Category: Bail

Deja Vu All Over Again

A March 4 article by By Paul Demko, Jeremy White and Jason Befferman published in POLITICO reports that liberal Democrat politicians in some of the nation’s most progressive cities are abandoning the soft-on-crime policies that they vigorously supported a few years ago. Back in 2020, as the George Floyd riots were tearing up these same cities, politicians running New York, Washington DC, Chicago, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles and San Francisco were insisting that sentences for so-called “low level” drug and theft related crimes be reduced, that cash bail be eliminated and that criminals, including violent gang members, be released early to rehabilitation programs. The motivator for these policies was the systemic racism narrative promoted by progressive academics, non-profits like Black Lives Matter, race-baiting politicians and the national media. While this narrative had been pushed since the 1990s, it got major traction after Floyd’s death as deep blue cities reflexively cut police budgets, elected pro-defendant prosecutors and swept away consequences for crime. Then something happened.

Continue reading . . .

Inviting Lawlessness

Last weekend seven illegal aliens attacked two New York police officers in Times Square, beating and kicking them in the head and face. The incident was recorded on security cameras. The New York Daily News reports that six were arrested and charged with assault on a police officer before being released without bail. Five of the six are citizens of Venezuela, one is facing trial for an earlier assault and robbery. All were invited to enter the U.S. illegally by the current president. These criminals are fortunate to be in New York City. They live in tax-supported shelters where they receive free food, clothing and medical care. They don’t worry about being deported because New York is a sanctuary state.  While assaulting a police officer in most other states would put you in jail with high or no bail until trial, in New York City you get released on your own recognizance.  It is doubtful that any of these criminals will show up for trial, and even if they do, progressive Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is likely to cut them a deal to plead guilty for malicious mischief and release them on probation. Think I’m kidding, this is standard procedure in New York under its criminal justice reforms, supposedly adopted for racial justice, as noted in a recent post.

Continue reading . . .

LA Area Cities Protest Zero Bail Policy

California’s Constitution has two sections on bail. Both of them begin “A person [shall/may] be released on bail by sufficient sureties” followed by some exceptions. The differences between the two have yet to be worked out (stayed tuned), but two things are clear. First, the Constitution requires “sufficient sureties” for release on bail. Second, own-recognizance release is allowed on a discretionary basis, clearly intended as a case-by-case determination.

The Superior Court judges for Los Angeles County have nonetheless decided that most arrestees will be released with no surety at all, i.e., zero bail, and without any individual determination that the individual arrestee is a suitable candidate for “OR.” Can’t let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of the agenda.

There are 88 cities in this massive county, and some of them are deeply unhappy about this. Continue reading . . .

Illegal Free on Zero Bail Arrested for Rape

Last week illegal alien Cruz Garcia was charged with forcible rape and two related felonies in New York.  Danielle Wallace of Fox News reports that Garcia was automatically released without bail in June after being charged with felony drunk driving and other related crimes.  According to Delaware County prosecutors, on July 25th Garcia attacked a woman, strangling her until she nearly blacked out before raping her.  As a sanctuary state, New York prohibits state and local law enforcement from notifying federal immigration authorities when an illegal alien is arrested.  The state’s bail reform law, which took effect in 2020, required that Cruz be released without bail, enabling him to attack the woman a month later.  Had his June arrest occurred in Florida, Cruz would have been held for federal agents, preventing him from committing additional crimes.  Research documented by the Manhattan Institute and a separate study in California found that releasing arrestees without bail results in them committing additional crimes, including violent crimes.

New York’s bail reform law and recidivism

In recent years, many states throughout the nation have taken steps to reduce or eliminate the use of monetary bail. According to proponents, the purpose of bail “reform” is to reduce jail populations and decrease income disparities regarding how bail is applied. However, critics believe that such laws would negatively impact public safety due to more defendants committing crimes while on pretrial release. Further, there also concerns that reforms could increase failure-to-appear rates.

One state where bail reform has received considerable attention is New York. Statewide reforms first took effect on January 1, 2020, though it was later amended in April 2020 and May 2022. Currently, there isn’t a ton of research examining whether bail reform contributed to crime, but more research is starting to trickle out on this topic. There seems to be a lot of variaiton regarding the findings though. One of the more recent reports on this topic was published earlier this month by the Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ), which claimed that bail reform decreased recidivism among pretrial releases in New York City. However, this is inconsistent with a previous study from last year, also conducted in New York City, which found the opposite: bail reform efforts significantly increased recidivism. Thus, it’s important to read these studies very carefully to determine which ones are the most relevant and helpful. In this post, I will review the latest report released by the DCJ and provide my thoughts regarding its validity.

Continue reading . . .

The Price of Social Justice

Wall Street Journal columnist Jason Riley’s recent piece, “The Economic and Human Costs of Protecting Criminals,” breaks down the impact of progressive sentencing reforms enacted across the country to achieve social justice.  The elimination of cash bail…the conversion of theft crimes from felonies to misdemeanors…various “second chance” or so called smart sentencing laws enacted by democrat politicians to sentence habitual criminals to rehab rather than prison or jail, have come at a very high price.

“There’s little doubt that these policies, promoted in the name of social justice for the poor, result in more crimes being committed by people who otherwise would be behind bars. A study by two professors at the University of Utah, Paul Cassell and Richard Fowles, concluded that “after more generous release procedures were put in place, the number of released defendants charged with committing new crimes increased by 45%.” Proponents insist that only “low-level” and “nonviolent” offenders can take advantage of these reforms, but the study found that “the number of pre-trial releases charged with committing new violent crimes increased by an estimated 33%.” Shoplifters don’t always stick to shoplifting.”

Continue reading . . .

New York’s bail “reform” and the negative impacts on public safety: Study

In recent years, many jurisdictions in the U.S. have taken steps to reform their cash bail systems due to concerns about fair treatment of defendants and potential disparities in release decisions. Though, there is no consensus about what should replace cash bail, and there are numerous concerns about the potential public safety risks associated with bail reform. Proponents of bail reform advocate for reducing or eliminating the use of monetary bail to reduce jail populations and reduce income disparities. However, opponents of bail reform argue that reforms have resulted in more defendants committing crimes while on pretrial release. To date, the research has been mixed regarding the impacts of different bail reform efforts, but newer research seems to be suggesting the obvious — that bail “reforms” are linked to increases in crime.

Continue reading . . .

The impact of bail reform in the United States

In recent years, many jurisdictions throughout the United States have taken steps to reform their cash bail systems.  Proponents of bail reform advocate for reducing or eliminating the use of monetary bail to reduce jail populations and reduce income disparities regarding how bail is applied. However, opponents of bail reform argue that reforms have been extreme, countering that they could result in more defendants failing to appear for court hearings and more defendants committing crimes while on pretrial release.

Among the many states implementing bail reform include California, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Illinois, and Alaska. In addition, many individual jurisdictions have implemented their own bail reform policies, such as Atlanta, Philadelphia, Houston, and Chicago, among others. There is no consensus about what should replace cash bail, though some options include implementing strategies to expand pretrial supervision and services, and requiring pretrial risk assessment instruments to inform pretrial release decisions. However, most research has not found decreases in the rates of missed court dates or rearrests associated with either strategy.

Continue reading . . .

San Francisco risk assessment tool: Efficacy in predicting public safety risk for pretrial release decisions

A recently published San Francisco-based study conducted by the California Policy Lab at UC Berkeley/Los Angeles has shed some insight on the accuracy of the city’s Public Safety Assessment (PSA), an algorithmic tool that is used to inform pretrial release decisions for adult offenders. The tool scores defendants on how likely they are to show up for future court dates, their probability of committing a crime during the pretrial phase, and whether that crime might be violent. Overall, the researchers concluded that the tool met the threshold required for it to be considered “sufficiently predictive” (p. 27) of risk. The study examined 9,800 individuals released pending trial between May 2016 (when the tool was adopted) and December 2019. Of those people released, 51% failed to appear in court and 55% were arrested for new crimes during the pretrial release period (18% of which were for violent offenses).

Continue reading . . .