• Raiderkev@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    But bail is supposed to be set relative to the amount of money the defendant has and the crime committed. Kinda defeats the purpose if the dude just got piles of magic Internet money to post bail.

    • kibblebits@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Bail is a system to oppress poor people. Bail should not exist. He should either be released until trial or held until trial (I side with holding him).

      Gov says, “here is an amount we know you don’t have!”

      Then they somehow raise that money from the community.

      Now Gov says you can’t use that money because we never were gonna let you out.

      That’s the part that is wrong.

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Let’s back up a step. In common law, bail is the set of conditions imposed on someone in exchange for their not being held in custody until trial. In the US, that primarily includes being required to post a bond or some other surety, but it can also include conditions such as not approaching trial witnesses, not leaving town, etc.

        And it’s entirely reasonable that, if you’re posting a surety, it has to be something of your that’s at risk. Otherwise, you’ve got no skin in the game, which defeats the purpose of the surety, which is to ensure you don’t skip down before the trial.

        Based on that, bail’s a good thing in general. The thing that’s fucked up in the US is the over-reliance on posting a bond and the excessive size of bonds that are required, and that’s what disproportionately hurts poorer people.