Another view: Fixing the unfair bail system is worth the costs
New Jersey, Kentucky, Maryland, Chicago, the District of Columbia and a number of other places are showing that real reforms to the bail system are possible. In California, lawmakers are getting serious, at last, about fixing a status quo stacked against people on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.
On Capitol Hill, too, there are the makings of a bipartisan awakening on the issue. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., are co-sponsoring legislation that would offer modest financial incentives to places that adopt reforms to scrap a fixed regimen of money bail in favor of systems that weigh defendants' actual risk of flight or the peril their release would pose to communities.
No one is suggesting that violent or otherwise dangerous defendants be freed willy-nilly as they await trial. The thrust of reforms, actual and proposed, is to use sensible metrics - previous convictions, severity of pending charges - and, critically, effective pretrial service agencies to determine whether to incarcerate people as they await trial and to ensure that those who are released show up for court dates.
Some prosecutors and police have opposed such reforms, insisting that only the financial tether of bail will ensure that defendants appear at trial as ordered. That argument is refuted by the experience of the District, which scrapped money bail for most defendants years ago. With the help of an effective pretrial service agency, which keeps track of those awaiting court dates and provides drug treatment and other support as needed, the vast majority of nonviolent defendants appear for trial. And in the process the District has achieved major savings by keeping jail costs under control.
It's true states and localities that reform will saddle states and localities with upfront expenses, especially to establish effective pretrial agencies. In California, a legislative analysis estimated that those costs could run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. In New Jersey, localities are expected to absorb a bill of some $50 million, in addition to costs the state itself is facing.
In the longer term, however, bail reform will produce substantial savings by reducing incarcerated populations, cutting corrections staffing and eliminating the need to build more jails to house pretrial detainees.
Even if the balance sheet tilts toward an additional burden for states and localities, bail reform needs to happen because it's the right thing to do. It is a disgrace for a civilized society to lock people up for no reason other than they lack the means to go free.
— The Washington Post
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.