Some States Fight to Eliminate Cash Bail

WHAT IS PROPOSITION 25?

Proposition 25, officially the Referendum to Overturn a 2018 Law That Replaced Money Bail System with A System Based on Public Safety Risk, is a California ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot for the general election on November 3, 2020.The "no" side prevailed, resulting in retention of the system of cash bail in the state.

The proposition was a veto-referendum that was placed on the ballot by the American Bail Coalition.[3] Placed on the ballot via petition, it is a referendum on 2018's Senate Bill 10, which would have replaced the state's cash bail system with a risk assessment-based bail system, which uses an algorithm to determine whether a suspect should be released. SB 10 had been signed into law in August 2018, and had been scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2019.

A "yes" vote on Proposition 25 is to uphold the contested legislation to replace cash bail with risk assessments, and a "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, and continue the system of cash bail. (Wikipedia, 2021)

After California came up with Proposition 25, literally replacing the age old option of paying bail with simplified risk assessment that deterimines (based usually on criminal record) who is a danger to society or themelves which was already part of the bail determination system. What is different is that a judge is not weighing this against a bail, it is the sole decider-- Before, a judge would decide whether or not a criminal was likely to return to court and that is truly where bail is important--it gives the defendent incentive (aside from apparently his or her freedom) and pushes the defendent to be responsible for returning to court. One MAJOR downfall is that the risk assessment is based on past record and current charges which could cause serious discrimination for someone who is in for a simple misdemeanor and would have bailed out but is now stuck because the judge "felt" he was a menace to society. With a bail system in place, this person would have been responsibile for coming up with bail, making payments, and showing up to court as opposed to no option for bail and simply sitting in jail until court.

The cons definitely outweigh the pros, not to mention the bail bonds agents who have spent their lives building their companies to help families reunite with their loved ones. It's a tough job but someone has to do it. The primary reason for this bill and others like it, is to attack big Insurance companies but at the end of the day, these insurance companies NOR the government are worried about a small-time thief, or a drunk driver, or a prostitute with 3 children who are all awaiting an opportunity to be released until their courtdate. If solely based on the risk assesment performed by a judge and without the availability of a bail bond. most of these defendents will not see the light of day until their courtdate due to being stuck in a viscious criminal cycle. Although the government swears this isn't the case and that they have the defendents' best intentions at heart, leaving the fate of these men and women solely to chance is a recipe for discrimination and disaster. Many who oppose cash bails complaing that it is designed to ensure a certain demographic never gets out because they cannot afford it, have a weak argument considering a bail bondsman works over time to ensure it is affordable through multiple options including multiple co-signers and payment plans. So not only will a large portion of small-time offenders be stuck in a cell, an entire field of business owners and employees will suddenly find themselves out of work.

Bails date back as early as the Wild West and some variation of this field has existed since then, eliminating the option will only cost the government more money to house additional inmates when they find that the jails are even MORE crowded due to an imperfect risk assessment system.