On July 16,
2013, nineteen year-old Justin Carter will have his day in court. But roughly five months ago, the teen
was arrested and charged with making a terroristic threat on his Facebook page.
He has been in jail ever since. Carter’s
nightmare started when another player in the Facebook game “League of Legends”
called Carter “crazy.” Carter responded with what he believed
to be a humorous and witty retort, “I’m f***ed in the head alright. I think I’ma [sic] shoot up a kindergarten and
watch the blood of the innocent rain down and eat the beating heart of one of
them.” Just two months after the
horrific shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, a Canadian woman who saw
the post did not find it humorous or witty. In what some might consider “Facebook
stalking,” the woman discovered Carter’s address and noticed that it was close
to an elementary school. She promptly
notified police, who then arrested the young teen. Apparently, Carter’s humor was also lost on
the Texas judge who set bond at an astronomical $500,000, which Carter’s family
could not afford.
Individuals
who cannot pay the bail amount, or get a bail bondsman or another agent to
cover the charge, remain in jail until their scheduled court date. Even if an individual is fortunate enough to
get a bail bondsman to pay the bail amount, bondsmen do not lend money for
free. A bail agent may charge the
defendant ten to fifteen percent of the bail amount before posting bond, a fee
that the defendant will not get back regardless of the ultimate verdict. Additionally, when the bail agent posts bond,
if the accused does not return to court on the date of their trial, the bail
agent is forced to pay the full amount of the bail.
While the
vast majority of Americans would not be able to pay the hefty $500,000 bond set
in the Carter case, it is much more common that poor defendants arrested for
minor crimes cannot pay more modest bonds. Because the bondsman must absorb the cost of
the bond if the defendant fails to return to court, the bondsman is unlikely to
post bond for small amounts, such as $500, because their ten percent take, $50, is too small to
justify the risk. As a result, the
poorest and most financially unstable defendants are left in jail while their rich counterparts go free.
While most
states require judges to take public safety into account when setting bail, New
York is different. In New York, the main
criterion for setting bail is the risk of the defendant not returning to court
for trial. Accordingly, judges weigh factors such
as criminal record and ties to the community to determine whether a defendant
is likely to flee the jurisdiction. Therefore, a defendant with an extensive
criminal record and no job, but who poses no risk to the community, might be
held on a relatively high bail when the crime charged might only be a nonviolent
misdemeanor. Consequently, only forty-four
percent of the defendants offered bail in New York City post bail before their
cases go to trial. In most states, bail
determinations are made based on the seriousness of the crime charged as well
as the risk of the defendant not returning for trial.
So what is
the solution? Supervised release. Not only is a system of supervised release
fair for poor defendants, but it also saves the taxpayers money. According to New York’s Chief Judge Lippman,
nationally, it costs taxpayers roughly $19,000 to keep a defendant in jail
before trial, and only $4,000 on a supervised release program. The D.C. Pretrial Services Agency is the
national model for demonstrating that pretrial justice though supervised
release can be achieved and a defendant’s incarceration does not need to depend
on relative wealth. The D.C. Pretrial Services Agency has virtually eliminated the use of money bail without
jeopardizing public safety and using the least restrictive conditions of
release. In 2008, eighty percent of all
defendants were released without money bond, fifteen percent were held without
bail, and only five percent had financial bail. Of the released defendants, eighty-eight
percent made all court appearances, and eighty-eight percent completed the
pretrial release period without a new arrest.
Bail reform
in D.C. began with the Federal Bail Reform Act of 1966, which provided many
factors a judge must consider before making a pretrial release decision. Some of these factors included employment,
community ties, residence status, and other information not typically available
to judges in making bail determinations. By 1967, the D.C. Bail Agency was interviewing
all felony defendants and making those results available to the judges. However, financial bond continued to be the
most popular method of determining detention because there was no way to
supervise released defendants prior to trial.
In 1970, Congress
expanded the D.C. Bail Agency and established an offender supervision unit. Congress also drastically limited the
circumstances in which defendants could be held in pretrial detention so as to
promote pretrial release upon consideration of the risk of danger to the
community in addition to failure to appear in court. In conjunction with the new requirements, the
Agency would make recommendations to the judges on all pretrial detentions
based on an extensive assessment of the information collected on each
defendant. Additionally, the Agency
established a Failure to Appear Unit, which resolves issues with bench warrants
and allows defendants to voluntarily surrender on warrants; a Drug Testing
Unit, which screens all defendants before their initial appearance in court and
implements drug tests while defendants are on pretrial release; and an Intensive
Supervision Unit, which provides supervision to defendants in halfway houses.
Finally, in
1992, the D.C. Code was updated to forbid the use of money bail to detain defendants,
and only permit such use on rare occasions. Since then, D.C. Pretrial Services
has only continued to grow and develop other means through which defendants can
be diverted from jail. Currently, the D.C.
Superior Court runs a Drug Court Program to divert dependent or addicted
defendants with nonviolent misdemeanor and felony charges, and offers
participants a structured approach to treating their addictions. The D.C.
Superior Court also has a Mental Health Community Court to divert mentally ill
defendants and improve their mental health by connecting them with the
appropriate community services and monitoring their progress.
In
conclusion, D.C. Pretrial Services has effectively alleviated the problem of
pretrial incarceration due to wealth disparity and has effectively established
a pretrial release system that results in the safe release of the vast majority of defendants without money bail. Other
states can learn from D.C. by recognizing the importance of extensive data
collection in pretrial release determinations, and collaboration between
pretrial services, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders.
Jared
Engelking
Blogger, Criminal Law Brief
Image by: I, Daniel Schwen [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html), CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)], via Wikimedia Commons.
There are many professionals and group of agents that are highly experienced and will provide to you the best in criminal defence and financial services. You just have to chose what you think is the best company.
ReplyDeleteAuburn Bail Bonds
Great post!!Thanks for sharing it with us....really needed.If you’re currently looking for the best criminal defense lawyer in Tucson, look no further. Our goal here at My AZ Legal Team,
ReplyDeleteis to be the best 24 hour criminal defense law firm doing business in the beautiful state of Arizona.tucson dui lawyer