This is actually a really important issue. In addition to being discriminatory, bail bonding is turning into a massive insurance fraud scheme that major insurance companies are perpetrating on taxpayers nationwide. ACLUâs been working to raise awareness of this. Weâre paying to keep poor people in jail, weâre paying to enrich insurers, giant insurers are masquerading as mom-and-pop businesses after have pushed all the actual mom-and-pop bail-bonders out of business. Theyâre lobbying to tilt the taxpayer money trough ever more steeply into their pockets. Itâs a sickening situation that too few people are aware of. Thank goodness for the ACLU.
A bipartisan effort to address an abuse? I felt like Iâd come unstuck in time for a bit, and we were back somewhere in the '80s.
I briefly worked around the Hill in the mid 80s, when bipartisanship meant efforts from across the aisles. By the early W years it had devolved to meaning getting 1-2 crossover votes from the other party. Donât know if that started in the Clinton years or the Wâs years (I was in grad school, and wasnât paying as close attention in the Clinton years.) Only when the so-called âGang of Eightâ emerged in the Obama years did we see efforts that attempted to be bipartisan re-emerge from (rare) time to time.
It is a very interesting (to me, unexpected) pairing to co-author/sponsor this effort. I applaud both of them for this.
Ironically, this may prove helpful to Trump Administration officials.
Another way to siphon money from the poor. Especially because the money you pay a bail-bond company is forfeit regardless of whether the defendant shows up for trial, and (in many states) the bail-bond company doesnât actually have to pay up if the defendants skips. And if the defendant stays in jail, in many jurisdictions an additional bill piles up for their incarcerationâŚ
Great! Now pass a law against the unconstitutional civil asset forfeiture practice Sessions wants to revive:
Bail in England 600 years ago involved putting up the potential fine in its entirety before conviction. Jails were scarce and expensive to run. The UK now gives judges great discretion in bail, which may mean just an instruction to show up at the next court date. In contrast, this remains a giant business in the US, both for counties and the bail bond industry, which is a subset of the prison-industrial complex.
If this makes it out of Congress, what are the odds it gets signed into law? (Although it would bolster his mediocre numbersâŚ)
This is an issue that Jeff (I never saw a for profit prison I couldnât make money on) Sessions is going to oppose.
Good on them. Here in Cook County, itâs a horror:
Some 250 to 300 people are jailed every day on average because they canât post $1,000 cash or less, according to the sheriffâs office.
Fortunately, we seem to finally have a decent Stateâs Attorney whoâs trying to do something about it.
Next, Iâm hoping for fines based on the ability to pay, like they have in Finland.
A boy can dream canât he? 
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), joined by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), introduced a bill Thursday that would incentivize states to replace the use of money bail as a condition of pretrial release in criminal cases.The Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act would seek to incentivize states to replace cash bail â that is, defendants putting up money for their release from jail before trial â with âindividualized, pretrial assessmentsâ that would allow accused individuals who do not pose a risk of flight or criminal conduct to be released from custody.
Are other senators leaning toward supporting PISA?
Thereâs bi-partisan and then thereâs Kamala Harris and Ryand Paul.
How did this odd couple ever get together?
It is nice to see a joint effort especially targeting one of the lesser known issues that needs attention just like everything else, but there has to be a little something else happening behind the scenes here, doesnât there?
I see what you did there.
I would have to guess that Harris came up with the bill, and then went shopping for a conservative to put his name on it (possibly in return for some acceptable modifications).
The system pretty much works this way already. Not sure I understand the change.
I was thinking that the two of them need to bolster their resumes some. Kamala is a rising star and Ryand is an empty vessel, so different reasons but the same idea.
You could be right as well. Something seems really odd about this combo besides her being a tough female, black attorney and him being a falsely accredited eye doctor with a bad rug and funky accent.
Well, putting on my Pollyanna glasses, what is important is that good legislation be done. Iâm certain that they both have the very best intentions.
Pollyanna I could do but I think your being a bit facetious with that best of intentions comment.
Kamala seems ingenuous to me but Ryand Paul is a proven snake and bounces around like a super ball as required.
Paul does have some libertarianesque ideals. People denied their constitutional right to a speedy trial is something he would genuinely care about. (and frankly, I donât understand how the ACLU did not file a civil case on the incarcerated boyâs behalf.)