Google Will Ban Bail-Bond Ads (arstechnica.com) 323
First Google banned ads from payday lenders in 2016, now it will no longer allow ads from bail-bond companies. Ars Technica reports: In a blog post, the company suggested that such ads constitute a "deceptive or harmful product," citing a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services. "For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years," Google wrote. Also in 2016, another study found that "there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the U.S.," simply for their inability to pay a bond, which is what drives many people to the services of a bondsman. The change will take effect in July 2018.
Google could fix all those problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if google used their influence to increase bail bond competition and demand clear and fair terms as a condition of being listed on google. Google could become the go-to place for fair and affordable bail bonds!
Re:Google could fix all those problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you are stuck in jail you will pretty much pay anything to get out ASAP. You can worry about the financial details from outside a jail cell.
Re: (Score:3)
America could fix the problem themselves by not making it a game to see who can lock up the most citizens for pointless reasons.
Re:Google could fix all those problems... (Score:5, Informative)
A, Prison is like Jail, but they are not the same. Generally, Prison is where you go after conviction. Jail is where you are, sometimes, while waiting for the courts to process you thru their system to determine guilt or innocence.
B, Bail is ensuring that people stay engaged with the court system, should the court decide that the defendant could be allowed out of jail until the verdict is determined for their case. Unfortunately, money is just such a universal incentive, so it is used. Bail is set as a penal amount. The bail bonds entity collects a fee ( usually regulated by the department of insurance in the state of the court ) for the service of agreeing to make certain that the defendant will respect the court's requirements. There is a surprising amount of work involved. And if the defendant skips, the court comes after the bondsman for the full penal amount.
C, Yes, you are in prison if you have a conviction, bail does not apply here.
D, It would be the court system that determines if you are too dangerous or too large a flight risk. They determine if bail will be allowed, and if it is, what the amount will be.
Let them eat cake (Score:5, Insightful)
Spot on. Just like payday loans, bail bonds are predatory but they're also the last resort for people who are laughed out of banks and credit unions. If they no longer have access to this type of short term credit, where will those people go? No credit cards, no lines of credit, no valuables to pawn - what's left? Nothing legal.
The rich hypocrites who decides for the poor always bring up those shameful annual interest rates or those people who pay loans for years. What they fail to mention is that payday loans have a lower default rate than mortgages.
But let's not bother with facts, let's just accept the dogma cast upon us from the ivory towers of California. Once again Google acts as a vehicle for the shallow social agenda of political correctness of the Silicon Valley elite, sweeping problems under the rug of "someone else fix it". Fuck those arrogant bastards.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: Let them eat cake (Score:2)
Sa a company that sells advertising does not want to advertise products in category x anymore, I donâ(TM)t see the problem here. Is this just the usual hate Google thing, or is something else going on?
Re:Let them eat cake (Score:5, Informative)
What they fail to mention is that payday loans have a lower default rate than mortgages.
That is technically correct (which is the best kind of correct), but it's based on the kind of creative accounting that would make Hollywood blush.
Payday lenders make sure they are paid first whether the borrower has the money or not, so in many cases what would be a default is turned into an overdraft fee instead. The penalty for defaulting is still paid, it's just not recorded against the loan. Moreover, four out of five payday loans are rolled over. If you roll over a loan four times before defaulting, that would be recorded as a 20% default rate even though it's really the same debt.
For comparison, 46% of first-time mortgage holders don't default during the first two years. Payday loan borrowers do.
Re:Let them eat cake (Score:4, Insightful)
If these people that are forced to pay bail to not sit in remand (one of the worst ways to do time) waiting for trial usually pay off their debts, even if late, perhaps they shouldn't be forced to put up bail?
Bail is supposed to be for people at high risk of fleeing, not to enrich bail-bond companies or to punish the unconvicted (innocent until proved gullty).
Re:Let them eat cake (Score:4, Interesting)
We're talking about a country where the justice system seems to work with private business, keeping private jails full and such, with Judges and prosecutors who often have to stand for election, so need campaign donations.
Around here, it is the prosecution that suggests bail and the judge may or may not sign off on it. Just the other day, the local news was talking about an accused murderer who the prosecution asked for $80k bail and the Judge set it at zero (with conditions I'm sure). I got arrested many years ago and should have been considered high risk of flight. No bail, just having to report in regularly.
The force comes in by giving a choice of shit or bail. I understand staying in remand is one of the worst places to be as you don't even have the privileges of a convicted convict such as passing time by working and getting a couple of dollars a day.
My country also has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial and recently the Supreme Court set it at something like 18 months to 3 years depending on seriousness of charge and people, including accused murderers, have been walking due to taking too long to go to trial.
Re: (Score:2)
Payday lenders make sure they are paid first whether the borrower has the money or not, so in many cases what would be a default is turned into an overdraft fee instead.
Believe it or not, that's basically a form of credit, just like when someone only pays the minimum on their credit card debt. There's nothing crooked or evil about it.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said that payday lending was crooked or evil per se, merely that the statistic is misleading.
The true problem aren't the bondsmen... (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem isn't the bail bondsmen. The problem are American courts that set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes (often victimless crimes like drug possession) in the hope that they agree to a plea bargain.
Granted, it might be a symbiotic relationship of corruption in some cases. But we should be going after the courts themselves, not the bondsmen. Google would do well donating to organizations like the ACLU and SPLC, which are starting to sue on Constitutional grounds (prohibition of excessive bail, speedy trial rule) as well as working on legislative reform in some states.
Moves towards bail reform in CA and NJ are a good start, hope this spreads to other states. Same with drug law liberalization.
Re:The true problem aren't the bondsmen... (Score:4, Informative)
The problem isn't the bail bondsmen. The problem are American courts that set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes (often victimless crimes like drug possession) in the hope that they agree to a plea bargain.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The arraignment doesn't even start until after your bond hearing, so you don't plea anything at that point, let alone make a plea bargain. The purpose of the bond is an assurance that you'll show up to court when it is time for your arraignment, which is when you'll make your plea. If you don't show up to court, the court keeps all of your money, then they issue a warrant for your arrest, only now you're guilty of another offense as well. If you don't post bond, then you wait in detention until it is time for your arraignment.
Judges don't always require you to pay a bond. They make this decision based on whether they think you're a flight risk. Chances are that if you have a decent job, own a business, own a house, have a reputation of being a responsible person, or have other life situations that you aren't likely to want to just suddenly abandon, then the judge will do what's called an RoR, which requires no bond. Things like not paying child support, showing a propensity towards violence, believing that your decision to shoplift was somebody else's fault (i.e. you're irresponsible,) and the like, will make the judge more likely to raise your bond price, or even deny bond outright.
While the seriousness of the charge will also likely raise your bond (if not have it denied completely, i.e. for capital murder) the judge will still make you pay bail for smaller crimes if they think you're likely to not show up for your arraignment. So yeah, drug possession will demand a high (for you) bond if you have a reputation of being an irresponsible dickwad, and yes, you're more likely to be poor if you're an irresponsible dickwad.
Re:The true problem aren't the bondsmen... (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) Bonds are often set excessively high for minor crimes -- so high that some people can't bail out, since they have nothing to offer as collateral.
(2) Even if there's no real evidence of a crime, people are often jailed or kept on bail, and prosecutors collude with judges to keep delaying a fair trial.
(3) Why the fuck are we prosecuting people for drug possession in the first place? Costs money, and consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah sure, there is no such thing as soft drugs. Talk to victims of alcoholics and "soft" drug users driving around in cars or abusing their kids and family at home before you say the crimes are victimless.
You don't go to jail for being drunk/high at home.
Re: (Score:2)
consenting adults should be able to do what they want with their own bodies
And they should expect everyone else to bear the costs to them and the people they damage. Right? No?
Sure! Right after the trial, the one that "procedural due process" guarantees them as is their right, concludes with a guilty verdict should you even consider charging them for it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Much cheaper to keep millions of people in prison, employ large police forces as well as large justice systems and deprive people of basic rights such as a speedy trial or no excessive bail. Not to mention that these desperate people often perpetuate criminal acts to get their fixes
Here we've been experimenting with just giving junkies heroin, it's cheap, even having to maintain a clinic for them to show up to to get their fix and once these junkies have a reliable source of their drug, they actually become
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't figure you for a Prohibitionist.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they should not. But it is your right to damage and destroy your body as you see fit, just don't come crying to me when you're done.
Same goes for adrenaline junkies that need their fix going hanggliding or freeclimbing. Do what you want, it's your life and your body, but when you break your bones, you're on your own.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is rather why do you need a license to carry one around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem are American courts that set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes
... and a big cause of that is elected judges. 38 states have elected judges.
Democracy is a good thing, but not in a courtroom.
Re: (Score:2)
... and a big cause of that is elected judges.
Also elected prosecutors. But yes, elected judges.
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, if someone is doing a truly bad job, but is being kept in office by friends or family who happen to be in a position to appoint them to those jobs, then giving voters the ability to vote them out is a good idea.
IMO, the way it should work is that judges and prosecutors should be appointed, but the people should have the right to periodically have a confidence/no-confidence vote. And should voters decide to throw someone out, the people in charge of appointing them would then have to appo
Re: (Score:3)
The odds of the electorate being sufficiently informed about a judge to make a decision are about one in a million. Allowing the public to vote them out of office simply means that judges can't afford to piss off the special interests who organize 1000 angry people to vote them out while the other million have no opinion because they've never heard of the judge. The way to remove a corrupt judge should be either a panel of experts or another judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is a good thing, but not in a courtroom.
That's one of the good sides of ISIS. They have an excellent justice system that is not hindered by something as finicky as the will of the citizens living in the area. When they stone liars or throw traitors from the roof of buildings, when they crucify thieves or burn spies alive, they not only remove problems from the equation, they also send a clear message.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting we should have a dictatorship to run things and appoint judges and prosecutors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I do.
You're talking about the consequences of dirty needles (disease transmission), more so than the drugs themselves. Clean syringes are cheap. Allow over-the-counter sale and/or distribute them for free to people that need them, regardless of why they're needed.
Treatment should be on a case-by-case basis - hospitals can and do evaluate whether an addict (or former addict) that needs treatment is likely to relapse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We also have needle exchange programs, safe injection sites and a police force that are just as likely to send a junkie to a safe injection site as anything though it varies by community with the Christian communities really not liking those kinds of things.
Re: (Score:3)
You're rejected as a transplant recipient if you're known to inflict the condition on yourself and are likely to ruin your transplanted organ as well. So no new liver for alcoholics and no new lungs for people smoking 2 packs a day. Don't know about the US, but that's how we play the game in Europe. There aren't enough donor organs anyway, so they go to people who are likely to take good care of them instead of people who just waste it.
Why would you think it should be different for other diseases you inflic
Too bad (Score:2)
The song was so catchy [youtube.com]!
Wrong approach (Score:4, Interesting)
While I agree with the intent, and even the assessment of Bail Bond providers, Google should not be the entity deciding and enforcing what is correct speech!
That is entirely the purview of government, and once we let private companies start using their judgment we're in for a whole world of hurt.
For example, a legal proceeding (judgment and enforcement by government) usually has well-defined definitions that have been tested in court, refined by previous cases, and there's a clear-cut path for disagreement and appeal.
We're starting to feel the pinch of ambiguous rules and selective enforcement right now, as more people get pissed off because their previously acceptable videos get taken down, stored documents get locked away, accounts get locked and shadow-banned, and E-mails get scanned. (And caused at least one person to snap and go shoot up a bunch of Google employees.)
Instead of suppressing the ads, why doesn't Google suggest and throw its weight behind legislation? They seem to have no problem encouraging legislation in other areas.
There's a lot of smart people at Google. You would think that they could write simple legislation that could be submitted for debate that would make everyone's life better. Such as, for example, legislation about net neutrality.
Instead of forcing everyone into prim and proper behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's making a conscious decision to be political and interfere with a legal and voluntary business. It's only after it starts making such subjective decisions that it becomes "associated" - until then, being content neutral, they were no more associated than, say, someone writing a history book about Josef Mengele was "associated" with him.
And, they are regulating speech. Advertising is commercial speech, and they're undenia
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers have been doing this almost since the invention of advertiser-supported media. Why are you taking umbrage now?
Re: (Score:2)
Newspapers have been doing this almost since the invention of advertiser-supported media. Why are you taking umbrage now?
Wrong. Newspapers refusing a specific sponsor are like owners of a website refusing specific types of ads.
Google is the platform, the exchange and the clearinghouse. They're abusing their power to further a social agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Well don't use them, it isn't like the government which is pretty well unavoidable and empowered to use force.
Re: (Score:2)
Google should be content neutral about their search results. But not about their ads. We should urge companies to be a lot more selective about their ads, instead of serving up whatever malware and scams advertisers input.
Re: (Score:2)
Bail: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO) [youtube.com] — June 2015
When the product category is more trouble than it's worth, time to dump it.
What tends to happen in outlaw industries like this one is that the sensible parties form a trade association to enforce some kind of standard of conduct internally, and then they're allowed to play with the nice kids again.
If somehow Google = speech, then the conversation we need to be having
Silly. Who uses bondsman? People in jail (Score:5, Insightful)
I learned a bit about the bail system and I think this is a pretty silly move on Google's part. As for who uses bondsmen - people in jail, that's who.
The choices are:
1. Pay the bail in cash.
2. Use a bondsman.
3. Sit in jail.
People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up. They're not going to bail themselves out in most cases, though they do have that option.
It's typically family members who feel somewhat obligated to bail someone out of jail. Their choice is pay the bail in cash, which might be about $2,000, or pay 10%, $200, to a bondsman. Since people who end up in jail are typically not the most reliable people, putting up $2,000 cash and hoping to get it back a year later if your drunk brother shows up to all his court appearances doesn't seem like a good idea.
I HAVE $2,000 in savings, I could *afford* to put $2,000 to bail someone out, but I'd rather just pay the bondsman $200 and not have to worry about it. The bondsman will have him call in a few times per week, and try to make sure he doesn't "forget" his court appearance. I don't want to do all that, hoping to eventually get my cash back from court. I'd rather let a professional handle that.
The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit. If they were, more people would go into that line of business. The bondsman loses money on anyone who doesn't show up to court. If they use a recovery agent (bounty hunter) and successfully recover the fugitive, the bondman only loses a little bit of money. If they don't recover the fugitive, they lose a lot of money.
I can understand reasons people might point to problems with the bail SYSTEM, but bail is much older than bail bondsman. Bondsmen didn't create the bail system. Bondsmen make it possible for people who aren't rich to get out on bail.
The bail system itself has advantages and disadvantages. It allows people freedom while they await trial. That's good. It protects society in general by giving an incentive for professionals to make sure people charged with a crime actually show up to court, including tracking down fugitives who run. On the other hand, like everything else, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does make things easier. We'd like to have a criminal justice system in which nobody has any advantage, but the fact is there are advantages to having resources. Bail isn't perfect. On balance, weighing the positives and negatives, I think the bail system has more advantages than disadvantages.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really see the problem of bail bonds in and of themselves.
Re: Silly. Who uses bondsman? People in jail (Score:2)
Re: Silly. Who uses bondsman? People in jail (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Silly. Who uses bondsman? People in jail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ray, you will still be able to search for bail bondsmen via Google. You just won't get their ads pushed at you
Why don't you give it a moment's thought before you weigh in?
True, and that's when the ads show up (Score:2)
That's true, you can still search.
A bail bondsman is of course someone you call when you need a bandsman; it's not an impulse buy at all. Since people are only going to call a bandsman when they need one, it seems to me it only makes sense for bondsmen to advertise on Google to those searching for bondsmen. So it should make very little difference. Search for bondsmen, get listings for them. Whether or not some of the listings are paid listings doesn't change much that I can see. Other than perhaps opening
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, so why all the pearl-clutching about how there won't be any bail bondsmen any more?
Google has decided that they don't need to take money from these predators. That is their choice.
Seriously, if you needed some service like bail bonds, would you even click on a paid Google ad? No, you wouldn't. You'd type "bail bonds near me" in the search box and you'd be in business.
Re: (Score:2)
Ray, you will still be able to search for bail bondsmen via Google. You just won't get their ads pushed at you
If you see nothing wrong with that, then don't come here to whine and bitch the day they decide to block stuff you personally care about.
Such arrogance, smh
Re: (Score:2)
Google can block every single google ad and I will be a happy guy. Even stuff I care about. Block them all. You understand we're talking about google ads here, right? What, you mean to tell us you're not running an ad blocker on your browser right now? Would you really miss ads?
I fail to see the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a quote from the lobbyist leading this boycott:
At a time when corporations are finally being held accountable for their roles in enabling mass incarceration, it is encouraging to see a company as powerful as Google cutting ties with businesses that profit from incarcerating poor Black and brown people... Google's announcement comes after months of advocacy by our organizations. We hope this decision encourages other corporations to take proactive steps to sever ties with the for-profit bail industry and end the incentives that fuel mass incarceration.
This is retarded. The bail industry is not "fueling mass incarceration", they're allowing people with limited funds to remain free instead of waiting in jail for months or years.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a different discussion entirely. The bail bond system is a horrible mess. Bonds are not set fairly, and there is terrible abuse. The entire system should be scrapped and something better should take its place.
I was addressing whether or not Google is somehow taking away people's access to bail bonds by not selling ads to th
Re: (Score:3)
The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit.
If that were the case you'll find it wouldn't be contentious. It's like saying payday loan companies don't make outrageous profits. Yes there are a few good actors, but for the most part money lending of any kind that targets either the poor or desperate invariably turns into a cesspool.
So abortion doctors make outrageous profits? (Score:2)
>> The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit.
> If that were the case you'll find it wouldn't be contentious.
Abortion doctors are contentious, so they must be making obscene profits?
People are generally having a bad day when they need to engage a bail bondsman. Many are happy to blame it on anyone and everyone involved in the process - the cops are scumbags, the jail guards are scumbags, bondmen are scumbags, the judge has it out for me, etc. It's ALL of those people's fault that I got busted
Think about that a little more. Read the your own (Score:2)
> > People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up.
> Then bail is obviously too high.
So you're thinking that because my brother was too irresponsible to save up $20 while he was committing his daily crimes such as shoplifting and domestic abuse, he should be set free and not have to face trial? Or are you thinking that his bond should be $5, because certainly he'll show up to court to get his $5 back?
> It sounds like you're accepti
Re: (Score:3)
> > People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up.
> Then bail is obviously too high.
So you're thinking that because my brother was too irresponsible to save up $20 while he was committing his daily crimes such as shoplifting and domestic abuse, he should be set free and not have to face trial? Or are you thinking that his bond should be $5, because certainly he'll show up to court to get his $5 back?
If he's that irresponsible, he shouldn't get out on bail in the first place.
> it shouldn't take anything close to a year to get your money back because it shouldn't take a year to resolve a criminal dispute.
Are you under the impression that bail bondsmen set the courts' schedules?
In a manner of speaking, they do. More precisely, the existence of bail bondsmen facilitates the slowness of our system of justice.
You see, if the bondsmen didn't exist, then most of those people would be in jails, which means the jails would quickly fill up with people waiting to go to trial, and the flow of people into the system would be limited to no more than the flow of people out of the system. The net effect would be that
Re: (Score:2)
> If you think the risk of losing $2000 is going to stop a person from skipping out to avoid a trial, that's pretty much only going to be true if the punishment is low enough.
There are multiple parts to that.
The risk that they won't show up depends on many factors. Someone who drifts from town to town crashing on relatives' and friends' couches is likely to drift on and not show up. People accused of serious crimes have reason to not show up. On the other hand, someone who owns a house there probably i
Wait what? (Score:2)
Google is deciding which businesses are valid and which are not? Wow. Queue evil overlord music already?
You know I could almost say "Sure why not." but then I remembered this is the same company probably serving malware over their networks because they're not vetting very well.
Then I noticed a post in this same discussion about the target market for bondsmen services isn't likely using the internet regularly, if at all. So, Google takes a moral stance on bullshit when it doesn't even matter cuz bondsmen
Re: (Score:3)
Yes Google is deciding which companies it will sell its own ad space to.
Re: (Score:2)
It’ll start or stop where Google wants it to since its their own ad service.
The real reason (Score:2)
Googles business re-enforces the very stereotypes they'll tell us we shouldn't have. It's profiling its users based on race and social status and showing them ads for pay day loans and bail bonds. How un SJW of them.
The fuck? (Score:2)
"Today, weâ(TM)re announcing a new policy to prohibit ads that promote bail bond services from our platforms. Studies show that for-profit bail bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years."
You do understand that bail bondsmen actually provide a critical service, essentially allowing people to afford bail that otherwise co
Re: (Score:2)
Not getting ads for a service doesn't mean you won't get the service. You'll still be able to find bail bond places via Google, but you won't have ads popping up for them when you are searching for other stuff.
Does your racism preclude you from reading the fucking headline before launching into your Stormfront diatribe that has nothing whatsoever to do with the story being discussed? What is it that went so w
Re: (Score:2)
Not getting ads for a service doesn't mean you won't get the service. You'll still be able to find bail bond places via Google, but you won't have ads popping up for them when you are searching for other stuff.
Your jailed have internet? Nice planet you live on.
Re: (Score:3)
No, goose. Most bail bonds are arranged by wives or family members of the men who commit most of the crime. That's why you find bail bonds places near jails. It's not because the guy who was arrested can say, "Let me walk across the street and I'll arrange for a bail bond." It's because the wife or girlfriend or family member or friend of the arrested individual can make only one trip.
First they came for ... (Score:3)
Search for "non-profit bail bonds" (Score:2)
So your options are "sit in jail".
Feel empowered.
https://youtu.be/lb8fWUUXeKM?t... [youtu.be]
The Bail System (Score:2)
Maybe I just don't understand the bail system, not living in the US, but from I gather it is a simple system: If you can get released on bail, you pay the bail and are released. When you show up as you're supposed to, you get the bail back - in full.
If this is correct, a bail bondsman just lends you the bail money for a short time. It really can't be that expensive as there's legislation against obscene interest rates and a bail bondsman is usually a lawful business.
So why are they a harmful business? They
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I just don't understand the bail system, not living in the US, but from I gather it is a simple system: If you can get released on bail, you pay the bail and are released. When you show up as you're supposed to, you get the bail back - in full.
If this is correct, a bail bondsman just lends you the bail money for a short time. It really can't be that expensive as there's legislation against obscene interest rates and a bail bondsman is usually a lawful business.
So why are they a harmful business? They provide a service to those not wealthy enough to come up with the money themselves.
Just guessing here, but the US laws governing the various forms of lending services tend to have more holes in them than fishing net which gives various niche lenders like car financing companies, payday loan companies and bail bondsmen ample latitude to practice outrageous forms of usury.
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't harmful businesses, they provide a useful service to people who would otherwise rot in jail.
They are being attacked because bail has been turned into a "social justice" cause. According to left wing ideology, it's unfair that rich people can get better lawyers, can get better medical treatments, can buy better foods, can buy homes in nicer neighborhoods, can send their kids to better schools, etc. Being able to post bail without paying interest is another thing
I've been (Score:2)
I've been to Bali. It's a nice place once you get away from the Australian tourist hot-spots.
Ah, the limosine l... (Score:2)
nice going, Google! (Score:2)
What that means is that Google disenfranchises mino
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, if we still had a decent human like Holder as Attorney General,...
Did he do anything about this during the 6 years that he was the Attorney General?
If the answer is "no,", then why do you think it would be different now? Besides wishful thinking?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't Americans have a right to a speedy trial?
Here in Canada the Supreme Court recently ruled that keeping people waiting for years for trial is unconstitutional and all kinds of people have had their charges stayed with the idea that the government will hire more Judges to stop accused murderers from walking.
I believe the soft limits are 18 months to 3 years depending on seriousness of charges.
We also seldom force the accused to put up bail or put them in remand, at least relative to America and time in r
Re: (Score:2)
F and F, also Operation Fearless was also Holder's (Score:4, Informative)
ATF agents playing Keystone Kops and entrapping mentally-disabled people. And arresting people with rock-solid alibis (like being in federal prison at the time of their supposed offense). The IG issued a pretty scathing report: https://oig.justice.gov/report... [justice.gov]
The report concluded that all the ATF’s storefront operations were characterized by “poor management, insufficient training and guidance to agents in the field, and a lax organizational culture that failed to place sufficient emphasis on risk management in these inherently sensitive operations.”
Agents lost track of a fully automatic assault rifle and lost $35,000 worth of store “merchandise” in a burglary. The ATF paid such high prices for guns that potential victims of the sting legally bought guns from gun stores and sold them to friendly Fearless Distributing. One entrepreneur stole three ATF guns from the store. The next day he returned and sold one of them back. One of the men agents charged with selling them drugs had an airtight alibi. He was already in prison. ATF agents said Jones sold them six grams of marijuana on March 7. Problem was, Jones reported to a federal prison in Pennsylvania to start a sentence on March 1, according to Chris Burke, spokesman for the federal Bureau of Prisons - on an ATF case. "He was definitely in our custody," Burke said. "He never left."
Re: People should refuse to be bonded out. (Score:5, Informative)
Falsehoods, top to bottom.
Holder "stopped" a program that allowed the Federal Government to request civil forfeiture. However, as long as the state/local police requested that the Federal Government bring the charges, everything was fine. Notice that civil forfeiture rates didn't drop during Holder's "stoppage".
He told US attorneys not to overcharge crimes - against black drug dealers only. Non-drug crimes? Hispanics? Throw the book at 'em!
Fast and Furious was NOT started under Bush. This is a constant lie told by his defenders, but it simply is not true. The Bush Administration tried a program called 'Wide Receiver'. In that program, the ATF sold disabled guns with tracking devices to criminals, and cooperated with the Mexican police to track the guns into Mexico to launch raids targeting a specific drug kingpin. Unfortunately, even with planes following the criminals, the criminals kept getting away. So the program was cancelled, with a mere 400 guns sold over two years.
Holder's Fast and Furious did not disable the guns, did not attempt to track them, did not follow the criminals, did not coordinate with Mexican law enforcement, and did not have a target. Instead, from the investigation performed after the ATF's illegal guns were used to kill a US Border Patrol agent, we discovered that Holder wanted to use the program to drum up support for gun control laws in the United States.
Holder is lying racist scum that had no problem giving violent drug cartels working weapons, so that they would murder people with them, so he could use the propaganda to violate US citizen's rights. Beyond the wiretapping journalists and all that, I mean.
mod up (Score:2)
Re:this is a mistake (Score:4, Interesting)
They can still Google for a bondsman. They just won't see ads. It is a commodity service, and the only thing that matters is the fee. The ads just run up the costs.
Last time I was in jail there was a list of bail bond companies, in alphabetical order, posted on the wall next to the phone.
Re: this is a mistake (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: this is a mistake (Score:3)
Fake news from "anonymous sources"?
Re: this is a mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG - it's almost like the propaganda organs on BOTH sides of the bogus left/right divide pump out fake news all day and all night long. Good thing THAT's not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Opposition research. I would note that you didn't care when the DNC did it, and *then used it to falsely claim it was intelligence and get a FISA warrant.
It is certainly not treason, nor a violation of the Logan act, to look for mud about an opponent.
It certainly IS black-letter law violation of the Logan act for a private citizen to negotiate with a foreign government in contradiction the elected government. That is literally and precisely, and uncontested truth, that this is w
Re: this is a mistake (Score:2)
Re: this is a mistake (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: this is a mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
Flynn lied about a discussion with the russians AFTER trump was already elected (but before sworn in)
and Ukraine isnt russia
so once again. there is no proof of collusion, there is no proof of conspiracy, and this entire thing is a witch hunt
Re: (Score:3)
Could it be a bipartisan action? It would be the first sensible one in a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that you have to pay that loan back somehow? My question would be: how? You're going to trial after a while where you might go to jail, not really earning any relevant amounts of money while that loan keeps piling up interest. Then you get out and have a mountain of debt in front of you that you might, if you're lucky, be able to at least pay the interest of, with no chance to ever actually repay it in your lifetime or that of your kids.
You really think it's a good idea?