Webmasters Forums

Here's why I think it can be very unfair.

Some poor criminals will plead guilty because the time till trial is almost as long as the maximum sentence for a guilty conviction. And they may actually not even be guilty.

A rich criminal who may be 100% guilty can enjoy life after paying bail and just hope the trial gets delayed and delayed.

This is not justice to me.

I have 2 feasible solutions to the problem

Option 1: Eliminate bail. Instead, allow those awaiting trial, whether rich or poor, to be under close supervision. If crime is serious enough, then there should be jail without bail.

Option 2: Set bail to a percentage of an individual's net worth. Determine the individual's net worth through an appraisal process. If the individual's net worth is negative, require a certain amount of community service and defer payment for those services until trial.

In all minor cases, give the defendant the choice of whether to wait for trial in jail or out of jail.

Your question assumes a fact that is not necessarily true- that "rich" criminals get out on bail but "poor" criminals stay in jail. In setting bail the judge will take into account many factors including: (1) the defendant's past record; (2) the seriousness of the crime and the strength of state's evidence; (3) the defendant's ties to the community; and, (4) the defendant's financial ability to post bail. In other words, a "rich" criminal who has a terrible record and no ties to the community may have his bail set at $100,000 for the same crime that a "poor"criminal with no prior record and substantial ties to the community would have set at $2,500.

Actually you're not a criminal just sitting waiting for your trial..You are innocent until proven guilty..
Besides..In most States the fairs are in August.

It's the golden rule! He who has the gold makes the rule.

A surety bond, also known as bail, is a guarantee of appearance at trial. Also, in some cases, a traffic ticket, bail can be used in lieu of a trial. Bail has NOTHING to do with how rich or poor a person is, but on what the CRIME is and an evaluation of the likelyhood of appearance at trial. If a rich person is cited for speeding, would you charge him 10% of his net worth? Be reasonable! And how about a poor person accused of murder, would you only charge HIM 10% of his net worth? Who decides what is fair and what isn't? You? And what exactly is this assessment you speak of? Who sets the standards for this assessment? No, the only way is based strictly on the severity of the crime and the resources available to the accused to flee the jurisdiction. Which means, poor people are likely to stay in jail, and rich people are likely to make bail. Justice, fairness, has NOTHING to do with making bail only details of the crime and the resources of the accused. Justice comes at trial, not in waiting for trial, yet YOU would punish people who are waiting! Innocent until proven guilty and NO punishment until found guilty! Making bail is NOT punishment, just a guarantee of appearance. Your plan is unrealistic. How would YOU like to be on the receiving end?

If you commit a crime, rich or poor, does it really matter? Poor people shouldn't commit crimes if they can't get bail. A rich criminal is still a criminal who's going to get out on bail. Is it his fault that he has money? He has to pay for a lawyer while the poor guy has a court appointed lawyer. Is that fair? Eliminate the lawyers and just have a jury. The lawyers are the only ones who make money off of criminals, rich or poor.

You should have worded your question 'victims' instead of 'criminals'. Severity of charges should factor in as well. I think all non-Violante, Class 3, misdemeanors should get the rules you presented. Any charge above that should not get a break with bail and release. I say victims because the majority of people in jail fall under that category. And having to spend more time than it takes to post bail, is cruel and unusual punishment in and of itself in Arpiao's 'unfit for human' jail.