Russell Bruce Moncrief, 75, faces counts of human trafficking and racketeering over ‘sickening scheme’
A bail bondsman is facing criminal charges in Florida for allegedly approaching incarcerated women and offering to bond them out if they give him sex in return.
Russell Bruce Moncrief faces counts of human trafficking and racketeering – along with accusations that he used his authority within the criminal justice system to prey on particularly vulnerable women, said a recent news release from the office of the state’s attorney general, Ashley Moody.
Moody’s office said Moncrief, 75, would target women jailed on accusations involving sex work or drugs, including in Orange county, where Orlando is. He would propose posting their bonds to await the outcomes of their cases from out of custody if they agreed to have sex with him afterward, Moody’s office alleged.
Another reason to abolish cash bail. Either someone’s too dangerous to be free until the trial date, or they’re not. Their net worth should be immaterial to that.
Well…
The concept of “bail” is to provide surety that the accused will return for trial. This is supposed to be scaled to what the accused can both afford to pay, yet wouldn’t want to forfeit, motivating them to participate in their trial rather than fleeing.
Of course, it is hardly used in that manner.
I’m interested in hearing alternatives, but as it stands, the system is not working equitably because of minimum bail laws for certain crimes, etc. and inequitable judges refuse to use it in the manner for which it was intended.
So, what would you suggest as an alternative for someone accused of a crime to provide surety that they will return for their trial rather than flee?
Illinois has eliminated cash bail. It has had pluses and minuses but it has not been some huge problem like you suggest.
https://abc7chicago.com/post/cash-bail-illinois-year-after-end-early-research-shows-impact-less-many-hoped-feared/15321213/
In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms says anyone accused of a crime is innocent until found guilty and therefore cannot be held in custody unless the state can convince the court that releasing them would be a danger to the public.
Which sounds great, but bail is often denied because courts are easily convinced someone is a danger to the public. There is also a surety system but that’s to ensure someone follows bail conditions. If the court agrees to grant a conditional bail, the accused needs someone to act as their surety. If the accused breaks conditions, and the surety doesn’t immediately report it, the surety will be required to pay the court a very large fine. Not being able to find a surety is a common reason for bail being denied.
So, it’s bail bonds with a different name.
Yes, except bail bonds don’t exist, bail bondsmen don’t exist, and there isn’t a bail bond system.
No. Instead, you have to get a surety bond, which is a bail bond without bounty hunters.
If they’re likely to flee or reoffend, jail them. If not, don’t. That’s how it works in most places.
That’s not the purpose of bail, to determine whether they will or will not reoffend. It is purely a guarantee that the accused will show up for trial. That’s all that’s meant to be. Sadly, in recent decades, it is instead used punitively and very unfairly. If the prosecution successfully convinces a judge that the accused is a danger to society, for example, then they should be held in custody.
Whether the accused is even guilty in the first place is a matter for a jury to decide. Whether they are likely to reoffend is a matter that should be raised during sentencing, but only after a guilty verdict.
And I’m saying cash bail needs to be abolished, and only the criteria I outlined should be considered. I know what cash bail is for, I just reject the concept altogether, as there’s no way to make sure it’s fair.
A poor person would never make bail (or would need to go into an exploitative loan arrangement), and there’s no number you could set for someone with the amount of wealth like Elon Musk that would keep them from fleeing.
First of all, a system of reliable surety must exist, and it must be applied fairly. Currently, as I’ve explained, it is not.
Second, you personal rejection of the concept is irrelevant. We live in a pluralistic society wherein the wishes of the individual must give way to any collective negative effect. A bunch of selfish jerks insisting that their individual “rights” are more important than than the needs of the many is not only morally and ethically bullshit, it undermines the concept of a cooperative, democratic society.
Lastly, for any society to prosper, all needs must be considered in equanimity. If you’re incapable of that, if you’re incapable of looking beyond yourself, you are destructive to society, as it is currently defined.
This is not a country of a bunch of lawless assholes doing whatever they want all the time. And turning this country into that would shortly precede its immediate collapse.
But if getting your way by any means be damned, is so important to you that you realize the cost would be to risk the collapse of western civilization, then I can’t see how that makes you anyone other than terrifyingly psychopathic.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.
Wtf are you talking about, western civilisation doesn’t depend on cash bail, most western countries don’t have this and they’re not lawless dystopian hellholes. A judge can easily determine if someone is likely to abscond or reoffend in an initial hearing, and that’s how it’s done basically anywhere except the US.
Your argument is so disingenuous, it’s pretty much just a strawman.
I wasn’t talking about or even arguing about any of that. If you have to work so hard to recontextualize and misappropriate, what I said into a completely different argument, just so you can win, then you’re clearly not interested in a good faith discussion.
Best of luck to you.