Five years ago New York state adopted “bail reform” which essentially eliminated bail for every arrestee except for murderers and rapists. Two years earlier the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced the “Brangan Doctrine,” requiring judges to consider an arrestee’s ability to pay as the primary consideration when setting bail. This has resulted in most offenders being released on low or zero bail, even after dozens of prior arrests. Similar laws or judicially-imposed limits on bail are in place in cities that include Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, Austin and DC. Some of these “reforms” were adopted by cities and counties, some were imposed by progressive District Attorneys, some came from the legislature and some were ordered by judges. After the progressive District Attorney in Los Angeles was voted out last fall, his broad zero bail policy was abandoned by the new DA. But under California law those arrested for almost all property crimes, including auto theft and most drug crimes, still require release without bail. The California Supreme Court is currently considering a “Brangan doctrine” approach to bail in a case called In re Kowalczyk, which, based on the court’s decision, could impose the ability-to-pay rule for the entire state. CJLF filed argument in opposition in that case. In places where these reforms are the law, the criminal justice system has become a revolving door, with criminals arrested for serious crimes such assault, illegal possession of firearms and trafficking deadly drugs such as fentanyl, and released back to the streets before the ink is dry on the police report.
Continue reading . . .