Name: California Supreme Court: Judges must take 'ability to pay' into consideration for bail
Brand: kcra.com
SKU: kcra-com-48
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

California Supreme Court: Judges must take 'ability to pay' into consideration for bail

preview

AdvertisementCalifornia Supreme Court: Judges must take 'ability to pay' into consideration for bailHide TranscriptShow TranscriptIT WILL BE CLEAR ONCE THE SUN COMES UP TOMORROW MORNING. EDIE: NOW TO A STORY THAT COULD HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE STATE’S LEGAL SYSTEM. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULED TODAY THAT JUDGES MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A SUSPECT’S ABILITY TO PAY WHEN SETTING THEIR BAIL. &gt;&gt; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE PUNITIVE. VICTIMS SHOULD NOT BE LOOKING TO EXTRACT MORE MONEY OUT OF THEM, THINKING THAT’S GOING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFER, OR THIS PERSON SAFER. GULSTAN: KCRA 3’S WALTER MAKAULA TALKED TO SOMEONE ADVOCATING FOR THE ACCUSED TO GET A FAIR BAIL SET, AND TO A "CRIME VICTIM’S ADVOCATE" ABOUT WHETHER THE RULING WAS FAIR. WALTER: IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION, THE STATE’S HIGH COURT SAID. "THE COMMON PRACTICE OF CONDITIONING FREEDOM SOLELY ON WHETHER AN ARRESTEE CAN AFFORD BAIL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL." UNTIL NOW ANYONE WHO COULD AFFORD TO PAY THEIR BAIL DID SO AND WAS RELEASED FROM JAIL. BUT THOSE WHO COULDN’T AFFORD IT REMAINED BEHIND BARS. &gt;&gt; IT WAS A GOOD THING FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE NOW COURTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT PEOPLE CAN PAY AND MANY MORE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BAIL OUT OF JAIL. WALTER: TOPO PADILLA IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE GOLDEN STATE BAIL AGENTS ASSOCIATION. HE SAYS IT DOESN’T MEAN BAIL IS BEING ELIMINATED FOR THOSE WHO DON’T DESERVE IT. IT JUST EVENS THE PLAYING FIELD FOR EVERYONE ACROSS THE BOARD NO MATTER WHAT THEIR FINANCIAL STATUS MAY BE. &gt;&gt; IT’S NOT RIGHT THAT RICH PEOPLE CAN PAY TO GET OUT OF JAIL AND POOR PEOPLE CAN’T. BAIL HAS TO HAVE CONSEQUENCES, MEANING THAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY WITH A VERY HEINOUS CRIME SAY I CAN ONLY AFFORD $500. IS THAT $500 GOING TO BE ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY GO TO COURT AND THAT’S WHAT THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF COURT IS. IT’S PUBLIC SAFETY AND WILL THEY APPEAR IN COURT? THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH BAIL IS PSOMETIMES IT’S USED TO BE PUNITIVE AND WE DON’T WANT THAT. THAT’S NOT WHAT BAIL IS FOR. WALTER: PART OF THE RULING TALKS ABOUT PROTECTING VICTIMS. AND THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A SAY IN WHETHER THE BAIL OF THE SUSPECT IN THEIR CASE IS GOING TO BE LOWERED. AND WHY THEY FEEL IT SHOULD INSTEAD BE HIGHE NINA: IT RECOGNIZED THAT THE VOICE OF THE VICTIM ALSO HAD A PLACE THERE. THAT THE VICTIM NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED. THEIR SAFETY NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED PRIOR TO ANYONE BEING RELEASED. WALTER: NINA SALARNO OF "CRIME VICTIMS UNITED," ADVOCATES FOR VICTIM’S RIGHTS. SHE BELIEVES THE STATE SUPREME COURT MADE A FAIR RULING. NINA: I’M VERY PLEASED THAT THE SUPREME COURT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT VICTIM’S DO HAVE A PLACE, THAT THEY SHOULD BE HEARD, THEY’RE SAFETY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, AND I THINK IT WAS OVERALL A VERY BALANCED DECISION WEIGHING BOTH SIDES. WALTER: WALTER MAKAULA, KCRAdvertisementCalifornia Supreme Court: Judges must take 'ability to pay' into consideration for bailThe California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that judges must take into consideration a suspect's ability to pay when setting their bail.In a unanimous decision, the state's high court said, "The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional."Until now, anyone who could afford to pay their bail did so, and was released from jail. But those who couldn't afford it remained behind bars."It was a good thing for people because now courts are going to have to consider what people can pay and many more people are going to be able to bail out of jail," Topo Padilla, president of the Golden State Bail Agents Association, said.Padilla said it doesn't mean bail is being eliminated for those who don't deserve it. It just evens the playing field for everyone across the board no matter what their financial status may be."A lot of people say it's not right that rich people can pay to get out of jail and poor people can't," Padilla said. "But bail has to have consequences, meaning that we don't want to have somebody with a very heinous crime say, 'I can only afford $500.' Is that $500 going to be enough to make sure that they go to court and that's what the whole purpose of court is. It's public safety and will they appear in court? The problem we have with bail is sometimes it's used to be punitive and we don't want that. That's not what bail is for."Part of the ruling talks about protecting victims and that they should have a say in whether the bail of the suspect in their case is going to be lowered, and why they feel it should instead be higher."It recognized that the voice of the victim also had a place there — that the victim needs to be considered," said Nina Salarno of Crime Victims United. "Their safety needs to be considered prior to anyone being released."The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that judges must take into consideration a suspect's ability to pay when setting their bail.In a unanimous decision, the state's high court said, "The common practice of conditioning freedom solely on whether an arrestee can afford bail is unconstitutional."AdvertisementUntil now, anyone who could afford to pay their bail did so, and was released from jail. But those who couldn't afford it remained behind bars."It was a good thing for people because now courts are going to have to consider what people can pay and many more people are going to be able to bail out of jail," Topo Padilla, president of the Golden State Bail Agents Association, said.Padilla said it doesn't mean bail is being eliminated for those who don't deserve it. It just evens the playing field for everyone across the board no matter what their financial status may be."A lot of people say it's not right that rich people can pay to get out of jail and poor people can't," Padilla said. "But bail has to have consequences, meaning that we don't want to have somebody with a very heinous crime say, 'I can only afford $500.' Is that $500 going to be enough to make sure that they go to court and that's what the whole purpose of court is. It's public safety and will they appear in court? The problem we have with bail is sometimes it's used to be punitive and we don't want that. That's not what bail is for."Part of the ruling talks about protecting victims and that they should have a say in whether the bail of the suspect in their case is going to be lowered, and why they feel it should instead be higher."It recognized that the voice of the victim also had a place there — that the victim needs to be considered," said Nina Salarno of Crime Victims United. "Their safety needs to be considered prior to anyone being released."Loading more articles...

AdvertisementCalifornia Supreme Court: Judges must take 'ability to pay' into consideration for bailHide TranscriptShow TranscriptIT WILL BE CLEAR ONCE THE SUN COMES UP TOMORROW MORNING. EDIE: NOW TO A STORY THAT COULD HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE STATE’S LEGAL SYSTEM. THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULED TODAY THAT JUDGES MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A SUSPECT’S ABILITY TO PAY WHEN SETTING THEIR BAIL. &gt;&gt; BAIL SHOULD NOT BE PUNITIVE. VICTIMS SHOULD NOT BE LOOKING TO EXTRACT MORE MONEY OUT OF THEM, THINKING THAT’S GOING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFER, OR THIS PERSON SAFER. GULSTAN: KCRA 3’S...

California Supreme Court: Judges must take 'ability to pay' into consideration for bail

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS