The Historical Purpose Of Bail Is To Ensure Appearance ✓ Solved

The Historical Purpose Of Bail Is To Ensure The Appearance In

The historical purpose of bail is to ensure the appearance in court of an arrestee. The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides citizens protection from excessive bail but does not exclude bail that cannot be met. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in several cases that "bail setting is not constitutionally excessive merely because a defendant is financially unable to satisfy the requirement" (United States v. Van Caester, 1970). Although there have been two prior bail reform movements in the United States, cash bail remains a central practice in the criminal justice system. Civil liberties groups, however, view cash bail as a means to treat the wealthy differently from the poor, and they are advocating to eliminate cash bail as an option in pretrial practices. Recently, some states have passed binary bail reform laws whereby the options are to release an arrestee on personal recognizance bail or to hold the arrestee under preventative detention.

Do you agree or disagree that cash bail should be eliminated as an option in pretrial procedures? First, title your post either "Cash bail should be eliminated as an option in pretrial procedures" or "Cash bail should not be eliminated as an option in pretrial procedures." Then, using the information gained in this module, make your case. Any sources should be cited according to APA style. Answer the following questions to support your stance: Whom does cash bail affect, both negatively and positively? Are there any pretrial circumstances in which cash bail is or is not the best option for the arrestee? What may be effects on either the arrestee or the criminal justice system if cash bail is or is not used?

Paper For Above Instructions

Cash Bail Should Be Eliminated as an Option in Pretrial Procedures

The issue of cash bail in the criminal justice system has prompted significant debate regarding its fairness and effectiveness in ensuring the appearance of defendants in court. Cash bail serves as a financial assurance that a defendant will return for their court appearances, yet this system disproportionately affects low-income individuals. Given the historical purpose of bail, its current application frequently contradicts the principles of justice and equity. Therefore, I argue that cash bail should be eliminated as an option in pretrial procedures.

Cash bail affects individuals from various socioeconomic backgrounds, most significantly negatively impacting those who lack substantial financial resources. When a defendant is unable to post bail, they remain in custody until their trial, which often results in job loss, disruption of family life, and increased risk of being convicted simply due to inability to finance their release (Harris, 2016). Research indicates that pretrial detention leads to an increased likelihood of a guilty plea, even for innocent individuals, simply due to the pressure to escape jail while awaiting trial (Cohen & Kodziak, 2019). Thus, those affected negatively are primarily low-income defendants, who find themselves trapped in a system that advantages the wealthy while punishing the poor.

Conversely, cash bail can be seen as beneficial for some individuals, particularly those who can afford it. For wealthy defendants, cash bail provides an immediate means for release, allowing them to maintain their lives and prepare more effectively for trial. However, this advantage undermines the principle of equality under the law, where two individuals accused of the same crime face drastically different pretrial experiences based solely on their financial situations (Alexander, 2012).

Pretrial Circumstances of Cash Bail

There may be specific pretrial circumstances in which cash bail could be considered a viable option. For instance, defendants who pose a high flight risk or have a history of failing to appear in court might necessitate a more stringent approach to ensure their presence during proceedings (Kahn, 2018). In such scenarios, judges may justify the use of cash bail to mitigate risks. However, this does not mean that cash bail is the only solution. Alternatives like electronic monitoring or supervised release programs can also effectively ensure attendance while maintaining the civil liberties of the accused (Mackenzie, 2020).

Potential Effects on the Criminal Justice System

The continued use of cash bail has significant implications for the criminal justice system at large. If cash bail is maintained, it can perpetuate systemic inequalities and foster public distrust in law enforcement and the judiciary. Additionally, the over-reliance on cash bail contributes to overcrowded jails, which strain resources and ultimately endanger public safety (Beckett & Harris, 2011). On the other hand, eliminating cash bail and implementing alternative measures can lead to a more equitable system that prioritizes public safety and defendants' rights while promoting fairness in legal proceedings.

Moreover, states that have enacted bail reforms, such as California and New Jersey, have demonstrated that it is possible to ensure public safety without relying on cash bail (Vera Institute of Justice, 2020). Such reforms often include risk assessment tools that determine the individual's likelihood of reoffending or failing to appear in court, allowing judges to make informed decisions without the financial aspects of bail dictating outcomes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cash bail should be eliminated as an option in pretrial procedures due to its negative and disproportionate impact on low-income individuals. While it can provide benefits for wealthy defendants, the inequities perpetuated by the cash bail system outweigh these advantages. Moving towards alternative measures can ensure fairness and maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system while safeguarding the rights of all individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic standing.

References

• Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. The New Press.
• Beckett, K., & Harris, A. (2011). On Cash and Conviction: Monetary Sanctions as Misguided Premises of Criminal Justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101(4), 1198-1236.
• Cohen, R. A., & Kodziak, A. (2019). The Impact of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: Evidence from New York City. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 71-102.
• Harris, A. (2016). A Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as Punishment for the Poor. Russell Sage Foundation.
• Kahn, A. (2018). Dangerousness and the Limits of Pretrial Detention. American Criminal Law Review, 55(1), 1-30.
• Mackenzie, D. L. (2020). What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Delinquents. Cambridge University Press.
• United States v. Van Caester, 319 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D. Fla. 1970).
• Vera Institute of Justice. (2020). The Status of Bail Reform in the States. Retrieved from https://www.vera.org.
• White v. United States, 330 F.2d 811 (8th Cir. 1964).
• United States v. McConnell, 842 F.2d 105 (5th Cir. 1988).