The Bail Bond Industry: A Scapegoat of Convenience

Posted on by
Reply

A couple weeks ago I read an article out of New Jersey talking about the ills of the criminal justice system and the need for bail reform.  The article started with telling the story of a defendant who was released on a reduced bail amount and has since been rearrested for another violent crime.  The article then goes on to talk about the many ills of the criminal justice system all couched under the umbrella of the need for “Bail Reform.” The issues identified in the article were: Jails being overcrowded, inmates being warehoused instead of rehabilitated, bail bond agents writing bail with payment plans, and so on.  Not only did the article discuss these issues as a need for bail reform but also put the blame for them squarely on the commercial bail industry.  After reading the article a couple more times, I felt myself getting more agitated and confused.  I kept saying to myself what does this have to do with the bail industry?  What have we done to have so much hate and resentment thrown towards our industry by those in the public sector? Why are we being held responsible for the criminal justice system falling short? The only answer, the bail industry was being made a scapegoat of convenience.

In order to try and rationalize things a bit, I started to breakdown the potential issues one by one and see if this overzealous criticism and finger pointing was deserved or really as misguided as I thought.  First, I looked at jail overcrowding.  Are people locked up in jail, because they can’t afford a bail bond?  Well, if you read into the article a bit you can see that the author is actually says that people are getting out “too easy” with bail through payment plans.  But even without payment plans, the concept behind bail is to facilitate the release or make it more attainable for families who can’t afford the full amount of the bail.  By assuming part of the financial risk the bail agent not only makes it easier for families to get their loved ones home, but also guarantee to the court that the defendant will show up for ALL court appearances once they are out.   So to say that bail causes jail overcrowding couldn’t be further from the truth.  Also, media coverage has shown us that states like Kentucky, Illinois, Oregon and Wisconsin all have jail overcrowding issues.  The interesting point there is that none of those states have commercial bail.  So I think we can cross that off the list.

Next, I looked at the issue of warehousing versus rehabilitation.  I tried to figure out where commercial bail plays a role in keeping convicted felons warehoused in jails and prisons instead of rehabilitating them.  This one was actually pretty easy to figure out.  Bail has nothing to do with warehousing or rehabilitation.  Bail is about “appearance.”  When a judge makes the determination that a defendant is eligible for pretrial release and sets a bail amount, it becomes the bail agent’s responsibility to ensure that those defendants that they do release on bail show up for ALL of their court appearances.  That is it.  We guarantee “appearance.”  To say that the commercial bail industry has failed to do their job and has caused the current problems in the system is not only a red herring, but also grossly misleading and accusatory.  The concept of bail is and always has been about getting defendants to court so that they could be held accountable.  And in the history of our modern day criminal justice system, there has yet to be a better form of ensuring a defendant’s appearance than a financially secured bond obtained through a commercial bail agent.  Every legitimate study, every independent research report and countless academic articles written on the subject of “pretrial release effectiveness” undeniably support this claim.

So if the commercial bail industry is not the problem than what is?  And then it hit me.  That question is not only the fleeting one, but also the answer.  No one knows what the problem is.  Without trying to truly get a snap shot of the make-up of the pretrial populations and understand the wide range of reasons why people are there, you can’t come up with a real solution to the problem.  And you definitely cannot accurately identify what the problem is in the first place. Additionally, if this is the case and the problem is so clearly undefined as it appears to be, than why are states like New Jersey proposing “Bail Reform” in the first place?  Why are decision makers proposing to throw millions of dollars of taxpayer funds at a problem that they do not know the actual cause or the most effective solution? I think these are all very important questions and ones that need to be answered by those looking to reform the criminal justice system and abolish commercial bail.  (In fact, this topic would make a pretty interesting blog post…hint, hint).

If we want to truly solve the ills of the criminal justice system there needs to be full and transparent cooperation between the public and private sector pretrial community.  In other words, we have to stop creating scapegoats and pointing fingers at each other and instead start solving problems with each other.The commercial bail industry is NOT THE PROBLEM in the criminal justice system.  Anyone who thinks so is not trying to solve the problem, but rather trying to discredit a legitimate and effective industry for their own ideological agenda and gain. If all the stakeholders are able to come together (including the commercial bail industry), I am extremely confident that together we could not only solve some of these challenges, but also strike a deeper balance between the social justice and criminal justice sides of the equation that everyone desires.  In this way, we can ensure that all parties are contributing to the solution in the best way possible and that ultimately both victims and defendants are getting their day in court, justice is being served and accountability is being maintained for us all.  I look forward to reading your comments.

via http://briannairinbail.blogspot.com

Related Posts

Bail Month – Pretrial Service Agencies on the Attack While Ignoring their Own Failures

Posted on by
Reply

As we move further along in the Pretrial Justice Institute’s self-declared Bail Month, I wanted to point out a recent story out of Minnesota that I believe should open people’s eyes to the real failures of the pretrial community.  This morning the Star Tribune published an article about the 100s of people with mental illness languishing away in Minnesota jails.  Now, it is important to understand that this is not an article that the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) was behind.  Nor was it a story that the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) was behind.  How do I know?  I know, because it doesn’t point the finger at commercial bail as the cause and the problem.  And just for the record, they definitely wouldn’t be behind this story, because it is ultimately reporting on the failures of their own programs.  As most people know, the pretrial community (especially groups like PJI and JPI) isn’t much for discussing the real issues around the criminal justice system.  Instead these two organizations would rather spend valuable tax dollars (which they are constantly complaining about not having enough of) and private donor dollars to publically defame and disqualify one of the most effective components of the criminal justice system…and yes, I am talking of course about the commercial bail industry.

The interesting and troubling thing to me about this article (which can be viewed here… “Left in limbo, hundreds of Minnesotans with mental illness languish in jail” ) is that it really opened my eyes to the real misguided motivation of thepretrial community.  And I say misguided because, personally, I honestly believe there is a purpose and role for pretrial services in helping people with special needs, but unfortunately in reality that purpose and role goes unfulfilled.

For example, according to the article, “on any given day, the Hennepin County jail holds 100-200 inmates with severe psychiatric disorders.  That represents ¼ of the jail’s population, and they languish there, on average for three months before getting proper psychiatric care.”  Notice how they don’t mention that those people are there because they can’t afford a bail bond.

Now I am under the impression that Pretrial Service Agencies were created to assist and manage these types of populations.  They were designed to assist the truly indigent…those without means and without connections to family…those who have mental health issue or substance dependency/abuse issues.  But the problem is they are failing when it comes to this mission.  Instead they have taken their eye off the ball and focused it squarely on the commercial bail industry.  Nowhere can I ever recall seeing something about the intent of pretrial services (when it was first conceived) to be about people should not have to pay for a bail bond.  It has always been about making sure that those that need help get it.  So why today is the sole purpose and mission of the pretrial community to eliminate money bail?  Why are they so focused and committed to eliminating us as a pretrial release mechanism (especially when it has been proven time and time again to be the most effective way to ensure appearance)?  Why are they so focused, that they would spend countless taxpayer dollars designating an entire month to spreading lies and negative stories about the bail industry?  Wouldn’t it seem more appropriate to having a month dedicated to helping the people being held with mental disorders?  Wouldn’t it be more beneficial and appropriate to have month dedicated to honoring the pretrial community’s successes in helping people with substance abuse issues?  Those are the questions that I believe people want answered.  Those are the questions that I believe the pretrial community needs to answer and should be answering.

Imagine if the pretrial community focused on achieving the mission on which they were first created…to helping those that can’t help themselves.  Our jails might be a different place and our tax dollars might be going towards good as opposed to going towards public relations efforts and smear campaigns.

So here are my recommendations to both JPI and PJI.  Designate a month dedicated to improving public safety.  Reach out to the commercial bail industry and find ways to work together to make sure that the people in the system get the help they need.  Acknowledge the role and effectiveness of commercial bail and show how the public is being protected more effectively when people are released on financially secured bail.  If pretrial would to reach out in this way, I know that the bail community would reciprocate and acknowledge the role and effectiveness of pretrial services.

I honestly believe that if these things could happen, then the criminal justice system would be in a better place.  Together we can be a positive force that is maintaining the proper level of accountability for those who are not indigent and taking care of those in a smart responsible way that are and need assistance.  It is time to stop persecuting and smearing the commercial bail industry and time to start embracing us as a partner.

via http://briannairinbail.blogspot.com

September is “Bail Month”…How to Celebrate With the Facts

Posted on by
Reply

I was pleasantly surprised this week when I was forwarded an announcement from the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI) declaring the month of September, “Bail Month.”  Initially I thought, what a great idea, a whole month dedicated to discussing the benefits of commercial bail and sharing the facts on the effectiveness of the industry.  Especially since there is so much data available to PJI and their partner the Justice Policy Institute (JPI)…data that shows how effective commercial bail is and how ineffective pretrial programsare. To add to the excitement, earlier this month the Bureau of Justice Statistics declared 2013 the year of statistics.  Wow, a month dedicated to bail and a year dedicated to statistics, I can’t think of better environment to start a conversation about the commercial bail bond industry.  Let’s see, with so much research to share, where do you think the PJI and JPI partnership will begin?  Here are some good places they might consider…and just so you know when I say “places” I am talking about the volumes of research studies that they can tap into and share.  For example, there is:

  • The Bureau of Justice Statistics studies spanning 14 years (1990-2004) of release data in the country’s 75 most populous counties.  These studies (year after year) showed that commercial bail was the most effective form of pretrial release for both appearance and reduced recidivism.

 

  • The Tabarrok study, which assessed the failure to appear rates of several different types of pretrial release mechanisms, determined that commercial bail was the most effective way to prevent an FTA and ensure a defendants appearance in court.

 

  • The ALEC study completed in 1995 that assessed the failure to appear rate in California’s three largest counties and determined that commercial bail was the most effective form of release.

 

  • The ALEC study completed in 1997 that calculated a cost for a failure to appear in California’s three largest counties and determined that Pretrial release programs were potentially costing the counties millions of dollars.

 

  • The JFA Institute Study completed in 2012 that shows that a very small portion (13%) of those in pretrial status in Los Angeles County are eligible for bail and that the jails are not crowded because people are languishing away unable to afford a bail bond.

 

  • The University of Texas at Dallas Study that looked at 22,000 releases during 2008 and compared 4 types of release mechanisms, ultimately determining that commercial bail was the most effective way to ensure that defendants show up for court.  An additional finding from this study was that the cost of an FTA was discovered to be approximately $1800 per defendant.  Using that cost figure, it was determined that commercial bail saved Dallas County over $11 Million.

With so much research available to them, and remember it is the “Year of Statistics,” I wonder which study they will use.  Okay, to be honest, we all know which of the above studies they will end up using… NONE OF THEM.  So then the next question is what studies will they use that aren’t on the list above?  Once again, the answer is unfortunately and very predictably NONE.  Why?  Because no study exists or has ever been done that shows that releasing a defendant through a pretrial program is more effective than commercial bail.

So then why would PJI and JPI declare that September is Bail Month?  That is a good question?  The answer of course is not to promote bail, or even promote pretrial (because it is hard to do that without any statistics…and remember, 2013 is the year of statistics, right?).  The answer is that the pretrial community is going to ramp up their taxpayer funded anti–bail propaganda machine to once again spread lies and mis-information about the commercial bail industry (much like last year’s efforts which resulted in the creation of the War on Public Safety document by the American Bail Coalition).

The most unfortunate thing about this is that the pretrial community isn’t doing this because it benefits local communities and law enforcement.  They aren’t doing this to educated people on the benefits and effectiveness of pretrial release (because that would make sense…and also, because we know that is too difficult to fabricate).  They aren’t doing this because it benefits crime victims and various advocacy groups.  And they are definitely not doing this because it saves counties money and lowers recidivism rates.  Then why, you ask?  Because it serves the purpose of the pretrial supporters.  In their mind, they need to constantly justify how good they are by declaring how bad commercial bail is, and in doing so they are able to feel good about themselves.  The problem is feeling good about yourself and just saying you’re better doesn’t make you better.

If the pretrial community wants to declare September “Bail Month” then I think the bail community should fully embrace and endorse their call to action.  I move that during the month of September that the bail industry dispense and share “our” collective knowledge and research with those in the criminal justice system.  We need to make sure that the real “statistics” are being shared so that local jurisdictions can make the best criminal justice decisions possible.  It is time for the bail community to stand up and be heard and I can’t think of a better time to do so.  After all, it is Bail Month.

If you would like to receive copies of any of the above research studies, please visit our bail bond resource library and select which studies you are interested in.

Via. briannairinbail.blogspot.com

Professional Appearance – Would you trust you?

Posted on by
Reply

By Michael J. Whitlock, MCBA

It’s Wednesday morning in Indianapolis.  I’m scheduled to teach an hour of continuing education today to a group of property and casualty agents on the issue of bail bonds. In preparation, I got up early showered and dressed in a pair of dark gray slacks, light pink shirt, dark pink tie with a light gray sport coat with light pink strips.   What can I say; I’m not afraid of pink.

At every bail association meeting I’ve attended through the years, the issue of professional dress is almost always mentioned.  When it comes to professional attire, the bail industry gets very low marks and it most likely has to do with the hours a bail agent keeps, all 24 of them.

One never knows when the bail line is going to ring and one has to head down to the jail to meet a client or post a bond.  Most people will not take the time to put on a nicer set of clothes before heading out.  More often than not, they go with what they have on, jeans, sweatshirt, warm-up suit, etc.  With this 24/7 lifestyle it’s easy to get away from the habit of dressing professionally.

We fifty-something’s still remember when you were expected to be at work on time, stay late if you had to and work the occasional weekend day.  We also remember the requirement or rather expectation, of having to wear a tie and jacket or a nice outfit for the ladies.  That was normal then, not so much today.

I’m one of the hold outs.  I’ve found through the years, I’m treated differently when I’m professionally dressed as opposed to when I’m outfitted in jeans and a golf shirt. People give you ten points for just wearing a tie.

I still cringe when I see members of our own staff setting out to visit agents sans a tie and jacket.  In their minds, they’re dressing equal to what the client would likely be wearing.  They may be right, but it doesn’t feel right to me.

Right or wrong this is the way society is going.  Even at the weekly lunch meeting of my men’s group, of fifty people present I may be one of three wearing a coat and tie. The majority of business travelers I see are in casual attire.

Whether you wear a coat and tie or not first impressions are very important, particularly in the case of transacting bail bonds.  The general public has a preconceived notion of the typical bail agent.  Their expectation of professionalism and appearance is low.

Clients are typically, family, friends or co-workers looking to post bond for someone. They want very much to trust the person with which they are giving money and signing a number of legal documents.   For good reason, it is important to present a professional appearance and convey trust and confidence.  Surprise them.

Give this some thought the next time you’re scheduled to meet with a client.  Think about how your client is receiving you and what your appearance conveys.  Will it be trust and confidence or hesitation and skepticism?  Would you do business with you based on your appearance?  Up your game and dress professionally, it matters.

Now, I have to give a lecture on bail bonds today fully aware it is possible to look good and still suck.  Here’s to not sucking.

via view.exacttarget.com

HOLDER PROPOSES CHANGES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Posted on by
Reply

WASHINGTON (AP) — Attorney General Eric Holder is calling for major changes to the nation’s criminal justice system that would scale back the use of harsh prison sentences for certain drug-related crimes, divert people convicted of low-level offenses to drug treatment and community service programs and expand a prison program to allow for release of some elderly, non-violent offenders.

In remarks prepared for delivery Monday to the American Bar Association in San Francisco, Holder said he is mandating a change to Justice Department policy so that low-level, non-violent drug offenders with no ties to large-scale organizations, gangs or cartels won’t be charged with offenses that impose mandatory minimum sentences.

Mandatory minimum prison sentences — a product of the government’s war on drugs in the 1980s — limit the discretion of judges to impose shorter prison sentences.

Under the altered policy, the attorney general said defendants will instead be charged with offenses for which accompanying sentences “are better suited to their individual conduct, rather than excessive prison terms more appropriate for violent criminals or drug kingpins.”

Federal prisons are operating at nearly 40 percent above capacity and hold more than 219,000 inmates — with almost half of them serving time for drug-related crimes and many of them with substance use disorders. In addition, 9 million to 10 million prisoners go through local jails each year. Holder praised state and local law enforcement officials for already instituting some of the types of changes Holder says must be made at the federal level.

Aggressive enforcement of federal criminal laws is necessary, but “we cannot simply prosecute or incarcerate our way to becoming a safer nation,” Holder said. “Today, a vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities. However, many aspects of our criminal justice system may actually exacerbate this problem, rather than alleviate it.”

“We need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, deter and rehabilitate — not merely to convict, warehouse and forget,” said the attorney general.

Holder said mandatory minimum sentences “breed disrespect for the system. When applied indiscriminately, they do not serve public safety. They have had a disabling effect on communities. And they are ultimately counterproductive.”

Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., have introduced legislation aimed at giving federal judges more discretion in applying mandatory minimums to certain drug offenders.

Holder said new approaches — which he is calling the “Smart On Crime” initiative — are the result of a Justice Department review he launched early this year.

The attorney general said some issues are best handled at the state or local level and said he has directed federal prosecutors across the country to develop locally tailored guidelines for determining when federal charges should be filed, and when they should not.

“By targeting the most serious offenses, prosecuting the most dangerous criminals, directing assistance to crime ‘hot spots,’ and pursuing new ways to promote public safety, deterrence, efficiency and fairness — we can become both smarter and tougher on crime,” Holder said.

The attorney general said 17 states have directed money away from prison construction and toward programs and services such as treatment and supervision that are designed to reduce the problem of repeat offenders.

In Kentucky, legislation has reserved prison beds for the most serious offenders and refocused resources on community supervision. The state, Holder said, is projected to reduce its prison population by more than 3,000 over the next 10 years, saving more than $400 million.

He also cited investments in drug treatment in Texas for non-violent offenders and changes to parole policies which he said brought about a reduction in the prison population of more than 5,000 inmates last year. He said similar efforts helped Arkansas reduce its prison population by more than 1,400. He also pointed to Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Hawaii as states that have improved public safety while preserving limited resources.

Holder also said the department is expanding a policy for considering compassionate release for inmates facing extraordinary or compelling circumstances, and who pose no threat to the public. He said the expansion will include elderly inmates who did not commit violent crimes and who have served significant portions of their sentences.

Via bigstory.ap.org

Related Posts