Of those released, about 33% are released for $0 bail, and the remainder met financial conditions. For those who faced a bail of < $5,000 70% were able to meet it. I'd like a non-media source indicating that "a very large percentage" of people in jail are in there due in an inability to meet bail of $50 to $100, because all the data I've seen indicates that you're either making things up as you go or being misled by a source who did the same (which is why I requested a non-media source).
> When the bail was under $10,000, most defendants secured release, including 7 in 10 defendants with bail under $5,000 (figure 3).
So we're talking about $50-100 bail fines, but even if you raise the definition of "small amount" to $5k, 70% of those are released. We're already down into single digit percentages of folks with a <$5k bail set who are financially unable to pay it. I wish the data went to $1k and below because I imagine the percentage unable to pay would be minuscule.
All the while that 50$-based jail time has disastrous impact on their personal lives (losing jobs, eviction by landlords, more complicated interaction with police, three-strike-rules ....).
Regarding your second: > Speaking of losing jobs, a whole industry just lost theirs Doesn't the legitimacy of the job come before the right to perform it? A whole industry just lost their jobs is probably what many said in 1833 after the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act.
Incorrect.
First, a bail system still will exist in California, just not a money bail system.
Second, most of the history of money bail didn't require up front payment and specifically prohibited those providing surety from getting paid.
So, yes, it's quite possible (and the historical norm) to both accept bail systems as legitimate—even specifically when money bail systems are seen as legitimate—and view anything like the current American profit-driven predatory lending and privatized fugitive apprehension industry surrounding it as quite illegitimate.
Or, we could instead try replacing money bail in a relatively small jurisdiction (say, Washington, D.C.) for a number of years, and if it works well do it in a larger jurisdiction.
Once the first step of that has been done and shown to work, the case for smaller incremental steps in the next jurisdiction, though, is pretty weak. You seem to think we are at the point of considering a first practical test, but that step was taken years ago.
Used to be if you skipped town the local authorities would have no way of tracking you down. And authorities where ever you fled to would often have no ability to tell if you had a warrant. That's mostly not true anymore.
So then you have people sitting in jail because they're broke, probably too broke to fee even. And for crimes where if they did flee might be in everyone's interest. The police will surely be heartbroken to find out a local trouble maker decided to leave town. /s
So, on a $500 bail, that's $50. If you're indigent, you might not have $50.
So I think at the top end of the spectrum this might make sense. The problem is that a very large percentage people in jail are there because their bail was literally $50 or $100 but they didn't have the money to pay it, so they end up in jail for months or years on end. And for these people, bail has zero impact on whether they show up for trial.