As we discussed in the previous post, the phrase “big deal” can mean several things. Let’s look at it from a totally different perspective.
There is much disagreement as to the amount of racism that exists in governmental agencies. All of us view it from our perspective, our world, and conclude that if we have or haven’t seen racism, that is the way it is across the country. Even for those who believe that systemic racism exists and is prevalent throughout our society, when it comes right down to it, they admit that white officers shooting a black citizen due to racism is a very small part of the racial problem in America. It gets the airtime because it is much more sensational than addressing other issues that might have bigger consequences.
One of the systems that gets attacked for being racist, is the bail system. The argument goes something like this. “If you are rich, you can afford bail so in most cases, you spend no time in jail.” “The bail system unfairly targets people of color as it is more likely they will not be able to afford bail.”
I took Archery at Cerritos College decades ago but this much I remember. The target was what you were trying to hit–not the innocent bystander.
Just as in my last post, I emphasized that calling something by what is indisputable, is always more helpful than using an inflammatory name or phrase. While I do not believe that the bail system is racist in nature, it does appear to affect people of color in much greater numbers than whites due simply to the economics of it. One could easily argue that this isn’t fair.
As I was easily bailed out when I was arrested for grand theft, I never had a second thought about the justice involved in our bail system.
In doing some research on the current bail system, I was surprised to look in detail at some of the unfortunate consequences of this system
I spent some additional time speaking with Officer Malloy this week who explained from his perspective how the bail system works. The following is a summary of that discussion.
The purpose of bail is, of course, to ensure you show up for your hearing. When you are pulled over for a simple traffic violation, after you are cited, the officer gives you a citation to sign that states–“I promise to appear without admitting guilt”.
As the severity of the violation increases, the likelihood of being arrested and incarcerated increases. If arrested, then the option of “bailing out” comes into play. In many jurisdictions, there is a schedule used to determine the bail amount. The judge often has the option to increase or decrease the bail amount or to eliminate it entirely.
There are certain statutes which state the violation is so serious that bail is disallowed. A judge may also determine that either the flight risk is too high or potential danger to the public is too great to allow the suspect to be freed on bail.
Other factors that can affect whether or not a suspect is offered the bail option is the amount of crowding in the corresponding penal facilities at the time of the offense. Make sure you check with your local jail system as to its occupancy level before committing your next crime:)
In the opinion of Officer Malloy, the system is fair as it provides a standardized bail amount to match the violation with flexibility for the judge to modify it based on a person’s criminal history or lack thereof, their stability in society when looking at such things as housing, employment, civic participation, etc. The ability of the offender to pay is not considered. Per Officer Malloy, that is a social problem which the justice system is not equipped to address.
What are some of the problems created by our current bail system? It is logistically impossible to hold a trial for every person who is arrested–there are just too many. This puts pressure on the prosecution to get plea deals whenever possible.
Often, if the arrestee is unable to pay the bail, they are given the option to plead guilty and be returned to freedom, or be confined because they can’t afford the bail. But that plea deal can be very costly as it must be stated on job applications for years.
What are the potential consequences to not being able to afford bail even for a minor offense? Loss of employment, loss of housing, sexual assault in jail, etc.
I was shocked to learn that (depending on what statistics you look at) anywhere from 60%-90% of the inmates would not be incarcerated if they could afford bail.
It is easy for me to sit in my comfortable house and say, those are the consequences for breaking the law. But I need to ask this question. Is there a flaw in the system because it ties freedom to the ability to pay? If the bail system is truly intended to make sure the suspect attends their hearing, and that is able to be accomplished by removing the link between one’s economic standing and freedom, who would be against it?–besides bail bondsmen and bounty hunters.
Is there a better way? I was intrigued to read about such groups as the Bronx Freedom Fund which for years provided the bail funds for non-violent offenses along with reminders to appear. According to their records, 96% of the people for whom they provided bail made their court dates. If you think that is surprising, check this out. In 10 years, they bailed out more than 2000 people. Of those, 60% of those had their cases dismissed and less than 2% received a jail sentence. So who would have benefitted had those people not been bailed out? And who would have been hurt with scars that would last a lifetime had they been left in jail?
Another program which was a spin-off of the above organization, is The Bail Project. They don’t just pay the bail but collaborate with the offenders to connect them to social services who work with them to eliminate obstacles–like transportation and childcare which could prevent them from appearing in court.
Do you have any other ideas? I work for a company which one of its constant themes is –“Is there a better way?” I hope the above thoughts encourage us to look for the same when we find injustice in our world.