Cash Bail System in California Law Courts - Report Sample

Introduction

Most law courts in California have embraced the cash bail system for an extended period. Cash bail is normally used to ascertain that defendants will return for hearings or trials (Baughman, 2018). The money is refunded to defendants if they comply with court orders and avail themselves to court, else the bails get forfeited to the government. In most law courts, there is a standard amount of bail that is set for any alleged crime. However, it is majorly left to the discretion of judges to either lower or raise it. Furthermore, the judges have the capability of waiving the whole bail and have the defendants released on their "own recognizance," meaning that an individual offers a promise that they will comply with the law by availing themselves whenever necessary (Baughman, 2018).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Consequences of Cash Bail

Encourages Inequality in Justice

Cash bail creates a platform of justice inequality; this is owing to the fact that the cash bail system perpetuates criminalization of poverty since individuals from less affluent families who may find it challenging to post bail get detained as they await for hearing or trial for weeks, months or even years, in some cases (Baughman, 2018).

Gupta et al. (2016) argued that the cash bail system plays a substantial role in perpetuating discriminations in the justice systems that are heavily felt by individuals experiencing poverty or communities of color.

Failure to post the bail may lead to pretrial detention that is associated with numerous adverse outcomes concerning the case of the defendants. Gupta et al. (2016) further claimed that persons who are subjected to pretrial detention have five times higher possibilities of being sentenced to prison as compared to those defendants that are released on bail. Moreover, there are higher chances that pretrial detainees may end up making hurried decisions of pleading guilty with a lower charge with the main intention of spending fewer days behind bars as opposed to chancing a longer sentence at trial or higher charge.

Suppression of Freedom

Furthermore, according to Dobbie et al. (2016), cash bail leads to suppression of freedom, especially to the less fortunate individuals within a community. Frequently, thousands of people find themselves behind bars owing to the fact that they cannot easily post the bail. Gupta et al. (2016) further claimed that most aspects of a country's justice system get rigged to work in favor of the rich, hence leading to inequalities in the cash bail system; this makes it easier for rich individuals to buy freedom and get back to their homes, while poor persons who have been accused of the same offense are left stuck in jail awaiting for hearing or trial. The fact that rich people can easily buy their freedom to buy paying the cash bail has led to the suppression of freedom; this had made freedom something that is difficult to acquire when one has no money. Baughman (2018) maintained that every individual has a right to access freedom regardless of their financial capabilities; this, therefore, means that law courts should come up with an appropriate strategy that can eradicate inequalities in all justice system with a country.

Psychological Torture

Within the country, the cash the bail is normally set at far much higher levels for the majority of families or people to pay; this leaves defendants with difficult choices such as make payments for nonrefundable fees to a for-profit bail company, wait in jail as the case goes through, or plead guilty and give up their rights of defense at trial. Baughman (2018) argued that it is a hardship for poor families to pay the cash bail. Moreover, they may not easily get back their money irrespective of the outcome of the case – even if the arrest was a mistaken identity case. The difficult choices left for the defendants lead to psychological torture and can, therefore, have the consequence of negatively influencing the outcome of the case.

Surety to the Court

Despite the fact that cash bail offers surety to the court concerning the compliance by the defendant, it is a disadvantage to persons who cannot afford to raise funds within the required timeline. I witnessed this when I worked for a given law firm on an internship program when I realized that some clients were not able to post the bail. The discriminating nature of cash bail on the poor clients caught my attention and made me learn more concerning the best way that law courts should go about it. Owing to the fact that various people have different financial capabilities, I would recommend that the cash bail system be eliminated in California. The main focus of this paper is to investigate the consequences of cash bail.

Conclusion

Basing my recommendation on the literature review, I would recommend that cash bail system be eliminated in all judicial systems of California; this is due to adverse consequences such as justice inequality, suppression of freedom as well as psychological torture (Stevenson et al., 2017). Moreover, I would recommend that the judiciary develops an alternative to the cash bail system such as Supervised Release Program, which judges the authority of releasing defendants who are not capable of affording the bail under a condition that they occasionally meet with social workers and conduct regular phone check-ins (Stevenson et al., 2017). Adopting these recommendations would ensure justice in the judicial systems and ensure that everybody is treated equally regardless of the financial background as well as their political affiliations.

References

Baughman, S. (2018). The bail book (1st ed., p. 200). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/Bail-Book-Comprehensive-Americas-Criminal/dp/1107131367

Dobbie, Will, Goldin, J., and Yang, C. (2016). “The Effects of Pre-Trial Detention.” Princeton. Retrieved from https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/wdobbie/files/dgy_bail_0.pdf

Gupta, Arpit, Hansman, C., and Frenchman, E. (2016). "The Heavy Cost of High Bail: Evidence from Judge Randomization." Columbia University. Retrieved from
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/688907

Stevenson, Megan, Mayson, Sandra G. (2017). “Bail Reform: New Directions for Pretrial Detention and Release.” Faculty Scholarship. Retrieved from
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1745/