Here is the business about bail. Bail exists for only one reason, to insure that those who are arrested for a crime will appear for their court trial. Bail is nothing more than an insurance bond to quarantee an appearance at trial. Obviously, those with means can buy this guarantee, while those without means, cannot. That introduces an anomaly in to the legal system, some are treated differently than others. Those who can afford to pay vs those who cannot. The legal system, at least in this country, is not to be based on monetary considerations, but on matters of law. There are only two solutions to this problem. One is to incarcerate anyone arrested for a crime until the time of their trial. The other is to simply eliminate bail, set the arrested free until their case has been adjudicated (no one is guilty of a crime until a jury has deemed them guilty) and then dispose of the case as the jury adjudicated. But the attempt to base this whole problem on wealth vs poverty ignores the legal basis. The legal structure of a society most definitely enshrines not only the legal but the economic relations between the members of that society. Understand that it is one piece, and that one part cannot be singled out to represent an anomaly that can be singled out for reform as if doing so will correct the system.
Hi Jack—I appreciate this comment. I agree that the legal and economic relations are entwined, but the laws are still mostly written by those with at least an adequate amount of money, who have no idea how ruinous even a few days in jail can be to a working person with no backing, no one to "bail them out" of a tough situation, even if it is of their own making. I also believe that incremental approaches can help tremendously, and cash bail is just one of the intertwined pieces that affect the poor and working class the most—but it doesn't mean we should do nothing about it.
Some things I understand about Judges sentencing people who break our laws here in the USA:
"Even all five fingers are not equal." That quote applies to life in general. People just happen to get lighter penalties than others all according to the crime that was committed. That decision comes from the judge hearing the case usually. Maybe take a closer look into the minds of the Judges as well as those who break our laws.
Thanks for your comment, Nanette. Yes, the fines for violations of law are set by law and the judge and/or juries apply them. Judges can waive certain fines in the interest of fairness, or if they believe through evidence submitted that no offense was committed, and this is usually only for very minor offenses. Poor people must comply with the law, too, and be punished if they violate any law.
Justice for all really seems a long way off right now, but I’m encouraged by posts like yours, which keep the issue of judicial inequality front and center.
Here is the business about bail. Bail exists for only one reason, to insure that those who are arrested for a crime will appear for their court trial. Bail is nothing more than an insurance bond to quarantee an appearance at trial. Obviously, those with means can buy this guarantee, while those without means, cannot. That introduces an anomaly in to the legal system, some are treated differently than others. Those who can afford to pay vs those who cannot. The legal system, at least in this country, is not to be based on monetary considerations, but on matters of law. There are only two solutions to this problem. One is to incarcerate anyone arrested for a crime until the time of their trial. The other is to simply eliminate bail, set the arrested free until their case has been adjudicated (no one is guilty of a crime until a jury has deemed them guilty) and then dispose of the case as the jury adjudicated. But the attempt to base this whole problem on wealth vs poverty ignores the legal basis. The legal structure of a society most definitely enshrines not only the legal but the economic relations between the members of that society. Understand that it is one piece, and that one part cannot be singled out to represent an anomaly that can be singled out for reform as if doing so will correct the system.
Hi Jack—I appreciate this comment. I agree that the legal and economic relations are entwined, but the laws are still mostly written by those with at least an adequate amount of money, who have no idea how ruinous even a few days in jail can be to a working person with no backing, no one to "bail them out" of a tough situation, even if it is of their own making. I also believe that incremental approaches can help tremendously, and cash bail is just one of the intertwined pieces that affect the poor and working class the most—but it doesn't mean we should do nothing about it.
Some things I understand about Judges sentencing people who break our laws here in the USA:
"Even all five fingers are not equal." That quote applies to life in general. People just happen to get lighter penalties than others all according to the crime that was committed. That decision comes from the judge hearing the case usually. Maybe take a closer look into the minds of the Judges as well as those who break our laws.
Thanks for your comment, Nanette. Yes, the fines for violations of law are set by law and the judge and/or juries apply them. Judges can waive certain fines in the interest of fairness, or if they believe through evidence submitted that no offense was committed, and this is usually only for very minor offenses. Poor people must comply with the law, too, and be punished if they violate any law.
Thank you Joan.
Justice for all really seems a long way off right now, but I’m encouraged by posts like yours, which keep the issue of judicial inequality front and center.
Thank you, Andrew. Unfortunately, I agree that Justice for all is a long way off.