summary
Assembly Bill 42 and Senate Bill 10 would end the use of money bail schedules. Instead, they would allow state judges to decide if someone should be released on their own recognizance or kept behind bars because they are too dangerous to be set free. Continue reading
prREACH
May 26, 2017 /prREACH/ -- New details emerge about the enormous financial and judicial cost for the proposed reform of California’s bail system. Assembly Bill 42 and Senate Bill 10 would end the use of money bail schedules. Instead, they would allow state judges to decide if someone should be released on their own recognizance or kept behind bars because they are too dangerous to be set free.
Analysis from the State Assembly Appropriations Committee concludes California would have to spend “hundreds of millions of dollars” to reimburse counties for establishing and administering a new pretrial service. The state would also face ongoing expenses in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for court-appointment lawyers for defendants. The Assembly also noted costs for future oversight of the new bail system and for helping counties develop a “risk assessment” tool in carrying out the new rules.
In addition to costing California taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, the bills would put thousands of people in the state out of a job. All-Pro Bail Bonds owner, Steffan Gibbs, says the legislation would end the careers of more than 170 employees at his company. “These are hard-working Californians, who consider this a career. Where will they get work? How will they support their families?”, states Gibbs.
The Alliance of California Judges, a group of more than 500 judges and retired judges across the state, are now also voicing their strong opposition to AB 42 and SB 10. These judges make thousands of rulings on bail every day. The Alliance sent a letter to Assemblyman Rob Bonta, one of authors of AB 42. The letter stated that these proposals are, in their words, “simply too drastic and that the effects on public safety and court congestion could be catastrophic”.
Both bills face a May 26 deadline for moving out of the Legislature’s fiscal committees.