Justice Department Says Poor Can't Be Held When They Can't Afford Bail
Source: MSNBC
Holding defendants in jail because they can't afford to make bail is unconstitutional, the Justice Department said in a court filing late Thursday the first time the government has taken such a position before a federal appeals court.
It's the latest step by the Obama administration in encouraging state courts to move away from imposing fixed cash bail amounts and jailing those who can't pay.
"Bail practices that incarcerate indigent individuals before trial solely because of their inability to pay for their release violate the Fourteenth Amendment," the Justice Department said in a friend of court brief, citing the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection.
Read more: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/justice-department-says-poor-can-t-be-held-when-they-n634676
Democat
(11,617 posts)There is a reason that bail is set high for some types of serious crimes.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They seem more guilty if they have a hearing from inside a jail.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)inmates room and board, and can jail them until it is paid, More the jails are full , the more courts and judges are making!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)We need to abolish the multi-tier justice system in this country. One level for the wealthy, one level for middle class whites, and at least one level for everyone else.
elleng
(130,126 posts)(as a legal secretary, before law school.)
Syllabus
Appellant was given the maximum sentence for petty theft under Illinois law of one year' imprisonment and a $500 fine, plus $5 in court costs. The judgment, as permitted by statute, provided that, if, when the one-year sentence expired, he did not pay the monetary obligation, he had to remain in jail to work them off at the rate of $5 a day. While in jail, appellant, alleging indigency, unsuccessfully petitioned the sentencing judge to vacate that portion of the order confining him to jail after the sentence expired, because of nonpayment of the fine and cost. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected appellant's claim that the State statutory provision constituted discriminatory treatment against those unable to pay a fine and court costs, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of appellant's petition, holding that "there is no denial of equal protection of the law when an indigent defendant is imprisoned to satisfy payment of the fine."
Held: Though a State has considerable latitude in fixing the punishment for state crime, and may impose alternative sanction, it may not, under the Equal Protection Clause, subject a certain class of convicted defendants to a period of Imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely by reason of their indigency. Pp. 399 U. S. 239-245.
41 Ill.2d 511, 244 N.E.2d 197, vacated and remanded.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/235/
Akicita
(1,196 posts)fleabiscuit
(4,542 posts)Hekate
(90,189 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)marble falls
(56,358 posts)this isn't 1916 when a someone could go and disappear over a criminal charge.
Bail always seemed to fly in the face of a presumption of innocence even if bail was meant only to be bond to guarantee a court appearance.
PatSeg
(46,780 posts)It often seems like setting bail for the accused is in essence saying, "You are guilty until proven innocent, UNLESS of course you can afford bail". It is a very flawed system. Even people who can come up with the bail, often have to mortgage their homes and borrow from friends and relatives. I remember a woman who's whole life and her family's life was ruined because of this system, though in the end she was found innocent.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)tblue37
(64,979 posts)people, mostly POC, who were locked up because of low-level traffic offenses or because of warrants resulting from nonpayment of outrageously multiplying fines from low-level traffic or ordinance violations.
Also, even those who don't end up dead often end up beaten, and many end up losing their jobs and their homes because they re trapped in jail and can't get to work.
This is something that should have been dealt with a long, long time ago. I hope the current bail policy ends up being jettisoned altogether.
lsewpershad
(2,620 posts)Why did it take so long?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)tclambert
(11,080 posts)but jail seemed cheaper. Besides, he didn't really think we'd need them later. The other suggestion, by one of his advisers named John Swift, was to turn them into Soylent Green and eat them. I think the Spam lobby objected on the grounds it would depress prices for their product. Or they wanted the processing contract all to themselves.
Reagan knew, though, he had to make the poor disappear somehow. It made his rich friends feel bad if they had to see them.