Court Opinion

ID: 9424713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:12:27.735315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:52.014568
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Marshall,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the Court with a few additional words.
All agree that the central purpose of the statute was to restrict severely the activities of professional bail bondsmen who had customarily collected 10% of the amount of each bond as a fee and retained all of it regardless of what happened. All agree that the new scheme is, in general, an admirable attempt to reduce the cost of liberty for those awaiting trial.
The new scheme dealt only with the class of which appellant Schilb was a member — those persons charged with crimes who under the old system were relegated to professional bondsmen who along with other requirements charged a 10%. fee for the bond regardless of *373the outcome of the case. This is the only class affected by the new scheme. Members of this class now pay 1% instead of 10%. In the evolving struggle for meaningful bail reform I cannot find the present Illinois move toward that objective to be unconstitutional.