|
The 2011 Spending Reduction Act contains a dizzying array of
federal spending cuts in addition to those mentioned in Courtland Milloy’s
column of 1/29. Alcohol reduction
programs for children, loans to encourage new prosecutors, economic aid to
Egypt, etc., are all on the chopping block. One provision of the proposed Act
does not cut federal spending however, even by a penny. At the behest of the
tiny bail bonding industry, (which is publicly claiming victory as a result),
the Act prohibits states and localities from spending their formula grant funds
to support evidence-based pretrial services programs. Why? Simply because bail
bondsmen see these programs as eating into their own profits. This provision
does not save taxpayers money, reduce the deficit or rein in government
intrusion. Instead, it caters to lobbyists while endangering public safety and
restricting the discretion of local governments in deciding what is best for
their communities. A new era on Capitol Hill? It sounds like they’re serving the same old bill of fare at
this tea party.
|
| In a January 7, 2010 Washington Post Op Ed piece, former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Republican leader of the California State Assembly Pat Nolan encouraged Republican and conservative legislators to take leadership roles in reforming the criminal justice system. Specifically, they suggested that legislators seriously consider implementing policies to reduce prison costs while still protecting public safety.
Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Nolan soberly discussed the dismal realities of America’s prison system – that our expenditures on corrections are 300 percent greater than they were twenty-five years ago, that our prison population is growing 13 times faster than the general population, and that half of the prisoners released this year are expected to return to prison within three years. These statistics reflect a broken system and an approach that fails to provide long-term productive solutions to immediate problems. Messieurs Gingrich and Nolan suggested, however, that there are alternatives to “business as usual” that have proven effective and less expensive. They pointed to Texas, which has seen significant savings and improved outcomes from investing in community treatment programs, rather than traditional incarceration. They also highlighted South Carolina’s efforts to reserve prison beds for dangerous criminals while employing community supervision for lower-risk offenders.
While Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Nolan are surely correct that prison reform is desperately needed in most states, communities will also benefit from better front-end decision-making. Counties bear the burden of funding jails, and unnecessary pretrial detention consumes enormous amounts of resources. Not to mention, pretrial detention has proven to lead to greater conviction rates and more severe sentencing. A comprehensive approach to reform is essential to success. In this partisan climate, it appears there are few legislative priorities that Democrats and Republicans can agree upon. However, reducing correction costs for severely burdened state budgets while improving outcomes surely seems to present potential for cooperation. Let’s hope that Congress hears the calls by Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Nolan and responds accordingly.
|
| The Texas Tribune reported this week that jail inmates in Texas are dying at nearly the same rates as inmates in Texas prisons, despite the fact that jails house approximately half as many inmates as prisons, and for significantly shorter periods of time. Many of these jail inmates enter the county jails, said Gregg County Sheriff Maxey Cerliano, with “conditions that have been neglected for years because of poverty, substance abuse, or mental illness.” According to the article, these health care problems only become worse upon incarceration because jails are strapped for resources and staff, only able to provide the least costly medications and treatments.
Just as importantly, the article noted, health care costs have been rising significantly in recent years. In counties with populations of 1 million or more, the average jail health care expenditures leaped from approximately $5 million in 2005 to $15 million in 2009. Given the declining budgets facing most counties, such increases in health care costs are particularly onerous.
Although there are no simple or easy answers to these problems, it is possible to lessen the enormous number of non-violent, non-dangerous inmates who cycle through jail doors, and thereby decrease health care costs borne by jails. The majority of jail inmates are there awaiting trial, but many of these individuals are "manageable risk" individuals and may be suitable for supervised release, or some kind of community or diversion program, rather than incarceration or prosecution. As indicated by the article, a number of the inmates who consume health care resources have mental health or drug addiction issues. However, these issues place enormous strains on jail health care systems, and illustrate the value that pretrial supervisory services and diversion programs can provide to local criminal justice systems. Counties with high-functioning pretrial services and diversion programs can make early identification of individuals with mental health or drug addiction problems who could be safely released into supervision or treatment alternatives. Many times, such individuals have access to health care through their families or jobs, and can best receive treatment while awaiting trial outside jail without posing significant risks of re-arrest or flight. By preventing the unnecessary incarceration of non-violent, non-dangerous individuals, jails can avoid assuming the associated high health care costs and funnel those resources into the detention and care of individuals who do in fact pose serious risks. As Scott Medlock, director of the prisoner’s rights program at the Texas Civil Rights Project noted, counties “should find ways to keep fewer people behind bars, releasing those awaiting trial who are nonviolent, and finding appropriate treatment for the mentally ill.” Pretrial service programs and diversion programs provide these alternatives, and hopefully more counties will consider them as they evaluate ways to reduce costs.
|
| An article recently published on ctpost.com raises questions about the number of defendants obtaining pretrial release through discounted bonds, and the effect such practices have on community safety. The article cites both public officials and certain bondsmen for their concern about such practices. According to the ctpost.com, 17,000 accused felons have failed to appear in court, and it is suggested that in part, this is because “the [r]ules that require bondsmen to collect a certain percentage of each bail bond are routinely ignored.” Instead, according bail bondsman Patrick Moynahan, who was interviewed for the article, “[t]here are probably hundreds of examples of people who were out on discounted bonds and then killed somebody.” He further asserted, “It happens once a month, but you don’t know about it.” The article further explains that the majority of criminal defendants end up paying only one or two percent of the full bail amount to bondsmen, and this is primarily because there are so many bondsmen competing for business that if one bondsman refuses to offer a discount, another bondsman will.
Connecticut Insurance Commissioner Thomas Sullivan has made serious efforts to regulate and crack down on bond industry violators, but his preference would be to require 100% payment of the bond immediately. Sullivan argues that such a requirement would better provide for public safety because “from a public safety perspective, when a judge orders a defendant released on bond, the bond system is there for a reason.” Just as importantly, the article notes, while “those who pose a serious safety risk are let out,” many defendants who do not pose a risk remain behind bars because they can’t afford the bond set for them.
Unfortunately, a criminal justice system that primarily leaves the decision of pretrial release to a for-profit industry will never protect communities from dangerous individuals. The only release requirements bondsmen have to satisfy are financial – which means that, even where bondsmen are requiring the mandatory 10% fee from defendants, dangerous defendants with money will obtain release. Connecticut does not require its bondsmen to screen defendants for risk or likelihood of re-arrest – which means bondsmen will only ever make their decisions based upon financial incentives. Even those with the best of intentions act according to financial incentives. And because those defendants charged with very serious crimes are likely to have higher bonds placed on them, they will inevitably represent higher income for bondsmen, making them the most appealing clients. Until Connecticut re-evaluates entirely the value of bondsmen to its pretrial release process, these types of problems will continue to haunt its citizens.
|
| Sheriff Bob White and his staff are seeking $4 million in additional funding for the 2010-2011 year from the Pasco Board of County Commissioners, which would increase his current $85 million budget to nearly $90 million. According to a recent news article in the St. Petersburg Times, the Pasco County Sheriff typically gets about 98% of his requested funds, which would put the expected award somewhere between $88 and $90 million. The total Pasco County budget for 2010 – 2011 is around $1 billion, which puts the Sheriff’s office at about 10% of the budget.
However, as with most counties this year, $90 million is a lot of money to spend on corrections, particularly when this recession has created so many other pressing needs. For example, the article indicates that prior to the county funding hearing, commissioners will have to eliminate a number of jobs from the budget. Sheriff White argues that he needs an additional $4 million to hire 28 new deputies, and that compared to other counties, he is underfunded. While this may be true, Sheriff White arguably might not need these additional funds if he were still equipped with a pretrial services program.
In 2009, St. Petersburg eliminated its pretrial program, which operated to facilitate the pretrial release of defendants who were deemed to be low-risk, while ensuring high-risk defendants were detained. This program interviewed, investigated, and assessed the risks posed by each arrestee coming into the St. Petersburg jails. It equipped courts to make informed release decisions, and provided supervisory services for defendants who are appropriate for pretrial release. However, without such a program at their disposal, most judges have to guess at the risks posed by defendants. Such guessing leads to money bond, which many defendants cannot meet, and as a result are stuck behind bars until trial. Such unnecessary detention leads to costly jail management, which is borne by county budgets.
If St. Petersburg were to reinstate a pretrial services program, perhaps Sheriff White would not need to hire 28 additional deputies. Instead, Pasco County could retain the jobs it already has and funnel its money elsewhere. Let’s hope that at least one good thing can come out of the budget crunch facing many other counties like Pasco County – a re-evaluation of how to best spend taxpayer dollars on community corrections.
To read the article in its entirety, please go to: http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=OTgwMDIyOQ==
|
|
Typically, bail bondsmen tout their worth to courts by pointing out their role in ensuring the appearance of bonded defendants in court when required. When defendants contract with bondsmen in order to obtain pretrial release, the bondsmen also become contractually obligated to the court for the full amount of the bond. The argument goes that because a bondsman is on the hook for the remaining amount of the bond when the defendant absconds, they have every incentive to make sure the defendant appears in court. This amount is typically 90% of the total bond, often a significant sum. However, this argument hinges upon courts actually enforcing collection of forfeited bonds – and two recent news stories illustrate that payment of bond forfeitures is a murky, questionable, and oft-unexamined process.
On August 4, the Wichita Eagle reported that a Wichita municipal court employee had been convicted of receiving bribes to change computerized records so that local bondsmen could avoid paying forfeitures. In addition, two other court employees, both of whom are former bondsmen or bounty hunters, have been indicted for conspiracy, altering criminal justice records and receiving bribes. In this case, not only has the Wichita community gone without the forfeited bonds owed by the bondsmen, but they now have to spend valuable law enforcement resources investigating and prosecuting these individuals. However, at least Wichita is addressing these crimes. The same cannot be said for all other jurisdictions.
In fact, on August 6, 2010, a San Antonio online news source noted that well over a year after a local leading bondsman in Bexar County, Texas, was accused of bribing various judicial officials to forego or delay enforcement of bond forfeitures, no further investigations had ensued. According to Mysanantonio.com, on November 23, 2008, allegations surfaced that the owner of AA Bail Bonds of San Antonio had offered illicit favors or bribes to local officials in order to gain more time in recovering bond fugitives or avoid payment of forfeitures. One of the named officials was a District Attorney in San Antonio’s bond forfeitures section – that is, till his recent transfer to the office’s juvenile division. Just as notably, according to the website, the county’s Bail Bond Board held a hearing in January 2009 but has done nothing since. The Bexar Bail Bond board’s county attorney stated that the board possessed no investigative arm and it was entirely unclear who is responsible to pursue these types of allegations.
These stories, while disturbing, can hardly be characterized as unusual. The unfortunate reality is that in many jurisdictions, collection of forfeitures and regulation of the bonding industry are lax or nonexistent. The entities which exist to address the bonding industry are often only equipped to issue licenses, as they are often housed within the county or state insurance commissioning body. These organizations have no means by which to investigate criminal allegations against bondsmen. The obvious result is that the bonding industry in most states is barely, if at all, subject to regulation and review. Just as importantly, even where courts attempt to collect forfeitures, there are so many loopholes in state’s legislated collection schemes that bondsmen frequently manage to legally avoid paying on forfeitures. Notably, these legal disputes are costly and time-consuming for courts, which employ public resources to pursue the funds rightfully owed them by bondsmen.
The daily reality of forfeiture collection is a sobering reminder that commercial sureties do what they do in order to turn a profit. It would be hugely unprofitable to pay on the majority of forfeitures, so bonding lobbies have ensured that most state statutes provide ample opportunities for bondsmen to resist, delay, or avoid payment altogether. Let’s hope that as jurisdictions witness abuses by the bondsmen in their communities, they seek measures to compel better regulation and collection procedures. After all, bondsmen claim to provide an essential function to criminal justice systems by assuring a defendant’s appearance in court or paying significant fees to the court. If communities observe that bondsmen aren’t even fulfilling their purported obligations, bondsmen will be hard-pressed to justify their presence in the criminal justice system altogether.
For the full text of these stories, please follow these links:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/after_18_months_serious_charges_against_bail_bondsman_remain_largely_unexamined_100093999.html
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/news.do?feed=yellowbrix&storyid=148234565
|
| Charlotte, North Carolina is implementing some changes in its bail-setting policies that are supposed to reduce the pretrial detention of low-risk defendants while simultaneously preventing high-risk defendants from making bail. According to a July 6 article in the Charlotte Observer, judges and magistrates who set bond in Mecklenburg County currently only have limited information about defendants and minimum bond suggestions for each crime. While these suggestions are not mandatory, the article intimated that most judges adhere closely to the suggestions in order to avoid setting unconstitutionally excessive bonds. The result, according to the article, is that risky defendants often manage to buy their way out of jail while low-risk but poor defendants cannot make the minimum bond. As such, the new policies are designed to provide judges with more complete information about which defendants are risky, as well as equip judges with a range of bond suggestions that will prevent the release of high-risk defendants but permit release of those facing minor charges.
While Mecklenburg County’s efforts to implement a more efficient and effective pretrial detention process must be applauded, a few things are still of sober note. First, the constitutional prohibition against excessive bail does not simply restrict judges from setting high money bonds – rather, it requires judges to impose bail conditions that are no more onerous than necessary to assure the defendant’s appearance and the safety of the community. Under that standard, money bonds would not be appropriate in many cases. Second, even where judges are encouraged to exercise greater discretion in the amount they are imposing, they are still relying upon money to detain defendants. According to the article, the greater risk a defendant poses of nonappearance or re-arrest, the higher the bond judges are supposed to set. But when judges are forced to rely upon money bonds to detain high-risk defendants, they can only guess at the amount that will keep such defendants behind bars. They often guess wrong. Unfortunately, this policy will still permit risky defendants who have financial resources to purchase their freedom, just at greater profit for commercial sureties.
Mecklenburg County would be much more likely to realize its goals of reducing unnecessary detentions and increasing community safety if it were equipped by the North Carolina legislature with a preventive detention statute. Such a statute would delineate the class of defendants that courts are permitted to detain and provide consistent, open guidelines for determining which defendants are too risky for release. With a preventive detention statute, judicial officials would not be forced to rely on money bonds, which perpetuate unpredictable pretrial releases. Let’s hope that the North Carolina legislature follows the example of Mecklenburg County in reforming its pretrial release system and adopts a preventive detention statute.
To read the article in its entirety, please follow this link: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/06/1545993/new-bail-rules-aim-at-worst-offenders.html
|
| Much has been written about Maurice Clemmons, the man who killed four police officers while out on bond last November in Lakewood, Washington. Recriminations have been cast on all parties involved, and in particular on the bond company, Jail Sucks Jail Bonds, who released Clemmons after accepting a reduced bond payment. Interestingly, critics have focused on Clemmons’ shaky financial circumstances and seem to believe that Jail Sucks should have recognized Clemmons’ inability to pay the full ten percent deposit, the figure typically required by bondsmen, as evidence of his unfitness for release. An article recently published in the Seattle Times appears to simultaneously condemn Clemmons’ release on a lower-than-average bond deposit while still embracing the concept of release through bond deposits generally. The article detailed Clemmons’ financial status and his aggressive efforts to negotiate lower, periodic payment terms with various bonding companies. But it’s unclear what the article’s author finds so objectionable – that a violent defendant was permitted to use an installment plan to buy his freedom, or that he was crafty and persistent enough to negotiate a lower deposit.
Unfortunately, all of this hoopla overlooks the inherent and egregious flaw of financial bail: Clemmons’ release was determined by his ability to pay. Even though many now bemoan his bail discount, would Clemmons have been any less dangerous if he’d had the cash to pay the full ten percent deposit? The fact that he did not possess that amount of cash had nothing to do with his likelihood to kill four police officers. As such, with no information about Clemmons’ financial capacity, the court selected $190,000 because it guessed that was an amount Clemmons would be unable to pay. This is a common practice all over the United States – courts often impose large bonds for dangerous defendants in the hopes that they won’t be able to buy their freedom. But the reality is that a defendant’s ability to pay should play no role at all in whether they are released from jail prior to trial. Unfortunately, this case is a perfect example of why money bail is an arbitrary, unpredictable, and ineffective mechanism for determining pretrial release. Instead, courts should be equipped with the ability to fully investigate defendants and openly detain those who present serious threats of danger to the community or flights of risk.
Now everyone appears to be calling for greater regulation of the bonding industry in Washington. But even with closer scrutiny of bondsmen, defendants who have cash will still be able to buy their freedom, regardless of their dangerousness. Let’s hope Washington legislators recognize that fact and take the crucial step of abolishing the use of money bail altogether.
To read the article in its entirety, please follow this link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012041966_bailbonds06.html
|
| In Broward County, a recent announcement of the closure of a 544-bed jail tower is raising concerns over how the county intends to handle inmates. According to a recent article in the South Florida Sun-Sentinal, Broward Sheriff Al Lamberti is closing the wing in response to budget cuts. However, pursuant to a 1976 lawsuit and subsequent court order, federal authorities closely monitor the Broward County jails to ensure they do not exceed their designated capacity. As such, Broward courts and jails will be forced to evaluate their procedures and find ways to manage inmates safely and efficiently with less jail space.
In fact, Broward County already possesses the means to do just that. The Broward Pretrial Services Agency is one of the largest programs in the state and falls under the jurisdiction of Sheriff Lamberti. This program advises county courts on pretrial release decisions, supervises released defendants, and informs defendants of their court dates. While Sheriff Lamberti commented in the article that he’d like to incarcerate everyone charged with a crime, such an approach is not practical, economical, or legal. Instead, Broward can and should take advantage of the supervisory services provided by its pretrial program. As Broward County Judge John “Jay” Hurley noted in the Sun-Sentinal article, a significant number of those in jail are homeless, minor drug offenders, and minor thieves – defendants eligible for bail but unable to afford it. Instead of housing these types of defendants in jail at the staggering cost of $114/day, Broward County could and should place them into the supervisory services of its pretrial program. Taking such action would allow Sheriff Lamberti to ensure the safety of his community while keeping the jail populations at a constitutional number.
To read the Sun-Sentinal article in its entirety, follow this link:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-06-01/news/fl-jail-population-broward-20100601_1_county-jails-jail-wing-jail-overcrowding
|
| A recent news article out of Mississippi illuminates the problems which can arise when courts are forced to rely on money bonds to protect the community from dangerous defendants. In Jackson, a man was charged with attempted carjacking and kidnapping, and the local judge set his bond for $1.5 million. According to the article, the defendant was making death threats while he committed the crimes, and the judge felt the defendant’s actions were serious enough to warrant an extremely high bond. As a local attorney noted, such a high bond is in effect a denial of bail. However, because Mississippi law only permits the use of bail to assure the defendant’s appearance at trial, courts cannot detain most defendants or impose conditions of bail designed to protect the safety of the community. As a result, judges have to resort to setting impossibly high money bonds in the hopes dangerous defendants won't be able to meet them. However, many other states do in fact permit judges to deny bail altogether for dangerous defendants. These states have passed preventive detention statutes, which recognize that bail should also serve to protect the community, and that money bonds are ineffective for that purpose. Courts in these states can openly detain defendants who are too dangerous to be released prior to trial, without relying upon the arguably unconstitutional and illegal use of exorbitant money bonds. Mississippi's legislature could enact a preventive detention statute, or authorize the release of the defendant subject to a number of conditions, including the supervision of a pretrial services agency. Ultimately, money bonds fail to ensure community safety while still protecting the defendant's rights, and it appears some folks in Mississippi are beginning to recognize this. To read the article in its entirety, follow this link: http://www.clarionledger.com/article/20100517/NEWS/5170319/Bond+system+under+scrutiny |
View in Web Browser /blog/_layouts/VisioWebAccess/VisioWebAccess.aspx?listguid={ListId}&itemid={ItemId}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType vdw 255 Compliance Details javascript:commonShowModalDialog('{SiteUrl}/_layouts/itemexpiration.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}', 'center:1;dialogHeight:500px;dialogWidth:500px;resizable:yes;status:no;location:no;menubar:no;help:no', function GotoPageAfterClose(pageid){if(pageid == 'hold') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+'/_layouts/hold.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;} if(pageid == 'audit') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+'/_layouts/Reporting.aspx?Category=Auditing&backtype=item&ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;} if(pageid == 'config') {STSNavigate(unescape(decodeURI('{SiteUrl}'))+'/_layouts/expirationconfig.aspx?ID={ItemId}&List={ListId}'); return false;}}, null); return false; 0x0 0x1 ContentType 0x01 898 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XsnLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 FileType xsn 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document.2 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document.3 255 Edit in Browser /_layouts/images/icxddoc.gif /blog/_layouts/formserver.aspx?XmlLocation={ItemUrl}&OpenIn=Browser&Source={Source} 0x0 0x1 ProgId InfoPath.Document.4 255 View in Browser /blog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id={ItemUrl}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType xlsx 255 View in Browser /blog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id={ItemUrl}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType xlsm 255 View in Browser /blog/_layouts/xlviewer.aspx?id={ItemUrl}&DefaultItemOpen=1 0x0 0x1 FileType xlsb 255 Document Set Version History javascript:SP.UI.ModalDialog.ShowPopupDialog('{SiteUrl}/_layouts/DocSetVersions.aspx?List={ListId}&ID={ItemId}') 0x0 0x0 ContentType 0x0120D520 330 Send To other location javascript:GoToPage('{SiteUrl}/_layouts/docsetsend.aspx?List={ListId}&ID={ItemId}') 0x0 0x0 ContentType 0x0120D520 350 |
|
|
|
|