The US Constitution is inconvenient. It explicitly prohibits excessive bail. The desire of conservatives to use bail to keep poor defendants in jail pending trial shows that they don't believe in the Constitution. We have an almost absolute right to be released pending trial unless the prosecution can prove that you are a flight risk or …
The US Constitution is inconvenient. It explicitly prohibits excessive bail. The desire of conservatives to use bail to keep poor defendants in jail pending trial shows that they don't believe in the Constitution. We have an almost absolute right to be released pending trial unless the prosecution can prove that you are a flight risk or an immediate danger, and there is a very high standard for such proof (as there should be).
The problem is not low or zero bail. The problem is more systemic and Brooks is a case in point: There has been an arrest warrant out for him from Nevada for five years, for failure to appear at a court hearing. Brooks has been arrested since then, but was never extradited. Most states are happy not to extradite because (1) it costs a lot of money, and (2) the fugitive is now another state's problem. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes to incarcerate people who are out of sight, out of mind.
And that gets to the other issue: Having had already failed to appear and fled another state is clear evidence of being a flight risk, and the long rap sheet of violent crimes means that he should not get the usual benefit of the doubt. Brooks is exactly the kind of person who should have been remanded pending trial and denied any bail. But if we did that to everyone in such a situation it would require raising taxes to build more jails.
The anti-tax movement of the past 50 years has had negative consequences. In most of the US, the entire law enforcement and criminal justice system is grossly underfunded, with too small police departments, too few prosecutors, judges, and courtrooms, and nobody wanting a jail in their nice neighborhood -- but too many people doing prison time for minor drug offenses, in places where the prisons are a major source of employment. The entire system is screwed up and we aren't willing to change it.
It is an important political point that many places that pride themselves as being "tough on crime" actually underfund their police departments, and many places that conservatives would call "soft on crime" actually spend way more public money on law enforcement.
I write to express support for Charlie Hall. He's right about bail. The purpose of bail is not to punish for an alleged, but to ensure a person shows up for court. Of course, the more serious the crime, the more likely one might flee and thus bail with a serious felony would be higher for that reason.) But he's also right in pointing out the FTAs (failure to appear) in other states. That's huge evidence of a flight risk which gives a judge the authority to set a higher than usual bail (for the crime) or deny bail altogether.
If we didn't jail so many non-violent offenders and take up precious court time and resources with those cases would we have to build more jails? I'm not entirely convinced. We have the highest incarceration rate in the developed world. If we were to properly refocus on treatment and diversion for non-violent offenses that could very well provide plenty of room in prisons and the courts to handle actual bad guys. Heck, we may even be able to tear some of these prisons down.
New York State has closed over two dozen prisons or other correctional facilities in the past dozen years. There has been massive pushback from the powerful public employee unions and from the communities that have lost their main source of employment. But Bully Andrew Cuomo just ran roughshod over them all. At least one of the prisons is now used as a set for movies and television programs.
The US Constitution is inconvenient. It explicitly prohibits excessive bail. The desire of conservatives to use bail to keep poor defendants in jail pending trial shows that they don't believe in the Constitution. We have an almost absolute right to be released pending trial unless the prosecution can prove that you are a flight risk or an immediate danger, and there is a very high standard for such proof (as there should be).
The problem is not low or zero bail. The problem is more systemic and Brooks is a case in point: There has been an arrest warrant out for him from Nevada for five years, for failure to appear at a court hearing. Brooks has been arrested since then, but was never extradited. Most states are happy not to extradite because (1) it costs a lot of money, and (2) the fugitive is now another state's problem. Nobody wants to pay higher taxes to incarcerate people who are out of sight, out of mind.
And that gets to the other issue: Having had already failed to appear and fled another state is clear evidence of being a flight risk, and the long rap sheet of violent crimes means that he should not get the usual benefit of the doubt. Brooks is exactly the kind of person who should have been remanded pending trial and denied any bail. But if we did that to everyone in such a situation it would require raising taxes to build more jails.
The anti-tax movement of the past 50 years has had negative consequences. In most of the US, the entire law enforcement and criminal justice system is grossly underfunded, with too small police departments, too few prosecutors, judges, and courtrooms, and nobody wanting a jail in their nice neighborhood -- but too many people doing prison time for minor drug offenses, in places where the prisons are a major source of employment. The entire system is screwed up and we aren't willing to change it.
It is an important political point that many places that pride themselves as being "tough on crime" actually underfund their police departments, and many places that conservatives would call "soft on crime" actually spend way more public money on law enforcement.
I write to express support for Charlie Hall. He's right about bail. The purpose of bail is not to punish for an alleged, but to ensure a person shows up for court. Of course, the more serious the crime, the more likely one might flee and thus bail with a serious felony would be higher for that reason.) But he's also right in pointing out the FTAs (failure to appear) in other states. That's huge evidence of a flight risk which gives a judge the authority to set a higher than usual bail (for the crime) or deny bail altogether.
Great post.
If we didn't jail so many non-violent offenders and take up precious court time and resources with those cases would we have to build more jails? I'm not entirely convinced. We have the highest incarceration rate in the developed world. If we were to properly refocus on treatment and diversion for non-violent offenses that could very well provide plenty of room in prisons and the courts to handle actual bad guys. Heck, we may even be able to tear some of these prisons down.
New York State has closed over two dozen prisons or other correctional facilities in the past dozen years. There has been massive pushback from the powerful public employee unions and from the communities that have lost their main source of employment. But Bully Andrew Cuomo just ran roughshod over them all. At least one of the prisons is now used as a set for movies and television programs.