Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:28 am
Time: 2:28 am
Results for bail (u.s.)
6 results foundAuthor: Pretrial Justice Institute Title: Rational and Transparent Bail Decision Making: Moving from a Bash-Based to a Risk-Based Process Summary: Between 1990 and 2008, the jail population in the United States doubled from 400,000 inmates to 800,000. During much of this period, crime rates were steadily dropping, falling to levels not seen in decades. The number of defendants held in jail awaiting disposition of their charges drove much of the increase in the jail population. Up until 1996, jail populations were comprised evenly of about 50 percent sentenced and 50 percent pretrial inmates. Beginning in 1996, the number of pretrial inmates grew at a much faster pace than the sentenced inmates. Currently, 61 percent of inmates in local jails have not been convicted, compared to 39 percent who are serving sentences.1 This shift has resulted in a dramatic change in how jails are being used. One major policy shift corresponding with the rise in the pretrial detainee population has been the increase in the use of money bond. When a person is arrested, the court can release the defendant with non-!nancial conditions or set a money bond, which must be posted before the defendant can be released. Existing laws in most states establish a presumption for release on the least restrictive conditions necessary to reasonably assure the safety of the community and the defendant’s appearance in court. Those laws also identify non-!nancial release options as being the least restrictive and money bonds being the most restrictive. Notwithstanding the presumption for release on the least restrictive conditions, historically, money bond has been used in the majority of cases – and its use is on the rise. In 1990, money bonds were being set in 53 percent of felony cases. By 2006, that !gure had jumped to 70 percent.2 As the use of money bonds has gone up, pretrial release rates have gone down. In 1990, 65 percent of felony defendants were released while awaiting trial, compared to 58 percent in 2006.3 Rising jail populations have come at great cost to taxpayers. Between 1982 and 2006, county expenditures on criminal justice grew from $21 billion to $109 billion. County spending on jails alone rose 500 percent over that period.4 A recent analysis by the Florida Sheri"’s Association calculated that in just 30 of Florida’s county jails, taxpayers spend $983,921,079 – or nearly one billion dollars – a year to house just those inmates who are in jail awaiting trial.5 If these !gures were extrapolated nationally, they would be in the tens of billions of dollars. This White Paper takes the position that most of the money spent to house defendants who cannot post a bond is unnecessary to achieve the purposes of bond – to protect the safety of the community while the defendant’s case is pending, and to assure the appearance of the defendant in court. With local jurisdictions laying o" teachers, police o#cers and !re!ghters and cutting back on vital services because they do not have the money to pay them, this waste of money is unconscionable. Aside from the wasteful use of taxpayer dollars, the practice of using money to decide pretrial release has also played a signi!cant role in contributing to the mass incarceration phenomena that has swept the nation for the past three decades. Research dating back 50 years clearly and consistently demonstrates the relationship between being locked up pending trial and subsequent incarceration. The research shows that defendants detained in jail while awaiting trial plead guilty more often, are convicted more often, are sentenced to prison more often, and receive harsher prison sentences than those who are released during the pretrial period. These relationships hold true when controlling for other factors, such as current charge, prior criminal history, and community ties.6 As one of these studies noted, “Although no statistical study can prove causality, the !ndings of this research are fully consistent with the argument that something about detention (awaiting trial) itself leads to harsher outcomes.”7 Regardless of the reasons for the harsher outcomes for those who are detained during the pretrial period, the facts cannot be ignored. There is an enormous amount of unnecessary pretrial detention taking place in this country, and being held in jail awaiting trial in e"ect pre-selects persons for later incarceration. Moreover, the greatest impact of this falls on racial and ethnic minorities, who are the least likely to be able to post money bonds. Details: Washington, DC: Pretrial Justice Institute, 2012. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/Rational%20and%20Transparent%20Bail%20Decision%20Making.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.pretrial.org/Featured%20Resources%20Documents/Rational%20and%20Transparent%20Bail%20Decision%20Making.pdf Shelf Number: 125168 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Pretrial DetentionRisk Assessment |
Author: Allegheny Casualty Title: Taxpayer Funded Pretrial Release: A Failed System Summary: PREFACE Persons legitimately suspected by a proper official of having committed a crime are processed into custody – usually the county jail where they remain until trial unless they are released upon approval of the court. Such a release pending trial is always based upon an assurance, acceptable to the court, that the person will return to court as directed. These promises of the defendant to make their scheduled court appearance fall neatly into two categories: where the promise is financially secured (posting of a bond) or where the release is based upon an unsecured promise to come back for trial. These unsecured releases are frequently recommended by, and supposedly administered through, a local taxpayer funded county agency commonly called “Pretrial Services.” Arranging for secured release is done by the private sector industry known as commercial bail bonding. It will be seen that claims by Pretrial Services which advocate that their taxpayerfunded agencies are a beneficial adjunct to local courts and law enforcement should be scrutinized carefully. Their key performance function is in getting persons in their charge to court for disposition of the charges against them. Proof will be provided to show that in this critical performance requirement Pretrial Services dramatically fails the test. The purpose of this booklet is to point out the critical differences between these two approaches and how those differences affect the public safety and economic interests of citizens. It is hoped that judges, state legislators and local government leaders will, by reviewing these materials, be better able to make appropriate decisions relative to the type of pretrial release system that would best serve the interests of their respective constituents. Details: Fairfax, VA: American Bail Coalition, 2011. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2012 at: http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/documents/PretrialWebBooklet-link.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbailcoalition.com/documents/PretrialWebBooklet-link.pdf Shelf Number: 119660 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Pretrial Release |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Bail Fail: Why the U.S. Should End the Practice of Using Money for Bail Summary: The vaguely understood pretrial process of bail costs the taxpayers of the United States billions of dollars and infringes on the liberty and rights of millions of Americans each year. Fortunately, there are alternatives that states and localities can pursue that have been shown to effectively promote safety, deliver justice, and decrease the number of people in jails all while reducing the price of this incarceration to taxpayers and those directly impacted. Numerous reports and studies have supported the elimination of money bail since the early 1900’s; however, reform efforts have been slow. With the era of mass incarceration putting the United States at the top of the world regarding the number of its residents behind bars, the need for reform has become increasingly urgent. States that cannot maintain burgeoning criminal justice systems are now open to safer, more effective ideas. Current policies and practices around money bail are among the primary drivers of growth in our jail populations. On any given day, 60 percent of the U.S. jail population is composed of people who are not convicted but are being held in detention as they await the resolution of their charge. This time in detention hinders them from taking care of their families, jobs and communities while overcrowding jails and creating unsustainable budgets. In 2011, detaining people in county jails until their court dates was costing counties, alone, around $9 billion a year. The use of bail money is generally accepted for securing release from jail after an arrest. It is a part of our culture: there are jokes about getting bail money if one anticipates getting into trouble and a very common fundraiser involves donating dollars in order to “bail out” a person raising money for a cause. However what is not well known is that starting at the time of arrest, many people charged with an offense undergo a confusing, coercive, and expensive process intended to deliver justice. Constitutional safeguards, court rulings, and laws provide for both the protection of people who are accused of offenses, as well as, the power of government to pursue justice and safety in the community. However, the extensive use of money bail as the primary release mechanism has distorted the pretrial justice process. While cases are resolved, justice is not always served and our communities are not always safer. However, the ability to pay money bail is neither an indicator of a defendant’s guilt nor an indicator of risk in release. The focus on money alone as a mechanism for pretrial release means people often are not properly screened for more rational measures of public safety risk: their propensity to flee before their court date or their risk of causing public harm. Meanwhile, those too poor to pay a money bail remain in jail regardless of their risk level or presumed innocence. Evidence suggests that up to 25 percent more people could be safely released from U.S. jails while awaiting trial if the proper procedures are put in place, including valid risk assessments and appropriate community supervision. This report provides an explanation and analysis of the use of money bail in the pretrial justice system. The following sections are designed to facilitate meaningful discussion and reform: • Overview of the pretrial process so that even readers with little to no familiarity with the process can understand what may happen from arrest through a charge being resolved. • Discussion of issues involved in the use of money bail, such as disproportionate impact on certain communities, loss of liberty, and its linkage to the practice of plea-bargaining. • Overview of more effective, just, and cost-saving practices to give readers an idea of what could be done instead of depending on money bail. • Recommendations for beginning to practically address the issue of money bail. There are vastly more effective and cost-saving practices that should replace money bail as our primary release mechanism. By implementing more effective and efficient programs and services, various jurisdictions across the U.S. are demonstrating the cost savings and enhancement of community safety that could be gained. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2012. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 12, 2012 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail.pdf Shelf Number: 126320 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Pretrial Release |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: For Better or For Profit: How the Bail Bonding Industry Stands in the Way of Fair and Effective Pretrial Justice Summary: As early as 1912 – 100 years ago – critics were concerned that poor people remained in jail while awaiting trial solely because of their inability to pay even small bail amounts, that bail bondsmen had become too prominent in the administration of justice and that corruption plagued the industry. Amazingly, these issues still apply to the for-profit bail bond system in today, the Justice Policy Institute shows in its report new report, For Better or For Profit: How the Bail Bonding Industry Stands in the Way of Fair and Effective Pre-Trial Justice. There are approximately 15,000 bail bond agents working in the United States, writing bonds for about $14 billion annually. Bail bond companies take billions from low-income people, with no return on investment in terms of public safety and added costs to communities, according to JPI’s findings. Backed by multibillion dollar insurance giants, the for-profit bail bonding industry maintains its hold in the pretrial system through political influence. For Better or For Profit recommends the U.S. should end for-profit bail bonding; promote and further institutionalize pretrial services; and require greater transparency within the industry. Details: Washington DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2012. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 21, 2012 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/_for_better_or_for_profit_.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/_for_better_or_for_profit_.pdf Shelf Number: 126392 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Bail BondsmenPretrial Release |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Money as a Criminal Justice Stakeholder: The Judge's Decision to Release or Detain a Defendant Pretrial Summary: Our best understanding of how to make meaningful improvements to criminal justice systems points to justice stakeholders cultivating a shared vision, using a collaborative policy process, and enhancing individual decision making with evidence-based practices. Unfortunately, however, using secured money to determine release at bail threatens to erode each of these ingredients. Money cares not for systemwide improvement, and those who buy their stakeholder status from money have little interest in coming together to work on evidence-based solutions to systemwide issues. Like virtually no other area of the law, when judges set secured financial conditions at bail, they are essentially abdicating their decision-making authority to the money itself, which in many ways then becomes a criminal justice stakeholder, with influence and control over such pressing issues as jail populations, court dockets, county budgets, and community safety. Money takes this decision-making authority and sells it to whoever will pay for the transfer, ultimately resulting in "decisions" that run counter to justice system goals as well as the intentions of bail-setting judges. The solution to this dilemma - a dilemma created and blossoming in only the last century in America - is for judges to fully understand the essence of their decision-making duty at bail, and in their adhering to a process in which they reclaim their roles as decision makers fully responsible for the pretrial release or detention of any particular defendant. Judges can achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of history, which illustrates that bail has always been a process in which bail-setting officials were expected to make "bail/no bail," or in-or-out decisions, immediately effectuated so that bailable defendants were released and unbailable defendants were detained. The history of bail shows that when bailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be bailable defendants) are detained or unbailable defendants (or those whom we feel should be unbailable defendants) are released, some correction is necessary to right the balance. Moreover, the history shows that America's switch from a personal surety system using primarily unsecured bonds to a commercial surety system using primarily secured bonds (along with other factors) has led to abuses to both the "bail" and "no bail" sides of our current dichotomies, thus leading to three generations of bail reform in America in the last 100 years. Judges can also achieve this understanding through a thorough knowledge of the pretrial legal foundations. These foundations follow the history in equating "bail" with release, and "no bail" with detention, suggesting, if not demanding an in-or-out decision by judicial officials who are tasked with embracing the risk associated with release and then mitigating that risk only to reasonable levels. Indeed, the history of bail, the legal foundations underlying bail, the pretrial research, the national standards on pretrial release, and the model federal and District of Columbia statutes are all premised on a "release/detain" decision-making process that is unobstructed by secured money at bail. Understanding the nuances of each of these bail fundamentals can help judges also to avoid that obstruction. Nevertheless, it is knowledge of the current pretrial research that perhaps provides judges with the necessary tools to avoid the obstruction of money and to make effective pretrial decisions. First, current pretrial research illustrates that not making an immediately effectuated release decision for low and moderate risk defendants can have both short- and long-term harmful effects for both defendants and society. It is important for judges to make effective bail decisions, but it is especially important that those decisions not frustrate the very purposes underlying the bail process, such as to avoid threats to public safety. Therefore, judges should be guided by recent research demonstrating that a decision to release that is immediately effectuated (and not delayed through the use of secured financial conditions) can increase release rates while not increasing the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the community to intolerable levels. Second, the use of pretrial risk assessment instruments can help judges determine which defendants should be kept in or let out of jail. Those instruments, coupled with research illustrating that using unsecured rather than secured bonds can facilitate the release of bailable defendants without increasing either the risk of failure to appear or the danger to the public, can be crucial in giving judges who still insist on using money at bail the comfort of knowing that their in-or-out decisions will cause the least possible harm. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_nic_money_as_a_stakeholder_september_8,_2014_ii.pdf Shelf Number: 134015 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Decision MakingJudgesPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |
Author: Schnacke, Timothy R. Title: Fundamentals of Bail: A Resource Guide for Pretrial Practitioners and a Framework for American Pretrial Reform Summary: Pretrial justice in America requires a common understanding and agreement on all of the component parts of bail. Those parts include the need for pretrial justice, the history of bail, the fundamental legal principles underlying bail, the pretrial research, the national standards on pretrial release and detention, and how we define our basic terms and phrases. Why Do We Need Pretrial Improvements? If we can agree on why we need pretrial improvements in America, we are halfway toward implementing those improvements. As recently as 2007, one of the most frequently heard objections to bail reform was the ubiquitous utterance, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' That has changed. While various documents over the last 90 years have consistently pointed toward the need to improve the administration of bail, literature from this current generation of pretrial reform gives us powerful new information from which we can articulate exactly why we need to make changes, which, in turn, frames our vision of pretrial justice designed to fix what is most certainly broken. Knowing that our understanding of pretrial risk is flawed, we can begin to educate judges and others on how to embrace risk first and mitigate risk second so that our foundational American precept of equal justice remains strong. Knowing that the traditional money-based bail system leads both to unnecessary pretrial detention of lower risk persons and the unwise release of many higher risk persons, we can begin to craft processes that are designed to correct this illogical imbalance. Knowing and agreeing on each issue of pretrial justice, from infusing risk into police officer stops and first advisements to the need for risk-based bail statutes and constitutional right-to-bail language, allows us as a field to look at each state (or even at all states) with a discerning eye to begin crafting solutions to seemingly insoluble problems. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2014 at: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_bail_fundamentals_september_8,_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.clebp.org/images/2014-11-05_final_bail_fundamentals_september_8,_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 134016 Keywords: Bail (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformPretrial ReleaseRisk Assessment |