Bail bond niche marketing

July 7, 2010 11:11 AM

In jail? Post bail. No matter your crime, interest, or affiliation, there's a bail bond agent for you. Suspect in Snow White's demise? Grumpy's (video auto-starts); Mob? No prob. Goodfellas, Godfather's? Godfather's!

420? Zig Zag ("roll it up, you're outta there."), Ced the Dread; Dr Zaius? 3 Monkeys; Huge Manatee? Port Manatee; Dancing queen? ABBA;

Juggalo? Juggalo!

posted by zippy (41 comments total)

An animated gif called 21.36391235_std.gif obviously denotes pure trustworthyness.
posted by Artw at 11:13 AM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

An animated gif ... denotes pure trustworthyness.

Perhaps it's just sketchy?
posted by zippy at 11:22 AM on July 7, 2010

Bonus: Jesus Christ bail bonds. "Bail out! bail out! bail out! bail out!"
posted by zippy at 11:28 AM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Your genie's in jail? Aladdin Bail Bonds
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:30 AM on July 7, 2010

Oh, hey, look at that: Vollmann’s magisterial “An Essay on Bail,” via Google Books.

Sorry, but you made me think of it, an I went looking, and there it was.
posted by kipmanley at 11:37 AM on July 7, 2010 [4 favorites]

A vision of our Dystopic Cyberpunk Future: They haul you into central booking -- which is now just an office -- and present you with a console. You get to choose from different local bondsmen and the rates thereof. There's something like a 5% discount on the deposit if you use the booking office's "preferred vendor," which means they get a kickback like a Las Vegas cab driver. Thumb- or retina-scan takes the deposit directly out of your bank account using the Universal Banking Conduit. Lacking a bank account with enough funds, you're connected to either a listing of local payday loan locations (with a similar discount for preferred vendors) or access to your Shy/Lock (TM) organ-based funding account. The Shy/Lock people have vans equipped for surgery to remove the organ with which you wish to fund your bail.
posted by griphus at 11:40 AM on July 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

We are no longer "ohthehugemanatee" tag virgins.
posted by zarq at 11:40 AM on July 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

The Hi, I'm Leah! floating video was startling.
posted by zarq at 11:43 AM on July 7, 2010

90% of the time I sign a credit card receipt in Baltimore, it's with a pink and yellow Big Boys bail bonds pen. I actually saw a billboard that was just a big picture of the pen. There are pictures of the pen on their vehicles. It's weird meta-advertising.
posted by HumanComplex at 11:43 AM on July 7, 2010 [3 favorites]

Oh, sorry I didn't see (and warn about) the floating video on Grumpy's! Mods, could you add a note on the Grumpy's link: "video starts automatically"?
posted by zippy at 11:51 AM on July 7, 2010

A vision of our Dystopic Cyberpunk Future: They haul you into central booking -- which is now just an office -- and present you with a console

Snow Crash features multiple privately run jails that appealed to niche' markets and had obnoxious themes (but good chili).
posted by The Whelk at 11:52 AM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'll see your 21.36391235_std.gif and raise you PicGir.gif, as seen on "where" page for Godfather's Bail Bonds of Texas. Yes, that's a giraffe chewing its cud. No, it doesn't fit into the "where" of the page, it's just comforting having a giraffe asking Where Are We?
posted by filthy light thief at 11:55 AM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

I openly wonder what made zippy spend so much time comparison-shopping bail bond agents...
posted by mazola at 11:56 AM on July 7, 2010

I just wish to point out that the std gif is leering and pointing to it's groin. Surely that gives it some competitiveness with cud chewing giraffe?
posted by Artw at 12:03 PM on July 7, 2010

Local place is running radio ads that basically says "hey, the rates are set by the state so why not go with our professional sounding business instead of those scary bail bondsman in your mind".

It's a pretty effective ad.
posted by smackfu at 12:15 PM on July 7, 2010

Our judges and magistrates now set bonds based on how much it costs to get a bondsman. They will ask me what sort of bond my client can make (they want my client to get out of jail but they want him to pay as much money as possible). If I tell them five thousand, they will set the bond for thirty thousand. That way, my client is out five thousand dollars for hiring a bondsman. They will also often tell people making their first appearance without an attorney how much it will be if they get a bondsman.

Shockingly, that part of the system is just designed to take money from poor people. Rich people pay the bond in full and get it all returned when the case is disposed of. Poor people pay fifteen percent of the bond to a bondsman and never get it back.
posted by flarbuse at 12:26 PM on July 7, 2010 [6 favorites]

My favorite was Bad Boys Bail Bonds in Sacramento, which had the advertising tagline:

"Because Mama Wants You Home!"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:27 PM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Dr Zaius? 3 Monkeys;

Real monkeys don't pay bail, they catapult to freedom.
posted by homunculus at 12:46 PM on July 7, 2010

I'm a Chico's man, myself.
"Let Freedom Ring"
posted by rocket88 at 12:49 PM on July 7, 2010

Shockingly, that part of the system is just designed to take money from poor people.

It kinda rankles me when I see that attitude, that "system X was designed to screw poor people." As of there were a cabal somewhere, gleefully counting money (although I have heard stories of judges getting kickbacks). But this kind of us vs. them thinking makes it easy to dismiss a complaint.

No, the truth is far more mundane and fucked up than that.

It's us vs. us.

Bail was designed to give people a means to keep working (and taking care of their families) while their case is being processed, while giving them an immediate financial disincentive to attempt an escape.

After all, you are innocent until proven guilty. It stands to reason that society should treat you as if you are innocent, after taking reasonable precautions to ensure justice will be eventually done.

The system is financially blind to who you are, specifically. Rich or poor, you should be equal in the eyes of the law.

"Well, yes, Bell, that is all logical," you say, "But a $10,000 bond is meaningless to Bill Gates -- it's not a financial disincentive to him at all. If the bar is so low to some people, it may even encourage someone to take risks."

Yes, but that's a form of means testing, in which the court attempts to divine a formula for which something should happen. How high does a bond have to be to make Bill Gates notice it? Who decides? How do we verify someone's means? What happens when a rich person tries to game the system? Is that a crime, too? (Probably.) What are the administrative costs? You'll notice that courts are already crowded.

IMO, the problems are on the other sides the equation.

* Cockamamie enforcement of non-violent crimes that clutter the judicial system.
* Lending laws that draw people to create bail bonds businesses in the first place, charging exorbitant levels of interest, and enforce them with bullshit 19th-century laws. Bounty hunters? Please.
* Economic systems that keep people on the precipice of bankruptcy, so they see a bail bondsmen as a responsible, helpful service. Aladdin Bail Bonds -- We Get You Through It. Insert stock image of doe-eyed, smiling ingenue with professional hair.

There's not one part of this that is bullshit.

It's all bullshit.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:52 PM on July 7, 2010 [4 favorites]

Isn't the real problem that using financial disincentives to skipping out on a trial don't work if you have no money?
posted by smackfu at 12:55 PM on July 7, 2010

The system is financially blind to who you are, specifically. Rich or poor, you should be equal in the eyes of the law.

In the case above, the point is that the judge essentially requires a poor defendant to use a bail bond service. They are automatically placing the bond beyond the person's means. I sincerely doubt they would be able to apply the same rule and set bail at 500% of Bill Gates's assets.
posted by zippy at 1:08 PM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

kipmanley: “Oh, hey, look at that: Vollmann’s magisterial “An Essay on Bail,” via Google Books. Sorry, but you made me think of it, an I went looking, and there it was.”

Wow. That one link is better than all the funny links in the post and here in the thread combined. Thanks.
posted by koeselitz at 1:25 PM on July 7, 2010 [2 favorites]

The Whelk: "Snow Crash features multiple privately run jails that appealed to niche' markets and had obnoxious themes (but good chili)."

Considering the society, I always thought the slow turnaround of the jails was a little ...unrealistic.
posted by griphus at 1:42 PM on July 7, 2010

And I thought it was weird that every city seems to have a Liberty Bail Bonds.
posted by norm at 2:10 PM on July 7, 2010

In the case above, the point is that the judge essentially requires a poor defendant to use a bail bond service.

Well, that depends on what you think the purpose of bail really is.

Bail is not punishment. Bail is optional. It allows someone presumed innocent to exit custody and take care of families while the process of justice grinds its wheels, while at the same time ensuring they stick around and not cause other problems (like escaping -- which is itself a crime -- and possibly committing more crimes).

You could just sit in jail, too. That's free.

But what (I think) you're saying is this:

* Many people are too poor to wait for the justice process.
* They need to use the bail option, otherwise someone goes hungry (more or less).
* Because bail is so expensive, the only viable option for someone like this is a bail bondsman.

Then my reaction is:

* For many people, the answer is ... "bummer for you." You've been accused of a crime by (ostensibly) a responsible police officer and prosecutor. They have a credibility that must be considered. And some people need to be in jail.
* We can't make bail less expensive across the board. That would encourage everyone to take greater risks. "I can pay $100 and walk? Dude, sign me up for that."
* We can't means test bail. See my answer above.
* We should approach the problem from a different angle. How different would the bail calculation be if, say, there were universal health care, so you didn't have to get desperate to save your job and your health insurance by going to a bail bondsman?
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 2:37 PM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

All good points Cool Papa Bell but the fundamental problem is that bail openly sells justice. It is indistinguishable from a bribe. If a person should be held in jail awaiting trial because they are a genuine threat to others, they shouldn't be let out because they can pay a bribe. On the other side of the coin, if they're not a genuine threat to others, they shouldn't be kept in.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 3:48 PM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

the fundamental problem is that bail openly sells justice. It is indistinguishable from a bribe.

Bail is actually irrelevant to the justice process. You can pay bail and be exonerated. You can pay bail and be convicted. Whether or not you paid has no bearing on the actual case. Accused murderers are regularly denied bail and found not guilty. Yesterday, Lindsay Lohan was sentenced to jail and was allowed to walk for two weeks without paying a dime, but she'll see the inside of a jail cell (if only for a minute or two).

So, I don't see how you're making the equivalence that the mere existence of bail is a miscarriage of justice.

Re: bribe ... a bribe is a payment made to get someone to perform an illegal, immoral or unfair act. Bail is by definition done as part of due process by a court. There are lawyers and everything.

Heck, the opportunity to post bail is a perk. Bail can be denied, like I mentioned above. It's allowable precisely because the court is concerned with the defendant's well-being.

Now, if you want to extend the argument and say, "all courts are corrupt" or "bail bondsmen contribute to judge's election campaigns," that's an entirely different argument than a philosophical one about bail.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:58 PM on July 7, 2010

previously we discussed the problems with bail bonds.
posted by vespabelle at 4:48 PM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Privatized bail bondsmen are illegal in Oregon. I'm not sure what defendants' options are; I guess, scrounging the money together on their own?
posted by That's Numberwang! at 5:24 PM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

So, I don't see how you're making the equivalence that the mere existence of bail is a miscarriage of justice.

It is just and right that you should be in jail because of who you are and what you have done, or alternatively, it is just and right that you should be set free. Why should you be allowed to pay money to subvert this?
posted by aeschenkarnos at 6:20 PM on July 7, 2010

Big Boys Bail Bonds also has one of those wacky waving inflatable figures that is shaped like their pen.

If I didn't know any better I'd swear they were a subsidiary of Bic.
posted by cloeburner at 8:34 PM on July 7, 2010

It is just and right that you should be in jail because of who you are and what you have done, or alternatively, it is just and right that you should be set free. Why should you be allowed to pay money to subvert this?

Because there's an indeterminate period of time between you being accused and being convicted, and during that time, you are presumed to be innocent. A judge makes the determination whether, during that time, you are an unreasonable threat to others, and / or you are likely to attempt to escape beyond the reach of the law, and / or you are the type of person that can be financially incented to play by the rules.

Based on that determination, the judge -- an independent actor within an independent judiciary framework -- can deny bail, release you on your own recognizance, or enter into a bonded contract.

So, a defendant is not really subverting anything. The determination of whether an offer of bail can be made at all is out of his hands, regardless of his ability to pay. ... for example, O.J. Simpson had millions of dollars at his disposal, yet was disallowed bail. If he had the chance to subvert the process, he certainly would have.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:14 PM on July 7, 2010

People in the USA need to keep in mind that not only does the bail system work differently in other countries, the USA system is actually illegal in most common law jurisdictions. Here in Australia, for instance, the accused may not use his or her own money to post bail, and the person posting bail may not receive any benefit (i.e., no 15% of the amount posted) for their support. Bailors are basically friends and relatives of the accused who are pledging their money against the possibility that the accused will flee judgment. I don't think they have any special rights of pursuit if the accused flees.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:54 PM on July 7, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh boy as someone from across the pond this whole world of Bail bonds is fascinating but utterly alien. Admittedly I have been watching too much 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' recently and keep dreaming of a 'Louis Thereoux meets Dog' episode. Goodfellas - 'free ride home, free t.shirt, free hugs and free bottle of water' - wowza.
posted by numberstation at 2:25 AM on July 8, 2010

bullshit 19th-century laws. Bounty hunters? Please.

I don't think this is inherently such a horrible practice. Certainly there are many abuses of the system, and perhaps the truth is that the system is so prone to abuse we need to get rid of it, but the goal is that the bail bondsmen will track down fugitives and bring them to the police at no cost to the taxpayers.

The problem is that the police generally have virtually no interest in picking up all but the most violent of wanted persons, as they typically don't have the resources to do so and would rather wait until the suspect happens to find him/herself arrested again. I don't mean that the police don't go track down people who have fled and are in hiding; I mean they frequently don't go so far as to call so-called "fugitives" or drop by their home address where they often can be found. For better or for worse, bail bondsmen are the only folks who are going to make any effort to look for the vast majority of people who have warrants for failure to appear. Bounty hunters are tremendously efficient because the government doesn't have to pay for them; the cost is just built into the bail fees and thus "free" from the standpoint of the government.

Furthermore, bail bondsmen would probably tell you that they perform a useful service in encouraging their clients to show up for court through non-aggressive means, like calling them up and reminding them of their court date and encouraging them to get there early. Good ones might help with transportation or tasks like helping to get court dates rescheduled. They do this because its in their financial interest to get their clients to court at the time they promised to appear.

Is this a socially optimal system? Quite likely not, but it's a cheap one for the government, and that wins almost every time, especially when the upside is catching wanted criminals. Can I believe I just wrote this whole comment in defense of bail bondsmen and bounty hunters, of all people? Definitely not, but I don't think it's as inherently evil of a scheme as people make it out to be.
posted by zachlipton at 2:41 AM on July 8, 2010

This is the most amazing singing bail bonds jingle I have ever heard. Free T-shirt? Free bottled water? I'm going to get myself arrested!

Disclaimer: It is also the only singing bail bond jingle I have ever heard.
posted by alby at 6:56 AM on July 8, 2010

Bounty hunters in the U.S. operate from an 1873 Supreme Court case, and in many states operate without any kind of formal training or background check, and can break into your home at will.

As opined in Taylor v. Taintor, and barring restrictions applicable state by state, a bounty hunter can enter the fugitive's private property without a warrant in order to execute a re-arrest.

Emphasis mine. Even the police can't do this.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:54 AM on July 8, 2010

Legitimate police officers may not search a house without a warrant, issued by a judge.

Bounty hunters are not sanctioned officers of the government; the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to them. They're not cops; they don't have to act like cops.

Want to be a bounty hunter in, say, Kansas? There are no restrictions or requirements. Congrats, you're a bounty hunter.

They're provided legal cover by this Supreme Court opinion that allows bounty hunters to operate, which specifically says, "Whenever they choose to do so, they may seize him and deliver him up in their discharge ... if necessary, (they) may break and enter his house for that purpose. The seizure is not made by virtue of new process. None is needed."

This is old-school, round-up-a-posse-and-go-get-'em thinking. And it's still around.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:04 PM on July 8, 2010

You're confusing a bench warrant with a search warrant. You can't bust into someone's house with a search warrant.

Bench warrant -- "Arrest that man on sight."

Search warrant -- "Although we cannot see him and we are not in hot pursuit, there is a high probability that the man named in the bench warrant is inside this building. This search warrant authorizes you to enter that building for the sole purpose of locating this man and subsequently serving the bench warrant."

Bounty hunter -- "This looks like the dude's house. Let's break through door and see if he's inside."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 1:06 PM on July 8, 2010

Bench warrant or no, police can't break and enter without a search warrant, period. Bounty hunters don't have this restriction.

Not trying to be fighty, it's just a fact. I'm out of this conversation, so you can have the last word if you want.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:26 PM on July 8, 2010