Category Archives: Bail in America

GPS: Criminal Justice Hero or Criminal Justice Zero

Posted on by
Reply

GPS, or Global Positioning System devices, have become one of the fastest growing consumer products in recent history.  Whether they are imbedded in your smart phone to let people know where you are or whether they sit on the dashboard of your car to prevent you from getting lost, GPS devices are becoming more entrenched into our everyday lives.  The question now becomes:  where does GPS make sense and where doesn’t it?  For example, the criminal justice system has embraced GPS as the Second Coming and is now moving towards implementing it in more ways each and every day.  As a citizen of the US and an active member of my local community, I have to ask: how can GPS by itself be the cure-all solution for the problems that ail our criminal justice system?

I have been connected to the criminal justice system for most of my adult life.  I have seen new ideas and technologies come and go like the seasons changing throughout the year.  While some stick and become commonplace, others come and go faster than you can say “change.”  But some go on and on trying to re-invent themselves and reposition themselves until they are able to stick a little bit stronger with the public.  GPS is one of those concepts.  While on the surface, the idea of having the ability to track an individual is great. However, the reality of doing so in an effective way is where the challenge lies for GPS being, as it claims it is the solution for things like jail overcrowding.  Here are just some of the out-points of this cure-all technology:

  • GPS tracks the person, but no one tracks the GPS.
    While GPS is capable of tracking the location of a person down to their placement on a sidewalk, the big question really is less about that and more about who is monitoring the GPS device so that a crime can be prevented.  There have been countless reports of people who have gone outside of house arrest or who have violated an exclusion zone (an area they must avoid as part of their release agreement) and committed a crime, but no one knows that the violation occurred (or much less that it is about to occur) because no one is monitoring the system.

 

  • GPS tells you where the defendant was when they cut off the device.
    Many opponents of GPS monitoring believe that the above statement is a big reason why GPS fails.  Defendants sometimes cut off the device and then disappear….only to be caught again after committing another crime and creating another crime victim.  All the device tells a monitor is where the defendant was when he cut the bracelet off.

 

  • GPS does not prevent crime, but rather just tracks it.
    Since you can only see the location of the person, all GPS really does is tell you where they are and not what they are doing.

 

These are but three shortcomings of GPS and also three big questions that need to be answered before we can truly see it as an effective means of tracking and monitoring defendants.
I believe that there is a solution to increasing the effectiveness of a GPS device. It is a solution that has proven itself time and time again to be the most effective element in the criminal justice system and the only element that actually provides a guarantee of performance.  That solution is to couple the new technology (GPS) with the historically proven effectiveness of the commercial bail industry.  What makes the commercial bail industry such an effective solution for the criminal justice system is that it creates accountability.  Accountability with the defendant. Accountability with the family, friends and potentially the colleagues of the defendant.  And most importantly, accountability with an AM BEST rated insurance company and its independent insurance agent (the bail agent) who provides the product to the consumer.  When you couple these things with the ability to track a person through a GPS device, you get a superior result within the pretrial release process.  If the defendant wearing the device fails to perform, there is an insurance company that must pay the bail amount to the county. But when you couple GPS with another government run, taxpayer funded program that places un-invested, 9 to 5 employees in charge of tracking and monitoring defendants you get an inferior program that will not only leave defendants unaccountable but also leave the public less safe.
Once again, I encourage key decision makers to bring the commercial bail industry to the table when discussing ways to improve the system.  It brings a level of experience, knowledge and success that can be leveraged in ways to improve the effectiveness of pretrial release and improve the safety of our communities.  All local officials must be willing to do is ask.

“FREE BAIL” Denied: Hats off to San Mateo County

Posted on by
Reply

I would like to dedicate this blog post to the hard working men and women in the San Mateo Criminal Justice System. On behalf of the AIA family of insurance companies, the oldest and largest surety bail underwriters in California and the country, I would like to extend a “job well done” to the decision makers who did not drink the Pretrial Justice Institute’s jug of Kool-Aid.   If you didn’t read the recent OP-ED piece in the Daily Journal out of San Mateo County this week, then you missed a misguided and misinformed OP-ED article by consultant and apparent friend of the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI), Bob Cushman.  For those of you who don’t know who PJI is, they are the left wing radical group that has made it their mission to install a taxpayer funded “FREE BAIL” program in every county throughout the country.  The ultimate goal: to eliminate thousands of small, family run bail bond businesses and the commercial bail industry altogether…but I digress.

Based on the article, Bob is pretty upset that county officials didn’t move forward with PJI’s taxpayer funded criminal welfare system recommendations.  According to Mr. Cushman, the county is “resisting the adoption of modern, evidenced based practices to reduce the 76% of people in our jails pending trial.”  Let’s quickly break down that last statement.  First, “resisting” is a pretty strong word coming from a supposed independent objective consultant. Maybe they aren’t “resisting” but rather making a smart informed decision based on what’s best for the county.  In fact, their “resistance” is based solely on a study that PJI did for the very purpose of installing their program into San Mateo County.  So to call an objective decision “resistance” is certainly stretching it a bit.  Then again, that is pretty much a common practice of the folks at PJI…it is their way or the highway.

 

Next, let’s look at the words “modern, evidenced based practices.”  One would think that “evidence based practices” require actual evidence.  Has anyone ever produced evidence of these so called modern techniques they use to let people out of jail for FREE with no accountability?  I know I haven’t seen any evidence.  I also know that we have asked PJI for their statistics that show the results of the program, but continue to get excuses and red tape.  The fact is: there already are statistics.  The U.S. Department of Justice has studied pretrial release for many years and has statistics that show how well…or how poorly these “modern, evidenced based” pretrial release programs perform. Just an FYI: secured release, i.e. commercial bail, outperforms these taxpayer funded “FREE BAIL” programs in terms of appearance rates by almost 2 to 1.  But since those statistics weren’t good for their side, PJI used their influence to have the DOJ rescind over 20 years of research.

 

So it has become very clear and obvious that research isn’t PJI’s expertise.  Just look at last week’s recent Star Telegram article out of Tarrant County Texas that uncovered how a PJI promoted program was calculating their failure to appear rates (FTA).  While the commercial bail industry calculates its FTA rates, we use a “defendant based” approach…that is, when a defendant misses any of their court dates, it is considered a 100% FTA.  Pretrial Services, on the other hand, calculates their FTAs using a more liberal event-based approach…that is, when a defendant misses his trial date, but did manage to go the previous 3 times he was called, they only count it as a 25% FTA.  The fault here is the bigger the number you divide by, the smaller the result.  So are these really “evidenced-based” practices or “fantasy-based” practices.  We think they are the latter.

 

Lastly, Mr. Cushman mentions the statistic “76% of the people in jail are awaiting trial.”  We think that is a great number…a great number that needs to be studied.  PJI is selling their red herring that the jails are crowded because people can’t afford a bail bond.  This statement is anything but a fact.  I just recently blogged on this topic and you can read that blog by clicking here.  The high level summary is that bail bonds are not unaffordable.  Yes, some bails, especially in California are set too high (and the bail industry advocates a review of the schedules), but with flexible financing and credit options (just like any other industry offers), any consumer can get a bail bond.  In this tough economy we have done what any other business does: we have developed a pricing model to accommodate the marketplace.  So people aren’t languishing in jail because of the commercial bail industry.  Our industry fully supports a study of jail populations to determine who really is in there.  We are confident that the results will show that commercial bail is not the problem…but rather in our opinion, may very well be the solution (see my other recent blog post).

 

We think that PJI needs to take its cross hairs off the commercial bail industry and focus more on perfecting the programs and processes that pretrial programs were designed to operate.  The bail industry has no objections to the existence of Pretrial Service Agencies.  As an industry, we believe that they play an essential role in helping special needs defendants get the help they need.  However, as citizens and members of our own local communities, we do have an objection to those programs releasing individuals out of jail on simply a promise to return, with little to no supervision or follow-up, and no accountability when they don’t show up.  As community members, we object to our public safety being negatively impacted with our own tax dollars.

 

So I am sorry that Mr. Cushman is unhappy that PJI’s research report, with its smoke and mirrors, didn’t convince San Mateo’s leadership to spend millions of dollars funding another ineffective government program.  At the same time I am proud of San Mateo for being smart about how it spends taxpayer dollars.  I am proud of San Mateo for supporting small, family owned, private businesses.  And I am proud of San Mateo for looking out for the public safety of its citizens.

Bail Bond Convention: PBUS Las Vegas 2012

Posted on by
Reply

The video cannot be shown at the moment. Please try again later.

AboutBail.com, a trusted network of local bail agents, brings you video highlights from PBUS 2012. This year’s conference focused on legislation changes, new products, combating the negative industry image and the importance of joining associations.

We sat down with Dennis Bartlett of the American Bail Coalition, guest speaker Hon. Judge McBain, California bail agent Topo Padilla, New York bondsman George Zouvelos, and Colorado bail agent Bobby Brown to discuss current issues and legislation in the bail bond industry.

If you are an experienced bail agent looking to promote and grow your business, aboutbail.com is the solution for you. For more information, visit www.aboutbail.com

via YouTube.

Related Posts

Bail amounts aren’t what they seem | HeraldNet.com – Opinion

Posted on by
Reply

After the 2009 murders of four police officers in Lakewood, Pierce County, a bail task force was assembled to look at Washington bail practices and:

A. try and figure out what went wrong that allowed the killer out of jail in the first place, and

B. fix it.

I was the representative of our state’s 39 elected prosecuting attorneys.

Most people on that task force thought they knew what “bail” meant, in the context of crimes, criminals and jail. After the murders, however, even some who have worked in criminal justice for decades were shocked to find out how wrong they were.

We discovered that how much money it takes to get someone out of jail is as much or as little as a bonding company will accept. We learned that some are willing to accept very little, or even nothing paid up front at all. The public is being put at risk by these decisions, which should be made by judges, not businesses.

The task force met several times, and included many thoughtful, experienced and knowledgeable people. Legislators, judges, cops, defense attorneys, victim advocates and the bail bonding industry were all represented.

In our first meeting, we identified a disturbing and curable flaw: that bonding companies, not judges, were in control.

I am writing today to tell you that currently, it appears the Legislature may do nothing to fix it. I am frustrated by that, and I think you should be, too.

When a judge sets bail at, say, $50,000, an almost universal belief was that to get out of jail, the person being held would have to give a bonding company at least 10 percent, or $5,000, up front. The bonding company would then post a bond for the whole amount and the suspect could be released. We all learned that this was a myth.

The Lakewood killer had been in jail on $190,000 bail, but was released having paid only around $3,000. (Ten percent would have been $19,000.) His family simply shopped around to different bonding companies and got the best deal they could. Public safety for sale to the lowest bidder. No episode of “Myth-busters” affects your safety like this busted myth. Perhaps this is one reason the state of Oregon eliminated bail bonding altogether, and now only accepts cash bail.

As a prosecutor for 25 years, I have attended thousands of bail hearings, and left them thinking I knew how much money it was going to take to get the guy out. Victims have walked out of court feeling either safe or not because they believed they knew, too. Judges set bail thinking they “knew” it would take at least 10 percent down for a defendant to be released.

We were wrong, and we know that now. The only remaining question is: Will the Legislature do anything about it? It doesn’t have to be 10 percent, but it has to be some certain, defined amount.

After the task force concluded its work, a bail bill was proposed in the Senate that in my opinion was akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, while continuing on course for the iceberg. That bill deliberately ignored the central issue of certainty, and of defining bail. I spoke with local legislators like Steve Hobbs (D-Lake Stevens), and he helped kill that flawed bill. As prosecutors we committed to working toward a bill this year that actually takes on the elephant in the room, and puts “truth in bail.”

We met with representatives of Washington’s bail industry and crafted a compromise. We agreed that everyone, including you, deserves to know exactly what a defendant will have to come up with, up front, to get out of jail. No guesswork. While a bonding company can rightfully decide what total premium to ultimately charge, the down payment, the amount it is going to take for the person to be released, has got to be known.

We compromised on 5 percent. That way, no matter what side deal is made with the bonding company, everyone will know the least amount a defendant must pay before they get out. Judges can set bail accordingly, and with confidence.

It surprised me and may surprise you that there are powerful lobbying forces and out-of-state bonding companies who do not agree with this. The Judiciary Committee and full Legislature need to resist those forces. They will listen to you. Please ask your senator or representative to push for truth and certainty in bail, because you, we, everyone deserves to know the truth.

via Bail amounts aren’t what they seem | HeraldNet.com – Opinion.

What to Expect as a Small Business from the IRS in 2012

Posted on by
Reply

AIA’s Chief Financial Officer, Mark Francis, provides his insights into important IRS rule changes that could potentially have both positive and negative impacts to your bail bond business.

In 2012, Many Tax Benefits Increase Due to Inflation Adjustments
by Mark Francis, CFO – AIA
For tax year 2012, personal exemptions and standard deductions will rise and tax brackets will widen due to inflation, the Internal Revenue Service announced today.
By law, the dollar amounts for a variety of tax provisions, affecting virtually every taxpayer, must be revised each year to keep pace with inflation. New dollar amounts affecting 2012 returns, filed by most taxpayers in early 2013, include the following:
The value of each personal and dependent exemption, available to most taxpayers, is $3,800, up $100 from 2011. The new standard deduction is $11,900 for married couples filing a joint return, up $300, $5,950 for singles and married individuals filing separately, up $150, and $8,700 for heads of household, up $200. Nearly two out of three taxpayers take the standard deduction, rather than itemizing deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable contributions and state and local taxes.
Tax-bracket thresholds increase for each filing status. For a married couple filing a joint return, for example, the taxable-income threshold separating the 15-percent bracket from the 25-percent bracket is $70,700, up from $69,000 in 2011.
Credits, Deductions, and Related Phase Outs
For tax year 2012, the maximum earned income tax credit (EITC) for low- and moderate- income workers and working families rises to $5,891, up from $5,751 in 2011. The maximum income limit for the EITC rises to $50,270, up from $49,078 in 2011.The credit varies by family size, filing status and other factors, with the maximum credit going to joint filers with three or more qualifying children.
The foreign earned income deduction rises to $95,100, an increase of $2,200 from the maximum deduction for tax year 2011.
The modified adjusted gross income threshold at which the lifetime learning credit begins to phase out is $104,000 for joint filers, up from $102,000, and $52,000 for singles and heads of household, up from $51,000.
The $2,500 maximum deduction for interest paid on student loans begins to phase out for married taxpayers filing a joint return at $125,000 and phases out completely at $155,000, an increase of $5,000 from the phase out limits for tax year 2011. For single taxpayers, the phase out ranges remain at the 2011 levels.
Estate and Gift
For an estate of any decedent dying during calendar year 2012, the basic exclusion from estate tax amount is $5,120,000, up from $5,000,000 for calendar year 2011.
The annual exclusion for gifts remains at $13,000.

Related Posts