There's already a fairly well proven alternative to cash bail used in D.C. and some other jurisdictions: if someone is bailable after assessment for flight risk, etc., they get appropriate conditions for pre-trial monitoring and supervision, as bail terms, with no cash payment.
The logic behind bail is simple, you either show up to court or lose money that you cannot afford to lose. The incentives make sense at first glance.
It's a pretty long story, but ultimately I paid the last $25 I had in my pocket to a clerk, and was released upon my own recognizance (Personal Recognizance). Ultimately ended up with community service; the case itself was rather interesting because the amount of product in my possession was so low the lab had trouble even verifying there was anything there. Officially charged with possessing 0.02g. You read that right. Less than a 10th of a gram.
For that and a couple of other reasons, I got pretty lucky getting out of there the way I did, and getting back home.
If you have current insurance, but can't find your proof of insurance card during the stop, just say loudly and clearly that you're insured with [YOUR INSURER], take the ticket, and mail a copy of your insurance information to the prosecutor afterward. If the prosecutor won't drop the charge, plead not guilty and request discovery for the squad car camera recording and all the information the cop had available about you or your vehicle from their in-car computer at the time of the stop.
In all likelihood, the cop's in-car computer already showed whether you were truthful about being insured or not, and they just continue to demand paperwork because it's an easy way to issue tickets that usually don't get contested. It's a money game, and it encourages the justice system to prey on those who can least afford to fight back.
The system is rigged against the minorities. Look why cannabis was criminalized in the first place - to target blacks and hippies (https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-...). As a politician, keep as many of 'em in jails as you can, thus showing the white population you're "tough on crime" and at the same time filling the coffers of your private prison operator friends with state cash for the jailing.
1. http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/1-trends-in-party-aff...
2. In a speech at an NAACP convention in Philadelphia in July, Clinton acknowledged that tougher incarceration provisions in the bill were a mistake. “I signed a bill that made the problem worse,” Clinton said. “And I want to admit it.”
I think this issue has many different angles than just the usual whites vs. minorities.
"It can't be whites vs blacks, politicians that black people voted for did it too".
When you actually write out your argument it doesn't make any sense. What if they were given two options, both of whom would have continued racist policies? There's also a phenomenon whereby politicians identified with a specific "outsider" group have a lot more pressure (and ability) to defy the interests or stereotypes of that group. H Clinton under a lot more pressure to be hawkish to defy weak women narrative. Obama under a lot more scrutiny about anything that could be seen as a handout to African Americans. Politicians from the left often ripping up regulations, because they sedate the left who would have prevented right candidates from doing it.
Basically, it's way more complicated and your argument doesn't hold water.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/05/trump-prison...
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/680751.The_Marijuana_Con...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/04/obituaries/rev-oberia-dem... [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=Pit7gWBM6M0C&pg=PA31&lpg=P... [3] "The Congressional Black Caucus secured a closed-door sit-down meeting with President Nixon in the Cabinet Room. During the session, the group demands more action to stop the flow of narcotics into urban neighborhoods."
For example, if crack-cocaine carries a high sentence, then why not drop the habit in exchange for powdered cocaine?
If the question is price, then this is really more of a system targeting the poor than one that is against any specific minority group.
Well, if the majority of poor people are blacks (and Latinos), then it certainly is a racist policy to have vastly different sentencing for the drugs for poor and rich people.
The question is purely price, and it's the system targeting drug users of certain class/ethnic groups more than others. If you look at drug law enforcement in the US, it's substantially more punitive towards poor/minority groups.
Citation A: https://www.vera.org/publications/for-the-record-public-heal...
Citation B: http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war
Citation C: https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ACF4F34.pdf
Citation D: https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/06/28/the-war-on-...
I can do a the standard English alphabet, the Greek alphabet, simplified Chinese, Japanese kanji and any other alphabets you guys would like me to tack on with sources that state the same thing:
The War On Drugs is a War on Poor People and Minorities.