Slashdot Mirror
Google Will Ban Bail-Bond Ads (arstechnica.com)
First Google banned ads from payday lenders in 2016, now it will no longer allow ads from bail-bond companies. Ars Technica reports: In a blog post, the company suggested that such ads constitute a "deceptive or harmful product," citing a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services. "For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years," Google wrote. Also in 2016, another study found that "there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the U.S.," simply for their inability to pay a bond, which is what drives many people to the services of a bondsman. The change will take effect in July 2018.
...if google used their influence to increase bail bond competition and demand clear and fair terms as a condition of being listed on google. Google could become the go-to place for fair and affordable bail bonds!
The problem isn't the bail bondsmen. The problem are American courts that set excessive bail and keep people in jail for relatively minor crimes (often victimless crimes like drug possession) in the hope that they agree to a plea bargain.
Granted, it might be a symbiotic relationship of corruption in some cases. But we should be going after the courts themselves, not the bondsmen. Google would do well donating to organizations like the ACLU and SPLC, which are starting to sue on Constitutional grounds (prohibition of excessive bail, speedy trial rule) as well as working on legislative reform in some states.
Moves towards bail reform in CA and NJ are a good start, hope this spreads to other states. Same with drug law liberalization.
I learned a bit about the bail system and I think this is a pretty silly move on Google's part. As for who uses bondsmen - people in jail, that's who.
The choices are:
1. Pay the bail in cash.
2. Use a bondsman.
3. Sit in jail.
People who end up in jail are typically not people who have a couple thousand dollars to spare they've saved up. They're not going to bail themselves out in most cases, though they do have that option.
It's typically family members who feel somewhat obligated to bail someone out of jail. Their choice is pay the bail in cash, which might be about $2,000, or pay 10%, $200, to a bondsman. Since people who end up in jail are typically not the most reliable people, putting up $2,000 cash and hoping to get it back a year later if your drunk brother shows up to all his court appearances doesn't seem like a good idea.
I HAVE $2,000 in savings, I could *afford* to put $2,000 to bail someone out, but I'd rather just pay the bondsman $200 and not have to worry about it. The bondsman will have him call in a few times per week, and try to make sure he doesn't "forget" his court appearance. I don't want to do all that, hoping to eventually get my cash back from court. I'd rather let a professional handle that.
The bondsman isn't making some outrageous profit. If they were, more people would go into that line of business. The bondsman loses money on anyone who doesn't show up to court. If they use a recovery agent (bounty hunter) and successfully recover the fugitive, the bondman only loses a little bit of money. If they don't recover the fugitive, they lose a lot of money.
I can understand reasons people might point to problems with the bail SYSTEM, but bail is much older than bail bondsman. Bondsmen didn't create the bail system. Bondsmen make it possible for people who aren't rich to get out on bail.
The bail system itself has advantages and disadvantages. It allows people freedom while they await trial. That's good. It protects society in general by giving an incentive for professionals to make sure people charged with a crime actually show up to court, including tracking down fugitives who run. On the other hand, like everything else, money doesn't buy happiness, but it does make things easier. We'd like to have a criminal justice system in which nobody has any advantage, but the fact is there are advantages to having resources. Bail isn't perfect. On balance, weighing the positives and negatives, I think the bail system has more advantages than disadvantages.
Spot on. Just like payday loans, bail bonds are predatory but they're also the last resort for people who are laughed out of banks and credit unions. If they no longer have access to this type of short term credit, where will those people go? No credit cards, no lines of credit, no valuables to pawn - what's left? Nothing legal.
The rich hypocrites who decides for the poor always bring up those shameful annual interest rates or those people who pay loans for years. What they fail to mention is that payday loans have a lower default rate than mortgages.
But let's not bother with facts, let's just accept the dogma cast upon us from the ivory towers of California. Once again Google acts as a vehicle for the shallow social agenda of political correctness of the Silicon Valley elite, sweeping problems under the rug of "someone else fix it". Fuck those arrogant bastards.
lucm, indeed.
OMG - it's almost like the propaganda organs on BOTH sides of the bogus left/right divide pump out fake news all day and all night long. Good thing THAT's not true.
no they didnt. there is NO proof of any of that happening. The russian thing has been a smoke screan to go after trumps people for other things. no one has been locked up for collusion
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Pinedo did his thing prior to 2014, so no trump involvment. there https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16...
Flynn lied about a discussion with the russians AFTER trump was already elected (but before sworn in)
and Ukraine isnt russia
so once again. there is no proof of collusion, there is no proof of conspiracy, and this entire thing is a witch hunt
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same