Is Money Really Weighing Down the Scales of Justice in the Criminal Justice System?

We have all heard the arguments, the scare tactics, the innuendos, the blatant falsehoods and skewed statistics: how money bail is the only thing keeping those arrested for a crime, for the most part, from being released so they can return to their families and communities to be productive citizens pending the disposition of their case.
 
How poor defendants charged with low-level crimes can spend days, months or even a year sitting in jail waiting for a trial that often ends in an acquittal, while defendants with access to money and who are charged with a major crime can be set free “immediately to kill again,” as a recent New Jersey editorial stated. 
 
Other notable quotes regarding the bail industry include:

"Community safety is not anywhere in the realm of pretrial release and when you look at who can get out it’s the drug dealer who has his pals in the back with a wad of money and the indigent is going to be staying in no matter the outcome."

"One night or day in jail can really impact an individual; when arrested we are impacting their family, their work, their whole life. Many people going through the system don’t have smart phones for reminders, so other little things to get them to court are important instead of paying money they don’t have. If they pay a bond, now they can’t pay their rent or buy food." 

"You pay a bail bondsman ten percent and then you get arrested again and the bail goes up even more and you pay the bail agent more money for the next time you get bailed out. It is very illogical and begs the question why are we doing this; people just think that is how it’s done." 

"The ravages of what we call bail in America; a ridiculous game that disadvantages those who are the least equipped and resourced to defend themselves." 

"For better or for profit: how the bail bonding industry stands in the way of fair and effective pretrial release." 

"Bail fail: why the U.S. should end the practice of using money for bail."

For added benefit, the threat of jail overcrowding and how much taxpayers will have to pay for extra jail beds adds fuel to the flame.   Poor and low-income defendants remain in jail for months costing taxpayers thousands of dollars per inmate because they can’t even raise small bail amounts.  Thus encouraging the expansion or creation of taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs – also funded with taxpayer dollars – to facilitate the release of defendants on the taxpayer’s dime with government staff doing the supervision. 
 
What is not really talked about is the real cost of housing an inmate.  In reality, the real cost of housing an inmate per day is typically under $20 for the cost of consumables – clothing, toiletries and food.  Not the fixed costs that remain to run a jail unless major sections of the jail are closed.
 
Let’s be clear about a few things.

• Jurisdictions have relied on commercial bail since the founding of the United States. 
• The commercial bail industry saves taxpayer’s millions of dollars annually by helping to lower jail populations and is user-funded, not taxpayer-funded.
• The commercial bail industry offers many layers of financial commitments from the insurance company as surety on the bond, a bail agent’s own financial resources and third-party indemnitors who may bear a financial burden for a defendant’s failure to appear.
• The commercial bail industry does not set bail amounts or have any say regarding bail schedules.  That is the purview of the courts and Judges.  
• Bail agents work with people from all socio-economic strata’s – the poor, low-income, average-income, high-income and the wealthy.
• Bond fees and rates are not determined by race, gender or socio-economic status but by strict bail schedules.
• Bail agents charge a minimum fee to assume the risk of appearance for a defendant and are financially responsible for defendants until disposition of their case.
• Commercial bail has the lowest failure to appear and recidivism rates of all forms of pretrial release.
• Public safety is enhanced under commercial bail as bail agents continually assess the risk of a defendant to ensure a positive outcome.
• Defendants remain in jail for numerous reasons and not just because they can’t afford a bail bond: immigration holds, probation violations, failure to appear, seriousness of the charge, a flight risk, awaiting transfer to a state prison or serving a sentence in the county jail.

The commercial bail industry agrees with the following:

• Bail should not be a punishment, but a tool for ensuring a defendant appears at trial to ensure the integrity of the judicial system.
• Judges should make a release decision based on the nature of the crime, a defendant’s flight risk and risk to public safety.
• Judges should have the authority to deny bail to defendants accused of committing first-degree crimes, such as murder, carjacking, kidnapping and sexual assault, or other serious offenses that would cause the defendant to pose a risk to the community if released.
• The goal should be to incarcerate people who need to be incarcerated based on their alleged crime and criminal history and find feasible and working solutions for releasing others.
• Facilitating the pretrial release of defendants who pose little risk to the community would help alleviate crowded jail conditions and save taxpayers the costs of unnecessary incarceration.
• A "risk tool" or "risk assessment," which is based on a defendant’s criminal history, the severity of the current allegation, failures to appear, violations of probation and other factors, can be a valuable tool in helping Judges determine the appropriate release method.

However, taking away the “human element” in determining a release method or decision is tricky.  Some proponents of eliminating all financial release believe that even a computerized tool can be used to assess defendants to determine if they can be released immediately after their arrest – either on their own recognizance or under taxpayer-funded supervision.  The release of course is "free" but perhaps not the supervision.  Nor perhaps is the required drug and alcohol screenings, anger management classes, drug treatment or other monitoring methods.  But – the release is free and the defendant is not taking up space in a jail bed.  And they may not even be indigent and can afford their own release and perhaps have even done so in the past.  Their crimes may not be “dangerous” as defined by a state statute but can still be very serious in nature or a repeat offense. 

But the defendant is not paying a bail agent for their release so that makes it all okay.

Many taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs accept defendants charged with a wide range of criminal offenses, including violent and career felons, many of whom can afford their own release.  And the level of supervision and interaction with that defendant can be very different from what a bail agent requires. 

So what is the solution?

Eliminating a private industry that has a proven track record of success and effectiveness in making sure defendants appear for court and that has been around for centuries, and replacing it with a wholesale bureaucratic release and supervision system funded by taxpayers, is not the answer. 

Can release mechanisms and processes be improved regarding which defendants are released and how pending disposition of their case?  Of course. 

Judges have the authority to release anyone on their own recognizance and often do so.  Such authority allows for low-income or poor defendants who have committed a minor crime to be released in a timely manner without an unnecessary financial burden. 

But do the taxpayers want defendants charged with domestic violence, dating violence, failures to appear, violations of probation, carrying/possessing concealed weapons, burglary, robbery and fleeing/eluding law enforcement to get a free "get out of jail” card?

Where do we stop the free release for repeat offenders of DUI, driving with license suspended/revoked, property crimes, drug crimes and grand theft/petit theft?

Because taxpayers are paying for those releases everyday across the country where taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs operate.

Defendants should hold some accountability for their release when arrested for an alleged crime.  Whether that means they must secure financial release under the supervision of a private bail agent or warrant taxpayer-funded release with conditions, both release systems should work together to ensure the criminal justice system is working effectively. 

Those defendants who are charged with a first-time, non-violent offense can be eligible for taxpayer-funded release or release on their own recognizance.  

But when the crimes increase in severity or frequency, financial release with conditions should be imposed.  Bail agents live and work in their communities and want their family and friends to live in a safe environment.  

The commercial bail industry gladly welcomes the opportunity to have a strong working relationship with the courts and taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems to make sure defendants are being released appropriately and supervised adequately.

The Wisest Use of Your Tax Dollars

There is an increasing push to establish taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs across the country and to eliminate financially secured bail.  Why?   Advocates of using more of your tax dollars to perform a function that the private industry is extremely effective at, cite various reasons.  One is jail overcrowding because people can’t afford financial release.  Another is that financial release discriminates against the poor.  Yet another is that financial release is not evidence-based or objective.  Another is that financial release doesn’t look at risk for flight or risk to public safety.  Another is that financial release elevates the economic status of the defendant over assessment of risk. 
 
In other words, is a system that has operated successfully and efficiently for centuries, ensuring that defendants appear for all required court appearances using no taxpayer dollars, no longer valid or needed?  Are taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs the panacea to all of the woes in the criminal justice system?
 
By their own definition, advocates for such programs state that: pretrial services programs are an alternative to incarceration and provide all criminal court defendants that are initially unable to post bail, the opportunity to be interviewed to determine eligibility for release from jail under a supervised program.   How is it determined that such defendants are unable to post bail?  There are many defendants who have been and are able to post bail for prior and current criminal arrests but instead are given free release by the taxpayers.  Many defendants have been released on taxpayer funds when they are not even declared indigent by the court.
 
They go on to say: Pretrial services release is mainly for defendants accused of minor crimes who can demonstrate that they live in the community and pose no threat of flight or danger to the community at large.
 
There are literally thousands of examples of defendants released on taxpayer funds to be “supervised” in the community and who are charged with serious and violent offenses, many with lengthy criminal histories, violation of probation and failures to appear for court.  The contention that only defendants charged with minor crimes are released on taxpayer funds is a ruse to get more funding for their programs.
 
Those who promote the elimination of financially secured bail continue to try and make the taxpayers believe that our pretrial justice system is broken because defendants must either pay bail or wait behind bars for their court date.  Proponents of taxpayer-funded programs claim they save the taxpayers millions of dollars by securing the release of defendants who otherwise would languish in jail without them.  Money is the sole reason that is causing the unnecessary incarceration of the defendant.  Money is stopping them from returning to their family and jobs.  Money is causing jail overcrowding across the country because defendants can’t afford their release.
 
So the alternative is to release individuals on taxpayer funds through pretrial services programs, comprised of employees that often have little or no experience in supervising defendants.  And yet they are tasked with ensuring defendants are complying with the conditions of bond and keeping citizens safe. 
 
In contrast, public safety is enhanced under financially secured bail as bail agents continually assess risk of the defendant to include regular check-ins, ongoing communication with the defendant and indemnitors, court reminders and monitoring to avoid a failure to appear.  Why?  Because bail agents are physically and financially responsible for defendants released on bail.  If that defendant fails to appear for court, the bail agent must repay the full amount of the bond to the court. 
 
When people are arrested, they have several options for release, with financial bail being one of them.  Taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs play an important role in the criminal justice system, which is interviewing defendants prior to their initial court appearance and compiling criminal history information for the judge to make an informed release decision.  Such programs were never designed to supervise the types of defendants or the number of defendants they are today.
 
The private commercial bail industry understands that many counties are still facing difficult financial times and that they are seeking ways to be as innovative as possible.  Likewise so is the commercial bail industry.  All of us must do more with less.  All the more reason to focus our resources and expertise in areas of the criminal justice system that save taxpayer dollars and protects public safety.
 
Taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs should focus on the non-violent, first-time offenders who pose little threat to community safety or those defendants who are truly indigent and have been arrested for a minor crime.  The commercial bail industry has years of experience in supervising the more violent offenders and those with lengthy criminal histories.  And, we use our own resources to do so.
 
As the commercial bail industry has said before and will continue to say . . . imagine the effect on public safety and offender accountability if both systems worked together to ensure the defendant appeared at all required court hearings, refrained from future criminal activity and refrained from violating any other condition of release?
 
The commercial bail industry is a willing partner but is the taxpayer-funded pretrial services system?  We welcome the opportunity to come to the table as friends instead of foes.

Make a Shift and Get a Different Outcome

Fresh starts and fresh views often come with a new year.  Here are some ideas for 2014:

• Exceed expectations.  All of us can exceed expectations for the better good; simply meeting expectations often gets us nowhere.  With teamwork and cooperation, there are unlimited possibilities.  Particularly in the criminal justice system.  The private commercial bail industry and taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems should work hand-in-hand to enhance public safety and offender accountability.
   
• Show your passion for what you do.  Without passion, a job is simply something to do.  Without passion, a job is just a job.   With passion, you know you are making a difference in the world.  The private commercial bail industry is passionate about the services it provides in the criminal justice system; we provide valuable guidance and assistance to clients and their family at a critical time and save taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
   
• Don’t operate in a silo.  Working in isolation vs. collaboratively stunts the achieved outcome.  The private commercial bail industry and taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems can achieve so much more through collaboration and partnerships, leading to increased effectiveness and successful outcomes. 
   
• Take personal accountability.  Make a choice to be personally accountable and to make a difference in all that you do.  The private commercial bail industry and taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems have a unique opportunity to help others take personal accountability for their actions at a critical moment in their life.  Bail agents can share their wisdom and experience in the criminal justice system by connecting with defendants and their families and perhaps help to stop or break the cycle of crime.  Employees of taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems can help defendants and their families secure the help and resources they need – perhaps for the first time – and get back on the right path.  Let your clients know you care and want to help them.
   
• Seek out opportunities to share what you do.  Don’t let an opportunity cease to be one.  Be proud of the services and work that you provide and let others know about it.  Both the private commercial bail industry and taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems offer valuable avenues to help people get released from jail pending disposition of their case.  Bail agents guarantee court appearance and save taxpayers millions of dollars in the process.  Taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs help defendants who are poor or indigent or who need additional services to be released from jail.  Take the opportunity to educate others about the significant role you play in the criminal justice system. 
   
• Think teamwork instead of me, me, me.  Build a rapport with your colleagues and partners to share your knowledge and experience to grow your profession instead of focusing on how to compete with others.  Competition can be good to a point – but working as a team often accomplishes so much more.  Teamwork is an opportunity to grow, discover areas of strength and areas of opportunity.
   
• Change the paradigm.  A paradigm is a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made, or thought about.  A paradigm shift is taking place in the criminal justice system.  Both the private commercial bail industry and taxpayer-funded pretrial services systems need to proactively be involved in that paradigm shift and find ways of strengthening our roles while working together to enhance public safety.
   
• Think outside the box.  Thinking outside the box is a metaphor that means to think differently, unconventionally, or from a new perspective.  In the criminal justice system, thinking outside the box means finding new ways to work with our partners, collaborating in ways we haven’t before, seeing things in a new light.  The end result will be safer communities and less crime.
   
• Re-motivate yourself.  Be an ambassador for the work that you do and the way that you do it.  Bail agents work 24/7 and sacrifice so much of their time with family and friends to help defendants and their families in a time of need.  It is a demanding and often dangerous profession.  Re-motivate yourself by embracing the important role you play in the criminal justice system and the guidance you provide to your clients and their families navigating a complicated system. 
   
• Accept change.  Change is inevitable.  Change can be positive.  Accepting new ideas, new ways of doing things and new challenges can reinvigorate us and the work that we do.  Charles Darwin, best known for his contributions to evolutionary theory, said about change: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives.  It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”
   
• Lead by example.  Albert Einstein said, “Setting an example is not the main means of influencing others, it is the only means.”  If you want others to believe in you and the work that you do, show them by your actions and not just your words.  Be responsible.  Be professional.  Be understanding of others.  Be willing to compromise for the greater good.  Be passionate about your work.  Be an example of what others strive to be.
  
  "Start by doing what is necessary, then what is possible and suddenly you are doing the impossible."
                                                St. Francis of Assisi 
  
  Welcome to 2014!

Public Safety: we are all responsible

As the end of 2013 approaches and the beginning of 2014 arrives, the debate on how best to enhance and protect public safety will, and should, continue.  What should not continue are the negative attacks focused on what mechanism should be used to release arrested individuals from jail.  Instead, we should work together and do what each system does best to make our communities safer for all of us.
 
Let’s face it.  In every walk of life and profession, there are bad influences and corruption despite all efforts to prevent it: politicians, law enforcement, clergy, government, criminal justice, banking, education etc.  Do we paint this negative brush from a few on all the rest?  Why focus on the bad deeds of the few without looking at the honorable and good deeds of thousands?
 
Individuals in the commercial bail industry, for the most part, are honorable men and women who run small businesses, who are passionate about the service they provide in the criminal justice system and are proud to save taxpayers millions of dollars.  Individuals employed by taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs are proud to provide the court with validated and informed risk assessments to make safe, fair and effective pretrial release decisions.  Both systems offer the criminal justice system tools to hold offenders accountable to the court.
 
Yet, the debate rages on about the, “ravages of what we call bail in America,” by proponents of taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs claiming that financial release disadvantages the poor.  The commercial bail industry stresses that it costs taxpayers nothing while assuming the financial risk for the defendant and in fact, adds money back to county coffers through the payment of premium taxes for every bond written.
 
Yes, the commercial bail industry provides a service in return for a non-refundable fee.  Just like non-refundable rental deposit fees, real estate fees, insurance fees, educational/tuition fees, airline fees, pet deposit fees, broker fees, ticket/event fees, professional service fees, travel fees, early termination fees and banking fees, as examples, the non-refundable fee to a bail agent is the cost of doing business and assuming the risk of appearance for the defendant.  This non-refundable fee is not a “fine” or something to be charged as punishment.  So why, when so many other industries also charge and collect non-refundable fees, is the bail industry brushed as, “taking profits by making it more expensive for people of lesser means to move through the criminal justice system?”

Bail agents don’t set bail amounts.  And while some manipulate the system by charging less than the mandated premium, most veteran bail agents work with legislators and departments of insurance to regulate the industry to prevent such abuses.  Illegal and unethical tactics can destroy and cast a negative eye on an honorable industry.

The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of a defendant at court and no other form of pretrial release is more effective at doing so than the commercial bail industry.  The industry agrees that the threat to public safety and flight risk are important considerations when setting bail.  We also agree that taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs that conduct a validated risk assessment on defendants for the court to determine a release mechanism, is also an important tool.  Any release mechanism should be tied to risk.  Judges have the authority to release any defendant on their own recognizance at any time.  Poor, non-violent and low-risk defendants should not “languish” in jail if they cannot afford financial release because the judge already has the authority to release them.  The commercial bail industry is not the culprit or the one keeping such defendants in jail. 
 
Proponents of taxpayer-funded pretrial services programs advocate for the elimination of financial release and of the end of the commercial bail industry.  What do they want instead?  Timothy Murray, chair of the Pretrial Justice Institute, said if a defendant is not a threat to public safety or a serious flight risk, they should be released and expected to return for their court date on their own, with the aid of a pretrial monitoring system.  So in essence, this means eliminating a private industry that uses no taxpayer dollars to ensure the appearance of a defendant in court and replacing it or expanding pretrial services programs using taxpayer dollars.  The government then becomes a bail agent releasing and supervising defendants instead of private industry.  The claim is that in the end, such a system will save taxpayers money by freeing up jail beds – but in reality such taxpayer “savings” are just being used elsewhere within government.  And if the defendant misses court more of your tax dollars will be spent to locate and re-arrest them.
 
The bail industry offers another scenario.
 
Just imagine the effect on public safety and offender accountability if both systems worked together to ensure the defendant appeared at all required court hearings, refrained from future criminal activity and refrained from violating any other condition of release.   

Defendants who warranted financial bail based on their offense or a judge’s order but ones that a judge determined would benefit from additional layers of supervision, could be released under both systems: 

• The taxpayer-funded pretrial services program would enforce conditions of release such as drug or alcohol testing, face-to-face or telephone supervision or other conditions of release;
• The bail agent would be responsible for ensuring appearance at all required court hearings;
• Any concerns regarding violation of conditions of release or a possible failure to appear could be addressed collaboratively between the two systems;
• Ongoing and effective communication would occur between both systems supervising a defendant;
• Defendants would know that both the taxpayer-funded pretrial services program and their bail agent were working together to ensure system accountability and public safety.

A win-win situation with both systems together providing the tools and expertise they have instead of singularly.  No fighting, no blaming, no one-upmanship – just helping to make the criminal justice system stronger. 
 
The other aspects of the system should work effectively as well:

• Defendants whose offense(s) warranted financial bail and that could afford their own release either with a cash bond or surety bond with supervision from a bail agent would pay for it and be released;
• Defendants whose offense(s) warranted financial bail and that could afford their own release but needed additional layers of supervision, could be released on a bail bond and also supervised through a taxpayer-funded pretrial services program;
• Defendants who were indigent or poor and based on their offense, criminal history and risk assessment were eligible for release and supervision under a taxpayer-funded pretrial services program, could be released; 
• Defendants who were eligible to be released on their own recognizance or a promise to appear for court based on their offense and criminal history could be released;
• Defendants who could not afford financial release but whose offense was serious and/or violent and/or had lengthy criminal histories would remain in jail until the court decided the appropriate mechanism for release, if at all.

Both the poor and rich would have fair and consistent release mechanisms. 
 
We hope that in 2014 across this great country of ours that such magical and possible scenarios can be attained.  The commercial bail industry is ready and willing to be partners in such an endeavor. 

Wishing all a wonderful holiday season and the very best in 2014.

Matrix Recommendation to Orange County, FL Commissioners: Renew Home Confinement Program

The Matrix Consulting Group headquartered in CA, provides detailed analysis of management, staffing and operational issues for city, county and state governments.  The Orange County, FL Board of County Commissioners hired the firm to analyze Orange County’s home confinement program, which was suspended after it was learned that the program did nothing to confront Bessman Okafor’s 109 curfew violations.  Mr. Okafor is charged with the murder of Alex Zaldivar while defying his home confinement order.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2013 the Matrix presented their formal report to County Commissioners and recommended that they renew the home confinement program with greater controls.  Mr. Brady stated that the first phase of the analysis looked at the home confinement program exclusively.  A variety of elements were studied to include how the program was governed, the risk and liability elements of the program, organizational structure, how defendants were supervised, staffing levels and caseloads, use of technology, opportunities to privatize the program and the feasibility of discontinuing the program entirely.

The Matrix Group developed a detailed database of all of the participants who were in the program for the past year before the program was suspended.  Review of this database of defendants resulted in what Mr. Brady called, "A number of very interesting findings about how Orange County was using the program, especially when compared to other counties surveyed."

These findings regarding the home confinement program included:

• The use of the program had been declining dramatically over the last five years
• Length of stay defendants stayed in the program was significantly up however
• The number of successful completions was up while the number of judicial revocations was down
• The vast majority of defendants in the program were charged with felony offenses with about 16 percent having two or more violent felony convictions
• The vast majority of defendants were in the program as a condition of bail
• The bail amounts were predominantly very low with 60 percent of defendants having bail amounts set at $5,000 or below
• 68 percent of felons had at least one prior conviction for any kind of charge
• A number of people who participated in the program within the last year had prior contact with the judicial system; for example 21 percent of defendants had a prior failure to appear
• Once defendants were in the program, field visits were made about every nine days, with defendants charged with more serious offenses having about the same visitation rate in the field as less serious offenders

The Matrix Group surveyed five other Florida counties and three out-of-state programs to ascertain how Orange County’s program compared to other programs.  The Matrix Group found the following:

• Other programs were assigning lower-risk offenders to their programs
• Defendants were less violent and had better risk characteristics (showing up for court)
• Caseloads were lower when compared to Orange County’s
• Other programs had a more active approach to supervision of defendants
• Most programs had or were in the process of transitioning completely to GPS technology vs. radio frequency (RF) technology

When discussing Orange County’s home confinement program, Mr. Brady stated: “Clearly until you suspended it, your home confinement program had a number of issues; more serious offenders than we typically see in other programs, bail was extremely low, caseloads were very high, and assignments were not always actively monitored; in fact in the evening hours they weren’t monitored at all.”  

The study found that staff also need to be better trained, both when they are brought into the program as well as on an ongoing basis, which the Matrix Group pointed out was definitely a weakness before the program was suspended.

However, the Matrix Group still recommended that Orange County renew the home confinement program.  Based on the experience of other counties, Orange County's home confinement program’s risk could be better managed by controlling the kind of defendants assigned to it and adjusting better caseloads and staffing models. 

The Matrix Group also recommended that the Public Safety/Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (PS/CJCC) be re-engaged to develop the performance standards against which the home confinement program should be judged and that home confinement staff and other pretrial personnel develop and actively report to the Council initially on a monthly basis.

The Matrix Group ended their presentation by stating to County Commissioners that renewing or not renewing the home confinement program was a, “Question of where they want to be on the risk management spectrum.”  Having the home confinement program in place with some controls and improvement would be better than just having people released on bail without supervision.

Once again, the bail industry has an opportunity to educate our citizens about the public safety and taxpayer savings the industry provides to communities across the country. 

The purpose of bail is to ensure the appearance of a defendant at all required court hearings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger.  We guarantee the appearance of the defendant and are completely financially accountable to the court and taxpayers to do so.  Bail agents take detailed information on a defendant to determine their risk level and what safeguards and conditions need to be added to the bail contract.  We also utilize third-party indemnitors on each bond as an added incentive for the defendant to appear at all court hearings and refrain from criminal activity.

Is the system foolproof?  No.  But no system is completely foolproof when dealing with human nature.  

Assessing risk based on a defendant’s arrest charge, ties to the community, employment and  criminal history are just some of the important elements for determining what conditions of release need to be put in place.  The use of taxpayer dollars to release and supervise defendants in our communities should be limited to those individuals charged with non-violent crimes, who have a limited non-violent criminal history and who are truly indigent. 

An increased working relationship with any party responsible for supervision of defendants released into the community pending the disposition of their case, including the bail industry, will only increase public safety and offender accountability.  We all want our families and friends to be safe and for those who choose to commit crimes to be held accountable.

In that spirit, Orange County Commissioner Pete Clarke asked that the Matrix Group and his fellow Commissioners make a timely review of the Community Correction’s Pretrial Supervision program a priority.  Hundreds of defendants are released on non-monetary means with only automated telephone supervision through this program.  Defendants are being released on both felony and misdemeanor charges, with a significant number of them charged with domestic violence related offenses and driving under the influence.  Commissioner Clarke stated that, "When you are dealing with this many domestic violence charges it is not a long stretch to think you could have another horrific outcome."  He also stressed the importance of providing the judges at first appearance hearings with accurate information on a defendant’s prior criminal convictions to make the most informed release decision.

Likewise, Orange County Commissioner Fred Brummer stressed the importance of assessing a defendant’s risk to determine what level of supervision they should receive: "Once they [a defendant] come into the system we need to, whoever is responsible, needs to make the judgment, assess the risk and follow-up to see that the type or level of supervision, or the appropriate level of supervision, is applied based upon all factors."

Orange County Commissioner Ted Edwards also weighed in on defendants being released from jail and committing repeat crimes: "One thing that has been a concern of mine is that our prison population has been going down a number of years and are we putting people on the streets that would be better off in jail because they are repeat offenders that are going to be committing more crimes.  And I think as much as it is our duty to keep our budgets low, it is more important to protect our citizens."

Mayor Teresa Jacobs echoed her fellow Commissioners' concerns when she stated that there, "Might be similar offenders who aren’t even on a monitoring system and so hopefully we will have the same insightful information that will either put us at ease or will alert us to the need to work with the council [CJ/PSCC] on that as well."

Keeping our communities safe and reducing crime should be a shared goal for all of us.  The United States Constitution states that bail shall be based on “sufficient surety” that a defendant will appear; the bail industry takes this responsibility seriously and continues to be the most effective method of pretrial release with the lowest recidivism rates. 

After the Matrix presentation, Accredited reached out to Mr. Brady asking for a meeting in an effort to further educate him and his company on what the industry provides and how we can partner with the Community Corrections Division and other private partners in the criminal justice system to make it more accountable and effective. 

We look forward to making our communities safer by being involved in this important process and review.

Taxpayer-Funded Jail Release

Defendant #2 - arrested for battery on person 65 years of age or older on December 12, 2012 and released into the Orange County, FL taxpayer-funded pretrial services program.

Defendant has a criminal history dating back to 1995:

• 11/95 - battery; 2 counts (FDMs); adjudication withheld
• 1/97 - assault (SDM); no information filed
• 12/98 - battery (FDM); resisting LEO without violence (FDM); possession of cannabis (FDM); adjudicated guilty on battery and resisting charge; adjudication withheld on cannabis charge; violation of probation; failure to appear; violation of probation
• 6/99 - DUI (FDM); adjudicated guilty; violation of probation
• 4/02 - battery (FDM); no information filed
• 10/03 - trespass in park (ordinance); adjudicated guilty
• 1/04 - battery domestic violence (FDM); no information filed
• 11/05 - violation of domestic violence injunction (FDM); no information filed
• 6/06 - possession of drug paraphernalia (FDM); no information filed
• 10/07 - shoot/throw missile into dwelling/structure/vehicle (SDF); felony battery (TDF); no information filed on missile charge; adjudication withheld on battery charge
• 7/10 - driving under the influence with property damage (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 7/10 - driving with license suspended/revoked with knowledge (FDM); adjudicated guilty
• 10/10 - aggravated assault (TDF); felony battery (TDF); no information filed
• Traffic and municipal ordinance offenses

This particular defendant was able to pay for a monetary bond seven (7) separate times; other release mechanisms included release on recognizance and taxpayer-funded pretrial release.

 

As you can see, these are not non-violent offenses nor has this defendant committed only one crime.  There are literally thousands of defendants released annually in jails through taxpayer-funded programs on unsecured means.

And you the taxpayer are paying for the program/operational funding, fringe benefits of staff and costs associated with failures to appear and new crimes committed while on release.  

Public policy affects public safety!  Speak up and be heard.