Another "Sign it and we'll count the cost later" legislation!

The Sheriffs of Texas didn't know about it. Neither did the Constables. Nor the Justice of the Peace, Municipal and County Court Judges, County Judges and Commissioners, or even most of the Legislators.

This is another Obamacare type, pass it and then count the cost once they accumulate type bill.

There should have been awareness by the state and county officials but there wasn't. The public should have a voice in this.

Look what has happened in New Jersey! Google bail reform. 

This will lead to elimination of Bondsmen services for misdemeanors and give the burden to the Counties. It will cost time and manpower. And we don't even know the cost of the programing or support elements.

By the way, about 93-97% of illegals who are given P.R. bonds and told to show up in court leave smiling and never look back.

Oh, and Chicago leads the way in P.R. bonds. How's that working out?

Contact your State Rep. and Senators now! The bill has been passed to the House and could be up for a vote by May 11, 2017! There is no time to waste! 

The best thing would be to Kill the Bill. The second best thing would be to put it on hold until those affected can have their voice heard.

jb

Issues and Concerns regarding SB 1338 and HB 3011 Substitutes

These bills create a costly and unnecessary bureaucracy that would result in many unintended negative consequences. This seems especially problematic given that current law already provides Judges the ability to utilize PR and Pretrial Release options for those that cannot afford bail.

The proposed legislation is an Unfunded Mandate to Counties.  Mandated cost to each county will vary but for reference, the current pretrial budget for Travis County is 5. 5 million; Harris County is 7.2 million.  

• Although the substitute bills direct the State to pick up the tab on development of The Automated Risk Assessment Tool (ARAT), there will still be other costs to implement the ARAT (hiring, training, equipment, integration software, and information technology maintenance, and so on) as well as other costs.
• The assessments, jail releases, intakes, case management, supervision, and recovery that bail bondsmen currently provide at no cost to the taxpayer will have to be handled by the Personal Bond office or the equivalent.
• Additional Magistrates and other personnel may need to be hired to comply with the requirements of the bills. For example, the bills require that the ARAT be conducted on ALL misdemeanor and felony charges, considered with other factors, and arraigned, all within 48 hours.
• Counties may need to cover the costs of Electronic monitoring or drug testing for indigent defendants.
• The county loses a large portion of bond forfeiture payments (25 million statewide annually), posting fees that go to pay for prosecutors and indigent defense (7 million statewide annually), and court costs on bond forfeitures (3 million statewide annually). These sums provide funding for various programs including Judge’s salaries.
• Anticipated higher crime rates due to the “revolving door” effect created by expansion of Pretrial Release will increase demand at every level of our criminal justice system and will necessitate greater funding.
• Although low-risk indigent defendants without a support system need assistance, the bills seek to expand the pool of Personal Bonds to ALL low-risk defendants, even though they are able to afford bail on their own. This increases exponentially the burden on the taxpayer.

The proposed bills would create a Public Safety problem by increasing the number of unsupervised and unaccountable defendants on the street, posing a risk of re-traumatizing the crime victim.

• Under the current legal statute, bondsmen engage the defendant’s family and friends, to help support the defendant to stay on track and show for court appearances. Studies have shown that bondsmen have lower forfeiture rates than Pretrial Release, have lower recidivism rates than Pretrial Release, and quicker recovery rates than Pretrial Release after defendants fail to appear.
• There is no financial consequence to the defendant on Personal Bond if they do not appear at court and no one with financial consequence to find them when they fail to appear.
• If a defendant who has been granted Personal Bond fails to appear and has a “good cause” for missing his court date, the bill requires the Judge to grant Personal Bond again.
• There is a danger to re-traumatizing the true victim of the crime when they learn that their perpetrator is free to go by signing his or her name. Victims need to know that the accused will show up at court and will be held accountable.
• Crime rates have risen in states like California and Kentucky since bail reform was implemented. Law Enforcement and Public Officials in New Jersey have called for repeal of their new bail reform system.  

The required Automated Risk Assessment Tool is not transparent or reliable, and is potentially biased.

• The algorithms of proprietary ARATs are unpublished and therefore not scrutinized and unmonitored.

• Replaces experienced and well-trained Judge’s expertise with a flawed algorithm.
• Introduces elements of secrecy that undermines faith in our criminal justice system.

• Accurate risk assessment must always take into consideration criminal history but the ARAT does not score based on arrests, but only on convictions.  Also, the lack of timely entered data would prevent tool reliability.
• Other shortcomings of ARATs include: Lack of standardization, differences in calculating fail to appear, lack of definition of pretrial population, ARATs calibrated to lowest risk groups, inadequate data input, questions of due process related to proprietary algorithms, and so on.
• There is much national concern and some evidence that computerized risk assessments are racially and gender biased.
• The ARAT displaces the power of the electorate (elected judges) into the hands of unseen “Big Brother” behind-the-curtain actors. Who’s programing and calibrating the “Black Box” and how?

These bills would weaken Judicial Discretion.

• Judges are required to take into consideration the results of the ARAT, and this MUST be considered in their arraignment process.
• Judicial conflict—under the proposed legislation a defendant can be released (by PB or otherwise) by a magistrate in a county other than the county that the warrant was issued out of.
• Judges will have to give notice to the defendant prior to raising the defendant’s bond, thereby allowing the defendant opportunity to flee before the bond is raised.