>

Ig that's what happens when criminals aren't locked up for their crimes. It also leads to cops being worse at their jobs since there's no point in trying to catch criminals that are gonna be released the next day anyway. Shitty situation all around
Same as that guy who ran over people in the Wisconsin parade, out on bail and probably shouldn’t have been. (If he had been in IL which had bail reform he would not have been let out.)
This is why bail is absurd. Either you are a threat/flight risk and should be held pre-trial or you aren’t. Money should have nothing to do with it. >

Bail is a little bit more nuanced than people make it out to be.  Entirely eliminating bail or severely restricting it's use leads to what has happened in New York.  There is still a place for bail.
I absolutely agree, INITIALLY you are either a threat/flight risk or you are not.  If you aren't a risk, you get released without bail.  But, what if you are released and you don't show up to court?  What then?  Warrant, back to jail.  Should that person then have to sit there until trial?  No, generally they should get offered bail.  So, they bail for say $250.  Still don't show up to court.  Warrant, eventually back to jail.  Well, now they have to bail for $1,000.  So, they do, still fail to show up to court and once again a warrant is issued and they are back in jail.  They either rinse and repeat, bail and show up, or stay incarcerated until their trial date.
Another example of when bail might be appropriate is perhaps someone is arrested for their 9th open offense.  They have three different trespass cases, five shoplifting cases and a minor drug offense.  Through this process of book and constant release, they are missing court date after court date.  They get picked back up, back to jail, new court date issued, back out on the street.  They are forever just pushing out their court dates and never appearing.  Maybe, on this new minor shoplifting offense, it's time a judge sets bail?
There are a lot of people in society that have nothing to lose, or just don't care, and will not show up to court.  There's also people who posting $100 bail is a massive incentive enough to show to court, so they get their $100' back.  Outright saying we should eliminate all cash bail fails to address the systemic issue of incentivizing people to show up to court when they outright refuse to. >


There are a lot of people in society that have nothing to lose, or just don’t care, and will not show up to court.  

There aren’t, really. For the vast majority of people, picking up and leaving their homes, jobs, families, communities, and/or social circles is just not feasible.

There’s also people who posting $100 bail is a massive incentive enough to show to court, so they get their $100’ back.  

Those kind of people don’t have the resources to skip town over an offense so minor they could pay their way out of pre-trial detention for $100. And it’s usually more than that, like a few hundred at least. For me that’s not a whole lot of money and even I don’t have the wherewithal to skip town and go on the lam.

Outright saying we should eliminate all cash bail fails to address the systemic issue of incentivizing people to show up to court when they outright refuse to.

Most people will do this. Some people have difficulty doing this for transportation/childcare/job reasons which is a whole other issue and those people would have trouble paying bail anyway. Some people who have a lot of money may skip out - those kind of people should be treated as a flight risk and it may be appropriate to put them on monitored house arrest. Then there are folks who don’t show up because they are in a whole other jurisdiction, perhaps detained/incarcerated there for some other reason, or the court just has the wrong address for them, and the system is not too forgiving about this kind of thing. Ask a defense attorney or public defender.
The number of people who just say “fuck it” and don’t show up is pretty small. >


The number of people who just say “fuck it” and don’t show up is pretty small.

You still fail to come up with a way to address the underlying problem that bail is trying to address.  And I believe you are severely underestimating the amount of people who refuse to show up to court.  The system doesn't have to worry about people that have a home, job families or social circles.  Those people already show up to court - or generally don't commit crimes at the rates I'm speaking about.  We are talking about people who have 15, 20, 25, 30 arrests in the past 10 years.

Most people will do this. Some people have difficulty doing this for transportation/childcare/job reasons which is a whole other issue and those people would have trouble paying bail anyway. Some people who have a lot of money may skip out - those kind of people should be treated as a flight risk and it may be appropriate to put them on monitored house arrest.

The people we are talking about don't have permanent addresses.  They stay with other people, couch surf, frequently evicted, etc.  The individuals I'm talking about don't have jobs.  They frequently change phone numbers because they are disconnected.  These individuals are in and out of jail on new offenses. >


The system doesn’t have to worry about people that have a home, job families or social circles.  

I don’t know what you are thinking in your head but most of the people who get arrested and charged with crimes are in fact normal people with lives, families, friends, and even jobs. People who break the law are not some anomalous breed of human.
Later on in your post you talk about chronic unemployable types who couch-surf and you’re maybe thinking about folks who don’t have stable housing or employment. They really don’t have the resources to flee or hide from the law. >


I don’t know what you are thinking in your head but most of the people who get arrested and charged with crimes are in fact normal people with lives, families, friends, and even jobs. People who break the law are not some anomalous breed of human.

Well this just isn't true at all.  Its not even close to true.  Most people who get arrested have a long history of arrests.  How many times have you been arrested?  Never?  No kidding.  The guy who killed the cop in this article:
"The suspect, William Shae McKay, 44, of San Bernardino County, had a long and violent criminal history stretching back to before 2000 that included kidnapping, robbery and multiple arrests for assault with a deadly weapon, including the stabbing of a California Highway Patrol dog, the sheriff said."
Have you ever walked a block in a dangerous neighborhood?  Because in a lot of places, 3/4 of the people you pass on the street have criminal records, some of them pages long. >


Well this just isn’t true at all.  Its not even close to true.  Most people who get arrested have a long history of arrests.  

I would like to know what your basis for this statement is. Where is the data to back this up?

How many times have you been arrested?  Never?

If that’s the case I am, by definition, not in the category of “most people who have been arrested.”

The guy who killed the cop in this article:

Hold up there. What relevance does this have to “most people who have been arrested?” How do you know where he falls on the bell curve of people who have been arrested at least once?

Have you ever walked a block in a dangerous neighborhood?

Have you? Most of those people have families, friends, places where they live, and jobs - even if they also have records. >

The sheriff said McKay had been convicted of a “third strike" offense last year that should have put him in state prison for 25 years to life but a San Bernardino County judge lowered his bail, allowing his release, and later released him following an arrest for failing to appear at his sentencing. >

This judge should have some type of repercussion. But that probably won’t happen. Wrong call on the county judge. So terrible for this officers family. >

Isn’t that the same guy stabbed K9 last year? How the fuck he got away from that? Lawlessness in this country never cease the amaze me. >

Yeah, wild west in La La Land. >

san bernadino isnt in la la land >

Well, neither is Jurupa Valley nor Norco, but San Bernardino is easy to shit on. 909! >

Dude shoulda been in jail with that laundry list of crimes. >

Jails are overcrowded in both Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Unless it’s a violent crime you will get bailed out. I remember a guy out on bail for car theft, arrested again for car theft( passed out in stolen car with coke and a weapon in his lap. Let out on remand the next day >

He was convicted in a case involving kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon in Nov 2021 and was out on bail before sentencing. Skipped out on sentencing, arrested, and given bail again. >

In a state with progressive bail reform laws (ooh, scary, I know!) like Illinois he would not have been eligible for bail at all after something like that! Bail is stupid. >

My condolences to the family and department. Third time looser out on bail prior to sentencing. Judge in this case should share the blame. >

I wish we could find out who the judge is so we can vote them out. >

If you kill a cop chances are you won't make it to trial. >

Appears he was a complete waste of space.