This amount of money is a slap on the wrist compared to what he claims his wealth is. If you or I would commit this crime this would be equivalent to < $100 for bond
It’s only to assure the accused comes back to face the charges. It isn’t a penalty. Otherwise, the thinking goes, the defendant will have no reason to come back and face the court. This was probably extra true around the time of the founding of the US, when someone could more easily slip away and start a new life
If it’s not not based on ability to pay, it can’t possibly work like you describe. Instead poor people get stuck in jail because they can’t pay, and rich people never set foot in jail because the bond is pocket change to them. From what I gather, that’s exactly how it works in practice, so it’s really just a system to give special treatment to rich people and punish poor people who haven’t been convicted of a crime.
In a practical sense, it does work as you say, and can prevent the poor from obtaining bail. The system wasn’t explicitly designed that way, and rich people who are dangerous to the community can get super high bail set as well. Source: I’m a lawyer
Isn’t it? Shouldn’t it be? Isn’t it supposed to be a disincentive? What’s the risk of losing $200k to a man who is supposed to be worth billions (but is surely worth hundreds of millions at least)?
But it’s still wildly unfair. Imagine getting a $10k bond, you either need $10k cash you can part with temporarily (assuming you show up and are innocent) or far more likely you need to pay $1k to a bondsman that you won’t get back. Someone living paycheck to paycheck might not have the savings and so they either pay a poor tax or spend some time in jail.
But for the rich, they always have the funds, or someone willing to loan it for a lot less than 10-15%. And it’s rarely set high enough to be a significant deterrent.
Illinois just became the first state to eliminate cash bail, because you’re either a flight/violation risk or you’re not, money shouldn’t tip the scale.
You’re right. I’m not trying to say that he’s been sentenced or anything, but I’m referring to how little money $20,000 is to a guy like Trump. We’re talking the price of a moderately used 2017 Honda Civic as bond for a guy who participated in a malicious conspiracy to overturn the results of a democratic election (in multiple states, mind you). It’s a start contrast to the fact that there are countless innocent people who have lost their lives for no due to a justice system that is all too ready and willing to lay down the law against little people like you and me.
If we did even 1% of what Trump has done we would be held without bail until the date of our trial.
This isn’t a slap on the wrist punishment, this is the bond to not be held in jail pending trial.
This amount of money is a slap on the wrist compared to what he claims his wealth is. If you or I would commit this crime this would be equivalent to < $100 for bond
Bond isn’t based on ability to pay…
If it’s not based on ability to pay, what even is the point?
Rules for thee but not for me
It’s only to assure the accused comes back to face the charges. It isn’t a penalty. Otherwise, the thinking goes, the defendant will have no reason to come back and face the court. This was probably extra true around the time of the founding of the US, when someone could more easily slip away and start a new life
If it’s not not based on ability to pay, it can’t possibly work like you describe. Instead poor people get stuck in jail because they can’t pay, and rich people never set foot in jail because the bond is pocket change to them. From what I gather, that’s exactly how it works in practice, so it’s really just a system to give special treatment to rich people and punish poor people who haven’t been convicted of a crime.
In a practical sense, it does work as you say, and can prevent the poor from obtaining bail. The system wasn’t explicitly designed that way, and rich people who are dangerous to the community can get super high bail set as well. Source: I’m a lawyer
But then that does make it into a penalty.
Sure, for all practical purposes it can be, but unlike a penalty like a speeding ticket, you can get your money back if you show up.
Isn’t it? Shouldn’t it be? Isn’t it supposed to be a disincentive? What’s the risk of losing $200k to a man who is supposed to be worth billions (but is surely worth hundreds of millions at least)?
But it’s still wildly unfair. Imagine getting a $10k bond, you either need $10k cash you can part with temporarily (assuming you show up and are innocent) or far more likely you need to pay $1k to a bondsman that you won’t get back. Someone living paycheck to paycheck might not have the savings and so they either pay a poor tax or spend some time in jail.
But for the rich, they always have the funds, or someone willing to loan it for a lot less than 10-15%. And it’s rarely set high enough to be a significant deterrent.
Illinois just became the first state to eliminate cash bail, because you’re either a flight/violation risk or you’re not, money shouldn’t tip the scale.
You’re right. I’m not trying to say that he’s been sentenced or anything, but I’m referring to how little money $20,000 is to a guy like Trump. We’re talking the price of a moderately used 2017 Honda Civic as bond for a guy who participated in a malicious conspiracy to overturn the results of a democratic election (in multiple states, mind you). It’s a start contrast to the fact that there are countless innocent people who have lost their lives for no due to a justice system that is all too ready and willing to lay down the law against little people like you and me.
If we did even 1% of what Trump has done we would be held without bail until the date of our trial.