Real Injustice

[Crockett]

A system that jails people who don' have money for bail creates all sorts of hardship for people who can least afford it.

Here's a story from a biased left-wing source. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2016/05/23/3781076/texas-bail-lawsuit/

But quality journalists from NPR have covered similar stories elsewhere. I asked Denton County Sheriff Will Travis about it during a campaign stop when he was unsuccessfully seeking re-election. He told me that in Denton County, time served in jail pays/reduces fines. It's a humane approach for people who can't afford bail, as opposed to charging them for meals and health care, like they do some places.

 

[theiioftx]

22 year old with a 4 year old, 10 month old and currently pregnant? Let's get to the source of the problem rather than blame the criminal justice system.

 

[mb227]

The real problem is that those defendants enter into payment arrangements and then cannot be bothered to keep up with them and choose instead to ignore the notices. Extensions will be granted by the Court but they have to take the initiative to seek the extension. Instead they ignore the notices and warnings and cry foul when they get arrested for the outstanding warrant.

I'd say create a system that allows community service in lieu of the fines if they can truly demonstrate an inability to pay, but then they won't do the community service which brings us back full circle to where we are now.

It is more of the hand-out mentality...they want something for nothing and they don't want consequences to attach to their actions.

 

[Crockett]

22 year old with a 4 year old, 10 month old and currently pregnant? Let's get to the source of the problem rather than blame the criminal justice system.

Yeah, screwed up like that I guess she deserves to be jailed for a traffic violation with bail that might as well be infinite so she can't keep her job or take care of her children. My bad, anybody that screwed up deserves to get screwed over some more in the jails, or if they have a few more resources, the bail bondsmen.

 

[NJlonghorn]

The real problem is that those defendants enter into payment arrangements and then cannot be bothered to keep up with them and choose instead to ignore the notices. Extensions will be granted by the Court but they have to take the initiative to seek the extension. Instead they ignore the notices and warnings and cry foul when they get arrested for the outstanding warrant.

I'd say create a system that allows community service in lieu of the fines if they can truly demonstrate an inability to pay, but then they won't do the community service which brings us back full circle to where we are now.

It is more of the hand-out mentality...they want something for nothing and they don't want consequences to attach to their actions.

Did you even read the linked article? The people mentioned in it (and a significant percentage of inmates in the Harris County Jail) have not been convicted of anything. They have not been fined, so they have not agreed to any kind of payment arrangement. They are, as of now, presumed innocent.

All that has happened is that they have been charged with a crime. Instead of assessing bail on an individualized basis (as most experts agree is required by the Constitution), the courts have imposed an arbitrary bail amount that may or may not be appropriate. In all too many cases, the bail is more than the defendant can afford to pay, so they are held pending trial even if they don't pose a danger to society or a flight risk.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

they don't want consequences to attach to their actions.

This is at the heart of many of our societal ills.

 

[theiioftx]

Yeah, screwed up like that I guess she deserves to be jailed for a traffic violation with bail that might as well be infinite so she can't keep her job or take care of her children. My bad, anybody that screwed up deserves to get screwed over some more in the jails, or if they have a few more resources, the bail bondsmen.

I am not arguing whether it made sense to jail someone over a traffic ticket. The OP and article is premised on the treatment of poor people. If she would stop spreading her legs or at least use protection, she might be able to pay fines or bail. Isn't bail usually 10%? If you cannot afford $250, you should not being commiting crimes or getting pregnant again one month after having your second child.

 

[mb227]

Did you even read the linked article? The people mentioned in it (and a significant percentage of inmates in the Harris County Jail) have not been convicted of anything. They have not been fined, so they have not agreed to any kind of payment arrangement. They are, as of now, presumed innocent.

All that has happened is that they have been charged with a crime. Instead of assessing bail on an individualized basis (as most experts agree is required by the Constitution), the courts have imposed an arbitrary bail amount that may or may not be appropriate. In all too many cases, the bail is more than the defendant can afford to pay, so they are held pending trial even if they don't pose a danger to society or a flight risk.

Licenses don't just become invalid...further, she made the CHOICE to drive KNOWING she had an invalid license (which also likely means no insurance).

If the invalid license was for failure to pay surcharges and not court costs, well guess what...the surcharge program ALSO has an indigency program that allowed for payments to be made after having chopped away 90% of the surcharge.

So, yes, again it boils down to them not wanting consequence or accountability to attach to their actions.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Isn't bail usually 10%?

For people who are decent credit risks (or have cosigners who are good credit risks), the premium for a bail bond is usually 10%. For people who aren't good credit risks, it is often impossible to get a bail bond. The only option is to post the full bail amount in cash.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

The issue isn't whether these people are guilty or should be charged and punished. If it's true that more than three-fourths of jail occupants are people who couldn't make bail, that's an issue. (Although stats are meaningless out of context - maybe Harris County has done an amazing job of reducing crime so that there aren't that many people actually serving sentences anymore... or they're just not imprisoning anyone anymore once they're tried and convicted...)

This is clearly a complicated issue, which is why it would seem that there should be more leeway for situational judgment. Not saying people shouldn't have to pay bail in most cases, but I was always under the impression that you got the court attorney before bail? Or is that just in felony cases or something? There should certainly at least be a discussion about whether bail is appropriate.

Having said that, calling it a "debtor prison" is a little dishonest, since it implies that we're just running around look for poor people who we can arrest and throw in jail for no reason. It's a typical one-sided Think Progress piece, and so it's difficult for me to take anything they say as actually having a full representation of the issue.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Licenses don't just become invalid

Licenses become invalid for a wide range of reasons. Expiration. Multiple traffic offenses. Unpaid traffic tickets. Unpaid child support. There's no way to know why this particular woman's license was invalid.

Plus, only one of the four examples given in the article was ascribed to driving without a license. A second was for misdemeanor theft (probably shoplifting). The article doesn't mention the reason for the third and fourth arrests. The statistics given in the article apply to all misdemeanors.

she made the CHOICE to drive KNOWING she had an invalid license (which also likely means no insurance). . . . So, yes, again it boils down to them not wanting consequence or accountability to attach to their actions.

Nobody is arguing that there should be no consequences for breaking the law. People who drive without a license, or commit misdemeanor theft, or whatever, should be prosecuted. If they are convicted, they should be punished in a way that fits the crime.

The need to punish something for breaking the law has little if anything to do with the question of what should happen to them pending prosecution. A bail system that requires poor people to stay in jail pending prosecution merely because they are poor is, imho, indefensible.

If she would stop spreading her legs or at least use protection, she might be able to pay fines or bail.

I don't disagree. But is this a jail-able offense? And is it consistent with the Constitutional right to reasonable bail?

 

[NJlonghorn]

It's a typical one-sided Think Progress piece, and so it's difficult for me to take anything they say as actually having a full representation of the issue.

Very true, this is presented to be worse than it really is. But the issue is a real one, and it exists in many jurisdictions.

Here in New Jersey, Chris Christie just pushed through a comprehensive bail-reform package. To oversimplify:

• Those who are dangerous to the community will be held pending trial. No bail.
• Those who are deemed to be flight risks will be required to post bond or, in extreme cases, held pending trial without bail.
• All others will be released on their own recognizance (i.e. no bail required).

To me, this makes sense. If someone is neither a flight risk nor dangerous, what is the point of bail?

 

[mb227]

For people who are decent credit risks (or have cosigners who are good credit risks), the premium for a bail bond is usually 10%. For people who aren't good credit risks, it is often impossible to get a bail bond. The only option is to post the full bail amount in cash.

This tends not to be an accurate statement in Texas...I have yet to see a bail agent try to run a credit check. They will tell someone over the phone how much to bring in...on a small bond, expect 10%. On larger bonds, there is some room to negotiate (I know clients who were out for ~3% cash).

 

[mb227]

Licenses become invalid for a wide range of reasons. Expiration. Multiple traffic offenses. Unpaid traffic tickets. Unpaid child support. There's no way to know why this particular woman's license was invalid.

Expired license is a different offense in Texas.

Multiple traffic offenses? There's that pesky personal accountability (or more importantly, lack thereof) again...

Unpaid traffic tickets or child support? See above.

Bottom line is she made the CHOICE to go and commit a misdemeanor that is on the bond schedule...yet she wants no consequence to attach.

 

[mb227]

Oh, and that $5K on a misdemeanor...take a look at the Harris County misdemeanor bond schedule and draw your own conclusion about how she got there...

http://www.ccl.hctx.net/attorneys/BailSchedule.pdf

No sympathy for her...maybe if she would try being responsible it would be easier to muster some up.

 

[mb227]

I'll make it easier...just since March and just in Harris County, O'Donnell has had two drug offenses (one for pot) and two DWLI cases, including one last week). The first of the two DWLI's appears to have come the same day as she was in court for the March drug conduct.

Bond in that first drug case was raised because she continued using drugs and was in violation of the conditions of the original bond. She had been given a personal recognizance bond for that offense.

So, pretty clear that she is a risk that warrants a higher bond. But stories like the one linked don't want you to have the FULL history. Facts get in the way of increasing liberal rage...

McGruder...gave a false name to the officer who had stopped her. Why would someone do that who doesn't have other issues to worry about? She has no other Class B or higher history in Harris County but does have history in Jefferson County.

Oh and Ford...he has felony history in the Dallas area and had just gotten off of mandatory supervision when he decided to go shoplifting.

 

[UTChE96]

For people who aren't good credit risks, it is often impossible to get a bail bond. The only option is to post the full bail amount in cash.

There was another option in this case. The lady arrested could have gotten a valid driver's license before operating a vehicle. There is no secret that a valid driver's license is required to operate a vehicle. If you break the law then don't complain because you can't make bail (another fact that should have been painfully obvious before she broke the law).

 

[Crockett]

mb227: Sometimes half the story is more interesting than the whole story. Thanks for providing info I didn't know before.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I think, in general, our court system is already lenient enough with justice-involved persons. Before I even got to post #16 by mb227, I kinda figured that multiple chances had already been given and pissed away.

 

[Mr. Deez]

NJ is right.

 

[NJlonghorn]

I think, in general, our court system is already lenient enough with justice-involved persons. Before I even got to post #16 by mb227, I kinda figured that multiple chances had already been given and pissed away.

I agree 100% with this statement. If all that mb says about the defendants is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it is), they deserve no sympathy and should prosecuted and, if convicted, punished. Their recidivism should be taken into account in determining what the sentence should be. All of this is perfectly fair, regardless of how poor they may be.

Bail is different. It is illegal -- indeed, unconstitutional -- to use bail as punishment. No matter how horrible a person may be, the argument "having to post bond is fair punishment for what he/she did" belies a fundamental misunderstanding of what bail is, and is for.

BTW -- it may well be that the bail in some or all of these cases was fair and appropriate. If the threat of losing $5k was necessary to motivate the defendant to follow a condition of release, such as no drug use, fine. But nobody is making that determination. They are just arbitrarily setting a schedule, and applying it across the board.

 

[NJlonghorn]

NJ is right.

I like the ring of this. Can you put it in your signature?

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Bail is different. It is illegal -- indeed, unconstitutional -- to use bail as punishment.

That's the key point in this.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I like the ring of this. Can you put it in your signature?

Done, but I reserve the right to change it if you post anything that makes me look like a jackass. lol

 

[Horns11]

Court costs and bail are major municipal fundraisers. As long as cities need an influx of cash, and legislatures don't reform the way courts function, then this is how it is. They don't write stories about the lawyer who's on his 9th traffic violation and has paid every single one of them.

 

[mb227]

Court costs and bail are major municipal fundraisers. As long as cities need an influx of cash, and legislatures don't reform the way courts function, then this is how it is. They don't write stories about the lawyer who's on his 9th traffic violation and has paid every single one of them.

except that bail does not go to the municipality. The premium paid (the 10%) goes to the private business (the bondsman). The municipality gets some nominal fee that is generally the same as for the person released on recognizance.

Even if someone posts a true cash bond into the County repository, the full cash amount is refunded at the conclusion of proceedings. But true cash bonds are so rare that the jurisdiction is never going to make much off of them in terms of interest...