Is the U.S. bail system unfair?

iStockphoto

Comments by a top judge in New York have reignited a debate over whether the bail system in the United States should be reformed or replaced.

On Tuesday, Judge Jonathan Lippman said the bail system in New York is unfair to the poor, because they often cannot post bail and thus remain behind bars until their court date - even if their alleged offenses are relatively minor. The system as it now stands, he said, "strips our justice system of its credibility."

Bail works like this: Let's say you are arrested for a crime and taken to jail. Your next major step is a bail hearing, where a judge decides the amount of money you must pay in order to be released ahead of your court date. (He or she could also deny bail.) If you cannot pay the bail amount - or get a bail bondsman or other agent to post a bond to cover it - you must remain behind bars until that court date.

The bail agent will generally charge 10 to 15 percent of the bail amount in order to post bond, and may require you to offer up some collateral - say, the deed on a property. You cannot get that fee back, even if you are found to be innocent. If you do not show up to court, the bail agent must pay the full amount of your bail, unless he can track you down - a situation that creates a market for bail enforcement agents, or bounty hunters, who capture fugitives in exchange for payment from the bail bondsman.

One major problem with the arrangement, critics say, is that it often means the poorest cannot escape jail before their hearing, even if their offense is as minor as jumping a subway turnstile or possession of a small amount of marijuana. Let's say a judge sets your bail at $500. A bail bondsman will likely not be interested in posting bond, because his take will be too small - just $50 or $75. But you don't have $500 to pay to secure your release. That means you are trapped behind bars until your court date, which could be weeks away.

"The idea that somebody goes and sits in Rikers Island [jail] and endures all of the hardship of that simply because they don't have $500 or $1,000 is truly offensive and serves no public purpose," says Jamie Fellner of Human Rights Watch. Two years ago, Fellner's group looked at non-felony offenders in New York City in 2008. While more than three in four were released on their own recognizance, more than 19,000 had their bail set at $1,000 or less. Eighty-seven percent of that group did not post bail; these non-felony offenders spent an average of 15.7 days in jail.

"Your ability to remain free depends on the size of your wallet, which just inherently discriminated against the poor," she said. (New York University professor James B. Jacobs said there has been improvement since that study in New York City: "We've had a tremendous reduction in our pretrial detention population," he said.) Fellner added that prosecutors ask for high bail amounts for poor offenders because they know they will end up in jail and be more likely to agree to a pleas deal.

"It's a way to get people to plea," said Fellner. "And you shouldn't be coercing pleas."

Four states - Illinois, Kentucky, Oregon and Wisconsin - have abolished commercial bail bonds. In many cases in those states, deposits are made to the courts. Lippman, the New York judge, is calling for nonprofits to become involved in the bail process in order to remove the profit motive. The National Conference of Chief Justices and American Bar Association have also sought to move away from a for-profit system.

Scott Hall, president of Professional Bail Agents of the United States, says the reformers are misguided.

"Leave it to government to think that even though we offer a free guarantee to the appearance of the defendant in court, they can do it cheaper," said Hall. He said that while Hollywood plays up the dramatic aspects of the business, he sees bail bondsmen as "glorified insurance salesman."

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[Chris_Bail]

If the Judge thinks the bail system is unfair then he should try bonding a few people out and be responsible for them until they are done in court. Since we are on the topic of "be unfair". I'll name a few things I think is unfair... Title pawns> high interest rates, doctors visits> too expense to go, state employees> rude/disrespectful, obtaining an Attorney> way too expense. I can go on for ever. I bet there are some people that think that this Judge rulings are unfair. If the bond is too high the "Judge" can lower the bond amount so that it is affordable for the defendant... Supervising the defendants until the case is close is a big job. The part where the story states "Your ability to remain free depends on the size of your wallet, which just inherently discriminated against the poor," what about Attorney fee? Is it discrimination when the bank tells you no when you're trying to buy a car??
Pretrial is the dumbest system the state has put together. Pretrial doesn't make offenders show up in court... but bondsmen do. Pretrial is just another job for a state employee to have. Which are usually unhelpful and disrespectful. "Prosecutors asking for high bail amounts for poor offenders because they know they will end up in jail and be more likely to agree to a pleas deal." UNFAIR..

[wgalison]

Regardless of the merits of Lippman's proposed bail reform, the fact remains that Lippman's status as Chief Judge was attained by fraud and is illegal and invalid. The evidence is undeniable and available to anyone who can read. The specifics of the fraud perpetrated by Lippman in his rise to Chief Judge is detailed at the website:

www.judgejonathanlippman.blogspot.com.

[BailInsights]

Taxpayer funded pretrial release programs are not the answer to overcrowded jails and a broken system. Look at Kentucky, which is one of the non-commercial bail states and also one of the poster children for Tim Murray's pretrial release program. They just got a government grant to solve what? Jail Overcrowding. So to say that commercial bail is responsible for overcrowding is not only false but just plain ridiculous. It is a personal attack on a private industry that conflicts with that of a less effective government agency.

Also, in terms of the comment regarding recidivism rates. I am not sure where the person in the article got their information, but pretrial release programs absolutely DO NOT outperform commercial bail in terms of recidivism. In fact it it the worse performing method of all because defendants know that no one will come after them if they dont show up.

Every study ever done has proven that commercial bail works. It has been around for hundreds of years because it works. Judges use it across the country because it works. Let's stop wasting taxpayers dollars to reward bad behavior and ignore accountability. Commercial bail does as it is exactly intended to do....ensure that the defendant who is released pretrial shows up for court.

[tsigili]

If it is unfair, then simply keep them in jail, at public expense, we cannot afford, until trial.

That's the only alternative. We cannot allow criminals to be out on the streets, until their trial, with nothing to lose!

[VO142857]

We don't know that they are criminals UNTIL the trial.

[Non-Political]

"...they should be released and expected to return for their court date on their own, with the aid a pretrial monitoring system.".

The last part of the quote is what gets me. Everyone is complaining about too much government and government costing too much. So what is being proposed? More government and more cost of government. Well, that will certainly bring the cost down! Idiots.

[Scimajor]

The bail system is idiotic in the first place. The fact that if you are found not guilty and still are out money is criminal in of itself.

If you are found not guilty it shouldn't cost you a dime in either bail bond fees or legal fees.

[you_walk_justin]

Imagine how the system would change if the prosecutor had to reimburse the defendant if they were found innocent? All of those trumped up charges would go away, all those please for conviction would be down the drain, but good luck with that.

[taxed01]

Everything else is free for the welfare crowd - why not this?

[KansasCity-2012]

A bail bondsman is like a credit card company. Clients pay enough to cover losses from defaults and still make a profit.

Plenty of bondsmen have them selves gone out of business.

[oldoc44]

This bail $ is supposed to be a guarantee to be on hand for other proceedings. Whatever court costs, fines, etc are subsequently imposed are deducted routinely from ones bail plus the bondsman's fee so it's a big $ game for everyone except the accused. Stats likely show that those who bond out are more likely to get a better defense and subsequent lighter sentence too. Almost as shoddy as the Public Defender process - pure nonsense... a nominal concession to the requirement for "counsel". Hard to know where to begin when our circuit courts (especially) are working on that old "get even" mentality and prosecutors and their underlings are rated by the number of "man-years" they can achieve in sentencing decisions. Ho Hum

[jmrtsus]

The first thing they do in Chattanooga, TN jail is to take your money and lock it up so you can't get it for bail until after the bail is posted!

Then instead of giving your cash back they give you a check!!I think this is simply to support the local bondsmen.

Even if you have the cash to post bond they will not give it to you so you can post bond, MUST use bail/bond company. 3 phones with phone numbers on the wall for bondsmen.

Mucho kickbacks and political donations involved!!!! Crooked system in Chattanooga. Assault or domestic violence came be dropped if you agree to attend a "school" that YOU pay for. Run by companies that have "reps" in the courtroom to assist you to get charges dropped. These "schools" make very generous contributions to the judges involved.

Hamilton County TN has the most crooked courts I have ever been involved with in my career in corrections!!!! TN also leads the country in domestic murders....I wonder why???