> a terribly dystopian idea in my opinion, as only the rich would then have access to actual lawyers
The rich don't go to jail already. The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. That, to me, is far more dystopian than a cheap tool to help people appeal traffic tickets.
You're conflating a few different things. Being able to pay bail so you don't have to be in jail while you wait for your trial doesn't get you out of having a trial, and has nothing to do with needing lawyers.
What the parent was referring to is the fact that if AI starts to consume the low-end (starting with traffic tickets), actual lawyers for trials will become even more expensive, and thus poorer people will actually fare worse because they will lose their already-limited access to human lawyers. Yes, their case might get handled with less hassle and cheaper, but the quality of the service is not -better-, it's just cheaper/easier.
Or maybe we only end up using lawyers when they're actually needed, and they become less costly for things like criminal trials. Think on the doctor whose routine cold and flu visits are replaced by an AI. Now they have a lot more time and bandwidth to handle patients who actually need physician care.
We can't just assume it's going to go the worst way. Neither outcome is particularly more likely, and the human element is by far the most unpredictable.
To wit: I was listening to a report yesterday on NPR about concierge primary care physicians. The MD they were interviewing was declining going that direction because they saw being a doctor as part duty and felt concierge medicine went against that.
It seems to me you're the only one conflating things? Grandparent didn't say anything about getting out of having a trial, or about needing lawyers. They're talking about how people with money can use it to avoid spending time in jail, and gave a perfectly valid example of someone rich doing exactly that.
That is pretty bad example. In theory, bail should be affordable to the individual person. It is meant to be insurance that you come back for actual court date.
The outrage there is bails being set to unaffordable sizes for poor people. OP was picking out the case where bail functioned as intended.
If that's the case, why involve money in it? About a third of people who are arrested cannot afford bail, while if you are rich (maybe through crime), you can pay it. Of course bail is a mechanism for differential treatment between rich and poor in the judicial system.
Right, the UK generally doesn't have cash bail, and the most recent noteworthy example where cash bail was used (Julian Assange) the accused did not in fact surrender and those who stumped up the money for bail lost their money, suggesting it's just a way for people with means to avoid justice.
The overwhelming majority of cases bailed in the UK surrender exactly as expected, even in cases where they know they are likely to receive a custodial sentence. Where people don't surrender I've been to hearings for those people and they're almost invariably incompetent rather than seriously trying to evade the law. Like, you were set bail for Tuesday afternoon, you don't show up, Wednesday morning the cops get your name, they go to your mum's house, you're asleep in bed because you thought it was next Tuesday. Idiots, but hardly a great danger to society. The penalty for not turning up is they spend however long in the cells until the court gets around to them, so still better than the US system but decidedly less convenient than if they'd actually turned up as requested.
I am not defending bail as a system. However, the system in USA relies on it. The complaint here was not that poor people stay in jail. The complain was purely about someone being able to pay bail.
> About a third of people who are arrested cannot afford bail, while if you are rich (maybe through crime), you can pay it.
This means 2/3 of arrested people can afford bail or are released without it. A case of single rich person having affordable bail is not exactly proof of inequality here. Poor people who had low enough bail they were able to pay do exist too.
Every time I see this "traffic ticket" thing, it usually looks like
1) The driver was actually speeding
and
2) The driver is trying to get off on a technicality
Is that the case?
In the US do you get "points" on your driving license so that if you are caught speeding several times in the space of a couple of years you get banned?
In the UK being caught mildly speeding (say doing 60 in a 50), in the course of 3 years it's typically
Same in the UK, you have to get lifts or taxis everywhere, unless you live in big cities (London has great public transport, but so does New York. The weekly bus that my sister gets doesn't really help her to travel to work as dozens of different schools all over the county)
It's a very good reason not to speed.
So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding?
Are fines at least proportional to wealth? Or can a rich people speed without problem as saving 10 minutes on their journey is worth the $100 fine even if it was guaranteed they got one?
(In the UK speed is almost entirely enforced by cameras, not by police cars which are rarely seen on roads. Removes any bias the cop might have -- maybe the cop has it in for young tesla drivers so pulls them over, but lets the old guy in a pickup go past)
> So it's just a fine that Americans get for speeding?
Well, things vary from state to state. But there is definitely a point system in place for excessive speeding, speeding in a school zone, passing a school bus at any speed, stuff like that. In a lot of places you can be arrested for reckless driving, with varying levels of what defines "reckless." Virginia is notorious for their speeding laws. Speeding in excess of 20mph of the posted limit or in excess of 80mph regardless of limit (e.g. 81 in a 65) is what they consider reckless driving and it's a misdemeanor that could potentially (but not likely) give you a one year jail sentence.
In the US, a small percentage of people drive completely insane.
If going 75mph on a highway that is 65mph or 70mph someone will fly past going a 100mph.
Those are the people that get tickets. Otherwise, it is pretty difficult to even get pulled over.
I have only been pulled over twice in my life and not in 20 years. I think police departments have cut back quite a bit on police trying to rack up traffic tickets.
The fine is not the issue. The whole process is a massive waste of your time.
No, fines are not proportional to wealth (at least in most states). They're either flat fees or pegged to speed. Points on license as well, so ~3 tickets inside a year and you lose your license or have to take a course to keep it.
Most tickets are given by live officers. Cameras do exist, but typically only in dense urban areas. Which opens another can of worms, as police are biased.
We also have lists of secondary offenses the officer can cite only after citing you for speeding (or some other primary offense). Things like a failed light bulb, or some other minor safety issue. These are disproportionately used against PoC.
In the US you get a fine and you get points against you. Points cause your auto insurance to go up. And too many results in restricted or a suspended license. Which doesn't prevent people from driving but usually causes them to drive very conservatively so as not to get caught.
And the parent is correct the much of the US is set up for people to drive so much so that being draconian isn't practical. And it's something to keep in mind that any given individual didn't decide that's how the place they live in is setup.
The US is similar, but we also have other dynamics. Some municipalities rely on traffic tickets for revenue, so they have a perverse incentive to create more infractions. Notable examples are automated ticketing at red light leading to shorter yellows[0], and speed traps where a small town on a highway sets unreasonably low speed limits[1].
For traffic tickets, it is often possible to go to court and have the judge offer a reduced fine for pleading guilty or no contest (you don't admit guilt, but you don't plead innocence and accept the punishment).
Most people, when they want to fight such tickets, think they can argue their way out of it. Whereas the judge and officers simply just want to get the hearings over with. They do hundreds of such hearings a week and have heard it all before. So, the judge will tell the courtroom that they can get a reduction and how to get it. Sadly, the defendants are anxious, have been mentally preparing themselves for a fight, and are in an unfamiliar environment so they tend to get tunnel vision and choose to plead 'not guilty'. They inevitably loose.
If you ever find yourself in such a situation, pay close attention to what the judge offers everyone before the hearings begin. If they don't offer such a bargain, when it is your time to appear before the judge you can ask "would the court consider a reduction in exchange for a plea of no contest?" It doesn't hurt to ask.
True as far as it goes, but bear in mind that a huge proportion of the population speeds routinely. So enforcing the law doesn't feel equitable; the rule of law already doesn't exist on the roads.
I could run the actual statistics for my district’s Court and tell you the percentage of reoffending while on bond, but in my experience a number approaching 40%, of people out on felony bonds, are re-arrested for additional felony conduct.
Well, because there are now e.g. two cases of murder instead of only one, and the second one was entirely preventable? Oh, right, the law is not about the populace's lives and well-being, how silly of me to assume that.
You didn't answer my questions. Do you think it would decrease the odds of reoffending if they didn't get bail?
If it doesn't, then it's two crimes either way, just timed differently. And after the policy settled in it would have negligible impact on the crime rate.
Also if you're doing sentencing for two crimes at once you can give a longer punishment for the first crime and get them off the street longer.
Yes, it would decrease the odds, provided that after walking out of jail the probability of a criminal to commit a crime (that includes his intent to reoffend but also possible changes in the environment that happened during his time in jail that reduce his possibilities to do so) is less than before walking in, because they wouldn't get the chance to reoffend immediately.
I don't assume that someone coming out of a sentence is less likely to commit a crime. Isn't it often the opposite, because the US is so bad at rehabilitation?
Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you?
But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender; also, some people die during the sentence... the probability does go down, for many small reasons compounded together.
> Then you should argue for "shoot at sight" or "lifetime sentences/electric chair for everything", shouldn't you?
Not unless I'm a robot programmed to prevent recidivism at all costs. Why are you even asking this?
> But no, the probability does decreases since not every ex-jailed becomes a repeated offender
...and not everyone released before their trial becomes a repeat offender.
> some people die during the sentence
Is that a significant effect? I don't think most sentences are long enough for that to make a big difference, and I don't think preventing a single crime per lifetime, at most, is enough reason to keep people locked up for the lengthy pre-trial process.
I assume that the original comment was about how someone can get could pretty much red-handed for battery and assault/home violence but then instead of getting put into pre-trial/provisional detention (yes, you can get locked up even before being judged guilty, outrageous), they are just allowed to go because eh, why bother.
The rich don't go to jail already. The crypto scammer paid a huge bail and got out on his private jet. That, to me, is far more dystopian than a cheap tool to help people appeal traffic tickets.