2020 Proposition 25: Bail Bondsmen Want Their Money
“The rich man and the poor man do not receive equal justice in our courts. And in no area is this more evident than in the matter of bail. ... This is a cause in which there is great work to be done.” - Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1964
This is the final post in a series designed to give readers an early glimpse of what to expect with the dozen proposals on the November statewide ballot.
Later on in the season I’ll post more materials on the higher profile measures under consideration. Tomorrow, (Wednesday, July 29) I’ll offer up a handy-dandy recap, suitable for sharing with your friends, families, and anybody else who might be interested. (Remember, one reason people don’t vote is that they’re unsure about what’s on the ballot.)
As has been true with elections since 2012, I’ll endeavor to research and post about as many propositions and local elections as I can. I have no schedule, other than to say it will be done when it’s done.
Here’s where we are:
Monday, July 13: Proposition 14, which asks Californians to continue to support stem cell research funding via bond sales.
Tuesday, July 14: Proposition 15, which seeks to amend the property tax structure so commercial land isn’t taking advantage of a law passed with protecting elders from excessive increases.
Wednesday, July 15: Proposition 16, which seeks to undo the state’s ban on affirmative action.
Thursday, July 16: Proposition 17, expanding voting rights to include parolees.
Friday, July 17: Proposition 18, the right to vote for 17 year olds
Monday, July 20: Proposition 19, Shuffling Tax Breaks & Making Realtors Happy
Tuesday, July 21: Proposition 20, Do We Really Need to Send More People to Jail?
Wednesday, July 22: Proposition 21, Rent Control All Over Again
Thursday, July 23: Proposition 22, Rules of the Road for Uber, et.al.
Friday, July 24: Proposition 23, Regulating Kidney Dialysis Clinics
Monday, July 27: Proposition 24, Everybody likes privacy, right?
Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum
For: Yes on 25 #End Money Bail
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Endorsements | Text of Measure
Against: No on Prop 25
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Endorsements
Why: In 2018 the California Assembly passed and the governor signed SB10, which essentially eliminated cash bail for people accused of crimes. The law gives judges wide discretion to decide who can be released prior to trial.
Those charged with nonviolent, “low-level” misdemeanors could be released within as little as 12 hours after being booked into jail under the provisions of SB10. Charges of stalking or domestic violence are exempt. People arrested for felonies will be immediately assessed for their risk to public safety and likelihood of returning to court.
Companies representing the bail industry quickly gathered signatures on a referendum after the law was signed. As a result, SB10 has been on hold and is awaiting a final decision by voters in November.
One in five people incarcerated in the US is unconvicted, and many are there because they cannot pay bail of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars.
Voting Yes on Prop 25 signals support for the law as passed by the legislature.
Voting No on Prop 25 means the law is rescinded and the system continues to operate as it always has.
The Rest of the Story: The surety bail bond is the most common type; a person pays not the full amount but a fee — often around 10% of the bail amount — to a commercial bail agent.
That bail agent agrees to pay the full bail amount if the person fails to appear at a court hearing, and in return gets to keep the fee if they do. They also often require the person (or their friends and family) to sign over collateral to cover the full bail amount.
The US and the Philippines are the only two countries in the world with a legalized for-profit bond industry.
From Vox:
Our reliance on bail has essentially created a two-tiered justice system in the US. Many of the nearly half a million unconvicted people confined in jails on any given day are there because they can’t afford to pay bail. As people await court hearings behind bars, sometimes for months or even years, they suffer from inadequate medical care and even dangerous conditions, and many lose their jobs and housing. They also have a higher chance of being convicted than if they hadn’t been assigned bail, as they take plea bargains just to get out of jail, whether or not they actually committed a crime.
They and their families are also targets for the $2 billion-per-year for-profit bond industry, which routinely exploits people — disproportionately people of color — in desperate situations.
The bail bond industry’s point of view is, needless to say, different:
From the Hill, shortly after SB 10 passed::
Beth Chapman, the head of the Professional Bail Agents of the United States and a co-star of the reality show "Dog the Bounty Hunter," said the new law would put bail bondsmen in California out of business.
“This is a mom and pop industry that’s been going on for over 200 years in this country,” Chapman said in an interview Thursday. “What Senate Bill 10 is going to do is basically put a nail in their coffin.”
Chapman said an end to cash bonds would mean law enforcement would be forced to release those arrested for drug crimes, petty crimes or even more serious violations in a matter of hours.
Mom and Pop, indeed. They are little more than front people for the big money players.
From the New York Times:
The system, though, has worked well for the industry, even attracting private equity investors. Mom-and-pop bail companies are backed by large surety companies, which guarantee the full amount of the bond in exchange for a portion of the premium.
Together, the surety companies and the bail bond agents collect about $2 billion a year in revenue, according to an analysis by Color of Change, a nonprofit focused on racial justice, and the American Civil Liberties Union. “Bail insurers have shaped the entire industry, as well as the laws they operate under, to safeguard their profits at the expense of people’s lives,” said Rashad Robinson, the executive director of Color of Change.
While most insurance companies expect losses of up to 50 percent, one surety company, Continental Heritage of Florida, had no losses in its bail division for almost two decades. And an industry giant, AIA Bail Bond Insurance Company, said it underwrote more than $800 million in bonds in 2016. Its losses: zero.
The bail bond “industry” will likely cease to exist at some point in the future. However, the surety companies will continue on, as there is always somebody looking for a guarantee backed by assets somewhere.
California’s bail reform may be ending one form of institutionalized injustice, but the problem of unnecessary incarcerations hasn’t necessarily gone away.
The ACLU and other advocates ended up speaking out against SB 10 in the legislature because of the system it created to replace cash bonds. (They did not join the bail bond industry in opposing Prop 25.)
While reformers agree that the use of pretrial detention needs to be minimized, and the utilization of pretrial service agencies need to be maximized, the process of the determination of risk assessment has caused divisions.
The tools use data from past cases to predict who is a “high,” “medium,” or “low” risk for not showing up to their court dates and rearrest, based on factors such as criminal record and age at arrest. An algorithm then produces a score, which is then used by judges in determining whether to hold someone in jail (“remand” them), or to release them to some form of supervision or on their own recognizance (with the agreement to appear for court hearings).
There are a variety of such tools available, including the Public Safety Assessment tool developed by the Arnold Foundation and the COMPAS tool developed by the for-profit company Equivant (formerly Northpointe).
One of the main arguments for using such algorithms is that judges are already making these kinds of predictions in their heads but are highly fallible and inconsistent. By adopting a tool, some argue, judges will have additional information to guide them on who to release into the community versus who to hold in jail pretrial. They argue that such tools can help courts better achieve the goal of reducing pretrial detention, without a rise in failures to appear in court or risk to public safety.
The NAACP, the ACLU and more than 100 other groups have issued a statement advising against adopting pretrial risk-assessment tools. They believe that jurisdictions that have already adopted a tool should include the wider community in designing a transparent algorithm. Such tools need to be regularly audited by independent researchers to ensure that it is reducing jail populations and racial disparities.
One thing we do know is that bail has little to no connection with crime rates and a big impact on the lives of people caught up in a system already fraught with racism.
In some cities where bail reforms have been introduced, police officers have taken it upon themselves to discredit the system. That’s what happened in New York when they tried bail reform-- police reported a spike in crime.
The reported spike got wall-to-wall coverage in New York’s tabloids, with headlines like “No Bail Madness” and “Revolving Door Lunacy.” Legal aid groups disputed those numbers, pointing out that arraignments—the court appearances where bail is generally set—were down 20 percent at the same time, and suggested that perhaps officers were making bad arrests to make the stats look bad and that prosecutors had to ultimately toss out those charges.
Politically, though, the damage was done. Prosecutors joined the police in blaming bail reform, and the governor, who had supported the measure, vowed not to sign any 2020 budget that didn’t reform the reforms. Dermot Shea, the New York City police commissioner, took to the New York Times with an op-ed headlined “New York’s New Bail Laws Harm Public Safety.” The Senate minority leader in New York, John J. Flanagan of Long Island, issued frequent news releases, connecting grisly crimes to recent reforms.
From American Progress:
One common misperception is that ending cash bail and reforming the pretrial system could endanger the public even more than the status quo. However, studies of New Jersey and Washington, D.C., demonstrate that defendants’ rates of appearance for trial after reforms were implemented are similar or better to rates of appearance before the reforms. Similarly, the rates of rearrest for people who were released pretrial are comparable to those before the reforms were instituted.
The bail bond lobby will undoubtedly roll out the scariest crime story TV ads of all time. Don’t be fooled; jailing big numbers of people is only good for the people profiting off their misery. The presumption of innocence has been replaced by a presumption of guilt.
Data indicates overwhelming negative outcomes for detained arrestees eligible for release—lost jobs, lost homes, increased recidivism, increased costs on taxpayers, etc. If somebody isn’t guilty, they’ve already been penalized.
So, yeah, we should vote FOR Prop 25. And we should push for more transparency and equity in the system replacing bail.
Voter Guide – You’ve Voted for President, what’s next?
I’ll be writing about many ballot measures and candidates between now and the end of September. That work will be condensed into an handy-dandy voter guide just in time for your mail-in ballots to arrive. I’m the guy who coordinated San Diego Free Press’s Voter Guides over the past decade, so this won’t be my first effort. Stay tuned.
Hey folks! Be sure to like/follow Words & Deeds on Facebook. If you’d like to have each post mailed to you check out the simple subscription form and the right side of the front page.
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com