Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Innocent Until Proven Guilty, But Only If You Can Pay

How America's bail system traps poor people in jail

"I did something stupid, and something I shouldn't have done" are the first words of Bill Peyser's tale of how he ended up getting arrested and jailed for the first time in his life at the age of 73.

Peyser, a San Francisco cab driver, says he had been frustrated with a couple of noisy younger neighbors in the spring of 2017. Exhausted and angry after a sleepless night that had led to him skipping a day of work, he decided to confront them on the afternoon of April 17.

The "something stupid" that Peyser agrees he shouldn't have done was to bring a .22-caliber handgun with him when he went to their apartment.

Though the men did not answer the door when Peyser repeatedly kicked it, they saw him through the peephole and called the police. There was no direct confrontation, but as Peyser was leaving, he fired the gun by accident while trying to uncock it in the hallway. According to one of Peyer's attorneys, the bullet lodged in a wall in the lobby of the building a few inches off the floor. Nobody was hurt.

The police came and arrested Peyser. Peyser explained what happened, but he says police refused to believe it was an accident and insisted he was trying to harm his neighbors. He says he was prepared to plead guilty to what he had done—brandishing a weapon. But when he was brought before the court, he found he was being charged with attempted murder, two counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm, and discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling.

What happened to Peyser next illustrates a chronic problem, one civil rights advocates are attempting to force states and counties to address. Peyser ended up stuck in jail for six months while awaiting his trial not because he was a threat to society—he was a septuagenarian with no criminal record who hadn't actually injured anyone—but because he didn't have enough money to pay for bail. Activists argue that cash bail systems violate the rights of people like Peyser who have been charged, but not convicted, of crimes. More and more, judges, lawmakers, and even prosecutors are starting to agree.

From 'Menace to Society' to Law-Abiding Citizen

Peyser's bail was set at $625,000, based on the schedule for his alleged crimes. The attempted murder charge was later dropped, but the bail didn't change. If Peyser wanted to fight these charges from outside of a jail cell, he needed to either cough up cash or pay a bail bondsman a portion of the cost (typically 10 percent) to front the money for him.

Peyser did not have that much. He qualified for representation by a public defender because he was considered indigent. He and his defense attorneys tried to get multiple judges to reduce his bail, pointing out his stellar record and the possibility of losing both his taxi medallion and his rent-controlled apartment. He had turned the gun over to police and didn't want it back. He promised to stay away from the neighbors.

No dice. He would spend half a year in jail until his case was heard in October, at which point the jury watched the security footage of what happened, deliberated, and found him not guilty on all counts. "It looked like an old man doing something stupid," says one juror, speaking to Reason on condition of anonymity. The charges—which required proof of intent—didn't match what they saw.

"This is not a violent guy who needs to be put away," the juror says. Yet just months before, a judge had insisted that Peyser represented a public safety threat and a flight risk due to the severity of his charges—he faced a possible sentence of 19 years in jail—as justifications for his remarkably high bail.

"Both judges accused me in open court of being a menace to society and one added that I was a threat to public safety," Peyser says. "And mind you, there had been no trial."

If Peyser had had the money, he would have been treated completely differently. "If you tell the judge you can't pay the bail, the judge drops any pretense whatsoever of impartiality," he says. "If you pay the bail, you're a regular citizen. If you don't pay the bail, you're treated as guilty until you're proven innocent."

Even though Peyser was ultimately exonerated, the whole incident imposed a steep cost. He had to give up his taxi medallion and is no longer working. His landlord also started proceedings to evict him, though he was eventually able to convince the landlord to let him stay.

'A Blight on the System'

Peyser's defense attorney, Chesa Boudin, wanted to use his case to challenge the constitutionality of California's money bail system. Boudin is on the board of the Civil Rights Corps, a non-profit legal group that uses litigation to try to overturn what its members see as court and detention mechanisms that disproportionately and unfairly hurt the poor and disenfranchised.

Boudin wasn't successful with Peyser, but in January, a state appeals court in San Francisco sided with the Civil Rights Corps in another case. "A defendant may not be imprisoned solely due to poverty," the three-judge panel ruled.

In that instance, a 63-year-old man was being detained, unable to pay the $350,000 bail demanded for allegedly breaking into an elderly neighbor's apartment, threatening him, and stealing $5 and a bottle of cologne.

"The problem this case presents does not result from the sudden application of a new and unexpected judicial duty," the judges noted after ordering a new bail hearing for the man. "It stems instead from the enduring unwillingness of our society, including the courts…to correct a deformity in our criminal justice system that close observers have long considered a blight on the system."

The days of judges deferring to fixed bail schedules, which are established by city and county governments and set dollar amounts based on the severity of charges, may be coming to an end. The days of money bail itself may even be numbered. California lawmakers are considering whether to remake the state's pretrial system so that money is not a consideration in determining who remains behind bars prior to actually being tried. The state's chief justice and attorney general have declared support for such reforms. If California follows through, it'll be joining such states as New Jersey, which started a similar transition in 2016, and Alaska, which launched reforms earlier this year.

In the meantime, groups like the Civil Rights Corps are keeping the legal pressure on. Prior to the January ruling, the group had found success in Harris County, Texas, home of Houston. In 2016, it filed suit against the county's bail practices, arguing that the reliance on bail schedules to determine who was freed pretrial left 500 people stuck in jail each night for misdemeanors solely because they couldn't pay—not because they were dangerous or posed a flight risk. The group argued this violated the defendants' equal protection and due process rights. In April 2017, a little more than a week after Peyser was arrested, a federal district judge agreed and ordered the county to start releasing indigent defendants.

Harris County officials are now grappling with the need to make changes to their pretrial detention system as subsequent rulings made it clear that the courts had come to a dim view of using bail schedules as the sole determinant of who ends up stuck behind bars.

Punishment First, Conviction Later

Even a small amount of jail time can cause huge disruptions in the lives of the accused. The Pretrial Justice Institute was founded in 1976 with the help of Department of Justice funding to research and advise on policies for the treatment of people who have been arrested but not yet tried. Years of data and analysis have determined that three days in jail is all it takes to cause serious problems. When courts tie defendants' pretrial freedom to money bail, it ends up being a form of punishment for those who cannot pay, prior to any conviction.

His bail was set at $625,000 based on the schedule for his alleged crimes. He did not have that much. He spent half a year in jail before the case was heard, at which point he was found not guilty.

"When those folks managed to get out, [their] jobs were gone," explains Cherise Fanno Burdeen, CEO of the Pretrial Justice Institute. "It makes it impossible to make rent or mortgage payments. Families lose homes. It has an almost instantaneous detrimental effect on people's lives."

And there are a lot of these people in America, the world leader in incarceration. According to a 2018 study in the American Economic Review, half a million people in the country are being detained before their trial on any given day—nearly twice as many as in China. The report cites the use of money bail as a driving factor, noting that the typical defendant is poor. Less than half of them can afford bail even when it's set at under $5,000.

When defendants are stuck in jail while awaiting trial, data indicate they're more likely to plead guilty or be found guilty of crimes. They're also likely to be given longer prison sentences. This is partly a result of their not being in a position to bargain with prosecutors, because they're stuck behind bars and desperate to move things along.

For low-level crimes, all that time spent in pretrial detention can be equivalent to the length of the sentence they'll get if they're found guilty anyway. A poor defendant who can't afford bail may spend days, even weeks, in jail waiting to see a judge for a crime where prison time might not even be required. At that point, it's hard to justify spending time or money fighting the charge, even if backing down leaves an innocent person with a criminal record.

"Everybody who works in the system knows that the assembly-line cash bail system coerces guilty pleas," says Civil Rights Corps founder and executive director Alec Karakatsanis. Because American courts don't have the manpower to prosecute and try every person who gets arrested, he argues, "the system needs a way to coerce them into pleading guilty. The most effective way is to keep them in jail."

Long Coming But Slow Going

Spring 2018 finally saw calls for pretrial reforms start to spread across the country.

In Atlanta, media attention on the case of a homeless man who spent three months in jail because he couldn't afford $200 in bail for a charge of soliciting on a roadway prompted the City Council and mayor to change the municipal court's system, cutting out cash bond requirements for several low-level nonviolent crimes. New Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, voted into office in November 2017 on a criminal justice reform platform, announced in February that prosecutors there would stop asking for cash bail for low-level offenses. Philly's City Council also passed a resolution asking the state to end cash bail. In his state of the state address in January, Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo called for an end to cash bail for misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies there as well.

This isn't only happening in Democratic strongholds, either. Arizona and New Mexico have seen pretrial detention reforms to reduce the dependence on money bonds for release. And legislation has been introduced in Ohio to use assessment tools to help judges determine release risks and reduce the dependency on bail.

The Pretrial Justice Institute sees the current push as the third generation of bail reform efforts. In the 1960s, Congress established a statutory right to bail unless the defendant is deemed a flight risk. (The Eighth Amendment protects against excessive bail when offered but doesn't require that bail be an option in a given case.) Whether the arrestee might commit more crimes if released was not initially considered relevant. That changed in 1984, with a reform permitting federal courts to keep people imprisoned prior to trial if they're deemed a threat to the community. The law was upheld in a Supreme Court challenge in 1987.

Burdeen believes the latest wave of reform efforts dates to 2011, when then–Attorney General Eric Holder hosted a symposium on the topic at the Department of Justice. He called for using risk assessments and other evidence-based tools to help courts decide who is safe to release. He also encouraged an expansion of pretrial services across the country—court staff devoted to tracking and communicating with defendants to make sure they don't skip out on court dates or commit crimes while freed. Burdeen says they've spend the past eight years working to push those tools out to states and cities.

Years of data and analysis have determined that three days in jail is all it takes to cause serious disruptions. "When those folks managed to get out, [their] jobs were gone," an advocate explains.

But seven years later, meaningful change is just getting underway. Part of the reason is that what happens when a person gets arrested can vary widely from state to state and even from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Courts across the U.S. don't all approach pretrial release decisions in the same way, so there's no single implementation plan that can be adopted in one fell swoop. Changes have to happen bit by bit. And since these reforms threaten a billion-dollar industry, bail bond representatives have been lobbying lawmakers and appealing to the public to try to stop reform in its tracks.

'We Had Gangs Putting Up the Money'

Peyser would have faced a far different pretrial experience had he been arrested in Paterson, New Jersey, instead of San Francisco. At the beginning of 2016, the Garden State launched a massive transformation of the pretrial detention procedures used in its district courts that has nearly eliminated the use of money bail as a mechanism for determining who goes free and who remains behind bars. Instead, the state now has a complex system involving case-by-case analyses and a bureaucracy devoted to keeping track of defendants to make sure they show up for court.

Visit the Passaic County Superior Court and you might not even hear the word "bail" during pretrial hearings. On a Monday afternoon in February, those arrested late Saturday, Sunday, and early Monday are brought in front of Judge John Meola (virtually—they remain in jail but appear on a monitor). Meola presents a recommendation from Pretrial Services of each defendant's risk factor. It's up to prosecutors to request a detention hearing if they believe a person is too dangerous to be let out. If not, the judge will order the defendant released, often with conditions requiring him or her to check in regularly with the pretrial staff.

Joanna AndreassonJoanna AndreassonOn the day of my visit, prosecutors do inform the judge they want to detain a few people. In those cases, the defendant will be held pending a detention hearing in three to five days in a different courtroom. There, another judge will preside as the prosecution and the defense argue over whether the individual should be freed prior to his or her trial. There are unlikely to be debates over bail amounts; judges technically still have the authority to demand money bail in some situations, but last year they exercised the option only 44 times. If defendants violate the terms of their release, they're sent back to the same courtroom, where they may see their pretrial freedom revoked.

Today, Judge Donna Gallucio will decide whether Anthony Harris, 47, will be allowed to leave the jail. Harris was arrested the previous Tuesday in a drug bust, along with his brother, Charles. Police accuse the two of narcotics trafficking. During a short chase, Charles tossed aside a sack containing 93 baggies of crack cocaine and 101 glassines of heroin, according to the police report.

At the start of the hearing, Gallucio explains to Harris how the court functions. Under the new pretrial system, New Jersey operates on a presumption against detaining defendants before they are convicted. If a prosecutor objects to this freedom, the burden is on the state to convince the court that there is no reasonable way to ensure the defendant will show up for trial and won't commit further offenses if released.

Harris does have a history of drug violations and failure to appear in court, but it's an old history, and a nonviolent one. He's been out of trouble for the past decade; he is not currently on probation or parole. A points-based assessment scored Harris as fairly high-risk due to his past, but it still recommended he be released with regular monitoring. Ultimately, the judge agrees with the recommendation rather than the prosecutor. Harris will be freed prior to his trial, but he must call and personally visit the court's Pretrial Services office for monitoring, not commit any crimes, and stay away from his brother.

Judge Ernest Caposela, the courthouse's assignment judge, explains that prior to the reforms in New Jersey, about 12 percent of the pre-conviction jail population was stuck behind bars because of an inability to afford even $250 in bail. Meanwhile, defendants that judges and prosecutors thought were truly dangerous had to be offered bail as well—and even very high bail amounts aren't a significant barrier to those with the right connections.

"We had a lot of problems with gangs putting up the money," he says, in cases of alleged violent crime. "Our goal is this: We keep the highest risk in jail. One of the things the public has not understood, and even the judges initially, is that this is not to let everyone out of jail. It's not 'get out of jail free.' It's to keep the most dangerous people in."

Not Just an Algorithm

Several floors down, employees of the Pretrial Services office work in cubicles, taking calls and checking in on those awaiting trial. They don't just passively wait to hear from defendants, explains John Harrison, criminal division manager for the courthouse. They will contact defendants to check on their status and make sure they're aware of pending court dates.

The pretrial services staff are also responsible for collecting the information and producing the risk assessments that judges use to help guide their decisions. Harrison shows off how the automated, algorithmic recommendations are put together. They use a Public Safety Assessment system pioneered by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation that—striving to be as objective as possible—puts a numerical rating on each defendant, based mostly on his or her history. It considers whether the person has previous convictions, whether the charges are for violent crimes, and how often he or she has missed court dates both recently and in the past. The assessment doesn't take into consideration socioeconomic factors such as race, employment, zip codes, or anything else that isn't connected to the defendant's actual behavior. The one exception is age, and only because defendants under 20 statistically have an increased likelihood of missing court appearances.

With a few clicks, Harrison is able to run an assessment of a defendant scheduled to make his first appearance that afternoon. The computer measures him on two scales. One quantifies the risk that he'll commit new crimes while on release. The other quantifies the risk that he'll skip out on the court. Each is represented as a number from zero to six.

While the algorithm populates the numbers automatically, Harrison gets much more than just a couple of digits. The system also shows the information that led to the rankings. This defendant's risk factor has been elevated due to a previous conviction. Harrison is able to quickly see that the conviction was for misdemeanor joyriding. The prosecution and defense will see this information, too. A decision on whether he'll be kept in jail before his trial will not be based on just an algorithm spitting out a two or a five.

Prior to the reforms in New Jersey, about 12 percent of the pretrial jail population was stuck behind bars because of an inability to afford just $250 in bail.

"Three years ago, these reports might not have been seen," Harrison explains, before a judge was asked to determine a defendant's release requirements. "They might not have had all the information." Without a risk assessment, judges tended to rely on bail schedules that give dollar amounts on the mere basis of the charges filed.

But does the new system work? On the most obvious level, yes: Fewer people are being kept behind bars. A report covering the first year of these reforms, submitted by the New Jersey Courts to the governor's office, noted that the state saw a 20 percent drop in pretrial detentions across 2017. All in all, there's been a 35 percent drop in the pretrial jail population dating back to 2015. Of the nearly 150,000 defendants charged with crimes in New Jersey last year, only 5.6 percent remained locked up prior to their trials.

This drop in detentions did not appear to result in a crime wave. A report released in March noted a small (2.7 percent) decline in the state in 2017. That's not out of line when compared to other nearby states, according to statistics collected by the FBI. Crime throughout the Northeast generally declined last year.

When There's No Middle Ground

No matter where they might fall ideologically, those calling for bail reform consistently point fingers at one foe for the sad state of the status quo: bail bondsmen. The Civil Rights Corps' Karakatsanis bluntly calls the current pretrial situation "a wealth transfer from the poor to the bail industry."

Activist groups in some cities have developed nonprofit community bail funds to assist defendants in getting out without turning to bondsmen. A smartphone app called Appolition, launched last November, lets citizens donate directly from their bank accounts to help fund strangers' bail. But arguably the biggest cultural shift came in May, when Google and Facebook, partnering with several civil rights organizations and joined by representatives of Koch Industries, announced that they would no longer accept online advertisements from the private bail bond industry. (The Charles Koch Institute and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation support Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this magazine.)

A New Jersey commission in 2014 blasted the private bail system not just for leaving low-income nonviolent offenders stuck behind bars but also for corruption. Furthermore, it found, the whole bail industry operates on the idea that the bondsmen are taking a financial risk in covering the client's bail via "surety bonds"—but it turns out courts were not actually collecting most of the money these bonds promised when defendants skipped out. In 2013, the average settlement for forfeited bail amounted to 12.5 percent of what was owed. The bail companies were getting paid, but they were not risking nearly as much as people assume.

Representatives from the bail bond world have lobbied heavily and even filed suit to stop reforms in places like New Jersey and New Mexico that reduce the demand for cash bail. If these experiments spread, they could take out an entire industry that employs thousands and earns billions.

Jeff Clayton, executive director for the American Bail Coalition, has demanded data showing that New Jersey's shift is actually working. (The state will be releasing a report in the fall examining recidivism rates under the new system.) He also critiques the new either-or scenario in New Jersey: You're either free or you're detained, with almost no options for those kept locked up to post money and get out. "I think what New Jersey is going to prove is that giving them the power to detain with no bail is even more dangerous," he says.

Clayton notes that the request rate by prosecutors to hold defendants without bail varies from court to court. One in New Jersey detained a third of all defendants who were eligible for release in this system. Another jailed less than 10 percent.

Indeed, the reform was designed to give courts more power to detain people with no pretrial way out. It's one of the reasons then–Gov. Chris Christie called for changes. Previously, the state constitution required that arrestees be offered bail for anything other than a capital crime (and New Jersey no longer has capital punishment). Some 8,000 people were held until their trials in the state last year. Most of them would have previously been offered some sort of bail, even if they couldn't afford it.

"The defense of posting financial conditions for jail release is that it's a constitutional right," Clayton argues. "I think that's the tradition on this continent. Whether it should be required is up for debate."

Clayton and Karakatsanis couldn't be further apart on the use of cash bail, but interestingly, they both raise a similar specter: that when cash bail is eliminated, it could lead to increased rather than decreased jail detentions.

Caposela, the assignment judge, explains that New Jersey's pretrial changes came amid some other criminal justice reforms that pushed police officers to give summonses rather than seeking warrants—meaning fewer arrests in the first place. The court system also made significant changes intended to force speedier trials. Once somebody is arrested in the state, prosecutors have 90 days to indict him, and in most cases people must be tried within 180 days.

In other words, defendants in New Jersey who are kept in jail are not going languish for extended periods waiting for their trials. These bail reforms didn't happen in isolation; they included massive changes to the way the court system operates to improve its efficiency. They're not cheap, either—New Jersey's new system comes with a price tag of $35 million for next year. But what if a court somewhere got rid of cash bail but also let prosecutors wait years before bringing jailed defendants to trial? What if it didn't or couldn't fund the pretrial services component of New Jersey's reforms?

There's also reason to fear that if judges are not given a proper framework for determining when to detain, they may be reluctant to consider letting even remotely risky people out, since public backlash could fall on them if something goes wrong.

In Maryland last year, judges were told to consider money bail as a final resort rather than as the default and to not hold defendants in detention solely because they couldn't afford the bail amounts. This ended up backfiring in Baltimore. Some local law students looked over the dockets and found that defendants were being detained without any bail opportunity at all—even nonviolent defendants with no criminal history. Suddenly, pretrial detentions were going up, not down. In May, a local television station reported that even though arrests in Baltimore had declined compared to 2017, the number of people who were stuck in pretrial detention had increased 31 percent.

For the same reasons, Karakatsanis is watching California with some concern. Will the judges who previously refused to look at risk factors when setting bail for defendants like Bill Peyser simply resort to "widespread preventative detention" if cash bail ceases to be an option? He also worries about changes that might permit for-profit companies to take control of pretrial monitoring services and then shift costs over to defendants, by making them pay for their own monitoring even though they haven't been convicted of a crime. That already sometimes happens in places where the state runs the system; Georgia law currently allows judges to order defendants to cover the costs of pretrial electronic monitoring when such a measure is ordered as a condition of their release.

"If you care about the intrusion of the government on individual liberty," Karakatsanis says, "just getting rid of the cash bail system is great. But it sets up another fight."

Photo Credit: Joanna Andreasson

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ride 'Em||

    Not sure why prosecutors are for lower bail. The process has always seemed to be: overcharge, set a high bail, keep in jail, delay the trial, do a plea deal for lesser charges and agree to time served as punishment. That way you get to pad the conviction rate without any actual court time. Judges are happy because they don't have to pay attention during a trial. Defense lawyers don't have to prepare for trial. It's a win/win for all except the accused who had to be guilty of something.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    You could afford to pay for bail, in that case! More power to you!

  • Old Mexican - Mostly Harmless||

    Exhausted and angry after a sleepless night that had led to him skipping a day of work, he decided to confront them on the afternoon of April 17.


    It would have been much less expensive for him to invest in ear plugs. I buy them from Amazon by the case. They don't help much with tinnitus (can worsen it a little) but do allow you a good night's sleep especially if used correctly.

  • perlchpr||

    "This is not a violent guy who needs to be put away," the juror says.

    Uh, he went to someone's door with a firearm and beat on it in an attempt to get them to change their behaviour.

    Yeah, actually, he is a "violent guy".

    two counts of assault with a semi-automatic firearm, and discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling

    The charges—which required proof of intent—didn't match what they saw.

    Seriously? "Assault" is "the act of inflicting physical harm or unwanted physical contact upon a person or, in some specific legal definitions, a threat or attempt to commit such an action."

    I think "taking a firearm along on an attempt to yell at the neighbors" shows a very specific "intent" to threaten physical harm.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I believe "assault" does not involve actual physical attack, only the threat of it. "Battery" is the physical aspect., no?

    The firearm could well have been for self-defense, since the neighbors didn't seem to be the most socially aware kind of people. It may also have been for intimidation. Anyone who actually wants to harm people will get something a little more powerful.

    You sure don't like other people much, lower classes especially.

  • perlchpr||

    Nah. I don't like other people much, completely irrespective of class.

  • perlchpr||

    Actually, go ahead and scratch the "other". I don't even like myself, frankly.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, cocking the gun kind of makes that self-defense thing a hard sell - - - - - -
    What is amazing is that he had a working firearm in San Francisco. Even if he did not know how to use it.
    Another case for mandatory firearms training in high school.

  • Merl3noir||

    First of all the fact he carried a firearm with him does not in and of itself make him a violent person. He's 78 and had no prior's that is far more evidence that he is not a violent person.

    Secondly looking at the charges brought against him is meaningless. A prosecutor can bring any charge they want against someone, and in fact most will bring as many charges as possible and the toughest charges that remotely fit the bill. The fact the jury found him innocent of those charges speaks volumes about the degree to which the charges do not fit the crime. The jury found him not guilty... not an acquittal, so all the jurors agreed.

    In the bay area, there are a lot of places I would take a firearm along just to go out at certain hours. it's far more likely he carried it along not to threaten harm, but in case they threatened to harm him. Not a wise idea, but perfectly reasonable that it was his thinking at the time.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    They can call the bail industry corrupt if they want, but government is at the heart of that corruption. I don't get the impression that any of them will actually come out and admit that; although they do recognize that the system leads to corruption, they don't seem able to make that last step.

    Even then, at least the system is getting better. I wonder how the new system will be corrupted and how long it will take.

  • Oli||

    "she herself becomes an irrelevant incompetent who does not know what's best for herself or her family's future."

    Sadly, that's pretty much the literal truth in many DV cases. Also, that's the reason for the mandatory arrest and prosecution.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    "Sadly, that's pretty much the literal truth in many DV cases. Also, that's the reason for the mandatory arrest and prosecution."

    Ah, yes. Women are helpless and stupid, and need the mighty hand of the state to save them from the monsters which are called men. How feminist of you.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Well, women are pretty helpless (see the military physical fitness results) and pretty stupid (see average SAT scores, for both math and verbal) - at least in comparison to men.
    That doesn't mean we should give the government more power over everyone's lives, however.

  • Oli||

    I'm talking about victims of domestic abuse, which encompasses both men and women. And it has nothing to do with stupidity, but everything with emotional dependence. And it doesn't need to be the mighty hand of the state that saves them from their abuser, but, in most cases, it does need someone's hand.

  • Ariki||

    Women are helpless and stupid, and need the mighty hand of the state to save them from the monsters which are called men. How feminist of you.

    Despite what the 3rd wave says they want. What you said is actually what the results will be.
    Perpetual victimhood is like that.
    For everything to be the fault of the patriarchy, a woman must be powerless.
    To stop the patriarchy a more powerful entity must be employed.
    What else can a victim feminist use other than the "mighty hand of the state"?

    It will be funny when they realise their pursuit of power will make them truly powerless.
    Feminism has become just another arm of those deluded collectivists seeking to destroy a world they cant honestly compete in.

  • Otto Didact||

    Texas is also a "must arrest state" with a possible $500 administrative penalty from the state agency which licenses peace officers. That is unless the victim absolutely INSISTS that the visible injuries did NOT result from any action of the assailant. In that case the assailant gets off scott free and the coop who refused to do their duty faces no penalty AT ALL. I promise; cops are extensively trained in report writing both by the instructors in their police academy and their Training Officer. Any half way intelligent cop can write a report FULLY JUSTIFYING any action they took. Trust me on this.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Most people are criminally unaware of our legal system's machinations, unless they have the pleasure of being pulled into them.

    We could do with fewer police/court dramas on TV and a few "The Red Pill" style documentaries that show exactly what happens in the average court case.

  • Oli||

    Don't call it "red pill" though, that's reserved for incels and other nutjobs.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Nutjobs like the people who advocate for the human rights of men? Yeah, whew! Wouldn't want to be associated with human rights activists. What a bunch of assholes!

  • Oli||

    No, nutjobs like the crybabies who conflate their own shortcomings with general human rights, because they don't manage to get their dicks wet. Which is, of course, totally not their own fault.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    Now, you could listen to men's rights activists and realize that none of them have ever complained about not getting sex, and many of them are women. Or you could continue to strawman and spout bullshit. I think I can guess which you'll do.

  • Oli||

    Although the two groups intersect at times, I was talking about incels and the like ("incels and other nutjobs"). You brought in MRA and kept arguing as if I was talking about them. Do you know what that's called? Right, a strawman.

  • Procyon Rotor||

    You said the phrase "red pill" was reserved for nutjobs. It's a phrase that's very common in the men's rights movement. The documentary movie, The Red Pill, was about the movement. It wasn't hard to notice what you were implying. And then you said that crybaby virgins "conflate their own shortcomings with general human rights", again implicating people who discuss men's rights. If you want to walk that back now and pretend you of course meant nothing of the sort, go right ahead.

  • Oli||

    It's a term pretty common in many fringe movements and online communities. You might not know this, if your knowledge comes from some documentary (which I haven't watched, so I can't say for sure).

    Again, I was primarily talking about incels.

    I don't think much of MRAs (and neither of third-wave feminism, for that matter), but they weren't my target here.

  • Qsl||

    All of this misses the point that there are different standards of justice for the poor from the wealthy. From fines, bail, or even buying a better outcome via a high powered attorney; the poor get the shaft from the justice system and there is little consideration in devising a better system (I liked the Scandinavian idea of fines being a percentage of wealth, but libertarians go apeshit over that).

  • Reshufflex||

    "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -A. France

  • Otto Didact||

    Like anything else, we have the best "justice system" that money can buy. The rich have always had it better in interactions with government than the poor. Jefferson's Declaration of the "self-evident fact" that "all men are created equal" (which was in contrast to the British system where the Nobility and the Gentry could pretty much only be charged on the basis of an accusation of a fellow member of the upper classes) not withstanding, ANY system created by or administered by men will, inevitably, favor the wealthy.

    As either Hamilton or Madison so ably put it in Federalist 51:
    "[W]hat is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

    Final thought: All compliance - be it with/to Constitutions, laws, ordinances, rules or the bylaws of the Tuesday Afternoon Quilting and Literary Society - is entirely and completely voluntary. No one can truly force another to comply.

  • Qsl||

    If that is the case, then wouldn't it make sense to ameliorate the influence of wealth in those instances? Do you just throw up your hands that only land owners can vote, and there is absolutely nothing to be done about it?

    Per the article, the entire convoluted system for determining bail could be replaced with putting up a percentage of wealth and focusing the efforts of oversight on the indigent. Likewise, as in Scandinavia, all fines could be assessed as a percentage of wealth. If it is good enough for a flat tax, I see no reason why it couldn't apply here.

    You could reframe all court cases as essentially arbitration where any money spent is towards receiving a judgement, and is divided equally between the parties to use to receive that judgement Who knows, it might even help with underfunding public defenders (did you know that wasn't even a thing until the 1930s?) or the government bringing unlimited resources to bear.

    And I could go on with possible approaches for a more just system, but you get the idea.

    No one can truly force another to comply.

    Ah, so torture isn't a thing now. Goodie for you.

  • Otto Didact||

    "Ah, so torture isn't a thing now. Goodie for you."

    I never said that people cannot be tortured or that other forms of duress cannot be applied. What I said was that, in the final analysis, no one can truly force another to comply. And I stand behind that. All anyone can do is to make NONcompliance very expensive - either in suffering, loss of liberty, loss of money or property or suchlike. It is for each to determine whether it is more inconvenient to comply or not to comply. There have been people throughout history who chose death or disability over onerous or odious compliance.

    Watch this youtube video and you will see the moment where a man accepts slavery.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CpJpGF8lS8

  • Reshufflex||

    What happened to his speedy trial right?

  • Merl3noir||

    A friend of mine is involved in a group that attempts to help those in need of bail that cannot afford it. At a meeting I attended an attorney that often helps people that are in this situation explained the guidelines in NY for setting bail. Judges are suppose to set bail at a level that will ensure the person will not skip out, but in consideration of what they can afford. She said in many cases a judge following that guideline, may set a bail of $100. but it is still beyond that persons ability to pay. However she said while that is the guideline for judges, there is nothing to prevent a judge from applying his own reasoning. Many judges will set bails based upon the severity of the charges. This group tries to educate these judges about the consequences setting bail in this way, but rarely will these judges change their opinions.

  • Otto Didact||

    "This group tries to educate these judges about the consequences setting bail in this way, but rarely will these judges change their opinions."

    Of course not! There is no downside to their doing so. Even if there was the possibility of the accused lodging a complaint with a judicial review board, Only a fool or an extremely naive person would expect such a board's ruling to go against the judge! The ones judging the accused jurist would be members of the same club that the judge, himself, was.

  • Mark22||

    The problem isn't bail, it's lack of a speedy trial. That is, there wouldn't be a problem holding people in jail for a couple of days before a trial.

  • Otto Didact||

    "there wouldn't be a problem holding people in jail for a couple of days before a trial."

    Have YOU ever spent the night in a jail cell, oh sage? If you had, I suspect you would not be so confident in your assertion. Oh, and the "justice system" has a myriad of ways to get around any sort of "speedy trial" bravo sierra. Ever heard of something called a "smocker"? Look it up. Ain't fun.

  • Mark22||

    Have YOU ever spent the night in a jail cell, oh sage? If you had, I suspect you would not be so confident in your assertion.

    I'm sure spending a night in jail is unpleasant, but from a legal point of view, I don't see a problem with holding people for a couple of days in jail if they can't make bail.

    Oh, and the "justice system" has a myriad of ways to get around any sort of "speedy trial" bravo sierra.

    Precisely my point: those "myriad ways" should be abolished.

  • Longtobefree||

    See how effective the California gun laws are?

  • CaveMan||

    Kentucky made some major reforms back in the 1970's. The state outlawed bail bonds for profit and bounty hunting. Now the accused makes his bail (when required) to a division of the court. If he is not convicted, he gets the money back. If he is convicted the money goes towards any fines that might be levied and any remainder is returned. This keeps an innocent from being permanently out the 10% payment that the bailbondsman would keep.

    Bounty hunters are required to present a warrant to a Kentucky judge for a Kentucky warrant which then must be served by a Kentucky LEO.

  • perlchpr||

    Did any of the prisoners ever issue an objection, that you heard, to being forced into extremely unsafe transport?

  • RickAbrams||

    This case raises another serious problem. California's rule 5-110 which requires prosecutors to bring to the COURT'S attention any exculpatory evidence. After the federal court found that California suffers from an epidemic of misconduct, California revisited the duties of prosecutors and on Nv 2, 2017, affirmed that prosecutors have a duty to bring exculpatory evidence to the COURT's attention at the earliest possible moment. This case has tons of exculpatory evidence, which showed that the defendant was greatly overcharged. The State Bar of California governs prosecutorial misconduct including the withholding of evidence by the prosecution. The State Bar's position is that prosecutors may completely ignore Rule 5-110 and the prosecution may not only withhold exculpatory evidence but it may destruct it and it may manufacture false evidence.

    One should understand that Rule 5-110 is not the Brady doctrine where the prosecution has to turn over its evidence to the defense. Rule 5-110 only applies to exculpatory evidence and the law requires that it be brought directly to the COURT. Had the SF prosecutor adhered to Rule 5-110, the defendant would not have been so seriously overcharged. People should heed what Martin Niemoller learned in Germany.
    http://bit.ly/1LVAjXc February 28, 2017, Martin Niemoller

  • Bill Goode||

    I don't believe the bail system is applied under federal law. The federal government does not grant bail. It's only states, counties and cities that allow bail.

  • Otto Didact||

    I am convinced that all defendants - civil as well as criminal but especially criminal - should have to enter a courthouse through a special door. Over that door, in foot-high letters would be the inscription, "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

    Think about it.
    Who owns the Courthouse? - the Government
    Who pays the presiding judge? - the Government
    Who pays the prosecutor? - the Government
    From whom does the defendant's attorney get the requisite license to do their job? - the Government
    Who pays the armed "Law Enforcement Officer" who sits off to one side of the courtroom? - the Government

    Is it any wonder that prosecutors in the U.S. have the HIGHEST CONVICTION RATE ON THE PLANET?