Front Page  »  

California implementing no cash bail system

August 29, 2018

Gov. Jerry Brown signing SB 10

California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law Tuesday a controversial bill that will eliminate the state’s existing money bail system and replace it with one in which defendants’ custody is determined based on assessments of their threat to public safety and likelihood to skip court. [Cal Coast Times]

When Senate Bill 10 takes effect on Oct. 1, 2019, defendants will no longer receive dollar bail amounts, and they will not have the opportunity to make a cash payment in order to be released. Rather, SB 10 will require court employees or contractors to carry out assessments of defendant’s risk to public safety and the likelihood they will miss a court date while awaiting trial.

Defendants deemed likely to appear and posing little risk to the public will be released. Those assessed to be high-risk defendants, such as individuals accused of violent crimes, will be held in jail.

Under the new bail system, each defendant will receive a categorization of being “low risk,” “medium risk” or “high risk.” Local courts will create their own rules for releasing defendants deemed to be medium risk.

Gov. Brown and legislative leaders are celebrating the new bail system as a measure that helps curtail inequality in society.

“Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly,” Brown said.

Initially, the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored the bill because it could end “predatory lending practices of the for-profit bail industry.” But after the bill was rewritten, the ACLU no longer supported the bill, saying it gave too much discretion to judges to keep people locked up awaiting trial.
Assemblyman Rob Bonta (D-Alameda), a co-author of SB 10, called the signing of the bill a step toward correcting a fundamental injustice.

“For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail. No more. Freedom and liberty should never be pay to play,” Bonta said.

Critics have said the legislation will result in numerous offenders skipping court and law enforcement becoming overwhelmed in their efforts to track down the defendants who fail to appear. Likewise, critics have said SB 10 will add to the problems created by recent legislation and initiatives in California that have reduced penalties for crimes and made it easier to gain release from custody.

In San Luis Obispo County, District Attorney Dan Dow responded to the signing of SB 10 by stating on Twitter, “Here we go… it will be a very interesting public safety experiment.”


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


30 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I seem to remember reading in the bird cage paper that there will be a need for counties to put together a panel to decide who meets the requirements to go home or who stays, guess what,that panel will be staffed with bleeding hearts and the ones that should be in jail or deported will be let off with no bail.


0

It’s a year away and you can tell us definitively who’s gonna staff those panels? You’re good! Who’s good for the 5th race at Aqueduct today? Maybe a horse? How ’bout the World Series? A baseball team? And the Super Bowl? A football team, right? That’s how broad your statement is My’, ’cause anyone caught on that panel will be considered a “bleeding heart” by folks like you no matter their political affiliation, right? Right!


0

If this was all about equal treatment by our legal system then only allow socialized lawyers to participate in the criminal justice process. No bail cost, no lawyer cost, wouldn’t this encourage swift justice?


-1

No and this fantasy comment is a nonstarter.


5

Oh boy!!!!!!! looks like Ca will be looking for a few hundred Bounty hunters soon!!!!


3

Didn’t read it did you? The Ca Bounty hunters will be moving elsewhere.


““predatory lending practices of the for-profit bail industry.” Includes Bounty hunters.


2

Oh yeah, I read it alright. Wont be any real paid bounty hunters needed cause there is no cash bail or bondsman. Good on ya moonbeam for putting them outta work also. Just Gov contracted “scum collectors” we’ll call em  to bring in the garbage in for sentencing. 


0

They already have them, they’re called law enforcement; they’re better equipped, have the best technology and the best resources available and are restricted by laws the bounty hunter isn’t.


1

Is this really more about saving the government money?


0

So as a taxpayer you want to pay to keep a shoplifter or drunk who does not have $500., in jail for a month or more? Feed them, doctors etc?


I know it’s a hard to tell but reducing government will reduce costs for the taxpayer.


Big government supporters and subtle racists, will down vote this comment as they are free to do so.


3

Hmmm, if they were really so worried about the poor why would they be so gung-ho on that gas tax? That hits the working poor harder than making bail. This seems odd to me.


8

Apples and oranges.


3

A sanctuary law for sure. We have low, medium and high risk. Sounds good unless you are a victim in a sanctuary city. Take San Francisco for example? I have no idea what they consider a high risk there unless it’s a crime against a politician or a judge along with their families. What a joke. Whatever happened to do the crime and serve the time. No doubt things need to be adjusted but there needs to be a guideline for these risk management levels to be uniform and uniformaly applied in the state.


5

Read the law ru’, first! Then you can make an informed opinion… just sayin’!


-2

I did read the law and that’s why I commented. The comment was concerning a uniform application of the law. Will the 3 categories of risk be the same thru out the state? Will the application of the different risk criteria be the same in a sanctuary city compared to a city that respects the law?

I have my doubts that there will be equal justice for the victims of crime.


4

Why wouldn’t they be? And why wouldn’t you think they wouldn’t, just because of your definition of respecting the law only pertains to cities that don’t see the current autocratic administrations attack on our constitution and laws as anything but respectful and aren’t fighting it? Your fear mongering needs some work though, it’s old and tired!

There will never be equal justice for victims, never. That was stolen at the time of the crime! I know, because I was that thief many, many, many times! I faced my victims in court, I’ve seen the looks on their faces and I know exactly what I’ve stolen from them, and it was much more than justice; it was their peace-of-mind and security, and no amount of justice, equal or not, will replace that.

What needs to be done is to make sure you’re not making that stolen justice complicit with a justice system that unequally doles out justice like candy! And what you allude to being equal justice isn’t that at all, it’s revenge you speak of, plane and simple! And that revenge? Is different for every person who is a victim of crime and wants your type of “equal justice”, so the bar is always moving. All the justice system should do is to make sure it is equal justice being served and not the different revenge some victims wants. That’s why Lady Justice is blind folded, holding a scale in one hand, and a sword in her other, representing, equality, impartiality and authority, something our type of justice is suppose to provide but does anything but these days…


-7

Equality? You say you were a thief many many many times? Then why in the hell are you out walking around? This is not equal justice, it appears that you should be locked up-3 strikes and you are out. Now that is justice for your past victims and probably for your current and future victims. You are a perfect example why people should be concerned about gun control.


-3

You know, I had this lengthy to the point response to your post but I’ll defer…

Thanks so much rukidding for proving my point for me! You did it in such a manner, with such candor and honesty, that I could never hope to do better.

Thanks Buddy!


1

One would think that convicts and criminals are a democrat voter base with the way California elected officials have been acting.


8

Bail has always been the right of the well off, the rich, not for the common accused, for them it’s out-of-reach in most every case and they languish in jail. The rich can then better mount a defense as they can be an integral part of it, the person in jail has no real influence or input into their own defense and usually pleads rather than face trial, something the justice system counts on to keep their conviction rate high.

What this new law is attempting to do is to level the playing field by equally considering the type of crime committed, the persons background and the likelihood of failing to appear and not the ability to pay what is most of time is “excessive bail” to the common accused, that’s all. Besides, just look at the preceding article here on CCN, that accused child molester, the one with a history of doin’ the same shit he’s accused of doing now? He wouldn’t get the mandated $200,000 bail, he’d get none! You’d object to that?

Convicts, in California, after completing their sentence and parole can be part of the voter base, some are Democrat, some are Republican but most are Independent as hell, like me. Most of them don’t vote though, as they see themselves as outcasts to a society that doesn’t accept them in any context, in any manner and are generally looked down on as irredeemable.

California has seen fit to at least try and buck the trend that most states seem to perpetuate, complete disenfranchisement and alienation from their communities and any say so in even the basic things that any other citizen would. The hope is that this inclusion into the most important part of any American’s civil duties, voting, will reconnect them and give them at least a small say so in what happens in the country, and the community, they also reside in, while making them feel less and less like a criminal and more and more like a citizen. Inclusion into a community can change a person mind, can give a person a sense of self worth and more importantly the knowledge that he or she has some worth to the community he or she resides in, expected to work in and pay taxes for. Excluding them only reinforces the idea that they are irredeemable and increases the likelihood he or she will reoffend.

But don’t worry though Rambo’, there will never be enough convict voters to ever effect an election, unless of course we lock up all the dirty ass republicans that are poppin’ up all over the map these days…. Just sayin’ (the truth)….


-7

What the law is designed to do? That is debatable. What it will do is get people hurt and or killed. Sometimes we don’t want people released back into the streets no matter how poor they are.


2

– “Sometimes we don’t want people released back into the streets no matter how poor they are.”

You know that’s straight up BS, right? What the current bail system has been [covertly] designed to do is leave the poor in jail, as they are perceived to have no real value to and are leaches on society anyway, while releasing those with perceived societal value back on the streets where a great deal often offend again while on bail. The poor are also more prone to maximum sentences while the rich get the minimum, even repeat offenders, and for the same damn crime(s).

What SB 10 is “intended” to do, and there’s is no guarantees anywhere in life, is to make sure the rich, the poor, the middle class at the time of arrest are subject to a fair and balanced system that is based on the person, his or her past criminal record, type of crime accused of and their risk of failing to appear, and not the person finances. It will try and insure everyone gets equal protection under the law at a critical juncture in our legal process, when a person has only been accused and not convicted.

Consider this rambo’; who has more of a incentive not to show up for court, a murderer or a petty thief? And if the accused murderer either knows he or she is guilty, or thinks he or she would be convicted of it, would any amount of bail make them come to trial? I don’t think so…


3

If a dangerous person is accused of a crime and a trial date is set I want to make sure that dangerous person shows up for his or her trial. Your hang ups on rich vs poor are not my concern. And they shouldn’t be the concern of Sacramento.


2

It is the concern of Sacramento! That’s where California’s legal system is based, where our law makers do their work and govern this state. Where would you have it done, Pacoima? Or maybe in your front room in between episodes of Dragnet and The Apprentice while awaiting Faux News?

“If a dangerous person is accused of a crime and a trial date is set I want to make sure that dangerous person shows up for his or her trial.” And that’s exactly what this law is attempting to do, no matter the accused financial or social status, period!

Y’all got a year to get over it, or change it, do one or the other or don’t, but it’s now the law.


0

“What it will do is get people hurt and or killed. ” So people with money are not a danger when bailed out but poor people are? That attitude is exactly why the law was passed, classicism is a thing and it’s often tied to racism in our society.


“Sometimes we don’t want” It’s not about what you want. A actual Judge will decide if someone is dangerous and remand them to jail, this is how it works.


2

Wow, those insults really add to the conversation.


Don’t like em, vote.


2

So no incentive to appear. Brilliant.


9

“So no incentive to appear. Brilliant.” It’s called failure to appear and it gets you a warrant and a trip to jail. But you can pretend bail is the only thing getting people into court if it makes you feel better.


3

My guess is that bounty hunters are all on board with this new rule…its a stupid thing to do and that will quickly become very apparent…


0

An FTA is also considered an “aggravating” circumstance in ones sentencing considerations, which in turn would negate any “mitigating” circumstances, which in turn would throw out the possibility of the low term sentence and take it right to the mid-term or maximum term sentence. The way you folks here on CCN think everyone arrested should be locked up forever, and for what ever crime even before conviction, an FTA should be one part of the holy grail for you, right?

I’d bet a dollar to a donut if this would have been Pete Wilson, or even Arnold, or any other so called “fiscally responsible” Republican doing this it would be hailed as a way of “saving the tax payer money”, right? No, you don’t have to agree, no need! It’s as plane as the nose on your fear manipulated partisan faces….


0