Illegal Bail Bond Solicitation Hurts the Industry

When done right, a bail bondsman can earn a good living. While the majority of bondsmen work hard to deserve the trust of their clients, there are those who seek to increase their business through underhanded means. There have been many instances of bail bondsmen cold calling families of defendants, handing out flyers in the courthouse, or paying inmates to solicit clients within the jail.

With so many effective and legal options for marketing a bail bond business, it's not only surprising, but disheartening to see that agents are willing to risk their careers and the reputation of the industry for a few extra clients. Not only does this type of behavior affect their company, but it reflects negatively on the thousands of other agents out there who run an honest bail bond company.

The Negative Impact

The bail industry already faces opponents, so having a few black sheep in the business gives those who want to do away with private bail bondsmen another weapon to fire. The more trouble a state sees brewing in privately run bail bond businesses, the stricter the state will be about bail bond marketing.

Illegal solicitation also hurts fair competition among bond agents. When an agent intercepts any arrestees in the courthouse or jail, it makes it more difficult for fellow bondsman to bring in business. Furthermore, unscrupulous bondsmen hurt the public by undermining trust and allowing defendants to get out of jail who have no real means to pay their bail.

The Penalties

Each state has its own set of laws regulating the bail bond industry, but for any agent found guilty of illegal solicitation could face severe penalties and even the loss of their license. Being sentenced to several years in jail is another possibility for these unprincipled bondsmen.

Avoid Bail Solicitation

If you are looking for a bondsman, you will want to look into your own state's laws regarding bail bondsmen and marketing to find out which practices for solicitation have been outlawed, but here are a few practices to avoid in order to get a bondsman with a solid reputation in the industry:

    * Bondsman shouldn't loiter around the jail or courthouse. Most states have made handing out flyers or directly approaching people in the courthouse or jail a no-no. Certainly, bondsmen have legitimate business in jails and courts, but a bondsman is not allowed to approach potential clients to solicit business.

    * Inmates making money for referrals. This is a sure-fire way to land in hot water. Bondsmen have been caught offering incentives or reduced bail amounts to inmates in jail who encourage others to use their agency. This violates state's laws about bail solicitation. It is also illegal for an unlicensed person to negotiate or execute a bail bond if they are not licensed by the state to do so.

The bail bond industry provides a valuable service to citizens. There is plenty of business to be had for agents who are willing to put in the time and effort needed to market themselves legally. Avoid bondsmen who solicit clients illegally and help boost your state's confidence in the bail bond industry.
About this Author

The Rynerson family of bondsmen has been providing California bail bonds with integrity since 1971. When you need options for bail or to learn about the bail bonds process, contact an expert bail bondsman. Greg Rynerson Bail Bonds serves all jails in California.

Department of Justice Judicial Selection

Upon taking a look at the methods used in the United States by the Department of Justice for judicial selection, what is truly remarkable is that various methods have been used over the years. At present, different methods are used at both the federal and state levels. For example, at the federal level the Department of Justice gives the President of the United States the privilege of nominating judges; the Senate must confirm the President's nominations by a majority vote. Now, when talking about judge selection at the state level, it must be said that the process is not quite as simple given the fact that states can choose between different systems, which can be grouped into five major categories: gubernatorial appointment (the governor appoints the judges directly); legislative election (judges are chosen by the legislature); partisan election (voters choose between party nominees in general elections); nonpartisan election (voters choose judges in a general election); Missouri Plan (a commission creates a short list of nominees; the governor chooses from that list).

Thus far it has been made clear that the systems used, both at the federal and state levels, are different; these differences, however, are only observable in theory, but in practice, there is no way to either observe, or measure, such differences. Why? Because in the end, the procedure through which judges are appointed remains invariable; the Department of Justice, in the end is only concerned with political accountability, not with justice independence. In other words, the United States has a judiciary system that is conditioned by politics; parties elect judges that share their ideologies (and block the appointment of those that do not), political favors are given (and taken) in exchange for appointments, and in the end the result is that the United States' legal system works to support political agendas (the defense of the laws themselves, and the quality and knowledge of those appointed as judges with what has to do with laws, are matters of secondary importance).

Justice and politics are in fact related, but they are two fundamentally different institutions, and as such, it should not happen that one uses (abuses even) the other in order to satisfy its own needs and wants. Justice was created by man to watch over, to defend and guarantee, the preservation of his rights and liberties, despite of what such defense might do to politics or party interests, for that matter. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that judiciary appointments, both at the federal and state level (both under the watchful eye of the Department of Justice), should be performed using the same system. Why? Ultimately, because regardless of it being a Supreme Court Justice appointment, or a municipal court judge appointment, justice must be exercised in the same way (with the same rigor and efficiency).

Justice is a social institution that man created hundreds of years ago, when societies were first set up; given its important for the maintenance of the social establishment, justice has grown and developed over time, but its development has not been without problems. Justice and politics are two separate matters; in order to have effectiveness and justice in the exercise of the law, it is important to establish a new system, one that is homogeneous (for all levels of justice) and that is independent from the other branches of government. This is a task that the Department of Justice will need to see completed before justice can truly be served objectively and righteously.
About this Author

I AM AN ODESK WRITER

Larry Louie L. Maraggay