What Happened to Efforts to Reform Cash Bail?

A Dispatch explainer.

By
71

As of mid-2021, only 20 percent of the U.S. jail population was serving time for being convicted of a crime. The rest were being held on pretrial detention. 

That’s a result of the U.S. bail system. Despite increased calls for criminal justice reform—in a January 2022 Pew survey, 45 percent of Americans said that improving the criminal justice system should be Congress’ top priority—no reforms have succeeded at the federal level.

The most prominent effort came years before the renewed emphasis on criminal justice reform during the 2020 George Floyd  protests, in a rare moment of common cause between libertarian Republican Sen. Rand Paul and then-Sen. Kamala Harris.

In 2017, the two introduced a bill to reform the bail system based on the contention that the current cash bail arrangement in most states was discriminatory, wasteful, and in part responsible for over-incarceration in the United States. The bill, the pair wrote in a New York Times op-ed, “would help restore Americans’ faith in our justice system” and save taxpayers billions of dollars a year. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
71
By
Comments (71)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    1). Most major cities, including Chicago, Philadelphia, and Baltimore.
    2). Illegally obtaining a gun for yourself or a felon, for example.
    3). Possessing a gun illegally makes you a criminal. Possessing a gun legally makes you a…citizen?
    4). Legal gun owners are among the least dangerous of all Americans, according to crime statistics. Legal gun owners and legal gun dealers are several times less likely to commit crimes than police officers.
    5). A high percentage of those arrested for shooting or killing someone with a gun were criminals before the shooting. If only they were not released after each crime, hundreds or more, mostly minority victims, would still be with us.
    Note that NY state immediately released the guy who violently (no gun) assaulted a political candidate this week. Thankfully federal authorities are re-arresting him.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Really useful. Given all the clamor for more gun laws, the record of many jurisdictions of releasing and even not prosecuting those accused of gun crimes, which are often non-violent, is a glaring problem. A high percentage of homicides in many cities is committed by folks with prior gun violations. Allowing repeat criminals to walk for gun crimes, even if non-violent, is ridiculous, it seems to me, if we want to reduce overall gun violence. Making investigation, prosecution, and detention of gun criminals a priority is the best way (involving the law) to keep dangerous people from obtaining and using guns and deterring those who might be considering getting an illegal gun. Cavalier use of the term “non-violent” is a major problem in the debate. If we really want to act against shootings, gun crimes should lead to prosecution before someone is shot, not after. Thanks.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      Where are people being allowed to "walk" for gun crimes?
      What gun crimes are nonviolent? Are you talking about merely possessing a gun illegally?
      If so, does that make the person any more dangerous than someone who possesses their gun legally?

      Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    I see the entire problem is that it takes too long to get a trial. 80% of everyone held is awaiting trial is a statistic that needs to be repeated more.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Show Jay Janney the 🚪!

    Some random musings:
    In Southern Europe, the number of prisoners is down, but they let slide a lot of non-violent crimes. In a tourist trap town, they refer to pickpockets, shoplifting, petty theft as a "tourism tax". They don't pursue it too much. It's when the criminals injure a tourist that the police crack down harshly.

    I was privileged to (part time) teach in the Indiana Women's Prison for 7 years. My students got paid $13 a month to attend classes, but they had to be in good behavior status to attend (and earn). It worked, my students were exceptionally polite. The guards were uniformly kind, caring, but firm. Prisoners had to behave, but were treated with respect. They understood that their job was easier and less stressful if they were respectful. For about 18 months my department chair and myself dropped by once a week to play games with inmates (pictionary, euchre, nothing naughty). To get "buzzed out" to play a prisoner had to be in good behavior status. The guards loved us because we were a "reward for good behavior". That THWOCK! you just heard was my wife rolling her eyes so hard at that last sentence. I even took my wife Pam with me a couple of times; the prisoners adored her.

    I'd classify inmates into four categories: c) Drug offenses (the majority of inmates) which includes crimes to support a drug habit b) picked the wrong bf, arrested as an accomplice (next largest category) c) in need of institutional care, d) (the smallest category) sociopaths who need locked up for the safety of society, perhaps 5-10% of the women's inmates. Women in the first three categories can all be successfully rehabilitated, although it takes a society willing to invest in them. The 4th category is pretty good at imitating the first three.

    IWP had a great program...until politics hit. When a woman was 6 months from being released they started an acclimation program. They helped them find jobs, actually releasing them to work outside of prison. By about month five, prisoners only slept in prison, and were out a majority of the day, working , saving money, attending classes on how to survive on their own. But during my time there a male prisoner got a weekend released, leaving to go murder his ex-wife in front of his kids. The guv back then (Evan Bayh) cancelled the furlough program, he cancelled the friendly visits (that's why Julius, Pam, and I could no longer play games there). The stress level skyrocketed.

    Bail is really about type I and type II errors, and which one you want more of. Cash bail keeps more evil people in prison, but it also sweeps up those down on their luck. Cutting them loose benefits the non-evil, but it also puts the evil ones back on the street. Again, you cannot tell them apart easily in advance, just after the fact. So the debate is about balancing type I and type II errors, which way you want to err. It's a tradeoff.

    Collapse
    1. Alan

      Given the ratios I'd say let the errors happen and move on. Honestly we drive every day, whats one more lower risk?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        Agreed but I think his point is that most bail schemes are going to either

        (1) lock up too many people who can't make bail but could safely be released on their own recognizance & will show up for their trial, or

        (2) have guidelines that allow people who've been arrested to go on working, etc., but risk a bad actor who commits more crimes, or absconds, because the decision to release them was made on the basis of (perhaps) no past rap sheet or some other reason that proved to be mistaken in hindsight.

        One type of error harms the defendant and the other harms society in some way.

        He's comparing the situation to research & rejecting vs. accepting the null hypothesis.

        I think of medical tests, where the lab developing the test has to decide on a normal range of values, where any result above or below that range is considered abnormal.

        Most medical tests are not a black & white proposition. The problem is minimizing both false positives and false negatives; you end up with some of either (or both) because it's unavoidable.

        Even a simple home pregnancy test has to have a cut-off where the reaction either produces the second pink line or not. But they can never make any test 100% accurate.

        Sorry to bore you with all that, it's a subject I find very interesting : )

        Collapse
  5. James Angelichio

    The guy that tried to stab a NY candidate for Governor was back on the street in hours thanks to NY progressive bail law. Is this supposed to be an improvement? If you are credibly accused of a violent crime, you should be in jail until your trial.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      They need to tweak the law a bit, but Gov. Hochul's having trouble getting a provision, for instance, allowing more judicial discretion, because the more progressive side of her party won't go for it.

      They have a point, because judges are not always fair, and when they had a lot of discretion there were "hanging judge" types who locked everyone up, or locked up people of color, or poor people because of their own biases. That abuse of the previous system is what prompted the bail reform laws.

      The NY Times article on the subject mentioned that the DA (a Republican supporter of Zeldin) chose to charge the defendant on a non-violent charge ("attempted assault") because he never touched Zeldin; but a different charge may have resulted in him not being released.

      Collapse
      1. James Angelichio

        I don’t see how any of this changes with cashless bail. Right now you have judges deciding whether to grant bail and how much. Prejudices can creep in. With cashless bail, you’ll have the same judges deciding whether to put them in Kai until the trial or on the street until trial. The same biases in both directions will creep in.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          My understanding is that the bail reform laws take most of the decision out of the judges' hands, similar to mandatory sentencing taking sentences for some offenses out of the judges' hand, too, because of too much disparity among judges.

          So for certain non-violent classes of offenses, the judge has to play by the book, regardless of his/her personal preferences.

          Collapse
    2. Ben P

      This is more an indictment of poorly written law than bail reform writ large. Apparently NY considers "attempted assault" to be a non-violent crime, and since the bail law applied to "non-violent crimes", he was quickly released.

      The best solution here would seem to be changing the designation of attempted assault, rather than undoing the bail law.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Tmcke

    A related issue is that our courts cannot hold trials in a timely manner. The system depends on using the force of the state to force plea deals. If we add the way confessions et al are obtained, it is a mess. But even otherwise reasonable talking heads immediately raise bail reform as the cause of the recent increase in crime (across all states regardless of the bail laws).

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ian Fillmore

      Agreed. Most of this debate would become a nonissue if we really gave people speedy trials. And by “speedy” I mean a matter of days or weeks.

      Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Stephanie

    Thank you for this excellent article.

    I've had so many arguments with "lock-'em-up" conservatives, who think eliminating cash bail is going to result in the accused person going on a crime rampage, while being oblivious to the fact that another person identical in every way who can make bail, is also going to have the same opportunity to supposedly go on a crime rampage.

    Whe I point this out, the illogical response is that "poor people are criminals." "Poor people don't have jobs." Etc.

    In my state, NY, there was a lot of misinformation being spread by law enforcement after laws reforming bail were passed.

    Bail reform would take away the incentive for people rotting in jail for weeks or months to plead out and give up their right to a trial.

    If they were able to go back home and support their families, continue to pay rent and other bills, they'd end up at trial and the police would have to provide enough evidence for prosecutors to make their case.

    Perhaps the police are doing sloppy evidence collecting and counting on the defendant being pressured into a plea deal. With bail reform their job gets harder. And nobody likes their job getting harder.

    Collapse
    1. Alan

      The problem is that people are HORRIBLE at determining crime. Literally they always say it is going up, even when it is going down (admittedly it IS going up now). Combine that with the fact that any system that locks up fewer than 100% of people awaiting trial will have some regrettable news headlines (guy driving into christmas parade 2 days after being let out of jail) means elected officials (Judges and DA's) have all the incentives to just lock people up. Part of me thinks we need longer term DAs and appointed judges everywhere. Like let DAs serve for 15 years barring a for cause removal.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    David Sneath

    Very interesting article. The first paragraph is shocking if not taken in the proper context. The reader should be aware that the term “jail” is not used in the general sense covering all incarceration. Merriam-Webster online defines jail (distinct from prison) as “ a place for those awaiting trial or held for minor crimes, whereas prison describes a place for criminals convicted of serious crimes.” It should not be a surprise that a “place for those awaiting trail” has a high percentage of people awaiting trail. From the study linked, I’m figuring somewhere around 23% of people incarcerated in the US have not been convicted. Maybe 23% still seems high but is not as shocking as 80%+. Thanks for a lot of good info to consider.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Kevin M. James

    I know there's plenty of complexity under the surface and the devil is in the details. But it seems to me that two basic principles should help set the overall scene here.

    1) If it can be demonstrated that the accused is highly likely to present a grave risk to others if released, then how is releasing them on cash bail--even in the amount of a billion dollars--fair and just to society?

    2) If that *cannot* be demonstrated, then how is requiring cash bail to release them--even in the amount of one dollar--fair and just to the accused in a system that claims to legally presume innocence?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Devin H

      The one thing these two points (which I largely like) seems to miss is that they don't address someone who is not likely a harm to society, but still may wish to skip their trial and avoid punishment.

      Collapse
      1. Alan

        I mean people skip bail already anyways. They get picked up by cops and life moves on. Given that human liberty is on the line I would need to see evidence that cash bail significantly increases people showing up to court. Given that the federal system doesn’t have bail I don’t think it’s a huge difference maker

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Devin H

          Fair, but there's still an interest to hold the people accountable. I would be interested similarly in data from some of these states how many folks are skipping and what that added cost is for waiting for the cops to either find them or pick them up for some other petty crime.

          Collapse
          1. Alan

            Do you notice issues with federal criminals? Because they don’t have bail at all.

            Collapse
    2. AS Upstate

      That's a beautifully pithy summary, Kevin. This would seem to suggest that Nevada's "clear and convincing" standard, though obviously imperfect, might be a good policy choice.

      Collapse
    3. Alan

      The problem is that our system of criminal justice has utterly abandoned the idea that a criminal can reform themselves, and leans heavily on vengeance of the accuser. Add to that the idea that you are innocent until you get arrested (because 'good' people don't come into contact with the cops), and fear of "what happens if the released prisoner does something bad (regardless of how likely) when I am up for election"

      In short confinement is a way to guarantee no bad outcomes for the public, and those who need public support to win re-election (judges and prosecutors) by shoving all of the negative consequences on a narrow group of people who already don't have public support anyways.

      Collapse
      1. Tim Moore

        One of the significant issues with incarceration - actually two - are 1. mental illness and 2. drug addiction (or a combination of the two). and one of the best books out - by a progressive, no less - is San Fran-sicko, by Michael Schellenberger.

        And as an aside to that, we have progressive District attorneys who have decided to treat criminals with one or both issues as "victims" and cycle them back out into the street - see, e.g. D>A> boudin, who was finally recalled in San Francisco, and D.A. Gascone, who faces a recall (last I heard, there were sufficient signatures to force a recall) In Los Angeles as the citizenry seems to be unhappy with the rise in crime.

        The book is like a text book, well researched ( 654 footnotes in the first 10 chapters) and is not an "easy read", but is an expose on how far off the mark we are in actual treatment of both issues.

        Collapse
        1. Alan

          He is more centrist than progressive

          Collapse
          1. Tim Moore

            From his introduction: "I am not unfamiliar with radical politics. As a socialist youth in the late 1980s I had read books by America's most famous anarchist, Noam Chomsky, excoriating US imperialism in Latin America. From 1996 to 1999, I worked with eco-anarchists seeking to save old-growth forests in California and the Pacific Northwest. And in 1999, I protested along-side so-called black bloc anarchists against economic globalization in the streets of Seattle. While I knew anarchists wanted to abolish government, it never dawned on me that a major city government would actually participate in its own abolition."

            Nowhere does he indicate that he is no longer a progressive; and I am not going to say that because a progressive starts to use critical thinking in looking at a problem, that they have become a centrist. Perhaps he has moved closer to the center, but I would leave it to him to characterize that.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Man-Eating Cow

        "The problem is that our system of criminal justice has utterly abandoned the idea that a criminal can reform themselves"

        There's two things dubious with this:

        1. It's not clear to me that we've actually utterly abandoned the idea. Life imprisonment without parole is actually pretty rare. Most convicts get returned to society eventually, which it seems to me has a presumption built in that their time in prison has a good chance of having reformed them. (That I find this highly dubious is besides the point.)

        2. I don't believe that we have much idea how to reform criminals, let alone how to get criminals to reform themselves. High recidivism is a historical problem in any society that doesn't just summarily execute troublemakers. There's a pretty good body of sociological research indicating that, at least for the more serious categories of crimes, most criminals really are defective in ways the rest of us are not. It's not clear how we fix that. In particular, any honest psychologist will tell you that we have no idea how to fix actual sociopaths.

        "No bad outcomes for the public" doesn't actually sound like a bad thing. It must, of course, be balanced against the need to not convict innocent men and, yes, the need to not put innocent men in jail pending a trial in which a jury will realize the state hasn't proven its case.

        The presumption of innocence is itself misunderstood. Beldar can say it a lot better than me, but what this means is that a jury starts with the presumption that the accused before them is innocent, which presumption is then challenged by the state producing evidence of guilt. If the state produces enough evidence ("beyond a reasonable doubt") to destroy that presumption, which the defense is unable to rebut, the duty of the jury is to return a guilty verdict. If the state has a lot of evidence, but the jury can reasonably imagine an innocent explanation for it, they have to presume innocence and acquit.

        The judge issuing an arrest warrant is not presuming innocence. He is ordering someone to be hailed before the court, against his will, because the court has been presented with probably cause to believe that person has committed a crime. The judge who then arraigns the suspect is not doing so because he presumes he is innocent, but because there is still probable cause to believe he committed a crime. The judge who deprives a defendant of the use of a large sum of money, even temporarily, or of his liberty in lieu of the large sum of money, is not doing so because he presumes the defendant is innocent, but because there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime.

        All that said: If there _is_ a way to reform criminals, then the current prison system is almost exactly the wrong way to do it. I am not against incarceration; I am against incarceration as presently practiced. Prisons should be models of a structured environment in which rules are strictly but fairly enforced and misbehavior is swiftly but fairly punished. Where prisoners have constructive things to do and are required to do them, and then reap some of the fruit of their labors. That doesn't sound very much like the prison environments I've heard about.

        Collapse
        1. Alex Winkleman

          The environment you describe would be good for anyone, and in prison you want to be training or conditioning people to be productive, well behaved citizens. There is still a debt that needs to be paid to be victim, and I don’t know how that would be included but it is 100% consistent with a healthy recovery.

          Collapse
          1. Alan

            Yeah, and the fact we literally have a system that does the opposite tells me we know how, but just don't give a shit.

            Collapse
        2. Alan

          I don't believe that we have much idea how to reform criminals, let alone how to get criminals to reform themselves.

          We have one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. Clearly there are ways, we just don't prioritize that.

          "No bad outcomes for the public" doesn't actually sound like a bad thing. It must, of course,

          Then why not just summarily execute everyone. It also provides the same guarantee of no bad outcome.

          My point on the presumption of guilt upon arrest wasn't a legal one but a societal one. The reason these issues go unresolved is a lot of people in society essentially assume that bad things happening to arrested folks is "fine" because clearly they deserved it.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Man-Eating Cow

            Oh, please.

            "We have one of the highest recidivism rates in the world. Clearly there are ways, we just don't prioritize that."

            The second sentence simply doesn't logically follow from the first.

            "Then why not just summarily execute everyone. It also provides the same guarantee of no bad outcome."

            For the reasons I, myself, gave, but which you saw fit to elide out of your quote from my post. That doesn't bespeak good faith in debate.

            "The reason these issues go unresolved is a lot of people in society essentially assume that bad things happening to arrested folks is "fine" because clearly they deserved it."

            Would it surprise you to hear that I believe there's a lot of truth to this? Be surprised: I believe there's a lot of truth to this. Conservatives generally believe that there are rarely solutions, only trade offs. I believe the current trade offs are worse than they need to be.

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      David Sneath

      So do you completely dismiss the state’s interest in those charged with crimes, though still legally innocent, in returning for criminal proceedings? Can a person charged with a crime just go about their life and ignore summons and trial dates because they are legally innocent? I suppose the court can just convict people in their absence and then they are no longer presumed innocent. Doesn’t seem ideal though.

      Collapse
      1. Ben P

        Getting rid of cash bail doesn't imply casting aside the state's interest in making sure people show up for court. There is another very effective method, which is the knowledge that failing to show up will result in an arrest warrant.

        Cash bail is a terrible method for achieving a desirable outcome, because it is fundamentally unjust. As a thought experiment, let's imagine a sci-fi alternative reality in which our bail system created opposite outcomes to the one is currently creates: poor people almost always get to go home, but the wealthier you are the more likely it becomes that you have to wait in jail until trial. For how long would such a system remain politically feasible? It's a silly question of course: poor people have almost no political power, and so it's easy to maintain a legal system that exerts harsher punishments on them than it does on those who politicians listen to. If our bail system was going easy on poor people and coming down hard on middle class and wealthy people, it would be reformed tomorrow.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          David Sneath

          Ben, I don’t argue that cash bail is a good program, my specific response was to Mr. James assertion that $1 of bail was incompatible with presumption of innocence. Governments issue prophylactic “penalties” (at very least expenses) regularly. City water or public utility deposits, car insurance, income tax withholdings, etc. Cash bail may not be the best system (and is certainly more burdensome to the poor, as you state) but holding cash to encourage compliance is not unique to bail and certainly not incompatible with presumption of innocence. I wish this practice was less common in general in governments. If I promise to pay my water bill I don’t get to skip the deposit, even if I understand I may face prosecution if I don’t follow through with full payment.

          Collapse
          1. Ben P

            Thanks for the clarification; I get what you're saying. And it sounds like you agree that there is a large and important difference of degree between a city utilities deposit and a non-refundable 10% fee on a $25,000 bail bond.

            Collapse
      2. Token Liberal

        No. Most people make their court appearances and those that don't have arrest warrants issued. They eventually get picked up. In a perfect world we would deny bail to people who will not appear or will keep committing crimes and release the rest. Of course, our ability to predict is flawed, and always will be. So states are constantly adjusting, not wanting to needlessly incarcerate people, but also not wanting to release people who shouldn't be released. So on it goes.

        Collapse
        1. Alan

          The reality is that people fear criminal behavior far more (probably more than statistics say they should) than they care about innocent people being held. Therefore that balance is always slanted towards holding because DAs and Judges are elected.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Stephanie

            If you read the report from the Vera Institute which is referenced in the article, it points out something most people opposed to bail reform are probably not aware of. It makes sense, of course, but it's contrary to what most people think is the value of bail bonds: there is actually no deterrent value to posting bond--it's not equivalent to pretrial detention:

            "Further, financial conditions for purposes of public safety are particularly irrational because, in nearly every jurisdiction across the country, when people are rearrested while released on monetary bail they do not forfeit the money they posted, meaning bail does not provide any incentive for people to remain arrest free as it might to appear for court."

            Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    Interesting synopsis, though this article comes across as a tad too tipped in favor of bail reform and against the status quo. Especially the implication that the US being only one of two countries with a cash bail system, must mean that's a bad thing. That's a very Progressive framing often also used to argue that, say, the Second Amendment should be repealed, the Electoral College should be abolished, etc. "No other country does things the way we do!"

    I am sure there is an actual conservative case for bail reform, but this isn't it.

    Also would have appreciated a mention of bail reforms that haven't been as successful. The NY situation, for example. Many examples of a revolving door in which even violent criminals and perpetrators of hate crimes spend only a day or two in jail.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      What examples? The NY bail laws do not allow for violent offenders to be released, bail or no.

      Perhaps you're just so used to hearing about bail, in movies, and news reports, etc., and have never really thought about it much, as most people haven't, that changing the requirements for it seem scary--as if it's letting criminals go free.

      But someone's not a criminal just because they were arrested--they have to be convicted.

      Dangerous people don't get to post bail.

      People arrested for petty or nonviolent crimes, and let out on bail, are just as likely to commit another crime while out on bail as those who are kept in jail because they couldn't afford to make bail.

      That's because there is no penalty for re-offending while out on bail. Bail is not forfeit.

      Bail is only forfeited if they don't show up for their scheduled appearance in court.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      I think the presumption of innocence should outweigh the presumption of guilt.

      So the possible harm to society needs to be balanced against the individual's right to a fair trial and to not be imprisoned unless actually found guilty.

      Most of the criticism of the NY bail laws is going to be found on Fox News and in the NY Post, both of which are Rupert Murdoch mouthpieces. If a Republican governor (rather than Andrew Cuomo) had done bail reform, they'd love it.

      So this article may actually be a conservative case for bail reform. I don't think either Fox News or the Post is going to have any thoughtfully argued position on the matter. They're both geared to stirring up phony outrage with "dog bites man" stories.

      Collapse
    3. Ben P

      I agree that the article is more advocacy than straight reporting. But I also think it addresses the concerns you listed about violent crime. The bail reform argument is that we should assess, as well as we can, how likely someone is to harm another person or fail to appear, and that's it. Ability to pay shouldn't factor in. I don't know if that's a "conservative" argument, but I have a hard time finding any fault with it.

      The NY situation appears to have been a result of 2nd degree attempted assault being classified as a non-violent crime, which seems bonkers to me. I think one can both support the general principle that cash bail is unjust while also supporting a replacement system that doesn't let people charged with violent crimes right back out.

      Said differently, we have two separate questions:

      1) Should we have cash bail?
      2) If not, upon what standards do we decide to keep someone detained before trial?

      In principle, one could answer "no" to 1) and then come up with something really harsh for 2) that results in even more pre-trial detention than we have now. Not that I'm advocating this; the point is only that getting rid of cash bail doesn't need to imply greater leniency.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Tmcke

        In Paterson NJ the mayor held a news conference to explain that he was asking the state to end (or change) its bail reform. Asked by a news reporter if he had data - he said no but that he did not need data. It was politically smart but really terrible.

        Having lived to age 71 and seen the world under regular cash bail, in fact come released on bail commit crimes. Most don't. But we need to get real data and not simply use our fear to do the wrong thing. Decades ago we over sentenced folks for drugs. Bad ideas are just that. bad. And yes, there will always be some oddities.

        Collapse
        1. Ben P

          Agreed. We can't set the standards based on anecdotes; there will always be cases of people out on bail who reoffend, and if that level of "safety first" is a reason for "no bail" then we may as well make all sentences life sentences and repeal the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments while we're at it.

          Collapse
          1. Alan

            Plenty of people would be fine with that until the consequences hit THEM, and then would cry foul like little shits

            Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Luke Sherman

      I would need to dig more into that, but I am not sure how much is bail related and how much is other things. And COVID definitely didn't help matters. I have a friend in NY who's ex was supposed to be in jail for abusing her and then they just let the guy out during COVID and he never went back in and he went back to work as if nothing had happened. And then I had a different friend who's step-siblings literally stole her whole inheritance from her, were convicted and the judge chose not to impose any form of punishment because it was their first offense (these assholes drained literally her whole bank account). I think that there is definitely something that needs to be looked at reform-wise in that case but I don't think it is related to bail as much as it is other things.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Tmcke

        The court system was worried that to put folks in jail was a possible death sentence so they avoided it.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Luke Sherman

          That is understandable. The fact that the judge basically waved the rest of the sentence after it was safe to go back makes me feel ill given what she has told me about the abuse.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Tmcke

            I had a traffic violation during COVID. Really minor - but it took forever just to get the case closed - so pay ticked for less than $100. I am not excusing the judge. But even in my case - the judge and court clerk seemed at wits end.

            Collapse
    5. Avatar photo
      Tmcke

      Do you live in or near NY? The law is hardly a failure. It appears to need some tweaking. I live near NYC and have worked there on and off since 1976.

      Also do you understand New York's status before bail reform. In one outrageous case a young man who was arrested for a relatively minor crime spent so much time in jail that he was freed because the judge ruled that his time served equalled any possible sentence. The issue of poor kids languishing and no trial (a right to a speedy trial is supposedly guaranteed) is a well know violation of basic rights.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Stephanie

        Riker's Island is an extreme example of this.

        There was that recent case (I may have details wrong but I'm sure you know of it) of the young black guy accused of stealing a backpack, put in Riker's Island (a prison for misdemeanor offenders as well as a jail for arrested people awaiting trial). He was horribly beaten and abused, and ended up committing suicide before he could even be tried.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Aylene Wright

        Hmm, where did I call the NY bail reform "a failure"? I described it as a situation that "haven't been as successful". That's really not that different from your take that "it appears to need some tweaking".

        I also never said that the situation prior to the reforms was good or even acceptable.

        But you seem to have assumed I was some heartless "lock 'em all up" type. Congratulations.

        Collapse
    6. Alan

      Why does it need to be a conservative case for bail reform? Also, why do you assume other framings are as valid? They may be, but the idea that "if there are other sides they must be valid" is a terrible assumption this comment seems to be making.

      Collapse
    7. Avatar photo
      Kevin M. James

      It is always worth noting that we're alone--or close to alone--on something.

      The problem comes from not recognizing that there's a set of possible conclusions to draw from that, running from positive to neutral to negative.

      I didn't think the piece jumped to a firm presumption there regarding the fact that the U.S. and the Philippines are the only countries where a commercial bail-bond industry is legal.

      Collapse
Load More