Lexington National is an insurance company whose business includes acting as a surety of bail bonds. One Mr. Cisneros was charged with domestic violence crimes and his bail was set at 20K. Lexington posted a 20K bond on his behalf and Cisneros was released from custody.
At the conclusion of Cisneros' preliminary examination, the magistrate increased Cisneros' bail from 20K to 100K. However the magistrate did not immediately remand him, rather she allowed him to remain out of custody and gave Cisneros a week to arrange to post the larger amount. Cisneros never posted the 100K and never returned to court. Lexington's 20K bond was ordered forfeited and they appealed.
The Sixth District reverses, agreeing with Lexington that once the magistrate raised Cisneros' bail, allowing him to remain out of custody violated the terms of the 20K bond and rendered it void. In a helpful analogy, the opinion describes bail in terms of "offer and acceptance", the bone and sinew of first year contract law classes. The government makes an offer to release the defendant should a surety post the bail amount. A surety accepts the government's offer by posting the bail amount. When the magistrate upped the "offer" to 100K, the previous 20K contract was void. It was legally impossible for Lexington's 20K bond to function as an acceptance to the magistrate's offer of 100K.
What this case really illustrates is the lack of pragmatism within the bail statutes. In the old days, bail served the purpose of insuring a defendant would show up to court. Then it was determined that the primary purpose of bail would be public safety and judges were supposed to set bail at an amount that would protect the public, an imbecilic notion. No one with a functioning frontal lobe would accept that a dangerous person who had posted 30K in bail is somehow less dangerous than if he had posted 100K. This because the consequences of committing a crime while on bail are completely independent of the amount of bail bond posted. Once a defendant pays his bond premium, his financial obligation is over. Should he commit more crimes while on bail, he is not required to pay a crime surcharge. Deterrence from committing additional crimes while on bail derives from wanting to avoid being taken back to jail upon arrest for a new offense (a consequence independent of the amount of bond posted) and the exposure to additional criminal penalties.
Indeed the only real way in which the setting of bail can protect the public is when bail is set at an amount the defendant cannot afford. Then defendant stays in the jail, and the public is protected. Raising bail to an amount a defendant is capable of posting does nothing to protect the public. That is why the magistrate's decision in this case is confusing. Apparently she heard something at the preliminary examination that caused her to believe Cisneros was a greater danger to public safety than previously thought. Okay, but if that was true, she would have raised the bail to an amount she believed Cisneros could not post. Raising the bail amount to an amount she believed Cisnero's might be able to post benefits no one (except possibly the insurance company). Cisernos' alleged victim is no safer with a 100K bond sitting in the file than with a 20K bond. So if public safety required Cisneros' bail to be increased, why did the Magistrate raise it to an amount she believed he may be able to post? And why would she allow him to remain out on 20K for a week?
One of two things can be true here. Either Cisneros is so dangerous as to require preventative detention, in which case his bail could be set so high as to insure he remains in custody, or he he is not and should remain out on his original bail. The middle ground, raising bail, but at an amount you suspect the defendant may be able to pay, is nonsensical. But that's the law here in California.
No comments:
Post a Comment