NationStates Jolt Archive

that people who are awaiting trial stay in jail with everyone else?

It seems to me that someone shouldn't be put in jail with convicted criminals until one is convicted... perhaps people should be put in temporary sorts of prisons until they're either convicted or found to be innocent.

that people who are awaiting trial stay in jail with everyone else?

It seems to me that someone shouldn't be put in jail with convicted criminals until one is convicted... perhaps people should be put in temporary sorts of prisons until they're either convicted or found to be innocent.

You can post bail.

You can post bail.

who can afford bail though?

You can post bail.
Not if you don't have money or if it's denied...

Not if you don't have money or if it's denied...

Yep, though the latter is usually only the case if the judge thinks you're a flight risk.

Not if you don't have money or if it's denied...

The money is returned at the end of the trial. And bail is almost always granted unless the crime is especially heinous or the judge thinks the person would flee the country.

I never really understood bail. There's the obvious problem that it gives the rich (or at least the non-poor) an obvious advantage over others, sure, but I'm not that bothered about that. What I really don't get is why they stop at "pay us to let you go" - they're the government, why not just steal and sell all the detained person's belongings while they're detained instead of/as well as the kidnapping and ransom?! Wouldn't that get them much more money?

The money is returned at the end of the trial. And bail is almost always granted unless the crime is especially heinous or the judge thinks the person would flee the country.

but if you don't have that lump sum to get bail you end up in prison. i always thought it was a strange system.

I never really understood bail. It gives the rich (or at least the non-poor) an obvious advantage, sure, but what I really don't get is why they stop at "pay us to let you go" - they're the government, why not just steal and sell all the detained person's belongings while they're detained instead/as well as the kidnapping and ransom?! Wouldn't that get them much more money?
they usually only actually make you pay about 10% of it, and give it back after the trial if you show up.

I never really understood bail. It gives the rich (or at least the non-poor) an obvious advantage, sure, but what I really don't get is why they stop at "pay us to let you go" - they're the government, why not just steal and sell all the detained person's belongings while they're detained instead/as well as the kidnapping and ransom?! Wouldn't that get them much more money?

Well for one, that would be morally reprehensible as well as a violation of a persons rights. And bail is like a security deposit to the government. You're giving them an assurance that you will show up for your court date.

that people who are awaiting trial stay in jail with everyone else?Depends on where you are. In some countries, you're thrown in jail before trial as a matter of course. This is typically true for 3rd world nations, semi-fascist regimes & other hellholes with injustice systems.

In slightly more sane countries, you're usually only thrown in jail before trial if the police can convince a judge that you're either highly likely to flee, or that your continued freedom will interfere with their investigation. In such places you're usually locked up in a special facility that aims not to punish you, but simply to isolate you from the world.It seems to me that someone shouldn't be put in jail with convicted criminals until one is convicted... perhaps people should be put in temporary sorts of prisons until they're either convicted or found to be innocent.Can't disagree with you there. If you're interested in finding out more or perhaps involve yourself in treating prisoners more humanely, I suggest you get in touch with the local ABC (http://www.anarchistblackcross.org/abc/help.html) group.

The money is returned at the end of the trial. And bail is almost always granted unless the crime is especially heinous or the judge thinks the person would flee the country.
But what if you don't have the money to start with?

Well for one, that would be morally reprehensible as well as a violation of a persons rights. And bail is like a security deposit to the government. You're giving them an assurance that you will show up for your court date.

ah well, that makes sense. no-one had ever mentioned the reasoning behind it before. and i suppose banks or other lenders are willing to hand out loans for sums that are to be returned anyway?

Well for one, that would be morally reprehensible as well as a violation of a persons rights.
lol that's not a reason not to do it. :p

And bail is like a security deposit to the government. You're giving them an assurance that you will show up for your court date.

ah i see... but, (depending on the severity of the crime) if you really did it, surely losing the money is less of a problem than actually showing up to be convicted?

But what if you don't have the money to start with?

You can call a Bail Bondsman, or if you can't even afford that then you're shit out of luck. It's not really "paying the court so I can go free", but "putting down a deposit so I show up for my court date."

Well for one, that would be morally reprehensible as well as a violation of a persons rights.I'm sorry but the bail system is different how?

ah well, that makes sense. no-one had ever mentioned the reasoning behind it before. and i suppose banks or other lenders are willing to hand out loans for sums that are to be returned anyway?

Yes, in the United States there is an entire industry that provides such services.

ah i see... but, (depending on the severity of the crime) if you really did it, surely losing the money is less of a problem than actually showing up to be convicted?

If you commit a serious enough crime then bail will most likely not be granted.

I may be mistaken, but here we keep pre trial prisoners seperate from convicted criminals in the jail.

At any rate, jails house the non convicted and I think certain convicts, and prisons only house convicts.

I'm sorry but the bail system is different how?

You get the money back. He was suggesting the government take all your property and not give it back.

You can call a Bail Bondsman, or if you can't even afford that then you're shit out of luck. It's not really "paying the court so I can go free", but "putting down a deposit so I show up for my court date."
I don't think that people who are supposedly innocent until proven guilty should be shoved in with people who have been proven guilty regardless of whether or not they can afford to make bail.

I never really understood bail. There's the obvious problem that it gives the rich (or at least the non-poor) an obvious advantage over others, sure, but I'm not that bothered about that. What I really don't get is why they stop at "pay us to let you go" - they're the government, why not just steal and sell all the detained person's belongings while they're detained instead of/as well as the kidnapping and ransom?! Wouldn't that get them much more money?


Bail is an alternative to incarceration, which would otherwise be necessary, because it allows a person to place collateral on a pledge to return.

This senseless blather about kidnapping and ransom and the other stupid 'point' aren't relevant to the discussion.

Bail is collateral on a promise, not a fee.

I may be mistaken, but here we keep pre trial prisoners seperate from convicted criminals in the jail.
I dunno, television leads me to believe that's not true... but it could be wrong.

that people who are awaiting trial stay in jail with everyone else?

It seems to me that someone shouldn't be put in jail with convicted criminals until one is convicted... perhaps people should be put in temporary sorts of prisons until they're either convicted or found to be innocent.

That's um...kinda exactly what happens. "temporary sorts of prisons" are called "county jails".

Jails are usually managed by local level police or sheriff offices. They are used to house those who are serving short term sentences and...yes, those awaiting a verdict.

If you are convicted, you go from jail to prison. Most people use the words jail and prison interchangably but they are not. Jails are local or county administered and are for short term sentences and those awaiting verdict.

Prison is the general criminal population after conviction.

So to answer your question as to why they don't have short term prisons for those awaiting trial, the answer is, they do. County jail. That's exactly what it is. Virtually nobody serving a sentence of significant length stays in jail, they are typically sent to prison.

So to answer your question as to why they don't have short term prisons for those awaiting trial, the answer is, they do. County jail. That's exactly what it is. Virtually nobody serving a sentence of significant length stays in jail, they are typically sent to prison.
So television has lied to me yet again. :(

I dunno, television leads me to believe that's not true... but it could be wrong.

Ah...

basically, as I said, jail is for those who are awaiting trial, or those who have been convicted of a sentence for less than a year.

PRISON is for those who have been convicted for more than a year. People awaiting trial do not mingle with those who have already been convicted for felony convictions.

Ah...
Well, there are a couple of shows where they've had good people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps they had a confession forced out of them, put right in with the general prison population and then bad shit happens to them. There was one episode of Law and Order where some guy was stabbed in prison before his trial, then they found out he was innocent and just now there was an episode of CSI on tv where some guy was coerced into confessing and thrown right in with the general prison population. Unless things work differently in New York and Florida than elsewhere...

Well, there are a couple of shows where they've had good people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps they had a confession forced out of them, put right in with the general prison population and then bad shit happens to them. There was one episode of Law and Order where some guy was stabbed in prison before his trial, then they found out he was innocent and just now there was an episode of CSI on tv where some guy was coerced into confessing and thrown right in with the general prison population. Unless things work differently in New York and Florida than elsewhere...

While this makes for riveting prime time drama, I hope you realize that this is not how things actually are.

Well, there are a couple of shows where they've had good people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps they had a confession forced out of them, put right in with the general prison population and then bad shit happens to them. There was one episode of Law and Order where some guy was stabbed in prison before his trial, then they found out he was innocent and just now there was an episode of CSI on tv where some guy was coerced into confessing and thrown right in with the general prison population. Unless things work differently in New York and Florida than elsewhere...

states, of course, will vary. I can only tell you, having experience wtih the justice system of both, that in Massachussets and Connecticut things work as I described.

I never really understood bail. There's the obvious problem that it gives the rich (or at least the non-poor) an obvious advantage over others, sure, but I'm not that bothered about that. What I really don't get is why they stop at "pay us to let you go" - they're the government, why not just steal and sell all the detained person's belongings while they're detained instead of/as well as the kidnapping and ransom?! Wouldn't that get them much more money?
In some parts of the country, the cops do that before you've been convicted, as long as it's on a drug charge. Confiscation was a big racket in south Louisiana for a while until they got busted on 60 Minutes, but it still goes on in other places.

You get the money back. He was suggesting the government take all your property and not give it back.You mentioned a difference from a moral standpoint. I fail to see it.

The injustice system demands you temporarily pay them a sum of money to stay out of jail. This is a pointless practice, since you either present a flightrisk/obstruction to the police investigation, and thus need to be jailed regardless of your capability to temporarily bribe the system, or you don't, in which case jailing you serves no purpose beyond harasment.

Further, the bail system isn't exactly egalitarian, resulting in poor people - who're typically far more likely to get caught up in the system - is placed at a significant disadvantage.

It's rubbish and the very fucking definition of an imoral practice. Whether it involves sodomising people without lube, or sodomising people with a ten foot barbwired pole makes little difference when it comes to the morality of the practice. It's rape either way.

they usually only actually make you pay about 10% of it, and give it back after the trial if you show up.You're mixing up two things.

You can either post bail, in which case you get all of your money back after the trial.

Or you can pay a bondsman (usually 10%) of your bail. He posts the full bail for you, and he may keep tabs on you to make sure you show up. After the trial, he gets the bail back, and he keeps your 10%--that's how he makes his living.

While this makes for riveting prime time drama, I hope you realize that this is not how things actually are.
Well, I would generally assume that they'd try to be realistic about things to keep people from bitching about how horribly wrong that is...

You mentioned a difference from a moral standpoint. I fail to see it.

The injustice system demands you temporarily pay them a sum of money to stay out of jail. This is a pointless practice, since you either present a flightrisk/obstruction to the police investigation, and thus need to be jailed regardless of your capability to temporarily bribe the system, or you don't, in which case jailing you serves no purpose beyond harasment.

Further, the bail system isn't exactly egalitarian, resulting in poor people - who're typically far more likely to get caught up in the system - is placed at a significant disadvantage.

It's rubbish and the very fucking definition of an imoral practice. Whether it involves sodomising people without lube, or sodomising people with a ten foot barbwired pole makes little difference when it comes to the morality of the practice. It's rape either way.

You also don't understand the rationale for bail.

Since people cannot be taken on their word, bail allows someone who might pose a moderate chance of flight to put up collateral against his word to return to court.

It is simple-minded and wrong to pretend that all suspects either are or are not a 'flight risk,' there is a significant grey area and middle ground.

The alternative is to incarcerate almost everyone.

Not "the very fucking definition of an imoral practice, (sic)" sorry kid.

Well, I would generally assume that they'd try to be realistic about things to keep people from bitching about how horribly wrong that is...

the fact is that these shows, while they seem accurate on their face, are written bulk meatball format. It sounds good enough to be right, but anyone who really knows law or forensics can find a series of errors.

It's good enough to SOUND right, but it's not always accurate.

Well, there are a couple of shows where they've had good people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps they had a confession forced out of them, put right in with the general prison population and then bad shit happens to them. There was one episode of Law and Order where some guy was stabbed in prison before his trial, then they found out he was innocent and just now there was an episode of CSI on tv where some guy was coerced into confessing and thrown right in with the general prison population. Unless things work differently in New York and Florida than elsewhere...

and "Shark" has lawyers going to crime scenes to collect evidence.

Law and Order, they're going to court before the prosecution has a solid case.

and CSI:NY and CSI:Miami shows how much the normal Police Officer is needed since they don't even need them in 99% of the shows.

Television drama will bend rules in favor of the story. Real life can't do that.

Now there are instances where people are put in jail. "Scared Straight" and other programs, but you can bet every penny you have that the prisoners there are selected and the guards are watching everything very closely.

the fact is that these shows, while they seem accurate on their face, are written bulk meatball format. It sounds good enough to be right, but anyone who really knows law or forensics can find a series of errors.

It's good enough to SOUND right, but it's not always accurate.
Fair enough. It is good to know that's not how things actually work though.

"Scared Straight" and other programs, but you can bet every penny you have that the prisoners there are selected and the guards are watching everything very closely.Actually, that's exactly right. I interviewed some of the prisoners involved in the program for a graduate paper a few years ago.

You mentioned a difference from a moral standpoint. I fail to see it.
You see no difference in putting down a deposit (which is returned) and having the government take all of your property to sell it?

The injustice system demands you temporarily pay them a sum of money to stay out of jail. This is a pointless practice, since you either present a flightrisk/obstruction to the police investigation, and thus need to be jailed regardless of your capability to temporarily bribe the system, or you don't, in which case jailing you serves no purpose beyond harasment.
The bail is a way to insure that you show up for court. If you do present a risk of interfering with an investigation, or fleeing, then bail will not be granted. Simple isn't it?

Further, the bail system isn't exactly egalitarian, resulting in poor people - who're typically far more likely to get caught up in the system - is placed at a significant disadvantage.
Nobody is forcing them to put up bail. It's an option, if they can't pay it then they can get a bondsman, or stay for a couple days in county jail until their court date.

You mentioned a difference from a moral standpoint. I fail to see it.

The injustice system demands you temporarily pay them a sum of money to stay out of jail. This is a pointless practice, since you either present a flightrisk/obstruction to the police investigation, and thus need to be jailed regardless of your capability to temporarily bribe the system, or you don't, in which case jailing you serves no purpose beyond harasment.

Further, the bail system isn't exactly egalitarian, resulting in poor people - who're typically far more likely to get caught up in the system - is placed at a significant disadvantage.

It's rubbish and the very fucking definition of an imoral practice. Whether it involves sodomising people without lube, or sodomising people with a ten foot barbwired pole makes little difference when it comes to the morality of the practice. It's rape either way.
that's a good point. like i said in another thread today, thinking things through is always so upsetting. or words to that effect anyway. unfortunately the only solution to the bolded part, because beureaucracies always go for the simplest option, whether it's right or not, is to incarcerate everyone summoned for trial. there's also the added 'bonus' to the beuraucrat that it forms the basis of an entire 'industry' of blood-suckers to make money off the people who shouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place. i hate beuraucracies.

You see no difference in putting down a deposit (which is returned) and having the government take all of your property to sell it?


The bail is a way to insure that you show up for court. If you do present a risk of interfering with an investigation, or fleeing, then bail will not be granted. Simple isn't it?


Nobody is forcing them to put up bail. It's an option, if they can't pay it then they can get a bondsman, or stay for a couple days in county jail until their court date.

have you every stayed in a jail? i can assure you it is not a satisfactory option, even for one night.

[QUOTE=Similization;12301754]You mentioned a difference from a moral standpoint. I fail to see it.

The injustice system demands you temporarily pay them a sum of money to stay out of jail. This is a pointless practice, since you either present a flightrisk/obstruction to the police investigation, and thus need to be jailed regardless of your capability to temporarily bribe the system, or you don't, in which case jailing you serves no purpose beyond harasment.
(snip)
QUOTE]

You're missing the part where most people are remanded to jail because they represent a risk of harm to society. Example: A drunk driver with an alcohol problem. He/she is likely to continue drinking while on bond and jeopardizing other people's safety.

You also don't understand the rationale for bail.No, but you have a great imagination.Since people cannot be taken on their word, bail allows someone who might pose a moderate chance of flight to put up collateral against his word to return to court.Which means shit, and is inherently antisocial.It is simple-minded and wrong to pretend that all suspects either are or are not a 'flight risk,' there is a significant grey area and middle ground.It's the persecuters job to convince a judge that a person presents a flightrisk, or an obstruction to further investigation. If the judge finds it credible, then it's the judge's duty to prevent the person from fleeing/interfering with the investigation. That kind of pervention isn't achieved by confiscating X amount of money.The alternative is to incarcerate almost everyone.Depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is the nation in question. Generally speaking however, I maintain that few people need to be incarcerated, and that no amount of bail would make a difference for the ones that do.Not "the very fucking definition of an imoral practice, (sic)" sorry kid.Yups. The very fucking definition of an imoral practice. Sorry infant.

You're missing the part where most people are remanded to jail because they represent a risk of harm to society. Example: A drunk driver with an alcohol problem. He/she is likely to continue drinking while on bond and jeopardizing other people's safety.
and innocent until proven guilty means nothing to you?

have you every stayed in a jail? i can assure you it is not a satisfactory option, even for one night.

Yes I have in fact. I got picked up for being drunk and disorderly a couple years ago and spent the night there. It wasn't that bad but there was one guy going through Heroin withdrawls in the cage next to mine. Other than that I didn't mind it.

You mentioned a difference from a moral standpoint. I fail to see it.

How about you let me borrow 20 bucks, and I'll give it back to you.

Then I will steal your bicycle.

After that you may understand the difference a little better.

No, but you have a great imagination.Which means shit, and is inherently antisocial.It's the persecuters job to convince a judge that a person presents a flightrisk, or an obstruction to further investigation. If the judge finds it credible, then it's the judge's duty to prevent the person from fleeing/interfering with the investigation. That kind of pervention isn't achieved by confiscating X amount of money.Depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is the nation in question. Generally speaking however, I maintain that few people need to be incarcerated, and that no amount of bail would make a difference for the ones that do.Yups. The very fucking definition of an imoral practice. Sorry infant.

The deposit lessens a flight risk by providing insentive to return.

What part of that is so hard to get?

unfortunately the only solution to the bolded part, because beureaucracies always go for the simplest option, whether it's right or not, is to incarcerate everyone summoned for trial.That's not true at all. A great many countries operate without a bail system & manages just fine without incarcerating everyone. I believe I already said as much in my first reply.there's also the added 'bonus' to the beuraucrat that it forms the basis of an entire 'industry' of blood-suckers to make money off the people who shouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place. i hate beuraucracies.Clicky the linky I posted on p.1 :)

Yes I have in fact. I got picked up for being drunk and disorderly a couple years ago and spent the night there. It wasn't that bad but there was one guy going through Heroin withdrawls in the cage next to mine. Other than that I didn't mind it.

and if you were innocent, would ou have been satisfied with that sort of situation?

1No, but you have a great imagination.

2Which means shit, and is inherently antisocial.

3It's the persecuters job to convince a judge that a person presents a flightrisk, or an obstruction to further investigation.

4 If the judge finds it credible, then it's the judge's duty to prevent the person from fleeing/interfering with the investigation. That kind of pervention isn't achieved by confiscating X amount of money.

5Depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is the nation in question. Generally speaking however, I maintain that few people need to be incarcerated, and that no amount of bail would make a difference for the ones that do.Yups. The very fucking definition of an imoral practice. Sorry infant.

1 Stay on topic.

2 What is antisocial? Antisocial people who lie? Stay on topic.

3 Which is what they do now...

4 Which is why bail is set... A strong flight risk is jailed, a non-flight risk is released on his recognisance, and the vast middle ground are assigned bail as collateral against their fleeing. Where is the argument here against bail?

5 If you dont think people should be incarcerated then what business do you have discussing something serious like the moral merits of bail?

For what reason is it an immoral practice if it is fair and reasonable, and comports with what you've posted above?

and if you were innocent, would ou have been satisfied with that sort of situation?
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But if I was picked up for something I didn't do I wouldn't be worried about it since I would be proven innocent at trial.

That's not true at all. A great many countries operate without a bail system & manages just fine without incarcerating everyone. I believe I already said as much in my first reply.Clicky the linky I posted on p.1 :)

what i was meaning is it seems the simplest option from the point of view of a beuraucrat who may well have rather authoritarian politics. i was having trouble with the wording cuz i drifted off slightly in the middle of it.

i did thanks, had a quick look for a branch in edinburgh but there doesn't seem to be one. i know there are similar organisations at work up here though.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But if I was picked up for something I didn't do I wouldn't be worried about it since I would be proven innocent at trial.

i guess i'm not so thoroughly passified. i find that amount of trust in the justice system somewhat naive.

i guess i'm not so thoroughly passified. i find that amount of trust in the justice system somewhat naive.

I find your lack of trust in the justice system somewhat paranoid. Although we do come from different countries...

1 Stay on topic.Heed your own words.2 What is antisocial? Antisocial people who lie? Stay on topic.I guess this is where I heave a sigh of resignation, because you're obviously not inclined to debate.For what reason is it an immoral practice if it is fair and reasonable, and comports with what you've posted above?I believe my 3rd post in this thread explains quite thoroughly why it's an unjust & unjustifiable practice. You've thus far dodged making a counter argument, and stuck to repeating over & over that I'm wrong for no reason at all. I'm sure you don't need me to carry on that pointless excercise, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun, kid.

I find your lack of trust in the justice system somewhat paranoid. Although we do come from different countries...

ah well, i was brought up to always question authority, if not vocally and volubly then at least through personally researching the motives and histories and loyalties of those who might be in positions of authority over me. because no-one operates without some bias or some deviance from objectivity.

ah well, i was brought up to always question authority, if not vocally and volubly then at least through personally researching the motives and histories and loyalties of those who might be in positions of authority over me. because no-one operates without some bias or some deviance from objectivity.

As was I. I am wary of government, but not to the point of deluded paranoia. While the justice system isn't perfect by any means, I do think it generally works the way its supposed to. Not to mention I've had plenty of run ins with the law in my life. ;)

Yep, though the latter is usually only the case if the judge thinks you're a flight risk.

i was no flight risk..i cant fly...yet...seriously,i agree with the op,i was tossed in with violent felons for a week until i came up with 50,000.00 dollars.
not once but twice.
i was lucky,my brother put up 50,000.00 or i would have had the pleasure of living with the most violent society can produce.

most cant put up 50 grand,so most are fucked until court...pretty unfair,and dangerous for the innocent.
a guy in my cell block got killed over a fucking donut..he was in on a dui...with a transfer...a guy getting transferred on a murder charge.
the guy wanted his donut..he said no?
he got picked up and slammed on his head..killing him.

tell his wife he deserved to die over a dui..wtf is wrong here?

As was I. I am wary of government, but not to the point of deluded paranoia. While the justice system isn't perfect by any means, I do think it generally works the way its supposed to. Not to mention I've had plenty of run ins with the law in my life. ;)

it's not paranoid delusion. i just don't like the motives, histories and loyalties of the people i find in authority over me ;)

"The injustice system demands you temporarily pay them a sum of money to stay out of jail. This is a pointless practice, since you either present a flightrisk/obstruction to the police investigation, and thus need to be jailed regardless of your capability to temporarily bribe the system, or you don't, in which case jailing you serves no purpose beyond harasment."

I assume that either this or a screed about poor people is the basis for calling bail the "fucking imoral practice"

1) As has been explained to you more than once in the thread, the "pointless practice" is an effective and fair way of avoiding incarceration for people who pose moderate risk of flight.

2) Since people cannot be taken at their word, especially when under the duress of criminal charges, some incentive must be established for them to come back to court, or the alternative is incarceration.

3) Poor people are given the same opportunity as rich people, and if they have collateral, they can put it against their word to return.

4) It would be quite unfair - and quite unwise - to release poor people without collateral when the rest are made to offer collateral.

5) On the one hand you rant that bail is 'imoral,' on the other that fewer people should be incarcerated, and in between that people should be jailed or released based on their flight risk.

6) You can't have it all three ways - not everyone presents a clear cut risk of flight, so a system of bail allows people to avoid incarceration by putting a collateral on their word of honor.

7) In case you're unaware, our constitution forbids excessive bail being demanded.

Your juvenile cursing and misspelling were called out, and since then you've offered nothing but tantrums. The points above are numbered, respond to them.

I may be mistaken, but here we keep pre trial prisoners seperate from convicted criminals in the jail.

At any rate, jails house the non convicted and I think certain convicts, and prisons only house convicts.

not entirely accurate.

jails,not just prisons...house overflow from prisons...jails that is.
they also process convicts that are being transferred from one prison to another.

go to camden county jail ..just for a visit..your blood will turn to icewater...mine did.

1) As has been explained to you more than once in the thread, the "pointless practice" is an effective and fair way of avoiding incarceration for people who pose moderate risk of flight.Wrong. You've asserted it's effective & fair. You've yet to explain why that is.2) Since people cannot be taken at their word, especially when under the duress of criminal charges, some incentive must be established for them to come back to court, or the alternative is incarceration.Yet other legalsystems operate without the concept of bail, and without detaining a significantly different amount of people prior to conviction.
And again, this is an unfounded assertion on your part. You provide no evidence for why bail is an effective deterrrent, especially for the no- & low-income groups.3) Poor people are given the same opportunity as rich people, and if they have collateral, they can put it against their word to return. So if you have no collateral, you have the same opportunity as someone who does? Don't make any sense to me..
Anyweay, I wasn't even talking about those extreme cases. In general, bail affects low- & middle-income groups far more severely than it does the high-income group.4) It would be quite unfair - and quite unwise - to release poor people without collateral when the rest are made to offer collateral. I'm not arguing for a double standard. I'm pointing out that there already is a double standard.5) On the one hand you rant that bail is 'imoral,' on the other that fewer people should be incarcerated, and in between that people should be jailed or released based on their flight risk.I argued people should be jailed or released based on the flightrisk. The rest is just your imagination.6) You can't have it all three ways - not everyone presents a clear cut risk of flight, so a system of bail allows people to avoid incarceration by putting a collateral on their word of honor. And my counter is that the practice effectively renders people inequal before the justice system, and thus should be abolished.7) In case you're unaware, our constitution forbids excessive bail being demanded.Since it doesn't matter what I say, I suggest you instead contact ABC or a similar organisation.Your juvenile cursing and misspelling were called out, and since then you've offered nothing but tantrums.I see. I swear & can't spell, thus I'm a stupid child & my arguments, whatever they are, are invalid. A bit of free advice: stick to the arguments I make & quit worrying about my person & my language. If I'm too obnoxious for you, or you feel I'm throwing tantrums, then either take it up with a mod, or put me on ignore.
Not to kill your ego or anything, but I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me & the manner in which I express myself.The points above are numbered, respond to them.I'm not here for you to order around, but consider it done.

How do you suppose we assess the flight risk of people with the degree of accuracy necessary when the only thing they stand to lose is... oh, right, nothing.

How do you suppose we assess the flight risk of people with the degree of accuracy necessary when the only thing they stand to lose is... oh, right, nothing.In the same way you've always done it?
If you meant what I propose, then I suggest you take a long hard look at other justice systems & see how they do it. Fortunately there's no copyrights on criminal justice systems.

OK in a perfect world, I think you should start by abolishing the state & justice system altogether, but since there's no overwhelming majority of anarchists in the US right now, I'm fairly confident it'd backfire rather spectacularly.

In the same way you've always done it?
If you meant what I propose, then I suggest you take a long hard look at other justice systems & see how they do it. Fortunately there's no copyrights on criminal justice systems.

OK in a perfect world, I think you should start by abolishing the state & justice system altogether, but since there's no overwhelming majority of anarchists in the US right now, I'm fairly confident it'd backfire rather spectacularly.

Oh now it makes a lot more sense, you're one of THOSE people aren't you?

Well he has a point, in a perfect world we wouldn't need jails. If only the dancing fairies and unicorns would bring us back our perfect world! Alas, until they do we are going to have to make policy decisions which have at least a small basis in reality. Damn shame.

Oh now it makes a lot more sense, you're one of THOSE people aren't you?

Indeedy, since the third try on his part was no more sensible or forthright than the first two, I think I shall decline to 'wrassle the pig in shit, &c.

Oh now it makes a lot more sense, you're one of THOSE people aren't you?What part of "OK in a perfect world, I think you should start by abolishing the state & justice system altogether, but since there's no overwhelming majority of anarchists in the US right now, I'm fairly confident it'd backfire rather spectacularly." eluded your grasp?

Or is is simply that I'm an anarchist & thus per definition wrong in all things, under all circumstances?

Anyway, what about just getting back on topic? The personal attack shit isn't that interesting.

Or is is simply that I'm an anarchist & thus per definition wrong in all things, under all circumstances?

In ALL circumstances? No. However if you would actually believe that anarchy is in any way a viable system, your rationality, intellect, and capacity for reason on political situations is immediatly suspect.

Wrong in all things, no. Very likely to be wrong on anything approaching the political, due to your obvious extreme lack of understanding how political systems work? yes.

Anyway, what about just getting back on topic? The personal attack shit isn't that interesting.

Someone said something recently...what was it....

I don't give a flying fuck what you think of me & the manner in which I express myself.

Oh yeah, that.

who can afford bail though?

In the states, bail bondsmen are usually willing to arrainge some sort of deal if you can't afford the 10% - 1% and a mortgage against you house for example.

they usually only actually make you pay about 10% of it, and give it back after the trial if you show up.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In most US jurisdictions

You can call a Bail Bondsman, or if you can't even afford that then you're shit out of luck. It's not really "paying the court so I can go free", but "putting down a deposit so I show up for my court date."

And, like I pointed out above, you can make arraingements with the bail bondesman if you can't afford the 10%.

I dunno, television leads me to believe that's not true... but it could be wrong.
So television has lied to me yet again. :(

I always wonder about people putting so much trust in TV. :(

states, of course, will vary. I can only tell you, having experience wtih the justice system of both, that in Massachussets and Connecticut things work as I described.

Indeed. For example, 4 states have outlawed commercial bail bonding.

Anyone interested might want to look over the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail