Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Shawn's avatar

It strikes me that two things are true at once here. One, that he absolutely should not have been granted such a low bail. Two, that cash bail is almost always something that penalizes the poor, not the worst offenders. This isn't a matter of 'true communism has never been tried.' It's been demonstrated that cash bail is a way for lots of places to keep their poorest offenders in jail, where they are then charged for it, and then are imprisoned longer because of their inability to pay. It is decidedly un-egalitarian that one's wealth should decide whether or not they are in prison.

Again, none of this means that this person should have been granted such a low bail. But that doesn't take away that cash bail is a racket designed to punish the poor.

Expand full comment
City Mom's avatar

The purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant shows up for court, not to punish defendants before they can be tried. Imposing reflexively high bail on all defendants may be politically popular, but it amounts to a presumption of guilt against the indigent, who are given the choice between pleading guilty or serving an entire sentence while awaiting trial. On the flip side, a wealthy person who can post a large bail may still pose a danger to the community. Imagine that the Waukesha defendant had posted bail of $10,000 or even $100,000. Does anyone think that would have stopped him, in the agitated state he was in, from driving into the parade? Higher bail would not have saved those people.

There is a solution here, and that is to deny bail altogether for defendants who are deemed to be dangerous or a flight risk. Force judges to go on record when making those determinations, and bring those cases to trial quickly. For other defendants, bail should be affordable, and not more than necessary to assure the defendant's return to court.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...
ErrorError