The end to the bail system in California
Bail bondsmen in California can’t be too happy about this development:
California will become the first state in the nation to abolish bail for suspects awaiting trial under a sweeping reform bill signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday.
An overhaul of the state’s bail system has been in the works for years, and became an inevitability earlier this year when a California appellate court declared the state’s cash bail system unconstitutional. The new law goes into effect in October 2019.
“Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly,” Brown said in a statement, moments after signing the California Money Bail Reform Act…
Washington, D.C., already has a cashless bail system. Other states, including New Jersey, have passed laws that reduce their reliance on money bail. And other states are considering making similar changes.
Under the California law those arrested and charged with a crime won’t be putting up money or borrowing it from a bail bond agent to obtain their release. Instead, local courts will decide who to keep in custody and whom to release while they await trial. Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.
In most nonviolent misdemeanor cases, defendants would be released within 12 hours. In other instances, defendants will be scored on how likely they are to show up for their court date, the seriousness of their crime, and the likelihood of recidivism.
This is not a case of legislation by the judiciary, but it is a case in which legislation was passed as a result of a judicial ruling. Whether California would have passed such a law without the push from the court system is something I don’t know, but at any rate it has happened and the citizens of California will have to deal with it.
It’s not as though the bail system was so great. It did favor people with money, because even though poorer people (or anyone, really) could borrow the money from bail bondsmen, a non-refundable deposit had to be paid up front, and the people most likely to be unable to raise even that were of course the most poverty-stricken.
However, what is going to replace it? A system that gives the courts unprecedented discretion to decide who will remain incarcerated pending trial and who will go free. Are courts really able to forecast “how likely [suspects] are to show up for their court date…and the likelihood of recidivism”? I have grave doubts.
And so does the ACLU:
…[T]he American Civil Liberties Union of California, an original co-sponsor of the bill, pulled its support, arguing that last-minute changes give judges too much discretion in determining under what circumstances people will be released or kept in custody.
“We are concerned that the system that’s being put into place by this bill is too heavily weighted toward detention and does not have sufficient safeguards to ensure that racial justice is provided in the new system,” the ACLU’s Natasha Minsker told NPR…
Did they not think of that before they sponsored the bill?
The ACLU’s concern is that without the bail system, more people will be detained rather than fewer. “Racial justice” is of course an elastic term, particularly when used by the left, but the problem is that people of color commit more crimes and therefore are over-represented in the criminal population no matter how release-before-trial is determined, so what would “racial justice” look like, and can it be implemented without letting violent criminals go free to commit more crimes—crimes whose victims also are highly likely to be other people of color?
It’s one of those “be careful what you wish for” scenarios:
Raj Jayadev, co-founder of advocacy organization Silicon Valley De-Bug, said like the ACLU, his group is a former supporter of the bill. Ultimately, as it is written, he told the Sacramento Bee, the law discriminates against the poor.
“They took our rallying cry of ending money bail and used it against us to further threaten and criminalize and jail our loved ones.”
As for the 7,000 or so bail bondsmen of California, whose industry is now finished, they are on record as planning to sue.
Funny thing, isn’t it, that a law that began with a ruling by judges ends up giving judges far more power than before?
“Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.”
* * *
“Danger, Will Robinson!”
” Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.”
An utter and deep lump of pure bullshit.
I’d say that the likelihood of abuse is approximately 100%.
Anytime you hear the word “algorithm” in social or political discussions, you should beware. This is the new shadow authoritarianism.
“Weapons of math destruction” is how the writer Cathy O’Neil describes the nasty and pernicious kinds of algorithms that are not subject to the same challenges that human decision-makers are. Parole algorithms (not Jure’s) can bias decisions on the basis of income or (indirectly) ethnicity. Recruitment algorithms can reject candidates on the basis of mistaken identity. In some circumstances, such as policing, they might create feedback loops, sending police into areas with more crime, which causes more crime to be detected.
The problem is that in many cases, we simply don’t know. The researcher had taken a personal risk to show me what he had created, because his algorithm, like most that really affect us, is proprietary and hidden; they are expensive pieces of intellectual property that we cannot understand, and we cannot challenge. A “black box society”, as the academic Frank Pasquale describes it: a society harmed by a whole new kind of secrecy that obscures the automated judgements that affect our lives.
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/ridiculously-complicated-algorithms/
From his satchel, the researcher pulled out his laptop. He tapped for a few minutes and, with a sense of occasion, turned the screen to face me. “It’s all there.” And there it was: a white screen with instructions neatly arranged in a series of boxes.
“In [3]” the first step says
“In [8], in [9]” says the next.
There were words in different colours, some green, some purple, some in red, in bold, in italics. I looked at the researcher, a proud grin spread across his face. There it was. An algorithm that really influenced people’s lives. And it was .?.?. totally underwhelming.
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/ridiculously-complicated-algorithms/
Fist bump to @huxley – great minds…
This is going to get interesting. Purportedly, an algorithm is not patentable. Thus, I’d expect software manufacturers to claim that their algorithms are trade secrets. But there will certainly be cases where a plaintiff claims injury as a consequence of what the computer told him to do, and that instruction would likely be the result of an algorithm.
I’ve been writing algorithms for years and years. Maybe I should go back to practicing law!
p.s. I don’t know how Neo gave me that avatar, but I love it! Tuff little cat! The caption I’ve seen for it is “Walk in. F**k sh*t up!”
Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.
Do you really think these judges know anything about algorithm development? I suspect they will buy software peddled by the smoothest talker.
Two thoughts;
what’s to prevent hackers from creating ‘mischief’ with the algorithm?
“New Mexico Extremists Released as More Details of ‘School Shooter Training Camp’ Emerge”
It will be interesting to watch what happens when people don’t show up in court. Under the old system, bail bondsmen and bounty hunters had a financial incentive to hunt down jumpers, but now it will be up to the state government and the localities to do so- I suspect they won’t bother.
Criminals will appreciate this lunacy.
Having once bailed out a neighbor for a DUI, I learned that the only people who understand the court system here, other than lawyers, are the bail bondsmen. So that will certainly have a more negative impact on the poor, who can’t afford a lawyer.
Yancey Ward:
To future generations, the plot of one of my favorite movies, “Midnight Run,” will be unintelligible.
Geoffrey Britain on August 30, 2018 at 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm said:
Two thoughts;
what’s to prevent hackers from creating ‘mischief’ with the algorithm?
* * *
Interviewer: HAL, you have an enormous responsibility on this mission, in many ways perhaps the greatest responsibility of any single mission element. You’re the brain, and central nervous system of the ship, and your responsibilities include watching over the men in hibernation. Does this ever cause you any lack of confidence?
HAL: Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
[Regarding the supposed failure of the parabolic antenna on the ship, which HAL himself falsified]
HAL: It can only be attributable to human error.
HAL: I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you.
[on Dave’s return to the ship, after HAL has killed the rest of the crew]
HAL: Look Dave, I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill, and think things over.
[As Dave disconnects HAL]
HAL: Just what do you think you’re doing, Dave? Dave, I really think I’m entitled to an answer to that question. I know everything hasn’t been quite right with me, but I can assure you now, very confidently, that it’s going to be all right again. I feel much better now. I really do. Look, Dave, I can see you’re really upset about this. I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over. I know I’ve made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I’ve still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you. Dave, stop. Stop, will you? Stop, Dave. Will you stop, Dave? Stop, Dave.
Several years ago, I plunged into de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, and I confess I didn’t get very far. But I got far enough to read his estimation local governance and jurisprudence. He was slightly sarcastic in pointing out America’s big emphasis on equality in conjunction with a bail bonding system that clearly favors the rich. I believe he also questioned a seeming lack of alternatives.
I recall wondering whether folks on the left spend time reading this type of material and if so, would it give them ideas? Now we know. It strikes me that they really stayed under the radar until the governor’s signature.
I never appreciated that this CA move could be a large negative for the accused who are poor. Just as the integrity of the judicial branch as a whole is falling precipitously, we’ll give them much more power. It’s all part of the anti-democratic plan.
______
Of the many mechanisms leading to the credit crisis in 2007/2008, one of the more important ones was the Basel banking regulations. Basel I regs. were simple, old fashion, but sound standards for required banking reserve capital. Basel II regs. were being implemented in the U.S. in the 2004/2005 time frame and they utilized complex computer models for determining the required reserve capital. In these models, the debts of EU governments, including Greece, was considered to be 100% safe.
Typical California stupidity. Actually, bail helps the poor, because it provides a way to stay out of jail with only 10% of the cash bail ordered. And not only is the bail bondsman motivated to go after a bail jumper, but his relatives, who frequently put up their homes or other possessions as security, are as well.
Neo: thanks for reminding me about Midnight Run! Also one of my favorite movies, but I hadn’t thought about it in a long time. Grodin and DeNiro had such perfect chemistry! It’s too bad DeNiro is such a yutz — I won’t go to see any of his movies any more.
Richard Saunders:
Take a look here.
Neo,
Also one of my favorite movies.
I agree that this will be a disastfer on multiple levels. I also zeroed in on the fact that the courts will be using algorithms as I have zero faith in algorithms. Companies like Facebook and Twitter brag about how they can’t be biased by the fact their employees are overwhelmingly leftist because they use algorithms. But that only provides the facade of objectivity. I know enough about machine learning to know it’s simply that the algorithm learns from whomever is giving it feedback. In the case of social media companies that would be leftists. It’s why conservatives are far more likely to be have their speech flagged, and then be suspended or banned for violating their “community standards.” The algorithm is simply absorbing the biases of whomever is giving them feedback. And community standards is just an Orwellian way of saying “the editorial decisions we make about what you’re allowed to say.
But this?
“Instead, local courts will decide who to keep in custody and whom to release while they await trial. Those decisions will be based on an algorithm created by the courts in each jurisdiction.”
California has 58 counties, each one with a court system that has exclusive jurisdiction in that county. Then the six state appellate courts will use their own algorithms if inmates who aren’t released challenge their detention, and finally the state supreme court will have its own. You’re looking at close to 70 different algorithms, all constantly changing. And each one will constantly be treating those arrested differently. How are the courts going to find that constitutional considering that people will be differently situated depending on where they are arrested?
I smell a federal lawsuit.