Bail - A Racial Issue?

[DGS49]

The claim is made that the bail system is in effect, a form of debtor's prison, or a way of punishing poverty and mistreating Black people and other POC's.

This exposes the fallacy of disparate impact (coincidence vs. causation).

The criminal justice system requires that accused people SHOW UP for their hearings and trials. Logical, eh?

So when someone is credibly accused of a crime, the Court assesses the likelihood that the defendant will show up for the next hearing or trial. What factors are considered?

• Is the defendant employed?
• Does he have a family?
• Does he have ties to the community?
• Does he own real property or other non-portable assets?
• Does have incentive to flee?
• Does he have the resources to flee?
• Does he have a history of missing hearings?
• Is there any indication that specific people or property will be in danger if the accused is released?

If the judge decides to grant bail, an amount is set that should be SUFFICIENT to ensure that the accused will show up, but not so much that it would be impossible to raise. (Normally, the accused can go to a bail bondsman who will put up the bond, at a cost of 10%. Note that if you put up your own bond, you get it back when you show up for trial, but if you go through a bail bondsman, that 10% is lost).

And that's it. Has nothing to do with race.

But if you are poor, you are less likely to be employed, to own property, and to have a supportive family. If you are a repeat felon, you have a great incentive to flee, as subsequent convictions will likely carry more severe penalties.

If you are Black and in a criminal environment (which leads to arrest), you are unlikely to have stable employment, and so on. Hence, there is a "disparate impact" resulting from the historical criteria for setting bail, but it's not because The System is biased; it's because life is biased.

You will notice that these bail criteria do NOT include the severity of the crime, or the likelihood that the accused committed it. "Innocent until proven guilty," and all that. When these things come up, it is usually under circumstances where an ELECTED DA or Judge may be subject to serious criticism if the accused is released.

Race has nothing to do with any of this.

 

[daveman]

Bail is racist?

Stop breaking the law, asshole.

 

[DGS49]

The point is, bail applies before it has been determined whether the law has been broken.

 

[DGS49]

Waukesha Atrocity Should Herald an End to the Bail Charade | National Review

Don’t set fictional $5 million bail for Darrell. Deny bail to defendants who can be established by clear evidence as dangers to the community.

www.nationalreview.com

As I wrote above, if the person is a danger to the community, bail can and should be denied.

 

[candycorn]

Bail is much more of an affliction to the poor persons charged with a crime (when you're offered bail--it is well before your trial and you've not been convicted of anything). So when you hold that up to a society that has a larger number of poor folks being from populations of color...one could make the argument (faulty in my view) that it is racist.

What blows my mind about bail is the scenario (and it's always been this way):

The State accuses Party X of a violent crime. Party X is in jail because he is too dangerous to be with society--the point of jail. But, for a fee, the State will release Party X back into society...unannounced!

 

[Shawnee_b]

The point is, bail applies before it has been determined whether the law has been broken.

One plays stupid games, wins stupid prizes and is arrested. The norm has always been BAIL, or await trial,,, in lockup. It applies to everyone.

 

[Rodimus]

The claim is made that the bail system is in effect, a form of debtor's prison, or a way of punishing poverty and mistreating Black people and other POC's.

This exposes the fallacy of disparate impact (coincidence vs. causation).

The criminal justice system requires that accused people SHOW UP for their hearings and trials. Logical, eh?

So when someone is credibly accused of a crime, the Court assesses the likelihood that the defendant will show up for the next hearing or trial. What factors are considered?

• Is the defendant employed?
• Does he have a family?
• Does he have ties to the community?
• Does he own real property or other non-portable assets?
• Does have incentive to flee?
• Does he have the resources to flee?
• Does he have a history of missing hearings?
• Is there any indication that specific people or property will be in danger if the accused is released?

If the judge decides to grant bail, an amount is set that should be SUFFICIENT to ensure that the accused will show up, but not so much that it would be impossible to raise. (Normally, the accused can go to a bail bondsman who will put up the bond, at a cost of 10%. Note that if you put up your own bond, you get it back when you show up for trial, but if you go through a bail bondsman, that 10% is lost).

And that's it. Has nothing to do with race.

But if you are poor, you are less likely to be employed, to own property, and to have a supportive family. If you are a repeat felon, you have a great incentive to flee, as subsequent convictions will likely carry more severe penalties.

If you are Black and in a criminal environment (which leads to arrest), you are unlikely to have stable employment, and so on. Hence, there is a "disparate impact" resulting from the historical criteria for setting bail, but it's not because The System is biased; it's because life is biased.

You will notice that these bail criteria do NOT include the severity of the crime, or the likelihood that the accused committed it. "Innocent until proven guilty," and all that. When these things come up, it is usually under circumstances where an ELECTED DA or Judge may be subject to serious criticism if the accused is released.

Race has nothing to do with any of this.

In the Court of Public Opinion, you are guilty until proven innocent and it is impossible to prove your innocence. That is my opinion on that.