via pix4free.org
By Sofia Hosseinzadeh
WASHINGTON, DC – Lisel Petis, senior fellow of criminal justice at R Street Institute, a non-profit organization focused on criminal justice reforms, discussed, in a recent Washington Journal C-Span webinar, bail reform and how that future may look for the U.S. criminal justice system in the face of fears of increased crime.
According to Petis, the history and use of bail had original intentions by the Europeans that invented the concept.
“It was a way to work within the judicial system to make sure people were being held accountable,” Petis explains, noting the concept of bail created a safety blanket to ensure individuals came to court.
Over time in the U.S., Petis illustrates the shift in perception of bail, stating, “Public safety became a concern. That was not an original piece of the system, but it’s become very prominent now.”
Petis clarifies, “A judge will generally be focused on two main areas, public safety and whether or not some people appear back in court. I should say not every state evaluates both of those.”
Petis called into question the benefits of the evolution of bail in the history of America.
“The biggest issue is the cash bail system. It’s at both ends of the spectrum. At one end you have individuals accused of lower level offenses. Maybe driving under restraint, simple theft, things of that nature that are low risk and likely to show up for court. They are law-abiding, but they can’t afford low-level bail amounts,” Petis argued.
Petis added, this practice of bail for low-level crimes into question, asking, “are we best using resources by having people staying in jail for these low-level offenses that are low risk?” She continues her critique on bail referencing the economic barriers caused by the concept saying the ability to pay off bail is “more determined on wealth versus a risk to society.”
In arguing against the current system of bail, Petis cites the negative impacts towards individuals involved in the system. “Research has shown when individuals are arrested even for one day or two that can start to create this succession. Some might lose a job. They might lose housing,”
Petis continued her argument incorporating concerns around public safety, noting “When those things start happening it creates a higher likelihood of reoffending in the future. It can compromise public safety on the backend.”
C-Span Host Mimi Geerges brought up a common counter argument used against bail reform, asking Petis, “Critics of bail reform say it’s going to increase crime, increase violent crime. Is there any evidence that shows the relationship between bail reform and violent crime?”
Petis asked people to look at bail reform in a less black and white manner, stating, “What’s important to remember is that bail reform looks very different from state to state. It’s very hard to attack that because there is no one bail reform effort.
“What has been done in New Jersey looks very different from that has been done in New York which is different from Illinois. We have to look at the very specific local level at what is happening”
Petis counters the fears of a rise in crime by claiming the issue of bail reform needs a much more nuanced evaluation than simply determining its success or failure based on crime rates.
Petis urges, “ I think it is worth looking at the crime rates. I think a better method is looking at whether or not the people being released from jail are showing up for court and staying law-abiding. Crime rates can be affected by so many things…It is hard to use that as one indicator of success.”
Petis uses the state of Illinois, which has banned bail bonds, as an example of the positive impact of abolishing the system.
“There are studies that it has reduced the jail population… We are waiting to see the full data on… if the people being released are showing up for court and staying law abiding. The one thing we know is a lot of critics of pretrial fairness were concerned about the purge happening… that definitely did not happen,” she concluded.
In contrasting the progress to bail reform in Illinois, Geerges moved the discussion towards Georgia which has expanded the crimes that require a cash bail.
Petis responds with concern towards the new law with the implications it has towards the discretion of judges explaining, “What that means is judges and prosecutors no longer have discretion in those offenses. We are talking about a long list of offenses that are more than just violent crimes.”
Petis continues arguing the negative impact of this law claiming, “The state of Georgia is already seeing backlogged courts. They are seeing jails that are overwhelmed, having way too many people. It could add to the problem, making it even worse. Taking the discretion away from your judges and prosecutors who really have the authority and knowledge to know what to do with these cases is concerning.”
While a majority of callers argued against bail reform, one caller shared their own negative experiences with the bail system.
“At least in Massachusetts I think it is reasonably corrupt… My piano coach calls me around 11 at night, he was arrested and can I bail him out… He says it is $1,800… I discover I have a choice. I can pay a bail bondsman $180 and get him out now or I can wait until 10 a.m. Monday morning– this is Saturday night– and put the $1,800 up at the court clerk.”
After the caller got their piano coach out of jail, the coach still faced barriers to release as the caller stated, “he told me that part of his conditions of release were drug testing even though there were no drugs involved, and it cost him another $1,000 for mandatory drug testing… It was just a system to funnel money.”
Concerns around crime rates remained a common topic in conversations around bail bond reforms by callers with questions for Petis. Despite the positive data Petis cited from Illinois’ bail ban, one caller mentioned concerns around a rise in crime.
The caller argued, “We can’t spend more time taking care of the criminals than we do the victims. When you do you undermine the entire society. I hate to be so blunt about this, but guys like me are not being paid to solve that problem. Unfortunately the guys at the top are being paid to solve that and they’re not doing a good job.”
Petis refuted this claim stating, “Pretty much across the nation crime rates are going down. However, polls are showing most Americans think crime is worsening. The perception and reality are not linking up right now which is driving some policies.”
Another caller was not satisfied with Petis’ claims, arguing “My question is what makes you think you are the perception of reality, which does not include crime, is the only perspective that is correct? Most of us see crime to be out of control. Everything in this country is out of control. Every single state is allowing these criminals out.”
Petis responded, “R Street focuses on how to reduce crime and prevent crime. Any amount of crime is unacceptable and we should be working to really resolve it.
“One interesting thing to point out is that the poll I was referencing where people say crime is worsening even though we see data going the other way, is that when individuals were asked about their local area versus the nation, most people think crime in the nation is very seriously bad. Most people are basing their perception on the news and media, and not what they are actually experiencing locally.”
Petis shifts the conversation back to the need for bail reform noting, “I come from a background in representing victims. I am fiercely fighting against more crime, but we are talking about people that are accused. They have not been convicted. Whether or not they should be detained or released and what the consequences and the trade-offs are, there is no perfect solution.
“There is no right or wrong answer. We need to be evaluating the tools that are available and looking for the best options.”
