Numerous issues concerning the recent amendments to the bail program have become the topic of heated debates. The original claims implied that the new attitude would allow for more humane and just techniques. Nevertheless, releasing various types of defendants without any bail has led to an increased number of participants who are rearrested on felony charges while still on release. Therefore, a dedicated analysis is needed in order to realize all the factors that stand behind such dramatic outcomes. Moreover, it is crucial to develop and establish the most efficient framework for releasing people without bail.
The bail reform is a part of a series of criminal justice reforms that have gone into effect in recent years. According to new rules, judges are not allowed to impose monetary bail. Moreover, judges were not granted an opportunity to evaluate the potential threat that a defendant could pose to a community. At the same time, according to Gold and Wright (2020), pretrial detention has huge repercussions and can jeopardize employment and housing. Thus, the original motivation behind the introduction of the bail reform was centered around the inequality issues and disparities that allowed the rich to buy their freedom and return home.
Right now, thousands of people who have not yet been convicted of a crime are incarcerated and awaiting trial. The vast majority of them belong to low-income communities and cannot afford to pay the needed sum to spend time with their family, earn money and prepare for a trial properly. The vicious cycle created by such an attitude allowed numerous activists and politicians to propose a reform that was intended to improve the situation and fight discrimination. Koepke and Robinson (2018) claim that the current pretrial risk assessment instruments do not truly support reformist goals of reducing incarceration. Thus, the data points to the fact that the new approach, despite positive effects, allowed criminals to escape punishment and continue to disrupt the normal pace of life in their communities.
It is hard to find the appropriate decision concerning the issue of bail, as there are few other means that can ensure that a defendant returns to court to face charges against him/her. Nevertheless, it has become clear that the bail reform should definitely be revised. According to Baughman (2019), done right, bail keeps dangerous individuals off the streets; done wrong, it keeps those with less economic means in jail longer. With all the recent economic repercussions, American society cannot afford the risks that come with the complete elimination of the bail system. It is not the right time to release almost every defendant, as more people are getting involved in crime. Alternative-to-jail programs are desperately needed, but it is not the best option to allow social workers to perform all the monitoring instead of judges and let most criminals return to the streets.
The safety of society should still be a top priority for courts and law enforcement. Therefore, it is crucial to allow judges, not social workers, to decide whether a person can be released or not. One of the essential steps forward would be the introduction of a uniform set of criteria that takes into consideration a person’s previous record. Moreover, it is vital to distinguish between first conviction and recidivism. Thus, I would like to stay optimistic about the future of bail reform. I hope that during this decade, the entire system will ensure that more humane conditions and approaches will help free innocent defendants and change criminals without the necessity to release the majority of defendants.
References
Baughman, S. B. (2019). Dividing bail reform. Iowa Law Review, 105(3), 947–1025. Web.
Gold, R. M., & Wright, R. F. (2020). The Political patterns of bail reform. Wake Forest Law Review, 55(4), 743–756. Web.
Koepke, J. L., & Robinson, D. G. (2018). Danger ahead: Risk assessment and the future of bail reform. Washington Law Review, 93(4), 1725–1807. Web.