Here's a section from the actual bill:

A person released pursuant to the local rule of court shall be released on his or her own recognizance or on supervised own recognizance release ... A person shall not be required to pay for any nonmonetary condition or combination of conditions imposed pursuant to this section

I believe Supervised Own Recognizance means that the defendant can be required to wear a GPS tracking ankle bracelet (but under this bill, they can't be required to pay for it).

So that may do more to ensure that the defendant shows up for trial than leaving his girlfriend on the hook for $25K of bail money if he skips the trial. Plus, it seems that it'd be a good deterrent from committing other crimes while waiting for trial.

Yes, it will be harder for some people to pay than others. Things cost money, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to charge the person using the service for that service, even if they're ordered to do so by a court.

Innocence doesn't mean that you didn't use the service. Should the taxpayers foot the bill? Perhaps but good luck politically. Should the guilty people who used the same service pay an inflated price?

Law enforcement is a cost to society. Budget for it appropriately. If you find it's getting too expensive, look at ways to reduce costs. Maybe prosecute fewer drug crimes. But don't pass the cost along to those who are accused without any conviction.

Assuring appearance of the accused is a service government provides to taxpayers (EDIT: more correctly, the public at large); doing it with the minimum necessary and efficient interference with the liberty of the accused is a matter of basic human rights, not a service to the accused.

Therefore, there is no service to the accused being consumed, and no basis for a payment by the accused. The service being provided is to the public by the State at a cost to the liberty of the accused, and should be paid for out of public revenues, not out of the pocket of the person whose liberty is being curtailed.

EDIT:

> Should the taxpayers foot the bill?

Yes, clearly.

> Perhaps but good luck politically.

It's been the policy, and a fairly uncontroversial one, in the nation's capital (despite the fact that for much of that time, a Congress of the opposing major party from the D.C. local government has had veto power over D.C. policy) for years, and a national political movement has now coalesced around it, with polls showing strong national public support for it, and it was just approved by both political branches of the government of the largest state. So, yeah, it seems to be doing just fine, politically.

Of course the tax payer should pay. The criminal justice system is a service of society. The tax payer receives that benefit and as well pays its costs.

I'm really not sure what role and responsibilities people expect government to have in society.

What's next, start charging innocent people room and board for the period they were locked in jail, because they used that "service"?

The govt is not a business. Its purpose it not to make money, nor extract money from people charged with crimes. We don't want a society where you pay police each time they come to your house.

Capitalism isn't the end goal of society, it's a tool. I see way to many people on HN (not you specifically) where it seems the only tool they know of to solve a problem is "hmm.. I'll try to apply capitalism to that".

It is possible to frame every interaction in society as s product or service. The fact that we can doesn't mean we should.

I frequently see people caught up in the "technical problem solving" of how to transform something else into a buying and selling transaction with zero foresight into motivation or consequences of doing so.

The system is cheaper than keeping folks in jail as well. Some civil servant can call folks and leave reminders and such. No need to pay for food and housing. And a great bonus: The person's life isn't so negatively affected before they are even found guilt or for crimes that wouldn't usually have jail time.