondsman don't pay up if their clients don't go to court and they also don't go out and round them up and turn them over to the law.

And they lobby and pay for politicians that keep this system going...the system of ripping off taxpayers.

Why arrest them ? BECAUSE THEY'RE THIEVES YOU MOONBAT ! I need a new car, can I steal yours ? I need a couple hundred dollars, can I steal yours ? So fucking what if he is a first time offender, even more reason to be heavy on him, perhaps he'll think twice before stealing three blankets. And you're stupid to think it'd be wise or pragmatic to give someone who has no connection to the community and nothing to loss a court summons, in no part of the country do they do that.

And if they don't pay up, they should be held accountable, but either way, they serve a purpose. Oh yeah, I need a new washer, can I steal yours ? I need it after all. Also the article only mentioned one situation that it was directly aware of, and provided no citation for the other two it mentioned. And in those two situations, if true, save more money for the taxpayers than their balance owed.

And it's Lubbock, they cannot prove it anywhere else, or they'd mentioned it.

According to the article, the vast majority of offenders do show up for court in that county. And there were other examples.

So yes, spending thousands of dollars is beyond retarded...

btw, I didn't say he shouldn't be punished, I said he shouldn't have been arrested over such a minor offense.

 

[AkronGuy]

Did you read the article? If so, you'd see the connection the bail bondsmen have to this mess.

So you do believe that spending several thousand dollars to hold someone in jail before they are convicted for what amounts to petty theft is a good use of taxpayer's money?

You mean in Lubbock. And where I live, he'd have a similar bond. Anywhere he would, he's a flight risk, a very high one. You know what the term "surety" means right ?

 

[Ravi]

Does it become a business loss on a tax balance sheet?
And will that in the long run make others pay more taxes?

Yeah I know I am pushing it a bit

My point is there is not any free lunch, someone always pays.

Expecting the taxpayer's to pay $7,000 + to keep someone in jail that attempted to steal a $10 item is stupid. Extremely stupid.

Yes it becomes a business loss. It's called shrinkage, and we all pay for it.

It was 120 dollars worth of blankets, not 10 dollars worth. But regardless, he had no right to them.

I need a new car and washer, can I steal yours ? Since you feel those that need things are entitled to things they have no right too, you shouldn't mind if I come and get that. Tommorow fine with you ?

No it's not extremely stupid, it's called the law, obey it or go to jail, can't afford to get out ? Oh well, you shouldn't have commited the crime.

You have completely misrepresented what I said, asshole.

Fuck off.

 

[AkronGuy]

Did you read the article? If so, you'd see the connection the bail bondsmen have to this mess.

So you do believe that spending several thousand dollars to hold someone in jail before they are convicted for what amounts to petty theft is a good use of taxpayer's money?

I rarely take the media's word for anything. They have their own agenda, and that is rarely to honestly and without bias report facts.

I believe that people who break the law deserve the consequences, that is not always 'good' use of taxpayers money, but it is 'appropriate' use of taxpayers money. There is a difference.

There's nothing appropriate about spending $7,000 in taxpayer money because someone stole a ten dollar item from me.

It was 120 dollars worth of blankets, and you'd be livid if someone did that to you.

BTW When can I get that car and washer ?

 

[AkronGuy]

Just allow deadly force in defense of all personal property and jail crowding/costs will drop?

Probably, but I don't think deadly force would have been warranted in this case.

As a matter of fact, the guy was asked to return the blanket and he did. I'm not even sure if it were me that I would have bothered calling the cops.

But I see by this thread that some people want big brother to protect them from petty thieves no matter how much it costs.

No we want justice, and we want to be able to have nice things, and without bringing those who're caught stealing to justice, we can't have nice things.

 

[AkronGuy]

Expecting the taxpayer's to pay $7,000 + to keep someone in jail that attempted to steal a $10 item is stupid. Extremely stupid.

Yes it becomes a business loss. It's called shrinkage, and we all pay for it.

It was 120 dollars worth of blankets, not 10 dollars worth. But regardless, he had no right to them.

I need a new car and washer, can I steal yours ? Since you feel those that need things are entitled to things they have no right too, you shouldn't mind if I come and get that. Tommorow fine with you ?

No it's not extremely stupid, it's called the law, obey it or go to jail, can't afford to get out ? Oh well, you shouldn't have commited the crime.

You have completely misrepresented what I said, asshole.

Fuck off.

Not at all you moonbat retard. You're saying because he's homeless and he needed it that he shouldn't be in trouble, when shown how stupid that logic is, you backtracked and said he should've been given a summons. But obviously you don't see the poor reasoning in giving someone with nothing to lose and can easily pack up and go and leave nothing behind. You fucking moonbat, it's commonsense and simple logic that they'd remand him on a high bail. They do it everywhere.

 

[lawbuff]

I understand the crux of the debate, it is economically justified to house a pre trial inmate for misdemeanor theft? The amount was under TX's $$ felony amount.

Depends of his previous record, etc. He could have been issued a citation, as I know of no state that has a mandatory arrest for a misdemeanor theft.

If he failed to answer the citation, then an arrest warrant could be issued. I suppose issuing a citation can be equivalent to a no hold bail.

 

[Ravi]

I understand the crux of the debate, it is economically justified to house a pre trial inmate for misdemeanor theft? The amount was under TX's $$ felony amount.

Depends of his previous record, etc. He could have been issued a citation, as I know of no state that has a mandatory arrest for a misdemeanor theft.

If he failed to answer the citation, then an arrest warrant could be issued. I suppose issuing a citation can be equivalent to a no hold bail.

Yes, he could have been issued a citation. Even homeless people have ties to their community and I cannot think of a good reason to spend taxpayer money in this wasteful manner.

 

[lawbuff]

I understand the crux of the debate, it is economically justified to house a pre trial inmate for misdemeanor theft? The amount was under TX's $$ felony amount.

Depends of his previous record, etc. He could have been issued a citation, as I know of no state that has a mandatory arrest for a misdemeanor theft.

If he failed to answer the citation, then an arrest warrant could be issued. I suppose issuing a citation can be equivalent to a no hold bail.

Yes, he could have been issued a citation. Even homeless people have ties to their community and I cannot think of a good reason to spend taxpayer money in this wasteful manner.

True. Say he was issued a citation/summons and then was caught again at any crime while awaiting trial, then he is a so called (loosely) a habitual offender and then they can slam dunk him. OR possibly he was caught at this while awaiting trial for another offense?? The article states nothing of this though.

 

[AkronGuy]

I understand the crux of the debate, it is economically justified to house a pre trial inmate for misdemeanor theft? The amount was under TX's $$ felony amount.

Depends of his previous record, etc. He could have been issued a citation, as I know of no state that has a mandatory arrest for a misdemeanor theft.

If he failed to answer the citation, then an arrest warrant could be issued. I suppose issuing a citation can be equivalent to a no hold bail.

Yes, he could have been issued a citation. Even homeless people have ties to their community and I cannot think of a good reason to spend taxpayer money in this wasteful manner.

But their ties aren't strong enough to ensure that they'll show up for court, which is one of the considerations when determining bond.

 

[AkronGuy]

I understand the crux of the debate, it is economically justified to house a pre trial inmate for misdemeanor theft? The amount was under TX's $$ felony amount.

Depends of his previous record, etc. He could have been issued a citation, as I know of no state that has a mandatory arrest for a misdemeanor theft.

If he failed to answer the citation, then an arrest warrant could be issued. I suppose issuing a citation can be equivalent to a no hold bail.

Yes, he could have been issued a citation. Even homeless people have ties to their community and I cannot think of a good reason to spend taxpayer money in this wasteful manner.

True. Say he was issued a citation/summons and then was caught again at any crime while awaiting trial, then he is a so called (loosely) a habitual offender and then they can slam dunk him. OR possibly he was caught at this while awaiting trial for another offense?? The article states nothing of this though.

Exactly, and the fact that he broke his probation and ran further justifies his high bond.

 

[lawbuff]

Yes, he could have been issued a citation. Even homeless people have ties to their community and I cannot think of a good reason to spend taxpayer money in this wasteful manner.

True. Say he was issued a citation/summons and then was caught again at any crime while awaiting trial, then he is a so called (loosely) a habitual offender and then they can slam dunk him. OR possibly he was caught at this while awaiting trial for another offense?? The article states nothing of this though.

Exactly, and the fact that he broke his probation and ran further justifies his high bond.

He was on probation already when he lifted the blankets?? I did not read this anywhere, where was it?

 

[AkronGuy]

No, at the end it stated that he eventually got a hearing and recieved probation and time served and a fine. He defaulted on the fine and fled after his probation was violated. But his whole story strikes me as extremely sketchy, that he or the writer left out some details.

1. Did he waive his right to speedy trial ?

2. Why didn't he invoke it ?

3. Why didn't his public defender invoke such a basic thing for someone who's been remanded.

4. Why didn't he ask for legal aid or go to the law library and get the form for the motion for a speedy trial ?

 

[lawbuff]

No, at the end it stated that he eventually got a hearing and recieved probation and time served and a fine. He defaulted on the fine and fled after his probation was violated. But his whole story strikes me as extremely sketchy, that he or the writer left out some details.

1. Did he waive his right to speedy trial ?

2. Why didn't he invoke it ?

3. Why didn't his public defender invoke such a basic thing for someone who's been remanded.

4. Why didn't he ask for legal aid or go to the law library and get the form for the motion for a speedy trial ?

Then again, some homeless people commit crimes to be housed and fed. Petty crimes are jail time, much easier than prison time.

 

[Modbert]

Then again, some homeless people commit crimes to be housed and fed. Petty crimes are jail time, much easier than prison time.

Remember his original crime, stealing to stay warm.