I believe that this new "Money Bail Reform Act" form is a good idea in such reasons that this will end people who can't afford bail to be stuck in a jail cell while they wait for their trail. Now for the rich people this will have to make them getting used to not paying for everything to get out of their crime. Now the bad thing about this act is that yes, according to Jess Farris, racial dispute will still happen but I do disagree with what she claimed about "increase racial disparity" because no matter where you go their will always be crime and they should be held accountable for what they have committed. Another part of this act is the risk assessment will be replacing it for the people who wait in a jail cell for their trail. People no longer have to wait in a jail cell for their trails, instead it will go off a risk assessment which will basically put people in a rating and if that rating says that they are a risk then they will be held in a cell until their trail. ACLU is over exaggerating about this will harm communities such as "color, women, and low-income people" because yes I do agree that people will be biased, wishing it wasn't like this but this is life, against the system and take into consideration their wealth, status, job, race, etc. But in return I think that this is one big step for the justice and safety system and I do agree that this could in return start fixing, slowly but surely, all the unlawfully people that have been put into incarceration and start people the people who deserve to be in prison. Overall I agree that this assessment should take over bail but people have to remember that this is the first state to do this so anything could happen and it could turn out to be the worst idea ever or the best but in time we will see if this will become our new system -z33 711
I agree with you. I believe that they should go about this system. Rich people shouldn’t just be able to get because they have money. There is a lot of people that don’t have very much money that are accused of doing a crime that they did not commit. But because they don’t have money they can’t get out of jail and have to sit their till trial. ProbdrinkingStar$’s711
I completely agree with you. I think it is quite upsetting that this was originally allowed and that people were able to buy themselves out of jail while the poor sat in there unfairly. Rich people should not be allowed to have a free ride all because they have money and the fact that that is a thing is pretty upsetting. I do not believe that this will necessarily cause harm but I do believe it will take some getting used to. I like how people wont have to sit in their cells and that it will go off of a risk assessment. I also agree with you on the exaggeration of ACLU. I think they are being a little too dramatic over it. Racial dispute will always be a thing but I do believe that ultimately this is the way to go about it all fairly and just. -notacop711
I like the idea of bail reform and changing it to a system of risk assessment. Perhaps the ACLU is exaggerating about how this could still disproportionately affect minorities, women, and poor people but I don't think it's a totally unfounded assertion as our criminal justice system has a history of being harsher on those groups that have less power. I think things are moving in the right direction though and I'm glad California is at least trying something different. I would just be wary about how they are deciding who is more at risk and makes necessary precautions to avoid discrimination whenever possible. Avatar711
I feel like ending the bail reform is a good idea. I say this because in the article it says “"For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail”. Which is true, of the rich people are going to get out easier because they have money to get themselves out of trouble. That is not fair to other people at all, they could have done something bad to someone and they get bail and get out of it. Also, with the poor people, they won’t have no choice but to stay where they are because they don’t have any money to get themselves out like the rich. People literally must go through things just to get out, maybe just to come back. That’s the problem they invest in all this money to get out maybe a couple days to a week, just to go right back to jail. And half of the people that are on bail aren’t paying for their fines, their families is. Like a woman said in the article that they must empty their savings account, put up homes for collateral, and gone into debt to pay bail industry fees. That’s a lot from someone who didn’t commit a crime or anything. Ending is a good idea and I feel like more states or where ever they have them at should take that rule away because its affecting everyone in the family not just that one person. -BABYBLUE123
I agree with wanting to end bail reform. It’s not fair that the rich get to buy their freedom simply because they have money and are able to pay no matter what the crime when those who are poor cannot afford to pay the bail and are forced to stay locked up even with the most minor crimes. I also concur that bail reform affects the families as well as the individual. I personally had an experience with this. My ex-husband was arrested for a crime he didn’t commit but since we could not afford to pay the $5000 bail we decided to put the car we had just purchased up for collateral and we ended up losing it so that affected our ability to get around and for me to get to my job which I ended up losing. -BoyMom711
Yes I agree with you because some people would be waiting months maybe years on the trail date to be set just for them to get found not guilty due to lack of evidence or if they're simply not guilty in the first place. They can be out trying to live a better life. KenzieLand711
I believe that this bail reform act can be very beneficial but can also still come with some negativity. I liked to see that in the article it stated that “"Abolishing money bail and replacing it with a risk-based system will enhance justice and safety," Rob Bonta, a Democratic member of the California State Assembly, said in a statement. "For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail. No more. Freedom and liberty should never be pay to play." I am glad to see that it will be a lot more difficult for upper class citizens to buy or pay their way out of a crime or the bail that was set for them and force them to take responsibility for the crime that they chose to commit. While also giving the lower class citizens a chance to not just sit in jail and as stated before languish. Also it give the lower class citizens the opportunity to continue providing for their families instead of sitting in jail awaiting trial. So instead the women putting their house up for collateral as stated in the article it could also help the homeless population go down. Another positive outcome that comes from the bail reform is that if it keeps low risk suspects out of the jails then it will be saving them money because it is one less person that the jail has to house and also pay for. The negative is the discrimination during the risk assessment process because that is most likely always going to be their. I think that that is a shame because it puts them at a disadvantage in comparison to rich people going through the risk assessment. -mmmChicken711
-mmmChicken. I totally agree, the mental game pay to play for freedom is far from being honorable. The fact is, it is a very true within our criminal justice system. With that kind of justice set up, the poor are left completely helpless. It is by far not a fair system; however, I am not sure there is a better solution to the problem. -CoalRoller
The California bail reform act is a big step heading in the right direction to even the playing field for the rich and poor. Many other states such as New Jersey, Kentucky, and New Mexico have overhauled their bail reform, but California is the first state to completely eliminate it starting in 2019. In a statement by Democrat Rob Bonta sums up this article about California and bail reform really well. He states that "For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail. No more. Freedom and liberty should never be pay to play." There are too many nonviolent poor people who are behind bars when they pose no threat to society. These people committed a minor crime, crimes that were not a treat to other people, but because they do not have the money to pay bail they have to sit in jail. Now with this bail reform act instead of the rich being able to pay their way out of spending time in jail, it will be judge on risk assessment. By judging on risk assessment this will keep the streets safer by keeping the actual violent offenders behind bars. Even though that this sounds good, which it is, it will still have its problems. Jess Farris states in this article that even though this bill replaces a flawed system it could be replaced with an increase in pretrial detention and increase in racial disparity. Farris also states that these risk assessments should be conducted by an independent agency, rather than probation officials, so that there would not be any bias. I do agree with Jess Farris that the risk assessments should be conducted by independent agencies to try to keep bias thoughts out of the decision, so that nonviolent poor or rich people are kept out of jail. –ClarkKent711
I agree with you. With the bail reform this is an advantage to the the poor and a disadvantage to the rich. The rich should not be able to pay their way out while the poor sits and wait for trial. Nonviolent people should not have to sit in jail. However, this does cause problems. This raises obstacles for the race card to be played. ~Justice711
First I would like to say that this Bail Reform Act is a huge step in the right direction for putting an end to mass incarceration. One thing i do not like about this article is the negativity towards the act. Yes there are a lot of concerns mentioned but the act itself is pf good intention and should celebrated more than criticized. Jess Farris shows concern about the people doing the assessments of the accused, saying that it should up to an independent agency instead of probation officials. I can see the concern here because of issues of discrimination, however i feel as though if this is truly an issue do we have the right people working in and for our justice system? These people should be judge free and judging only the accused crime and determining on just that, the crime. Race color and ethnicity should not be a concern although it is and unfortunately i feel it may always be an issue that we struggle with not just in the U.S. but globally. I propose a solution that could sound dumb in way but could also be effective. What if the accused priors and history were given those doing the assessment but race and ethnicity were left out and there was no in person interaction between the assessor and the accused? I know that can sound dumb because person to person interaction probably plays a huge role in the assessment but it is just a thought that ran through my head while i was reading about the potential problems with the act. - RickyBobby711
I strongly agree with your first statement- the Bail Reform Act that was just implemented in California is a right step in putting an end to the mass incarceration problem in the United States. I also agree with you in that race color and ethnicity should not be important in judging people, but I would also like to add people of wealth/poor to that list. People with money should not always be allowed to buy themselves out of trouble just because they can afford to. GMan219711
I think ending bail is a good idea because I feel like it’s more fair to everyone. There are innocent people that are sitting in jail right now because either they can't afford bail or their family can't afford bail. People that are wealthy normally don't have a problem affording bail. I feel like the risk assessments are not taken into consideration when the people who are wealthy pay their bail because they can buy their freedom even if they pose a threat. I don’t think it’s right that the people who are wealthy can afford their freedom and the people who are not, have to sit in jail. Some people have to sit in jail for weeks and sometimes months and some of those people are actually innocent. Some people go into debt trying to pay bail. Someone people have to get second jobs or give up something that is expensive that they worked for. I think it’s a good idea for people to remain in jail if they’re considered dangerous to the public. If they’re not considered dangerous than they should be released from jail. I agree with the independent agency looking at the risk assessments before realising someone just to make sure that they don't poses a safety concern. I like the idea of the government funding programs to help the attendance for court. Providing a bus fare will be beneficial because some people don't have a way to get to court and I also like the phone reminders because some people do forget that they have court. California is ending bail and I feel like if we keep going in this direction, the amount of people that are incarcerated will decrease. I feel like the justice system will be more fair if the bail was ended and there won't be as many poor people in jail as there is now. -Soccer31711
I agree with you that bail should be ended. People should be able to have a fair trial without sitting behind bars while trying to get things prepared for their trial. We would not have to pay to keep the poor people in jail when they could be out and getting ready for trial. -crispychicken711
After reading the article about the California Money Bail Reform Act, which is a new act, first implemented in California on Tuesday of last week, I feel excited to see how it will pan out, and also if other states will follow in their steps in attempts to help create a more fair criminal justice system. Essentially, this act completely does away with the practice of releasing suspects from jail as they await trial if they put up money as a surety they'll return for their court dates, and instead, implements a new system that was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, and takes effect in October 2019. The new system basically says that people awaiting trial will only be jailed only if they are considered a risk to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates. To me, this is a great idea that should’ve been implemented or at least attempted many years ago with how serious our prison population has grown, and with how many people can’t afford their bails. Another reason I find this a great idea is because of the fact that half of all people who can’t afford bail are parents to juveniles under the age of 18. Most of the time, with situations like this, the parents just made a stupid mistake and don’t deserve to have to sit in prison for something petty and be separated from their kids. I feel like this new law will be very successful and will surely follow in many states to come in the near future, once positive results have been seen from it. Something else that is positive that will come from this is that it will teach those very wealthy individuals who can always seemingly buy their way out of trouble, that you can no longer always buy yourself out of trouble. This implements a much more fair system across the economy levels because regardless of how much money you’re worth, you will be going to jail/prison if you’re a threat to society/are likely to miss your upcoming court dates. GMan219711
I disagree with this new act. Keep it the way it is. This to will be flawed down the road. Will fill up prisons at record pace and just become an overall big problem for the state of California. There is a reason they are the first state to do this. It will lead to innocent people being put into jail because they want to "treat everybody fairly". Next. I'm a big believer in not filling prisons up to full. -Bearsfan98
I honestly do not know how this is all going to play out. I see both sides on how the people could be for or against this. I think that it is a great idea for the innocent non dangerous people to not have to pay to get out of jail. It makes sense to not have to pay any sort of money if you have not been convicted or said that you are guilty. Now on the other hand I can also see how this may not be such a great idea on how they will decide who is safe and not safe to be let back out into the streets. I think that this will make for more people to be stuck in jail while they wait for their court hearings. This will cause the jails to spend more money. They will have to feed the inmates and pay more correctional officers to take care of them. They might even have to add on to their facilities in order to house all of the new inmates that will not be set free because someone else thinks that they pose a threat to society. The article also talks about maybe having a third party group decide whether to let the suspects go or decide if they need to be locked up for a longer period of time instead of the jails themselves. I like the idea of a third party agency doing it to prevent more biased convictions. Whether this idea backfires on California or not I do feel that this is a good idea to at least try out. It could work out great and most people get set free and return for their court dates or it could go bad and we end up locking more people up and costing us more money then we really need to be spending. -Steel711
I agree with you steel711. I can see why people are for and also agaisnt this. I think if you havent done anything wrong and you don’t cause any harm to society you shouldnt have to pay to get out of jail. But also like you said how are we suppose to know who isnt gonna harm anything and will be safe to let out into society. Therefore, I see both ways and maybe one day their will be a better system. -ny711
After watching the Affluenza video, I had some very mixed emotions towards this case. I felt very upset for the people who lost their lives in this accident and for their families. On the other hand, I was angry at the fact that Ethan Couch pretty much got away with murder and received no real punishment to make him pay for the multiple crimes he committed. The thing that bothered me the most was the fact that after the crash, Ethan Couch decided to walk away from the crime scene instead of trying to help others. Another thing that really made me mad was how Ethan never said he was sorry to any of the families that were affected by his actions. After the crash, Ethan was taken to the hospital and there they found out that he not only had been drinking that night, but he also had traces of drugs in his system. In my opinion, Ethan Couch should have been sentenced to some prison time for killing innocent civilians while being under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Instead of being incarcerated, Ethan was then put on probation for ten years which absolutely taught him no lesson at all. The way he received this “punishment” was after the judge stated that the teen had affluenza. In my opinion, Ethan was just never punished as a child and was not told the word “NO” one single time in his life. Ethan’s parents were not smart parents whatsoever. They never knew what was going on in their child’s life and they never disciplined him one single time. The fact that the father lied about punishing Ethan one time by making him walk to school for a month and Ethan saying he did not recall that ever happening shows that Ethan’s parents are terrible. They let their child drive at the age of thirteen and without a parent in the car with him. To me that sounds like two crimes right there. Along with Ethan being put on probation, he also was forced to attend a rehab facility. So Ethan pretty much had no punishment whatsoever. After two years of being on probation, the fact that someone caught Ethan Couch drinking and partying after all he had done shows that Ethan has some mental issues that cannot be fixed and that he needs to be locked away. Ethan Couch sees himself as better than everyone else and was obviously not sorry or upset about the crimes he had committed two years before. I thought it was very brave that a random girl stood up and told authorities about Ethan going out and partying which broke his probation rules. Once Ethan found out about someone posting a video of him on social media, he decided that running away with his mother would be the best option. I think his actions are of someone who is careless, immature, and just straight up ridiculous. The fact that he thought he could run from the U.S. by entering into Mexico shows he is not a smart human being. It also shows that his mother is not much smarter than he is for trying to help him escape. I think Ethan and his mother should spend a long period of time behind bars. The way that Ethan and his parents thought of themselves as better than everyone else really bothered me. I think a little punishment will do quite well for this dysfunctional family. KiiNG007
I think this new law is a very nice way to be neutral and understanding from both ways. In the article it states, "under the new law, people awaiting trial will be jailed only if they are considered a risk to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates". Then it states "Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly." I could not agree with this more, as it is very upsetting that prior to this happening, it was based off of that. That is extremely wrong. In the article it also stated that the wealthy has been allowed to purchase their freedom while the poor would simply languish in jail. This is too true. To have allowed the option for the richer to buy themselves out of jail is revolting while the poor who there may have been many that were not as guilty as those that could buy themselves out, that destroys the justice system and ultimately defeats the purpose of going to jail. There are no lessons learned from that except that our justice system is greedy and will take the money over justice. As lawmakers and people to uphold it, they need to do right and that was not right. This will absolutely enhance justice and safety. People need to only be jailed past breaking the law, but with the fact if they are a risk to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates. That is what the law is about. It is sad that this was a thing and I have never been exposed to much regarding the law and all that goes into it and I am glad that they are making positive changes to prove and show that they are trying to treat the poor and rich fairly. -notacop711
I think getting rid of bail is the wrong decision. Some people will sit in jails and holding cells for weeks at a time for a wrong dumb little crime. I think bail should be used throughout the United States. But the California Governor is saying that people will only be jailed if they are considered a risk to the public which I agree with. That being said if they are going to let people live outside of jail until they convicted then we as the United States do not need bail. I do agree with the article, as it states that cash bail keeps to many lower income individuals behind bar while awaiting trial. Bail in my opinion favors the rich and wealthy people. When a wealthy person commits a crime they can just post bail money and get out of jail until their court date. That's not the case with lower income individuals. I agree with the article as it states “This bill unfortunately replaces that flawed system with one that could increase pretrial detention and increase racial disparity". I think bail has a huge play with racial disparity, and pretrial detention. Residents of California think that this bill that is going to be passed will just keep more people behind bars, while awaiting their trial and sentencing. Which I totally agree with, I think we should just keep the bail industry around, and get more people out of jail in a faster manner for a little crime they committed. People who were initially against bail have turned for bail to keep this new bill from passing. But officials in California think it's a step towards making their criminal justice system fairer. I am for bail in this article, I think we should keep around the old fashion ways, to keep less people out of jail. I-Like-Cereal711
I think that the California Money Bail Reform Act is a great da and that many other states should follow. This ends the temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, on condition that a sum of money be lodged to guarantee their appearance in court. Instead they will only be jailed if they are a risk to k to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates. I think this is a great idea and it really insures that poor and rich people are treated fairly. Plus a lot of innocent people are sitting in jail just because they did not have money. I also agree this is a huge step for the system and it will push other states to follow. Especially sense to post a Bail Bond, a defendant is usually required to pay a Bail bondsman 10% of the bail amount. The Bail bondsman will then secure the rest of the bail amount in the form of collateral. If the defendant does not have enough collateral, the Bail Bondsman might seek out relatives and friends to assist in covering the bail. Often times, an additional cash payment plus full collateral is required for a Bail Bond to be posted. This is a very harsh and expensive, not to mention unfair. Only rich people would be able to pull this off so a lot of the times people just sit in jail and await trail which is costly. This act I think is a great solution to the problem and I believe that the risk factor system they have in replacement for the bonds will be effective. I also believe that we will see that many states will follow. -pizza711
I think the fact California ending cash bail for people awaiting trail is good. Many people are in jail on bond because they don't have money to bond out and with that being sad the prisons are increasing because people can't pay money to be let out on bond. I seen on dateline Friday how there is an organization that raised enough Money to help the people in jail on bond get out with money people donated to help those people in jail. The episode of dateline was discussing the same thing we talk about in class like how prisons are getting bigger and bigger due to the fact poor people are in their because they don't have money and their family don't have money. I think other states need to take this into consideration and do the same thing because if the person is not a threat to society there is no reason they are in jail as if they pose a threat to society. I feel like they should also do it because their is other countries that do this so if they want research on the pros and cons they can find it real easy. I find it interesting that they actually took it into consideration and followed through with getting rid of bail. I wouldn't of thought they actually would've went through with it and got rid of it. I agree that bail industries engages in predatory lending particularly toward poor communities of color. So getting rid of bail can in fact make the justice system a little more fair considering the type of people who was still in jail on bond who couldn't afford to make bail. It isn't fair how one person can be in jail for the same crime as a person who have money that can bond out if they have enough money to do so, bond was never meant to be fair it was for privileged people. -jollyrancher711
I don't agree with this being a right or wrong statement adding the bail reform act. I do think that the one in position to change the rules are doing well that they are thinking about the bail but i also don't think that getting rid of bail is going to fix the whole problem. What if you were someone who got sent to jail for an act you didn't commit and you had a funeral to go to the next morning. In california you most likely won't make it to that funeral. Now i do know that it is a money problem for the poor and the middle class also, but if you do have the money to get of on bail to go to your sister's wedding because the night before you were jailed for a DUI but you should be allowed to leave with bail so you don't miss the wedding. Also on the other end of the deal the rich can commit a crime to get into jail and and just easily pay it off on the spot and not sit in jail even a minute of their pretty little time. I do think it is ridiculous how we also have the rich creating the bail reform, yet they are gonna hate when they get caught for a DUI and have to sit in jail with their work pants on. I do personally think that having a bail is a good idea, I think getting rid of it will make more people frustrated than happy just because some people do time when they really should not have to.Personally in the end of the day I think they should keep the jail bail because of the fact some people should not be in for the things they do, also they should be able to leave if they absolutely need to.-MyHandle711
The one thing California does that I know from experience from living there is that the state makes things a lot worse for itself on things that they thought needed fixed. However, this is not one of those things. I agree with what they are doing with the bail reform. I do agree that the issue does help people with lower income get out easier if they aren’t really a danger to society. It is nice to see the state of California actually do something beneficial for its people. If this has truly been in the works for the past two years I hope to see other states follow in place, but still have it place actual dangerous people behind bars and not someone who smoked a blunt in public in jail for years. Also if California makes this work hopefully it will decrease the incarceration rate and no longer make us the jailest country in the world. As Rob Bonta stated in the article the risk based system will enhance our justice system. While a group believe this will bring more diversity to an already problematic system that has used diversity to judge someone by their ethnicity and background. It was also nice to see New York and other states have cities already abolish jail bond throughout the state. -Rollforinitiative711
I believe that this new "Money Bail Reform Act" form is a good idea in such reasons that this will end people who can't afford bail to be stuck in a jail cell while they wait for their trail. Now for the rich people this will have to make them getting used to not paying for everything to get out of their crime. Now the bad thing about this act is that yes, according to Jess Farris, racial dispute will still happen but I do disagree with what she claimed about "increase racial disparity" because no matter where you go their will always be crime and they should be held accountable for what they have committed.
ReplyDeleteAnother part of this act is the risk assessment will be replacing it for the people who wait in a jail cell for their trail. People no longer have to wait in a jail cell for their trails, instead it will go off a risk assessment which will basically put people in a rating and if that rating says that they are a risk then they will be held in a cell until their trail. ACLU is over exaggerating about this will harm communities such as "color, women, and low-income people" because yes I do agree that people will be biased, wishing it wasn't like this but this is life, against the system and take into consideration their wealth, status, job, race, etc.
But in return I think that this is one big step for the justice and safety system and I do agree that this could in return start fixing, slowly but surely, all the unlawfully people that have been put into incarceration and start people the people who deserve to be in prison.
Overall I agree that this assessment should take over bail but people have to remember that this is the first state to do this so anything could happen and it could turn out to be the worst idea ever or the best but in time we will see if this will become our new system
-z33 711
I agree with you. I believe that they should go about this system. Rich people shouldn’t just be able to get because they have money. There is a lot of people that don’t have very much money that are accused of doing a crime that they did not commit. But because they don’t have money they can’t get out of jail and have to sit their till trial. ProbdrinkingStar$’s711
DeleteI completely agree with you. I think it is quite upsetting that this was originally allowed and that people were able to buy themselves out of jail while the poor sat in there unfairly. Rich people should not be allowed to have a free ride all because they have money and the fact that that is a thing is pretty upsetting. I do not believe that this will necessarily cause harm but I do believe it will take some getting used to. I like how people wont have to sit in their cells and that it will go off of a risk assessment. I also agree with you on the exaggeration of ACLU. I think they are being a little too dramatic over it. Racial dispute will always be a thing but I do believe that ultimately this is the way to go about it all fairly and just. -notacop711
DeleteI like the idea of bail reform and changing it to a system of risk assessment. Perhaps the ACLU is exaggerating about how this could still disproportionately affect minorities, women, and poor people but I don't think it's a totally unfounded assertion as our criminal justice system has a history of being harsher on those groups that have less power. I think things are moving in the right direction though and I'm glad California is at least trying something different. I would just be wary about how they are deciding who is more at risk and makes necessary precautions to avoid discrimination whenever possible.
DeleteAvatar711
I feel like ending the bail reform is a good idea. I say this because in the article it says “"For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail”. Which is true, of the rich people are going to get out easier because they have money to get themselves out of trouble. That is not fair to other people at all, they could have done something bad to someone and they get bail and get out of it. Also, with the poor people, they won’t have no choice but to stay where they are because they don’t have any money to get themselves out like the rich. People literally must go through things just to get out, maybe just to come back. That’s the problem they invest in all this money to get out maybe a couple days to a week, just to go right back to jail. And half of the people that are on bail aren’t paying for their fines, their families is. Like a woman said in the article that they must empty their savings account, put up homes for collateral, and gone into debt to pay bail industry fees. That’s a lot from someone who didn’t commit a crime or anything. Ending is a good idea and I feel like more states or where ever they have them at should take that rule away because its affecting everyone in the family not just that one person. -BABYBLUE123
ReplyDeleteI agree with wanting to end bail reform. It’s not fair that the rich get to buy their freedom simply because they have money and are able to pay no matter what the crime when those who are poor cannot afford to pay the bail and are forced to stay locked up even with the most minor crimes. I also concur that bail reform affects the families as well as the individual. I personally had an experience with this. My ex-husband was arrested for a crime he didn’t commit but since we could not afford to pay the $5000 bail we decided to put the car we had just purchased up for collateral and we ended up losing it so that affected our ability to get around and for me to get to my job which I ended up losing. -BoyMom711
DeleteYes I agree with you because some people would be waiting months maybe years on the trail date to be set just for them to get found not guilty due to lack of evidence or if they're simply not guilty in the first place. They can be out trying to live a better life. KenzieLand711
DeleteI believe that this bail reform act can be very beneficial but can also still come with some negativity. I liked to see that in the article it stated that “"Abolishing money bail and replacing it with a risk-based system will enhance justice and safety," Rob Bonta, a Democratic member of the California State Assembly, said in a statement. "For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail. No more. Freedom and liberty should never be pay to play." I am glad to see that it will be a lot more difficult for upper class citizens to buy or pay their way out of a crime or the bail that was set for them and force them to take responsibility for the crime that they chose to commit. While also giving the lower class citizens a chance to not just sit in jail and as stated before languish. Also it give the lower class citizens the opportunity to continue providing for their families instead of sitting in jail awaiting trial. So instead the women putting their house up for collateral as stated in the article it could also help the homeless population go down. Another positive outcome that comes from the bail reform is that if it keeps low risk suspects out of the jails then it will be saving them money because it is one less person that the jail has to house and also pay for. The negative is the discrimination during the risk assessment process because that is most likely always going to be their. I think that that is a shame because it puts them at a disadvantage in comparison to rich people going through the risk assessment. -mmmChicken711
ReplyDelete-mmmChicken. I totally agree, the mental game pay to play for freedom is far from being honorable. The fact is, it is a very true within our criminal justice system. With that kind of justice set up, the poor are left completely helpless. It is by far not a fair system; however, I am not sure there is a better solution to the problem. -CoalRoller
DeleteThe California bail reform act is a big step heading in the right direction to even the playing field for the rich and poor. Many other states such as New Jersey, Kentucky, and New Mexico have overhauled their bail reform, but California is the first state to completely eliminate it starting in 2019. In a statement by Democrat Rob Bonta sums up this article about California and bail reform really well. He states that "For too long, our system has allowed the wealthy to purchase their freedom regardless of their risk, while the poor who pose no danger languish in jail. No more. Freedom and liberty should never be pay to play." There are too many nonviolent poor people who are behind bars when they pose no threat to society. These people committed a minor crime, crimes that were not a treat to other people, but because they do not have the money to pay bail they have to sit in jail. Now with this bail reform act instead of the rich being able to pay their way out of spending time in jail, it will be judge on risk assessment. By judging on risk assessment this will keep the streets safer by keeping the actual violent offenders behind bars. Even though that this sounds good, which it is, it will still have its problems. Jess Farris states in this article that even though this bill replaces a flawed system it could be replaced with an increase in pretrial detention and increase in racial disparity. Farris also states that these risk assessments should be conducted by an independent agency, rather than probation officials, so that there would not be any bias. I do agree with Jess Farris that the risk assessments should be conducted by independent agencies to try to keep bias thoughts out of the decision, so that nonviolent poor or rich people are kept out of jail. –ClarkKent711
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. With the bail reform this is an advantage to the the poor and a disadvantage to the rich. The rich should not be able to pay their way out while the poor sits and wait for trial. Nonviolent people should not have to sit in jail. However, this does cause problems. This raises obstacles for the race card to be played. ~Justice711
DeleteFirst I would like to say that this Bail Reform Act is a huge step in the right direction for putting an end to mass incarceration. One thing i do not like about this article is the negativity towards the act. Yes there are a lot of concerns mentioned but the act itself is pf good intention and should celebrated more than criticized. Jess Farris shows concern about the people doing the assessments of the accused, saying that it should up to an independent agency instead of probation officials. I can see the concern here because of issues of discrimination, however i feel as though if this is truly an issue do we have the right people working in and for our justice system? These people should be judge free and judging only the accused crime and determining on just that, the crime. Race color and ethnicity should not be a concern although it is and unfortunately i feel it may always be an issue that we struggle with not just in the U.S. but globally. I propose a solution that could sound dumb in way but could also be effective. What if the accused priors and history were given those doing the assessment but race and ethnicity were left out and there was no in person interaction between the assessor and the accused? I know that can sound dumb because person to person interaction probably plays a huge role in the assessment but it is just a thought that ran through my head while i was reading about the potential problems with the act. - RickyBobby711
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with your first statement- the Bail Reform Act that was just implemented in California is a right step in putting an end to the mass incarceration problem in the United States. I also agree with you in that race color and ethnicity should not be important in judging people, but I would also like to add people of wealth/poor to that list. People with money should not always be allowed to buy themselves out of trouble just because they can afford to. GMan219711
DeleteI think ending bail is a good idea because I feel like it’s more fair to everyone. There are innocent people that are sitting in jail right now because either they can't afford bail or their family can't afford bail. People that are wealthy normally don't have a problem affording bail. I feel like the risk assessments are not taken into consideration when the people who are wealthy pay their bail because they can buy their freedom even if they pose a threat. I don’t think it’s right that the people who are wealthy can afford their freedom and the people who are not, have to sit in jail. Some people have to sit in jail for weeks and sometimes months and some of those people are actually innocent. Some people go into debt trying to pay bail. Someone people have to get second jobs or give up something that is expensive that they worked for. I think it’s a good idea for people to remain in jail if they’re considered dangerous to the public. If they’re not considered dangerous than they should be released from jail. I agree with the independent agency looking at the risk assessments before realising someone just to make sure that they don't poses a safety concern. I like the idea of the government funding programs to help the attendance for court. Providing a bus fare will be beneficial because some people don't have a way to get to court and I also like the phone reminders because some people do forget that they have court. California is ending bail and I feel like if we keep going in this direction, the amount of people that are incarcerated will decrease. I feel like the justice system will be more fair if the bail was ended and there won't be as many poor people in jail as there is now. -Soccer31711
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that bail should be ended. People should be able to have a fair trial without sitting behind bars while trying to get things prepared for their trial. We would not have to pay to keep the poor people in jail when they could be out and getting ready for trial. -crispychicken711
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article about the California Money Bail Reform Act, which is a new act, first implemented in California on Tuesday of last week, I feel excited to see how it will pan out, and also if other states will follow in their steps in attempts to help create a more fair criminal justice system. Essentially, this act completely does away with the practice of releasing suspects from jail as they await trial if they put up money as a surety they'll return for their court dates, and instead, implements a new system that was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, and takes effect in October 2019. The new system basically says that people awaiting trial will only be jailed only if they are considered a risk to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates. To me, this is a great idea that should’ve been implemented or at least attempted many years ago with how serious our prison population has grown, and with how many people can’t afford their bails. Another reason I find this a great idea is because of the fact that half of all people who can’t afford bail are parents to juveniles under the age of 18. Most of the time, with situations like this, the parents just made a stupid mistake and don’t deserve to have to sit in prison for something petty and be separated from their kids. I feel like this new law will be very successful and will surely follow in many states to come in the near future, once positive results have been seen from it. Something else that is positive that will come from this is that it will teach those very wealthy individuals who can always seemingly buy their way out of trouble, that you can no longer always buy yourself out of trouble. This implements a much more fair system across the economy levels because regardless of how much money you’re worth, you will be going to jail/prison if you’re a threat to society/are likely to miss your upcoming court dates. GMan219711
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this new act. Keep it the way it is. This to will be flawed down the road. Will fill up prisons at record pace and just become an overall big problem for the state of California. There is a reason they are the first state to do this. It will lead to innocent people being put into jail because they want to "treat everybody fairly". Next. I'm a big believer in not filling prisons up to full. -Bearsfan98
ReplyDeleteI honestly do not know how this is all going to play out. I see both sides on how the people could be for or against this. I think that it is a great idea for the innocent non dangerous people to not have to pay to get out of jail. It makes sense to not have to pay any sort of money if you have not been convicted or said that you are guilty. Now on the other hand I can also see how this may not be such a great idea on how they will decide who is safe and not safe to be let back out into the streets. I think that this will make for more people to be stuck in jail while they wait for their court hearings. This will cause the jails to spend more money. They will have to feed the inmates and pay more correctional officers to take care of them. They might even have to add on to their facilities in order to house all of the new inmates that will not be set free because someone else thinks that they pose a threat to society. The article also talks about maybe having a third party group decide whether to let the suspects go or decide if they need to be locked up for a longer period of time instead of the jails themselves. I like the idea of a third party agency doing it to prevent more biased convictions. Whether this idea backfires on California or not I do feel that this is a good idea to at least try out. It could work out great and most people get set free and return for their court dates or it could go bad and we end up locking more people up and costing us more money then we really need to be spending. -Steel711
ReplyDeleteI agree with you steel711. I can see why people are for and also agaisnt this. I think if you havent done anything wrong and you don’t cause any harm to society you shouldnt have to pay to get out of jail. But also like you said how are we suppose to know who isnt gonna harm anything and will be safe to let out into society. Therefore, I see both ways and maybe one day their will be a better system. -ny711
DeleteAfter watching the Affluenza video, I had some very mixed emotions towards this case. I felt very upset for the people who lost their lives in this accident and for their families. On the other hand, I was angry at the fact that Ethan Couch pretty much got away with murder and received no real punishment to make him pay for the multiple crimes he committed. The thing that bothered me the most was the fact that after the crash, Ethan Couch decided to walk away from the crime scene instead of trying to help others. Another thing that really made me mad was how Ethan never said he was sorry to any of the families that were affected by his actions. After the crash, Ethan was taken to the hospital and there they found out that he not only had been drinking that night, but he also had traces of drugs in his system. In my opinion, Ethan Couch should have been sentenced to some prison time for killing innocent civilians while being under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Instead of being incarcerated, Ethan was then put on probation for ten years which absolutely taught him no lesson at all. The way he received this “punishment” was after the judge stated that the teen had affluenza. In my opinion, Ethan was just never punished as a child and was not told the word “NO” one single time in his life. Ethan’s parents were not smart parents whatsoever. They never knew what was going on in their child’s life and they never disciplined him one single time. The fact that the father lied about punishing Ethan one time by making him walk to school for a month and Ethan saying he did not recall that ever happening shows that Ethan’s parents are terrible. They let their child drive at the age of thirteen and without a parent in the car with him. To me that sounds like two crimes right there. Along with Ethan being put on probation, he also was forced to attend a rehab facility. So Ethan pretty much had no punishment whatsoever. After two years of being on probation, the fact that someone caught Ethan Couch drinking and partying after all he had done shows that Ethan has some mental issues that cannot be fixed and that he needs to be locked away. Ethan Couch sees himself as better than everyone else and was obviously not sorry or upset about the crimes he had committed two years before. I thought it was very brave that a random girl stood up and told authorities about Ethan going out and partying which broke his probation rules. Once Ethan found out about someone posting a video of him on social media, he decided that running away with his mother would be the best option. I think his actions are of someone who is careless, immature, and just straight up ridiculous. The fact that he thought he could run from the U.S. by entering into Mexico shows he is not a smart human being. It also shows that his mother is not much smarter than he is for trying to help him escape. I think Ethan and his mother should spend a long period of time behind bars. The way that Ethan and his parents thought of themselves as better than everyone else really bothered me. I think a little punishment will do quite well for this dysfunctional family. KiiNG007
ReplyDeleteI think this new law is a very nice way to be neutral and understanding from both ways. In the article it states, "under the new law, people awaiting trial will be jailed only if they are considered a risk to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates". Then it states "Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly." I could not agree with this more, as it is very upsetting that prior to this happening, it was based off of that. That is extremely wrong. In the article it also stated that the wealthy has been allowed to purchase their freedom while the poor would simply languish in jail. This is too true. To have allowed the option for the richer to buy themselves out of jail is revolting while the poor who there may have been many that were not as guilty as those that could buy themselves out, that destroys the justice system and ultimately defeats the purpose of going to jail. There are no lessons learned from that except that our justice system is greedy and will take the money over justice. As lawmakers and people to uphold it, they need to do right and that was not right. This will absolutely enhance justice and safety. People need to only be jailed past breaking the law, but with the fact if they are a risk to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates. That is what the law is about. It is sad that this was a thing and I have never been exposed to much regarding the law and all that goes into it and I am glad that they are making positive changes to prove and show that they are trying to treat the poor and rich fairly. -notacop711
ReplyDeletemy post above was supposed to be in reply to KiiNG007 and I meant to put 007 at the end of my reply, not 711! Whoooops! -notacop007
DeleteI think getting rid of bail is the wrong decision. Some people will sit in jails and holding cells for weeks at a time for a wrong dumb little crime. I think bail should be used throughout the United States. But the California Governor is saying that people will only be jailed if they are considered a risk to the public which I agree with. That being said if they are going to let people live outside of jail until they convicted then we as the United States do not need bail. I do agree with the article, as it states that cash bail keeps to many lower income individuals behind bar while awaiting trial. Bail in my opinion favors the rich and wealthy people. When a wealthy person commits a crime they can just post bail money and get out of jail until their court date. That's not the case with lower income individuals. I agree with the article as it states “This bill unfortunately replaces that flawed system with one that could increase pretrial detention and increase racial disparity". I think bail has a huge play with racial disparity, and pretrial detention. Residents of California think that this bill that is going to be passed will just keep more people behind bars, while awaiting their trial and sentencing. Which I totally agree with, I think we should just keep the bail industry around, and get more people out of jail in a faster manner for a little crime they committed. People who were initially against bail have turned for bail to keep this new bill from passing. But officials in California think it's a step towards making their criminal justice system fairer. I am for bail in this article, I think we should keep around the old fashion ways, to keep less people out of jail.
ReplyDeleteI-Like-Cereal711
I think that the California Money Bail Reform Act is a great da and that many other states should follow. This ends the temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, on condition that a sum of money be lodged to guarantee their appearance in court. Instead they will only be jailed if they are a risk to k to public safety or likely to miss their future court dates. I think this is a great idea and it really insures that poor and rich people are treated fairly. Plus a lot of innocent people are sitting in jail just because they did not have money. I also agree this is a huge step for the system and it will push other states to follow. Especially sense to post a Bail Bond, a defendant is usually required to pay a Bail bondsman 10% of the bail amount. The Bail bondsman will then secure the rest of the bail amount in the form of collateral. If the defendant does not have enough collateral, the Bail Bondsman might seek out relatives and friends to assist in covering the bail.
ReplyDeleteOften times, an additional cash payment plus full collateral is required for a Bail Bond to be posted. This is a very harsh and expensive, not to mention unfair. Only rich people would be able to pull this off so a lot of the times people just sit in jail and await trail which is costly. This act I think is a great solution to the problem and I believe that the risk factor system they have in replacement for the bonds will be effective. I also believe that we will see that many states will follow. -pizza711
I think the fact California ending cash bail for people awaiting trail is good. Many people are in jail on bond because they don't have money to bond out and with that being sad the prisons are increasing because people can't pay money to be let out on bond. I seen on dateline Friday how there is an organization that raised enough Money to help the people in jail on bond get out with money people donated to help those people in jail. The episode of dateline was discussing the same thing we talk about in class like how prisons are getting bigger and bigger due to the fact poor people are in their because they don't have money and their family don't have money. I think other states need to take this into consideration and do the same thing because if the person is not a threat to society there is no reason they are in jail as if they pose a threat to society. I feel like they should also do it because their is other countries that do this so if they want research on the pros and cons they can find it real easy. I find it interesting that they actually took it into consideration and followed through with getting rid of bail. I wouldn't of thought they actually would've went through with it and got rid of it. I agree that bail industries engages in predatory lending particularly toward poor communities of color. So getting rid of bail can in fact make the justice system a little more fair considering the type of people who was still in jail on bond who couldn't afford to make bail. It isn't fair how one person can be in jail for the same crime as a person who have money that can bond out if they have enough money to do so, bond was never meant to be fair it was for privileged people. -jollyrancher711
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this being a right or wrong statement adding the bail reform act. I do think that the one in position to change the rules are doing well that they are thinking about the bail but i also don't think that getting rid of bail is going to fix the whole problem. What if you were someone who got sent to jail for an act you didn't commit and you had a funeral to go to the next morning. In california you most likely won't make it to that funeral. Now i do know that it is a money problem for the poor and the middle class also, but if you do have the money to get of on bail to go to your sister's wedding because the night before you were jailed for a DUI but you should be allowed to leave with bail so you don't miss the wedding. Also on the other end of the deal the rich can commit a crime to get into jail and and just easily pay it off on the spot and not sit in jail even a minute of their pretty little time. I do think it is ridiculous how we also have the rich creating the bail reform, yet they are gonna hate when they get caught for a DUI and have to sit in jail with their work pants on. I do personally think that having a bail is a good idea, I think getting rid of it will make more people frustrated than happy just because some people do time when they really should not have to.Personally in the end of the day I think they should keep the jail bail because of the fact some people should not be in for the things they do, also they should be able to leave if they absolutely need to.-MyHandle711
ReplyDeleteThe one thing California does that I know from experience from living there is that the state makes things a lot worse for itself on things that they thought needed fixed. However, this is not one of those things. I agree with what they are doing with the bail reform. I do agree that the issue does help people with lower income get out easier if they aren’t really a danger to society. It is nice to see the state of California actually do something beneficial for its people. If this has truly been in the works for the past two years I hope to see other states follow in place, but still have it place actual dangerous people behind bars and not someone who smoked a blunt in public in jail for years. Also if California makes this work hopefully it will decrease the incarceration rate and no longer make us the jailest country in the world. As Rob Bonta stated in the article the risk based system will enhance our justice system. While a group believe this will bring more diversity to an already problematic system that has used diversity to judge someone by their ethnicity and background. It was also nice to see New York and other states have cities already abolish jail bond throughout the state.
ReplyDelete-Rollforinitiative711