CA Ends Cash Bail Effective Oct. 2019

RadishRose

RadishRose

SF VIP
Location
Connecticut, USA
Many may remain incarcerated until their trial. Depends on what the judge decides, I don't fully understand how this will work either.
 

C'est Moi said:
So. "Catch and release?" Not sure how I feel about this.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's that simple, but aside from that, but should one person committing a crime be "caught and released" because he is wealthy far beyond the bail demands while a person of lesser wealth who commits an identical crime and can't raise the bail is held for trial? That doesn't seem right either, assuming prior criminal records are similar.
 
I'm curious to learn more about this change but I'm inclined to believe it is a good idea. I have been concerned in recent years where some judges set huge amounts of bail for people as what appears to be a show of power, grandstanding, etc... In these cases, the bail becomes punitive and goes far beyond the original intention of simply ensuring that people remain available to attend all court dates, hearings, etc...
 
Well, this is kind of what has recently started going on here in New Mexico, with sometimes terrible consequences. Presently, as most have probably read about (and there's another thread on this forum about), we have a situation where there was some sort of compound up in northern New Mexico where some people were holding a number of children not their own in really awful living conditions and one of them was killed, apparently in some kind of exorcism ritual. Allegedly they were also training them to carry out school shootings.

Anyway, because of the thing about pretrial bail, most of the adults were released, except for one who was in trouble with immigration. Do we really want people who have held and abused children and ultimately probably killed one of them, turned loose among us? There has been a huge hue and cry against the judge, who is now receiving all kinds of threats -- but he/she had no choice because of this crazy law about pretrial detention.

We have had several other cases of re-offenses while awaiting trial, at least one of them a murder and another a child abuse resulting in death and several cases of repeat DWI offenders doing it again and at least two fatal crashes as a result.

There is now great pressure upon the legislature to repeal this crazy law, and I believe and hope they will.

I hear the reasons that many oppose bail, but in many cases, especially involving violence, I and most of us in New Mexico, including our judiciary, believe it is necessary to protect the public safety.

The idea of getting rid of pretrial bail, on paper, sounds like a great humane thing, but in reality not so much. AND, how many people accused of serious crimes with the potential of long prison sentences does anyone really think will actually appear for trial?
 
Butterfly said:
Well, this is kind of what has recently started going on here in New Mexico, with sometimes terrible consequences. Presently, as most have probably read about (and there's another thread on this forum about), we have a situation where there was some sort of compound up in northern New Mexico where some people were holding a number of children not their own in really awful living conditions and one of them was killed, apparently in some kind of exorcism ritual. Allegedly they were also training them to carry out school shootings.

Anyway, because of the thing about pretrial bail, most of the adults were released, except for one who was in trouble with immigration. Do we really want people who have held and abused children and ultimately probably killed one of them, turned loose among us? There has been a huge hue and cry against the judge, who is now receiving all kinds of threats -- but he/she had no choice because of this crazy law about pretrial detention.

We have had several other cases of re-offenses while awaiting trial, at least one of them a murder and another a child abuse resulting in death and several cases of repeat DWI offenders doing it again and at least two fatal crashes as a result.

There is now great pressure upon the legislature to repeal this crazy law, and I believe and hope they will.

I hear the reasons that many oppose bail, but in many cases, especially involving violence, I and most of us in New Mexico, including our judiciary, believe it is necessary to protect the public safety.

The idea of getting rid of pretrial bail, on paper, sounds like a great humane thing, but in reality not so much. AND, how many people accused of serious crimes with the potential of long prison sentences does anyone really think will actually appear for trial?
Click to expand...

Thank you for this response, BF. As a CA resident I am deeply concerned about this law. Our current system is flawed, no argument there, but I fear that by abolishing bail altogether we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The consequence of a loss of one's bail money is a huge motivator for people to show up for their court dates. That said, I think the 10% that bail bondsmen "earn" for posting bonds (even when the person shows up for their hearings) is beyond exorbitant.
 
StarSong said:
Thank you for this response, BF. As a CA resident I am deeply concerned about this law. Our current system is flawed, no argument there, but I fear that by abolishing bail altogether we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The consequence of a loss of one's bail money is a huge motivator for people to show up for their court dates. That said, I think the 10% that bail bondsmen "earn" for posting bonds (even when the person shows up for their hearings) is beyond exorbitant.
Click to expand...


IMO it is all part of an ever growing mood in this country, to forgive/coddle the criminal. I for one do not get it. We have a system in place[the justice system] to protect us from the criminal element. And yet so many fight tooth & nail, to circumvent that very system.

We have people sworn to duty in law enforcement divisions. In place to apprehend the criminals & bring them to the justice system, and yet we have so many who fight tooth & nail to hobble the ability of these very law enforcement people to do their sworn duty.

I don't get it ?!
 
Last edited:
One thing being overlooked in this discussion is that the criminal can still be held without bail, at the judge's discretion. I'm sure that those accused of the most serious crimes will still be locked up until their trial... or at least I would hope so.
 
RadishRose said:
"Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly," Brown said in a statement, moments after signing the California Money Bail Reform Act.

Washington, D.C., already has a cashless bail system.
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/28/642795284/california-becomes-first-state-to-end-cash-bail


Bailbondsmen are furious, some 7,000 jobs to be lost I've read.
Click to expand...


I have read the totality of the documents as pointed to by the links. I think that I have a pretty good handle on what the Governor is attempting to create. However, I have to agree with the ACLU, which is difficult for me to say, but anyway, I don’t feel that the law goes far enough.

Lord knows that I have been in court more times than I care to count for various misdemeanors and felonies. The new law still provides the judges with a lot of discretion in setting or not setting bail. As I see it, very little has changed, other than the courts and especially the judges will be doing a lot of extra duty.

In my 37 years as a State Policeman, I have witnessed a lot of bias by judges when it came to setting bail. Of course, this is just my opinion, which is always debatable. Here is just one example of what I am referring to. I remember sitting in court during an arraignment for a few suspects in different crimes. The person before my man, which was to be arraigned was a black man charged with forgery and felony battery. His bail was set at $25,000.00. My man, who was white and was arraigned on a charge of drug distribution and was caught with 1 1/2 kilos of cocaine had his bail set at $5000.00, which meant that he only had to pay his bondsman $500.00. The D.A. tried to argue that this person was a flight risk, but the judge denied the D.A.’s motion to up the bond.

As expected, when his trial date came up, he was nowhere to be found. We did get him back, thanks to Crime Stoppers. It was several months later that we received a call from a person where he had been living. One of the other residents living in the same apartment complex said that they occasionally look at the Crime Stoppers website and spotted our person on the site. I think they picked up a check for $5000.00.

As for bondsmen losing their jobs, that’s a tough pill to swallow. A lot of the bondsmen that I know have risked their life in trying to recover their bond that they lost when a fugitive has fled. It’s not an easy life. Some bondsmen hire thugs (as I call them) to hunt down fugitives with an outstanding warrant, but many times they are right there doing the job their self. If they can catch the fugitive, in many cases the judge will release the bond back to the bondsmen, maybe minus a fee.
 
911, I was hoping you'd weigh in here. I admit to expecting a more conservative (pro bail) viewpoint from you, but realize now that you've seen all sides of this. Thank you for your insider's perspective.
 
Not so fast, apparently. This is according to the Sacramento Bee, a well respected CA newspaper that reports on what's happening politically in our state capital.

Bail bondsmen ask voters to kill California law that puts them out of business

By Alexei Koseff

August 29, 2018 01:14 PM
Updated August 29, 2018 04:59 PM

Facing a threat to its continued existence, the California bail industry will attempt to block a new law eliminating cash bail by asking voters to overturn the plan.
Bail industry groups on Wednesday launched a referendum drive against Senate Bill 10, a day after Gov. Jerry Brown signed the sweeping legislation that aims to remove money from the state’s criminal justice system.
The law, which takes effect in October 2019, replaces bail with an assessment of an individual’s likelihood of returning for court hearings and their chances of getting arrested again. Those who are deemed “low-risk” would be released with the least restrictive non-monetary conditions possible, while “medium-risk” and “high-risk” defendants could be held awaiting trial.
Though advocates hailed the proposal as a fix for a broken system where wealth determines who remains stuck in custody, bail companies argued that it would actually lead to more people being detained because of the broad discretion it gives to judges. They also raised questions about its legality, pointing to the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “excessive bail shall not be required."

But SB 10 ultimately means the end of their business. The bail industry estimates the law would wipe out more than 7,000 jobs in California.
Proponents have 90 days from when Brown signed the bill to qualify their referendum. If they submit about 366,000 valid signatures from California voters, the law will placed on hold and appear on the November 2020 ballot. That would buy the bail industry at least another year beyond the October 2019 effective date, even if voters uphold SB 10.

David Quintana, a lobbyist for the California Bail Agents Association, said he believes the referendum will be “overwhelmingly successful,” because Californians are tired of the stream of recent laws rolling back tough criminal statutes and sentencing laws to reduce the state’s overcrowded prison population.
“The public is going to rise up and support stronger public safety,” he said.
 
I think the law is for less serious/non violent offenses. From what I've read there will be a pretrial assessment process to determine who should get bail or no bail. The 'assessment' is where all the issues will wind up being. Those issuing the 'assessment' might wind up demanding higher bail than under the old system or give someone a break who would should be posting bail.

Just a hypothetical example but in theory a angry spouse could cry to a judge saying their ex is harassing them etc and the ex could be forced to post bail or excessive bail where's as in the past they might have gotten a court date. That pretrial assessment is where the problems will be especially if it's up to a judge with leeway.
 
There's no such thing as Bail Bondsmen here in the UK...you either go to court and get Bailed to appear at a later date ( no money changes hands) and also you can be bailed at the Police station after being charged with the offence if the police don't feel it's serious enough for you to have to stay in custody until court appearance ...or if you're crime is too serious, you get remanded in custody until the court date

Unfortunately many who get Bail..shouldn't get it, but in an effort to free up prison space judges tend to release many accused who should really be locked up..and also due to that, many don't return to court to answer their Bail, leaving often a relative or friend to pay the Bail money while the accused is on the run, costing the tax payer more money and police time hunting them down.

Sounds like perhaps many places in the USA are taking up a similar option , probably due to serious prison overcrowding, and the sheer enormous cost to the taxpayer of keeping people in prison, specifically for minor offences
 
WhatInThe said:
I think the law is for less serious/non violent offenses. From what I've read there will be a pretrial assessment process to determine who should get bail or no bail. The 'assessment' is where all the issues will wind up being. Those issuing the 'assessment' might wind up demanding higher bail than under the old system or give someone a break who would should be posting bail.

Just a hypothetical example but in theory a angry spouse could cry to a judge saying their ex is harassing them etc and the ex could be forced to post bail or excessive bail where's as in the past they might have gotten a court date. That pretrial assessment is where the problems will be especially if it's up to a judge with leeway.
Click to expand...

The law abolishes all bail. According to NPR's description:
"Under the California law those arrested and charged with a crime won't be putting up money or borrowing it from a bail bond agent to obtain their release. Instead, local courts will decide who to keep in custody and whom to release while they await trial. Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.

In most nonviolent misdemeanor cases, defendants would be released within 12 hours. In other instances, defendants will be scored on how likely they are to show up for their court date, the seriousness of their crime, and the likelihood of recidivism. Some people could be released on other conditions, including monitoring by GPS or regular check-ins with an officer."
 
I emailed an old friend who was with both the CT State Police then, later a CA Deputy District Atty for his opinion. The is his reply-

"In theory it's a good idea. There are a lot of people who are detained that shouldn't be, simply because they can't afford bail. And there a lot of people who aren't detained, but should be, but aren't because they CAN afford bail. This new scheme aims to correct that imbalance in a reasonable manner. The old system had a similar risk assessment facet but that only led to a determination of whether to increase or decrease the cash bail, or allow someone to be released on their own recognizance. The new law omits the cash bail determination and goes straight to a custody or release decision. It is fixed in some ways, such as not allowing release for domestic violence misdemeanors, 3d time DUI's, felonies involving physical violence, etc. And judges retain discretion to depart from the rules but now you have the insertion of a whole new agency, "Pretrial Assessment Services."



The taxpayers will have to pay for a new branch of the probation department; or else it can be contracted out to private contractors.


In practice the only thing that I really see changing is that no one is going to need to hire a bondsman any more. And without a bondsman, who is going to go look for the defendant when he/she doesn't show up? Certainly not the probation department. And certainly not "Pretrial Assessment Services." So fugitives will have it a little easier.


Also on the practical side, with misdemeanor prosecutions, even if the court sets bail, the sheriff just releases them because there's not enough room in the jails, especially since AB109 passed back in 2011 and you now have people serving prison sentences in county jail instead of state prison.


It remains to be seen how this new system is going to work. It doesn't take effect until 10/01/2019. On balance I believe that more people will get locked up that deserve to be locked up, and less people will be locked up that don't deserve it. But there remains the question of where to put them and how will the sheriff deal with it? As of right now the sheriff can pretty much do what he/she likes irrespective of any bail that the court sets in misdemeanor cases.


And then there's corruption. If you can't pay a high bail because the state has done away with cash bail, you can always pay off the risk assessment officer, which is a real concern if they start contracting this out to private contractors. Remains to be seen how it works. All in all I think it's a better way than the old way; not perfect, but better. "
 
StarSong said:
The law abolishes all bail. According to NPR's description:
"Under the California law those arrested and charged with a crime won't be putting up money or borrowing it from a bail bond agent to obtain their release. Instead, local courts will decide who to keep in custody and whom to release while they await trial. Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.

In most nonviolent misdemeanor cases, defendants would be released within 12 hours. In other instances, defendants will be scored on how likely they are to show up for their court date, the seriousness of their crime, and the likelihood of recidivism. Some people could be released on other conditions, including monitoring by GPS or regular check-ins with an officer."
Click to expand...

Sounds good but apparently open to problems. I found what saw earlier in week, ACLU calls risk assessment system 'murky'

http://www.newser.com/story/263955/california-set-to-be-first-in-us-to-end-bail.html

Too much latitude is one issue because the courts were given 'broad authority' to comply with the bill.

Sounds like the details and fine print still needs work.
 
Here it has just been a disaster. Even in serious cases, like the New Mexico case I mentioned above, the law has made it extremely difficult for judges to overcome the pretrial release issue. Previously as the law was, most nonviolent offenders were let out ROR (released on their own recognizance) anyway, so it's not a question of setting bail for shoplifters, embezzlers, etc., but rather for child abusers, murderers, etc.
 
I'm missing something here. I really don't see things changing all that much, except more court time and more work for judges. I really cannot relate too much due to the fact that here in Pennsylvania only until recently have the sheriffs and the deputies been allowed any investigative duties, In most cases, the sheriffs department works for the courts by serving subpoenas and etc. They also stand guard during trials and such.

Then, quoting the following..."And then there's corruption. If you can't pay a high bail because the state has done away with cash bail, you can always pay off the risk assessment officer, which is a real concern if they start contracting this out to private contractors. Remains to be seen how it works. All in all I think it's a better way than the old way; not perfect, but better."

IMO, this was never made part of the law and for it to be activated, it would need to be approved by California's legislatures. Outsourcing Risk Assessment Officers is always a possibility, but not a probability. I think RAO will be appointed by the court. I would just hope that they do serious background checks before allowing anyone of them to be hired.

As I previously stated, I have seen a lot of bias in granting bail and this law does very little in preventing that from not continuing. I just don't think that the law as written is going to do what the Governor intended, or at least not to the degree that he was pushing for. I always like to see things play out before making any comments on new laws. Maybe it will be OK and maybe it won't. Let's just wait and see.
 
Last edited:
I reread all of the posts and this reminds me of how wrong we can or can’t be at times. Different people will sometimes interpret laws differently and this is when the courts may be asked to get involved. You noticed that I used the word “courts.” A person or a group, such as the bail bondsmen, may file a suit asking first the state court for relief, but if they fail there, then they would next go to the appellate court for relief by asking the judges for their interpretation and then to adjudicate the new law accordingly. If their suit would fail there, they could ask the State Supreme Court for relief. If all that fails, they could continue to take their suit to the federal level and start again. But, who is going to pay for all of these costs, especially the legal fees?

I would never say that our legal system is flawed, but could it be made better? I believe so. Our way of proceeding with lawsuits has not changed in probably over a hundred years. Of course, please keep in mind that I am only following the way that lawsuits work here in Pennsylvania. Certainly, California or any other state may follow a different set of procedures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top