Feds: Can't Keep Poor People Unable to Pay Bail in Jail

[Suzanimal]

(Newser) – It's unconstitutional to keep poor defendants in jail before their trial simply because they can't afford to pay bail. That's according to an amicus brief filed in federal court by the Justice Department on Friday, Reuters reports. According to NBC News, the Justice Department found that the practice violates the 14th Amendment and that bail amounts that don't take poverty into account "unlawfully discriminate based on indigence." It says courts must find a better way to make sure impoverished defendants show up to court than keeping them in jail.

The brief was filed in the case of Maurice Walker. Walker, who is poor and has mental health issues, was arrested for being a pedestrian under the influence in Calhoun, Georgia, the Huffington Post reports. Court is only held once per week in Calhoun, and Walker was kept in jail for six days because he couldn't afford to pay the $160 bail for his freedom. The city argued that it's perfectly legal to set bail amounts based on the seriousness of crimes without any consideration for a defendant's ability to pay it. A federal court ruled against Calhoun, but the city appealed.

http://www.newser.com/story/229928/feds-cant-keep-poor-people-unable-to-pay-bail-in-jail.html

[Occam's Banana]

It's unconstitutional to keep poor defendants in jail before their trial simply because they can't afford to pay bail. That's according to an amicus brief filed in federal court by the Justice Department on Friday, Reuters reports. According to NBC News, the Justice Department found that the practice violates the 14th Amendment and that bail amounts that don't take poverty into account "unlawfully discriminate based on indigence." It says courts must find a better way to make sure impoverished defendants show up to court than keeping them in jail.

If there is any such "better way," then why not apply it to all defendants (and not just "impoverished" ones)?

And actually, I think there is a "better way." The old device of "outlawry" should be revived ...

Duly notify defendants of criminal proceedings against them and afford them reasonable opportunity to participate in their own defense. If they choose to decline such participation, then try them in absentia. Whether they participate or not, if they are convicted and choose to refuse to submit to the sentence, then declare them to be "outlaws" - meaning that any and all protections of the law are to be withheld from them until they submit (e.g., they may not seek criminal prosecution against anyone else, no one else may be criminally prosecuted for anything done to them, etc.).

IOW: Flout the law, and the law will flout you right back ...


The brief was filed in the case of Maurice Walker. Walker, who is poor and has mental health issues, was arrested for being a pedestrian under the influence in Calhoun, Georgia, the Huffington Post reports. Court is only held once per week in Calhoun, and Walker was kept in jail for six days because he couldn't afford to pay the $160 bail for his freedom. The city argued that it's perfectly legal to set bail amounts based on the seriousness of crimes without any consideration for a defendant's ability to pay it. A federal court ruled against Calhoun, but the city appealed.

So ... "bail" in this case is just a way to try to layer $160 on top of whatever fine might be levied for "walking under the influence" ...

Is any other evidence needed that "bail" (as it is currently practiced) is merely another statist revenue-collection scam?

In fact, despite its ostensible purpose, at present "bail" is essentially just extortion by another name ...

[oyarde]

Feds , States and counties all violate the law with excessive fines , ( annotation 2 , Amendment 8 ) . Because of this they lose all credibility. It bothers me not when enforcement of these unlawful fines are meet with deadly violence. I view it as justified .

[roho76]

They should schedule a court case to judge if you're impoverished or not before the actual court case.

[tod evans]

They should schedule a court case to judge if you're impoverished or not before the actual court case.

That'll take LOTS more government employees........

Hey this is kind of sounding like building roads, bridges and dams...

[fisharmor]

They should schedule a court case to judge if you're impoverished or not before the actual court case.

They should take their laws about walking around under the influence and shove them up their asses.

That's how they keep us acclimated to having myriad laws against non-crimes. Nibbling around the edges of how fucked you are when you break them.
Never discussing whether or not the statute even addresses a problem to begin with.

[oyarde]

They should schedule a court case to judge if you're impoverished or not before the actual court case.

Median income where I live , minus taxes , 401k conntribution , health plan etc , on average right at about 100 FRN's per day . So take that and use it , no bail or fine for non violent crime to exceed one days wages. Walking while intoxicated should be legal.

[asurfaholic]

How do you determine if someone is poor enough for whatever bail amount is set? Round here all the crimes are commitedby the poor folks who come out of the ghettos in the night to rob us people who work for our stuff (I just had a $600 dewalt set robbed out of my locked work van behind a barbed wire fence with security cameras and lighting. 4 out of 7 vans were hit)

According to this the robber is likely poor, and so would not be able to afford the bail on the felonies he will face. So he will be free to roam until court finds him guilty? Naw man I say let him rot in jail. At least there he won't be ripping off any other hard working people of their tools so he can get high.

[specsaregood]

Arrested for being a pedestrian under the influence in Calhoun, Georgia, the Huffington Post reports. Court is only held once per week in Calhoun, and Walker was kept in jail for six days because he couldn't afford to pay the $160 bail for his freedom. The city argued that it's perfectly legal to set bail amounts based on the seriousness of crimes without any consideration for a defendant's ability to pay it

So they decided that walking around under the influence was serious enough of a "crime" to require $160 bail or 6 days in jail? I'd like to see the equation that came up with that solution.

[oyarde]

So they decided that walking around under the influence was serious enough of a "crime" to require $160 bail or 6 days in jail? I'd like to see the equation that came up with that solution.

Me too .

[asurfaholic]

Me too .

I agree that it shouldn't be illegal to be walking drunk and certainly isn't worth letting someone sit in jail over.

But what are you doing getting drunk and walking around if you don't have $160 to your name?

Priorities much? Why should I care about someone so irresponsible?

[Occam's Banana]

Why should I care about someone so irresponsible?

:confused: Who said you should?

[asurfaholic]

:confused: Who said you should?

Because that is sort of the implication. I'm supposed to feel bad for this poor guy since he got arrested for a crime that most liberty lovers detest - and because he was poor he stayed locked up. Sure, I hate the "crime" because I cannot fathom how it could even be legal to arrest someone for walking while drunk. Of course nobody told me I should feel bad for him, but that's the implication. I'd rather attack the crime, challenge that legal authority that the city has to regulate victimless behavior. But instead the debate is here because he was too poor to post bail. Yet he was getting drunk and walking the town. Makes it hard for me to emotionally attatch to this case since he's a friggen idiot. And the "debate" is whether "poor" people should be held to a bail they cannot afford.

So when that happens my mind jumps straight to defending the law- well the law is the law, what the hell is he doing going out getting drunk when he knows it's illegal in his town. Especially if he can't afford a bail that is probably a fraction of the amount that his drinking habit costs. And what makes him any different than the poor asshole who steals something and is "too poor" to post his bail? When the crime is real and the victims are real, will the "poor man" defense hold up? That makes me really really not care about this poor idiot.

When I was younger me and my friends would go midnight surfing down by the fishing pier all year long. The city ordinance is no surfing within 200' of the pier, but that's where all the lights were.... So we went. We were poor teenagers with just enough cash to buy weed and surf wax. But when we went down to surf the pier or when we decided to shoot the pier (ride under it) we always had to make sure we had enough money to pay the Man because some fucker would always call the cops. $25 fines each time. Best just to skateboard up to the town hall the next day and pay it. If your gonna intentionally break the rules, you have to be able to and ready to pay the consequences.

[tod evans]

Bondsmen gotta love this ruling..

[Working Poor]

How do you determine if someone is poor enough for whatever bail amount is set? Round here all the crimes are commitedby the poor folks who come out of the ghettos in the night to rob us people who work for our stuff (I just had a $600 dewalt set robbed out of my locked work van behind a barbed wire fence with security cameras and lighting. 4 out of 7 vans were hit)

According to this the robber is likely poor, and so would not be able to afford the bail on the felonies he will face. So he will be free to roam until court finds him guilty? Naw man I say let him rot in jail. At least there he won't be ripping off any other hard working people of their tools so he can get high.

So called crimes where there is no victim should not have to post bail but, when there is an actual victim of a crime they should have to pay or stay in jail.

[Occam's Banana]

Why should I care about someone so irresponsible?

:confused: Who said you should?
Because that is sort of the implication. I'm supposed to feel bad for this poor guy since he got arrested for a crime that most liberty lovers detest - and because he was poor he stayed locked up. Sure, I hate the "crime" because I cannot fathom how it could even be legal to arrest someone for walking while drunk. Of course nobody told me I should feel bad for him, but that's the implication. I'd rather attack the crime, challenge that legal authority that the city has to regulate victimless behavior. But instead the debate is here because he was too poor to post bail. Yet he was getting drunk and walking the town. Makes it hard for me to emotionally attatch to this case since he's a friggen idiot. And the "debate" is whether "poor" people should be held to a bail they cannot afford.

So when that happens my mind jumps straight to defending the law- well the law is the law, what the hell is he doing going out getting drunk when he knows it's illegal in his town. Especially if he can't afford a bail that is probably a fraction of the amount that his drinking habit costs. And what makes him any different than the poor asshole who steals something and is "too poor" to post his bail? When the crime is real and the victims are real, will the "poor man" defense hold up? That makes me really really not care about this poor idiot.

When I was younger me and my friends would go midnight surfing down by the fishing pier all year long. The city ordinance is no surfing within 200' of the pier, but that's where all the lights were.... So we went. We were poor teenagers with just enough cash to buy weed and surf wax. But when we went down to surf the pier or when we decided to shoot the pier (ride under it) we always had to make sure we had enough money to pay the Man because some fucker would always call the cops. $25 fines each time. Best just to skateboard up to the town hall the next day and pay it. If your gonna intentionally break the rules, you have to be able to and ready to pay the consequences.

Did it really take all that just to say "no one said I should" ... ?

[Christian Liberty]

If there is any such "better way," then why not apply it to all defendants (and not just "impoverished" ones)?

And actually, I think there is a "better way." The old device of "outlawry" should be revived ...

Duly notify defendants of criminal proceedings against them and afford them reasonable opportunity to participate in their own defense. If they choose to decline such participation, then try them in absentia. Whether they participate or not, if they are convicted and choose to refuse to submit to the sentence, then declare them to be "outlaws" - meaning that any and all protections of the law are to be withheld from them until they submit (e.g., they may not seek criminal prosecution against anyone else, no one else may be criminally prosecuted for anything done to them, etc.).

IOW: Flout the law, and the law will flout you right back ...



So ... "bail" in this case is just a way to try to layer $160 on top of whatever fine might be levied for "walking under the influence" ...

Is any other evidence needed that "bail" (as it is currently practiced) is merely another statist revenue-collection scam?

In fact, despite its ostensible purpose, at present "bail" is essentially just extortion by another name ...

From what I understand if the bail paying person goes to court he gets the money back, so its only revenue collection if he doesn't show up. That said I see your point

[asurfaholic]

Did it really take all that just to say "no one said I should" ... ?

Guess I just wanted to get some stuff off my chest :o

[asurfaholic]

So called crimes where there is no victim should not have to post bail but, when there is an actual victim of a crime they should have to pay or stay in jail.

Sounds like a reasonable solution. But then everyone will think that they shouldn't have to pay their speeding tickets and other various local infractions. We can't have that .... :eek:

[tod evans]

Sounds like a reasonable solution. But then everyone will think that they shouldn't have to pay their speeding tickets and other various local infractions. We can't have that .... :eek:

Oh yes we can.

If we fired all the 'officials' affiliated with such nonsense we'd save money too.

[asurfaholic]

Oh yes we can.

If we fired all the 'officials' affiliated with such nonsense we'd save money too.

But who would keep us safe?

[tod evans]

But who would keep us safe?

Don't forget about the roads....

[asurfaholic]

Don't forget about the roads....

That was my next question. Don't worry I can't forget about the roads. I don't want to go back to the horse drawn carriage days.

[RonPaulMall]

Because that is sort of the implication. I'm supposed to feel bad for this poor guy since he got arrested for a crime that most liberty lovers detest - and because he was poor he stayed locked up. Sure, I hate the "crime" because I cannot fathom how it could even be legal to arrest someone for walking while drunk. Of course nobody told me I should feel bad for him, but that's the implication. I'd rather attack the crime, challenge that legal authority that the city has to regulate victimless behavior. But instead the debate is here because he was too poor to post bail. Yet he was getting drunk and walking the town. Makes it hard for me to emotionally attatch to this case since he's a friggen idiot. And the "debate" is whether "poor" people should be held to a bail they cannot afford. .

The article says the guy is mentally ill. A lot of cities right now are dealing with hordes of drunk crazy homeless people that wander around cursing people and literally shitting in the middle of busy sidewalks and stuff. This is one of those issues where there really isn't a "good" libertarian response. In a true libertarian world we wouldn't have laws against public drunkenness but at the same time there would be private security who would beat the living crap out of people like this too ensure that they keep their public drunkenness far away from other people, homes, or businesses. If the person kept coming back, you might even have to kill them to resolve the problem. There isn't any clean or pretty solution to crazy, smelly, drunk, obnoxious, vagrants in any political system.

[tod evans]

The article says the guy is mentally ill. A lot of cities right now are dealing with hordes of drunk crazy homeless people that wander around cursing people and literally shitting in the middle of busy sidewalks and stuff. This is one of those issues where there really isn't a "good" libertarian response. In a true libertarian world we wouldn't have laws against public drunkenness but at the same time there would be private security who would beat the living crap out of people like this too ensure that they keep their public drunkenness far away from other people, homes, or businesses. If the person kept coming back, you might even have to kill them to resolve the problem. There isn't any clean or pretty solution to crazy, smelly, drunk, obnoxious, vagrants in any political system.

The simplest solution is to remove kops from the equation completely.

I have no problem running off riff-raff from my property or the neighbors, I do however have a problem when I'm arrested for doing so.