NCJ Number
156304
Date Published
1994
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This booklet presents the arguments that surety bail advocates often make to increase their influence in pretrial- release decisionmaking and then counters each argument.
Abstract
Reforms in pretrial-release decisionmaking in the past 30 years have helped promote the use of nonfinancial release options, such as own recognizance and conditional pretrial release. Nonfinancial pretrial-release options are available in every court system nationwide. These reforms have helped reduce the reliance of courts on commercial surety bail. This has forced the commercial surety industry to defend its role in the pretrial-release process. Industry proponents regularly testify before city and county boards, claiming to offer a bail option that is superior to nonfinancial release, is free to taxpayers, and is responsive to public safety concerns. They also argue that pretrial services agencies -- programs that help courts in many jurisdictions to determine the most appropriate type of pretrial release or detention for individual defendants -- should be eliminated or limited in scope to handling indigent defendants. Reliance on private business persons, however, does not improve defendant appearance in court nor safeguard public safety. Most bondsmen do not bring back defendants who abscond nor are held liable financially for failures to appear. Moreover, the abuses apparently inherent in the system and the inequity of relying on financial ability rather than suitability for release suggest that surety bail is counterproductive to ensuring equal treatment under the law and the integrity of the criminal justice system. This is made even clearer by the existence of pretrial release options that address appearance and safety concerns without the problems inherent in commercial surety bail. This booklet concludes with an outline of strategies for addressing surety bail proponents' assertions. 51 footnotes