If you have money, you can pay the bail and get released, while poor people can’t.

I don’t see why people with money should get benefits in the legal system?

  • AirBreather@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The 8th amendment has a clause that disallows “excessive bail”. In Stack v. Boyle, the Supreme Court found this to mean “that a defendant’s bail cannot be set higher than an amount that is reasonably likely to ensure the defendant’s presence at the trial.” So it follows that IN THEORY, bail is SUPPOSED to be set at an amount that is consistent with the defendant’s financial resources (including, it would also follow, increasing the amount for more wealthy people to ensure that it has the same proportionate effect on the defendant’s decision-making process).

    Of course, that rule is just a bunch of meaningless words if nobody enforces it… and guess what, the main way to enforce this is by bringing a suit against the government alleging that they violated the rule. So IN PRACTICE (speculation warning here, I’m just some guy), I would imagine that they just set bail schedules at a level where anyone who can afford to pay won’t be able to win an “excessive bail” lawsuit, and anyone who can’t afford to pay it will also probably not be able to afford the cost of that lawsuit.

    And something tells me that we aren’t likely to see a wealthy person suing the government for not setting bail high enough for them.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    It is biased towards the rich. Much of American society and laws are biased towards the rich or biased towards large corporations.

    So it is insane, but since it’s just as insane as the rest of the system, you aren’t supposed to notice.

  • Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 month ago

    Illinois just got rid of cash bail and it’s working pretty well so far, so at least there are folks there who see how crazy it is too.

    • whynotzoidberg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      And republicans (or, at least one, in my district) are campaigning here on how cashless bail is letting criminals go free.

      Cashless bail isn’t letting criminals go free any more than cash-based bail was. I am just as safe. There is nothing to see here, except a more level playing field for all.

      Why do the republicans in charge hate people so much? I don’t think their constituents hate people nearly as much as the leaders.

    • Peruvian_Skies@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      No, crimes exist for whoever isn’t in power. There are several crimes that can only be committed by rich people, such as those related to banking and the stock market, formation of cartels* and monopolistic/anti-competitive practices, etc. But conveniently the criminals are only prosecuted when they are the political or commercial opponents of whoever happens to be in charge at the time.

      *Not the drug kind, the “a small group of companies with a combined market majority conspires to fix prices while pretending to compete with each other” kind

  • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s one of those things that mostly works because there aren’t many rich people.

    Since crimes committed by rich folks are mostly white collar, they’re rarely a danger to society if let back onto the streets.

    It’s one of those statistical solutions that doesn’t really do enough thinking about why the statistics shake out that way.

    That said, there is a gradient, rich folks can make bail for petty offenses but for violent ones judges may be inclined to just deny bail purely because the rich prick would be able to post it easily and the crime they’re accused of warrants not letting them back out.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The big white collar crimes are far more of a danger to society than many of the so-called blue collar crimes. Massive pollution leading to global warming, which impacts billions of people around the globe, that’s high impact, and that’s 100% white collar.

      Or pick something that’s not as dramatic. Pick the bank collapse in the US 15 years ago, where many people lost their homes but we didn’t see finance experts get locked up even though they created a massive catastrophe for the country and had to get bailed out by the government. But of course we would lock up someone for stealing an orange, or breaking a car window, because somehow those are more dangerous.

      Or let’s get even smaller scale. Let’s just talk about wage theft. If my boss steals thousands of dollars from my paycheck, as she did many years ago, there’s zero chance she’s going to get locked up. But if I were to steal $20 from the cash register, the police might take me away in handcuffs.

  • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s just as insane as asking this question on Lemmy.

    No offense, but you’d have better luck on Reddit, which has at least a larger number of users who don’t veer as far left as the average Lemmy user, as well as decent numbers of actual conservative and MAGAs.

    But yes, like the rest of the commenters here, I agree it is insane, prejudicial, and one of the most clear cut examples of systemic racism.

    Back when VICE was still somewhat of a journalistic organization, they did a pretty good piece on it.

    • 1984@lemmy.todayOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      It’s very interesting that it’s just there, out in the open, and most people never seem to think about it.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I feel like the other answers undercut the message that you were trying to deliver. Users here are quite clear about when they’re describing their own opinions versus when they’re describing how a system theoretically works. Nobody is getting tricked about anything.

      • circuscritic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        What I meant is that OP was asking for a response that not many, if any users here, could deliver here with any conviction or belief.

        You might as well be asking for users here to share when it was they knew Trump was the best president of their lifetime. Just the wrong audience for that question, assuming you want a sincere response.