Bail

Posting Bail:

Is it bad that the US uses bail bondsmen?

Other countries almost universally reject and condemn Mr. Spath’s trade, in which defendants who are presumed innocent but cannot make bail on their own pay an outsider a nonrefundable fee for their freedom.

“It’s a very American invention,” John Goldkamp, a professor of criminal justice at Temple University, said of the commercial bail bond system. “It’s really the only place in the criminal justice system where a liberty decision is governed by a profit-making businessman who will or will not take your business.”

While I'm always willing to hear good ideas, whether from Europe or anywhere else, I don't think we have an obligation to do something just because it's common in Europe. That said, just what do you do in Europe if you can't post bail?

Some [countries] simply keep defendants in jail until trial.

Oh, yes, that's a much better system. :P

Others ask defendants to promise to turn up for trial.

Um... what?

Some make failure to appear a separate crime.

OK, that makes sense -- but if they were going to run from the murder charge, how much is the extra 30 days really going to deter them?

Some impose strict conditions on release, like reporting to the police frequently.

Again, right -- "Sure, officer, I'll be right by your office." ("Swissair, thank you for holding.")

Some make defendants liable for a given sum should they fail to appear but do not collect it up front. Others require a deposit in cash from the defendant, family members or friends, which is returned when the defendant appears.

Which is fine; but that assumes the defendent or his family has the money to start with. Since poverty and crime are very often observed together, that system (unlike the evil profit-motive American system) denies the poor a chance at freedom while they await the trial that will decide if they are in fact guilty.

So why does the American system work like it does?

If Mr. Spath considers a potential client a good risk, he will post bail in exchange for a nonrefundable 10 percent fee.... Forty percent of people released on bail are eventually acquitted or have the charges against them dropped.

Which is to say that sixty percent don't. So, here's the business proposition: you put up 100% of the money, and your client pays you 10% of that sum in return. If he shows up, you get your money back; if not, you lose everything you put up. So, you're betting 10% against 100%.

Oh, and 60% of your clients are criminals.

Normally, when you take a serious risk with a large sum of money, you expect a pretty good potential return on your investment. In return for the risk that you'll lose everything, you expect a reasonable profit.

The fellow in the article says it costs $50,000 a month to run his business; that apparently does not include the actual money he has to come up with, as he invests around $13 million a year in bonds. If he's paying $600,000 a year in costs, but is clearing 1.3 million, that leaves him with $700,000 profit on a $13 million investment: not 10%, but around 5%.

That's not really running away with the bank. And it sounds like, compared to other systems cited by the NYT, you've got a system that works better for the government ("Promise you'll come back for trial") and the poor ("Sure, you can go -- if you can prove you've got the money to pay the fee for nonappearance").

Meanwhile, it's not that hard to find a much safer investment that'll give you a 5% return.

I don't know -- it sounds reasonable to me. I'm just not seeing the villiany.