By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Woodland, CA – In February, the Yolo County DA’s office released what they called an expanded study on zero bail which claimed that the policy resulted in 163 percent more crime and 200 percent more violent crime.
As both myself and Robert Hansen found, the study was very flawed. One of the most glaring problems that I found is they failed to statistically baseline their data—which basically means it had no comparative controls.
I noted by comparing a sample pre-COVID to a sample post-COVID is not necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison. It failed to control for other variables that might have driven changes in crime rates other than changes in bail process.
There are a number of statistical ways to handle the problem—one would be to control for overall crime rate and another would be comparing recidivism to other jurisdictions that did not implement zero bail. Both methods would provide a more accurate picture of whether zero bail is driving the data.
Furthermore, without more controls, it would be difficult to assess what percentage of people would have been released on OR prior 
to COVID for the same offenses.
Also not assessed is why a release on bail versus zero bail would be that informative in the first place.
The problem is that we keep seeing this study cited by right wing media to attack bail reform.
After an LA judge implemented a preliminary injunction on bail, the rapper 50 Cent took to Instagram to argue “LA is finished watch how bad it gets out there.”
Fox and other right wing media immediately cited the Yolo County “study.”
Yolo County District Attorney Jeff Reisig told Fox News: “I mean, we have more people being shot at, stabbed, assaulted, robbed, beaten. These are real victims—and the numbers are staggering under zero bail.”
Last week, Reisig debated commentator Van Jones on CNN.
Reisig said, “50 Cent is right on this one and you know in Yolo County, I’m one of fifty-eight counties in California and last year was the president of the California District Attorneys Association. We’re the only county in California that measured this Zero Bail Policy and what we found unfortunately was when people were released on zero bail, they committed 163 percent more crime than people who had been released for the same types of crimes on posted bail, and they committed 200 percent more violent crime than people who had posted bail.”
This week after an historic ruling in Illinois by their Supreme Court which did what the California Supreme Court refused to do in re: Humphrey—it eliminated cash bail— Chris Talgo in American Thinker argued, “Wholesale elimination of cash bail in Illinois is dumb and dangerous.”
His justification: “In 2020, California temporarily suspended cash bail in an effort to alleviate overcrowding in its jails during the pandemic. What happened next? If you guessed that California experienced a spike in crime and that the vast majority of those let loose without paying a penny in bail committed new crimes, you would be correct.”
But Talgo makes the same mistake that the Yolo DA’s Office makes, in that he failed to note that crime went up everywhere in 2020 during the pandemic, regardless of bail policies.
This is just bad use of data. Stats 101 actually. You have to use comparative statics, otherwise you have no basis for comparison.
To justify his claim, he cites… you guessed it, Reisig’s data on their analysis of $0 bail and rearrests.
The whole problem with bail is that it fails to protect the public from potentially dangerous people IF they can afford to put down the money to get released.
Even Reisig acknowledges “that someone’s ability to pay bail does not impact their likelihood to recommit a crime.”
If that’s the case, why would someone who is released on bail be that much less likely to commit a new crime than someone released on zero bail—which by definition follows an extraordinarily low-level offense, either a misdemeanor or very low-level felony?
The whole study was problematic because they failed to hire data scientists with actual knowledge and background in statistical analysis to study the issue.
I do agree on one point, if courts are simply releasing people with no access to services, no treatment, no plan, it is a recipe for failure. If, however, the alternative to bail is giving people access to substance use treatment and mental health programming, along with job training, I think it can be successful.
Some people are fine to be released on their own recognizance, but for others, some level of supervision would be better for them and the community.
Leaving people in custody, pre-trial, actually harms both the people who are kept in custody and the community. Study after study shows that pre-trial detention means people end up losing their jobs, their shelter, their family connections, and it also increases the recidivism rate, which means when they do get out—and most will—they are more likely to commit a crime again.
Fixing that rather than scaring the hell out of the public with improperly analyzed studies is a far better use of resources.
