pretrial release baloney

A tale of two conferences: Publicly funded pretrial release advocates are very good at spending someone else’s money to attack those of us who have to earn our own way.

Representatives of approximately 200 federal, state, and local agencies are meeting in Washington DC this week to attend the so-called “Worldwide Pretrial Innovators Convention.”

This gathering is hosted by the folks at the Pretrial Justice Institute, headed by their CEO, Cherise Fanno Burdeen. Ms Burdeen delivered the keynote address to her convention of government employees. The audio in the clip below is horrible but in just over a minute, Ms. Burdeen disparages the legal giant Paul Clement, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, “and my favorite, the reality stars Dog the Bounty Hunter and Beth Chapman who have traveled to Georgia, Connecticut, Harris County and other places and appealed to their Twitter followers whenever the threat of reform arises.”

Each of the attendees at this conference has two things in common. The first is that they would like to eliminate what they refer to as “money bail.” (This is what judges and bail agents refer to as secured, accountable bail.) The second thing the attendees have in common is that none of them use their own hard-earned money to pay for the considerable costs of attending the convention.

The folks attending this lavish affair which is taking place at a $250+ per night Washington DC hotel are employed by government agencies or in some cases via grants or other pseudo public funding. They don’t have to spend any of their own money to live it up on someone else’s dime. That someone else, of course, is invariably us taxpayers. They use our taxes to host a party convention during which they strategize how best to eliminate our profession.

Incredibly, the folks at PJI actually provide pretrial release government employees with a helpful template for them to use in obtaining the thousands of dollars needed to fund the costs of attending the convention:

<Date>

 Dear <Decision-maker>,

I would like to request funding to attend the Worldwide Pretrial Innovators Convention (Pi-Con) in Washington, DC, March 8-9th, 2017. This convention, the first of its kind, will be hosted by the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI). The event offers a unique experience to convene both policy leaders and practitioners to explore the possibilities of innovation within pretrial justice. It will be a gathering of some of the boldest leaders in pretrial policy and practice in the country and is designed to offer exceptional educational and networking opportunities to increase the effectiveness of pretrial policies and practices.

It is anticipated that 250 federal, state and local organizations and agencies will be represented. This diverse attendee base will maximize my opportunities for sharing ideas and solutions to bring home and implement in <Your city name here>. The event is for and with the unstoppable, mindful, creative and fun people who see pretrial injustice every day and are compelled to fix it—intellectually, operationally and emotionally.

The conference will include sessions and learning opportunities where I can gather tangible takeaways to bring back home on a variety of topics important to our community, such as simulation exercises of various pretrial issues, discussions with impacted community members, workshops on turning pretrial data into effective policies, the media’s role in pretrial reform and more. Specific workshop titles include <Add specific conference workshops and session titles from the conference website to customize for your city’s/town’s needs and interests>. Given that the conference is designed to be experiential, I am confident that these workshops will not only be advantageous to my work, but also beneficial to our local jurisdiction as well.

Outside of the sessions, there will be countless opportunities for me to meet and build relationships with policy and practice leaders and experts from all over the country who may serve as key contacts for both present and future initiatives in <Your city name here>. The opportunity to make valuable connections at this convention will be priceless.

Part of what makes Pi-Con a “must attend” event is the exclusivity of having a safe place to create new ideas, focus on innovation and being able to network with leaders in the field. PJI is the hub of this growing pretrial community, and this convention celebrates those who advance pretrial justice at all levels within government, the community, and stakeholder groups. This convention is on the brink of what will be the future of the pretrial justice world, it is an opportunity that I feel compelled to take.

<The numbers in brackets below will need to be adjusted to reflect the current pricing. The travel costs vary as well and should be changed to reflect your costs.>

<You will need to insert your travel cost numbers here>

Here is the breakdown of conference costs:

Roundtrip Airfare: <$xxxx

Transportation: <$xxxx>

Hotel: $247 plus tax per night

Meals & Incidentals: Govt. per diem, Washington, DC $69 per day (through Sept. 2017)

Conference Fee: $600 through February 25th, 2017

The total costs associated with attending this conference are: <$xxxx>.

With such a great offering of educational content and relationship-building opportunities in one place, having representatives from <Your city name here> at the conference will afford our team of leader’s access to top strategies and best practices that will help create lasting change in the pretrial world. Attached is the full agenda.

Sincerely,  <Your Name Here>

In contrast, the Professional Bail Agents of the United States (PBUS) holds two conferences each year to network and provide information, education and representation for the 15,000 bail agents nationwide. Each of the PBUS attendees has to actually earn the funds needed for them to travel to, register and participate in the conference. Private bail agents have to leave their businesses and pay from their own pocket all of the costs associated with participating in the conference. At the most recent PBUS conference the hotel rates were $49 per night if booked in advance. (Astoundingly, one of the topics at the PJI convention in their $250+ per night hotel will be the absurd claim that private bail agents transfer wealth from the poor communities. Seriously. After this, they will share expensive drinks at the bar while they discuss making un-convicted defendants pay for check-ins, urine tests, GPS bracelets and anger management counseling.)

Thankfully, many bail agents from across the United States see the wisdom in supporting our national association and are willing to make the financial sacrifice required in order to support both the PBUS and their own livelihoods.

The pendulum is finally starting to swing the other way. Policy makers and politicians are beginning to learn what experienced criminal court judges already know: that private, secured bail serves to assure the appearance of the accused. These “no money bail” charlatans and swindlers are being exposed for what they are: proponents of still more failed and expensive government programs with no accountability for public safety. They won the battle in New Jersey (temporarily) but are clearly losing the war — in the courts, in the street and even in the press. The so-called “bail reform” that has been enacted in New Jersey is proving to be a dangerous, expensive and unmitigated disaster.

The sham artists at PJI like to point out that in Washington DC (the location of their lavish convention) no one is required to put up “money bail” to secure their appearance in court. They stand silent on the outgoing police chief’s assertion that the criminal justice system in that city is “beyond broken.” None of the break-out sessions at their convention will address the hundreds of thousands of felony fugitives who fail to appear in court.

The next PBUS conference will be held from July 16-19, 2017 at the Renaissance Orlando at SeaWorld. Room rates are $149. Unfortunately, the PBUS does not supply bail agents with a helpful template to scam taxpayer dollars to cover your costs. In spite of this, bail agents will find the conference worthwhile. I encourage all bail agents to attend and participate. And if you do go, take a minute to thank Beth Chapman for the work she’s doing for us. Judging by the video clip above it’s clear that she’s caught the attention of the folks who want us out-of-business.

The best way to promote any Bail Reform scheme that proposes to eliminate secured accountable bail: Lie and disregard the inconvenient truths.

No rational taxpayer will like the inevitable consequences of releasing all accused criminals on unsecured bail and promises to appear.

New Orleans City Councilman Susan G. Guidry introduced a Municipal Ordinance that would require the jail to release all accused criminals immediately following their booking. For those who must appear before a judge, the proposed ordinance directs the judge to release the accused on his or her own recognizance.

During a September 19, 2016 meeting of the New Orleans City Council Criminal Justice Committee, Municipal Court Judge Paul N. Sens testified and shared some of his experiences as a sitting judge. You can view the entire committee hearing here.

Councilwoman Guidry pretends to be “astounded” that bail bond agents are vehemently opposed to her ordinance. In her mind, large numbers of poor people are forced to languish in jail solely due to their inability to post a bond. Even though everyone accused of a misdemeanor in New Orleans currently sees a judge within 24-hours, Guidry wants accused criminals released immediately on unsecured bonds. Her proposed ordinance includes:

  • “The Court may not place a secured financial condition on a warrant of arrest.”
  • “No defendant may be detained because of failure to abide by a non-financial release condition due to inability to pay.”

Amazingly, this would include defendants with a history of failures to appear.

In an attempt to make her proposals palatable to voters, Councilwoman Guidry falsely claims that this will apply to non-violent misdemeanors only and have no negative impact on public safety or quality of life.  The hearing included this remarkable exchange between Councilwoman Guidry and the Honorable Judge Paul See.

JUDGE SEE: “We do have a large number of failing to appears. . . We have probably in the neighborhood of 40,000. I think the last time I checked we had over 40,000 warrants for people’s arrest for failing to appear in court.”

Councilwoman Guidry doesn’t like this testimony because it conflicts with her unfounded belief that the method of release has no impact on failures to appear in court. She counters with this stumbling attempt to state that secured bail isn’t working:

COUNCILWOMAN GUIDRY: “So obviously the bail doesn’t keep that from happening. The bond does not keep that from happening. You got 40,000 and you know if somebody is gonna not show I would assume they’re not gonna show for whatever they are out once they are out they are not gonna come back whether its that they couldn’t get out until the first hearing so you gave them first hearing and then you gave them a trial date. And they’re not gonna come back for that trial date if that’s who they are or if that’s their circumstance.”

JUDGE SEE: “And really the only difference to that is whether or not a bond company is on the line that they have to pay the court for their failure to appear and they go back and they get that person and bring him to court. That’s the difference.”

COUNCILWOMAN GUIDRY: “And on a municipal charge how often does that happen?”

JUDGE SEE: “Oh, quite a bit actually. When I was in court this morning we had three of them.”

This is honest testimony based upon the honorable judge’s actual courtroom experience. It is not what Councilwoman Guidry wants to hear. It doesn’t fit her false narrative. She goes on to claim that she has “asked for the data” (regarding bondsman writing small bonds and returning their fugitives to municipal court) and claims “We have not been able to get it.”  She follows this with a whopper of a lie:

COUNCILWOMAN GUIDRY: “We’ve just been told by people who practice in the court that as a rule that bondsman won’t write small bonds.”

This is poppycock. Her false statement is immediately challenged by one of her colleagues on the City Council. Does anyone believe for even a second that a City Councilwoman who chairs the Criminal Justice Committee cannot easily obtain the number of secured and unsecured bonds posted in the City of New Orleans Municipal Court? Likewise, the number, and dollar amounts of forfeited secured bonds is a matter of public record maintained by the Clerk of the Court.

Why is it so important for Councilwoman Guidry to pretend that New Orleans bail agents won’t write small bonds? Because no rational person would suggest that it’s better to let all accused criminals out on unsecured promises to appear when the alternative is secured accountable bail that is posted to assure court appearance at no cost to the taxpayers.

So Congressman Lieu, what exactly caused you to decide that eliminating all money from bail would be a good idea?

Congressman Ted Lieu of California recently participated in a bail reform panel at the UCLA School of Law. We, of course, know Congressman Lieu as the guy who would like to eliminate our livelihoods and put the nation’s 20,000 bail agents out of business. As an aside, guess who wasn’t on the panel? Bail agents, judges or anyone with a working knowledge of how secured bail actually works. The bail “expert” on the panel was from the ACLU.

Regardless, Congressman Lieu was asked if there was a particular reason why he decided to seek the complete elimination of all money in bail with his ill-advised “No Money Bail Act of 2016.” The congressman said,

“So we decided to take all money out of it because D.C. did it and it works pretty darn well.”

Pretty darn well, Congressman Liue? Seriously? That’s not quite how the outgoing Chief of Washington D.C.’s police department described it. After 26 years with the department and almost a decade as its Chief, she described D.C.’s criminal justice system as “beyond broken.” Beyond broken sounds a long way from “pretty darn well.”

The only thing the District of Columbia’s pretrial release (“no money”) program does well is spend massive amounts of the taxpayer’s money. They do that spectacularly well. Washington D.C.’s pretrial release program spends $230 million annually in order to “supervise” roughly 4,000 accused defendants on any given day. Almost 13% of the people released through the program subsequently fail to appear for their court dates and over 27% commit new crimes while out on the “supervised release.”

No jurisdiction other than the Federal government could afford to spend so much with so little to show for it.

Here’s what D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier had to say to reporters at The Washington Post when she threw in the towel:

“The criminal justice system in this city is broken,” Lanier said, citing what she sees as the lack of outrage over repeat offenders as a key reason for her decision to take a job as head of security for the National Football League. “It is beyond broken.”

The chief talked about the arrest of a man last week who she said was on home detention when his GPS tracking device became inoperable. Police allege the man then went on a crime rampage that started in Maryland and ended in the District. They say it included a robbery, a shooting and a car theft that resulted in a crash that left a bystander critically injured.

“That person’s GPS went offline Aug. 12,” Lanier said. “We didn’t know it. The agency that supervises that person didn’t tell anybody or do anything with it. . . . That shouldn’t happen. And it’s happening over and over and over again. Where the hell is the outrage? . . . People are being victimized who shouldn’t be. You can’t police the city if the rest of the justice system is not accountable.”

Outgoing D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier asked, “Where is the outrage?”

There is none coming from Congressman Lieu. He says the no money bail system in Washington D.C. works “pretty darn well.”

Newsflash: “Money Bail fails to solve Climate Change!”

It would laughable if the stakes weren’t so high and the subject matter not so tragic.

According to their website, the Pretrial Justice Institute’s core purpose is “to advance safe, fair, and effective juvenile and adult pretrial justice practices and policies that honor and protect all people.” They are certainly not interested in protecting or honoring the approximately 17,000 hard-working private bail agents who make a living by assuring that accused defendants actually appear in court.

That said, the actual mission of this outfit is advocacy for the elimination of any and all monetary terms of pretrial release. They want to end what they refer to as “money bail.” (You and I call this secured accountable, pretrial release.) PJI attempts to “educate” policy makers and criminal justice stakeholders through the use of flawed studies, false premises, bad data and poorly disguised propaganda. They routinely disregard any academic studies whose conclusions are inconsistent with their core belief that the use of “money bail” to assure a defendant’s appearance in court is inherently wrong.

The Honorable Chief Judge Craig DeArmond In Danville, Illinois recently wrote an excellent essay, “Bail Reform – Is there another side to this argument?

His article is well worth distributing to the judges, politicians and policy makers in your jurisdiction. Chief DeArmond writes:

“Was I the only one who felt like we were being asked …, no, told we had to drink the Kool-Aid of no money bail reform or face eternal damnation?”

“What I found was the people so vehemently advocating this massive change in the bail system have been doing so under different names and different umbrellas for several decades. What they have in common is a progressive agenda being marketed as “evidence based practices”; the current buzzword in social engineering. Frequently funded by progressive philanthropists like George Soros and others, these groups have a much broader agenda than merely bail reform.

Don’t get me wrong… although I don’t personally agree with George Soros and his world view, nor will I ever be mistaken for a progressive, I have no problem with the fact that they are able to express their views. I take issue however, when we are given bad data, outdated studies, and recycled propaganda in the form of “judicial education” and being told essentially, there is no other perspective.

It does not take long when you start researching bail reform to find alternative positions, studies, and evaluations of the same data which produce dramatically different conclusions. It takes even less time to find jurisdictions which tried an increased use of no money bail and eventually returned to an expanded cash bail system due to the dramatic increase in failures to appear and crimes committed while free on bail.”

This judge deserves credit for recognizing that we are being sold a bill of goods. It is also worth noting that Chief Judge Craig DeArmond presides in Illinois — one of the few jurisdictions within the United States that prohibits the use of commercial bail.

So it’s obvious that the charlatans at the “Pretrial Justice Institute” will say or do just about anything in order to advance their agenda.  However, even in this light, the most recent blog post by PJI is disingenuous, shameless and disgusting.

Cherise Fanno Burdeen — the wing-nut CEO of PJI — claims to have actually figured out what causes domestic violence and how we as a nation can solve this horrific problem.

Even though domestic violence has been on a steady decline for decades, it obviously remains a horrible and heart breaking problem. In the United States an average of three women each day are murdered by intimate partners. We suffer the highest rate of domestic violence homicide of any industrialized country. Thousands of people experience domestic abuse every day. They come from all walks of life.

Cherise Fanno Burdeen, No tragedy too great to exploit.

Cherise Fanno Burdeen,
No tragedy too great to exploit.

Cherise Fanno Burdeen and the rest of the hypocrites at PJI have a solution to the complex problem of domestic violence: End money bail. Seriously. Presumably in honor of “Domestic Violence Awareness Month,” Burdeen obtained the names of four women who were each tragically murdered last year. According to this disingenuous dimwit, here is why these four women were murdered: “because of failed money bail systems.”

Unlike Burdeen, I am not going to exploit the names of these victims. The women who were murdered are real people, not props. But it is important to note that these victims were from four different jurisdictions across the United States – some of which do not even utilize secured, private bail or bail agents.

In some of the cases the accused murderers violated their conditions of pretrial release with no consequence. (In other words, the “supervised” release conditions touted by PJI). The actual facts obviously don’t matter to Ms. Burdeen or her comrades. Her concern is only for her narrative: “Money bail did nothing to protect these poor murdered women.”

Let’s be clear. Publicly funded government-run pretrial release programs don’t do anything to protect the public or victims of domestic violence. Note that PJI spotlights Washington DC as the poster-child for bail reform. The PJI website prominently proclaims that the nation’s capital is “DOING THINGS RIGHT” and “The District of Columbia does not use money to detain pretrial defendants.” Leaving aside the insane amount of tax dollars which they spend, this is the same pretrial release program that placed a GPS monitoring bracelet on a murderer’s prosthetic leg. This is the jurisdiction which allows repeat violent offenders, including rapists, to be released over and over again with no consequence.  Washington D.C. is where the Police Chief recently quit her job, saying, “The criminal justice system in this city is broken.” DOING THINGS RIGHT, indeed.

The critical distinction is that private bail agents have never laid claim to guaranteeing a defendant’s behavior – only his or her appearance in court. Burdeen’s insensitive blog piece doesn’t come right out and state the only logical option which could have actually served to prevent the four tragic murders. It is not “no money bail” as she claims. It’s no bail whatsoever.

This is the tragic irony. PJI’s advocacy invariably ends up promoting indefinite pretrial detention. Should all four of the accused defendants have each been held in jail with no bail? In hindsight, we would hope that they had been of course. But should everyone accused of domestic violence be held with no bail? Should the detention of an accused person – the deprivation of their liberty – depend on nine variables plugged into some “risk score” assessment?  PJI claims that their “core values” support pretrial detention only as the result of due process that determined no conditions would reasonably assure appearance and community safety. The same misguided folks who clamor for an end to “money bail” now advance the unintended consequence of the increased use of preventive pretrial detention. Burdeen and her cohorts have unwittingly become the most vocal proponents of “lock ’em up and throw away the key.” How else would Burdeen propose to actually protect the four murdered women whom she uses as an advertisement for her continued government funding?

Our Constitution’s prohibition against excessive bail means that we can’t keep accused defendants locked up in jail simply because they scored out wrong on a bogus “risk assessment” test.

So called “money bail” is an efficient and time honored way to secure the appearance of an accused defendant. A bail bond is a three-party contract between the state, the accused, and the surety, whereby the surety guarantees appearance of the accused. Ms. Burdeen is correct that private secured bail is not a panacea or a replacement for judges, police, and lawmakers. The prosecutors and judges who daily deal with accusations of domestic violence struggle mightily. They don’t get to blame tragic outcomes on flawed algorithms. Here are quotes from a judge and prosecutor in one of the cases which Burdeen gratuitously cites:

 “It’s not like you can just put information into a computer and spit out what the appropriate bail would be; I don’t think that would be realistic,” he said. “There are people that are charged with making that decision … looking at all the facts and all the input they get.”

The judge defended his decision, while also expressing anguish over its outcome. He said he decided to double the suggested bond from $50,000 to $100,000 based upon his experience and available court records, he told the CantonRep. And he said prosecutors did not recommend a bond amount.

“I’m not blaming anyone … but the red flags weren’t there,” he said.

At the same time, however, the judge also appeared to express remorse over the possibility that his ruling gave Dragan a second, and successful, alleged attempt to kill his ex-wife.

“I feel horrible about this situation,” he told the Canton Rep. “I sympathize with the family (and) with the children — it’s a terrible, tragic situation for the community. I feel terrible about it.”

“I think the judge made what he believed to be a good decision with the information that he had at the time and it’s always easy to look back,” the Canton prosecutor Ty Hauritz told the newspaper. “But I don’t … think (the $100,000 bond was) out of the ordinary.”

Private, secured bail works. It serves to assure the appearance of accused defendants who are released pretrial. Cherise Fanno Burdeen doesn’t like “money bail” or what we do for a living. That’s her prerogative. But it’s spectacularly insensitive to suggest that secured bail caused the deaths of the four murder victims whom she exploits in her blog. For her edification, here are a few other “Money Bond Failures”:

  • Money Bonds fails to improve the Miami Dolphin’s offensive woes
  • Money Bonds fails to balance the United States budget deficit
  • Money Bonds fails to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East
  • Money Bonds fails to spend taxpayer funds (like the $1.3 million the Pretrial Justice Institute burns through annually.)

Because everyone else is doing it. Or because everyone else is not doing it.

A look at one of the lame-brained arguments used by opponents of accountable, secured pretrial release.

And, besides, what’s wrong with something that’s uniquely American?

Anyone in the bail bond business knows that there is an increasingly vocal and strident minority who would like to eliminate our profession completely. It doesn’t matter to them how effective we are at guaranteeing the appearance of defendants released pretrial. It doesn’t matter to them that we go out and routinely apprehend dangerous criminals who fail to appear at no cost to the taxpayers. It doesn’t matter to them that we are accountable to the criminal justice system and to the courts. It most certainly doesn’t matter to them that we pay taxes, support families and serve our communities.

None of the relevant facts matter. They are committed to ending what they call “money bail.” (We call it constitutionally protected secured bail.) The more money that these outfits siphon from the public trough, the louder become their cries to eliminate the evils of “money” in the criminal justice system. The irony is not lost on me that these “free” publicly-funded pretrial release advocates solicit “money” donations on their websites and grant applications.

Outfits like PJI burn through copious amounts of hard earned taxpayer “money” to produce bogus “studies” which invariably conclude that accused defendants should be released on unsecured bail bonds. One of their recurring fallacious arguments concerns the role of private commercial bail agents in the United States.

Popular does not always equal right

Popular does not always equal right

They argue that the United States is the only country in the world that has commercial bondsmen. Sometimes their claim is modified to state that only the United States and Singapore have commercial bail. I don’t know if this true or not, but honestly, who cares? The flawed argument is that since other countries don’t have such a system, therefore “money” (ie: secured and accountable) bail here in the United States ought to be eliminated.

First of all, when I went to school this was called an argumentum ad populum. My Mom had a much simpler description, “If all of your idiot friends jumped off of a bridge would you, too?[1] To be clear, what they are saying to policy makers and anyone else who will listen to their poppycock is that if most countries don’t have commercial bail, then commercial bail must not have value. To show you just how hypocritical and disingenuous they are, they will often follow this illogical argument – sometimes in the very following paragraph – with the claim that Washington DC and Kentucky have eliminated commercial bail and therefore the other states in the U.S. should as well. So they are left with this absurd position: Eliminate commercial bail because the overwhelming majority of the other countries don’t have it. Eliminate commercial bail even though the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions in the United States use it.

They are wrong on both counts. Of course it’s preposterous to suggest that commercial bail should be eliminated because other countries don’t have it. We have commercial bail because it is effective and serves a critical role in our criminal justice system – not because of its popularity in other countries. Besides the fact that such an argument is illogical, what is wrong with something being uniquely American?

I am proud of my profession as a bail agent. I am also proud to be a citizen of the United States. I could be wrong, but I think that – just like commercial bail – the following are some things that are uniquely American:

  • College Football
  • BBQ
  • Muscle cars
  • Thanksgiving
  • Boy Scouts
  • Apple Pie
  • Blue Jeans

The next time you hear one of these misguided zealots say that only the United States has commercial bail, let them know that it has taken the rest of the world a while to catch up with us on NFL football and Harley Davison motorcycles as well.

[1] Sometimes, Mom.

Absurd Tragedy illustrates inadequacies of Government-run Pretrial Release Programs

The vocal detractors of “money bail” often point to Washington D.C. as shining example of how things could be if we eliminated secured accountable private bail. Sadly, they couldn’t be more right.

In Washington D.C. they release 85% of accused criminals awaiting trial on unsecured bail through such a program. Program administrators claim that a whopping 87% of those released through their bloated government agency actually show up to court, though this figure is highly suspect. Even if accurate, having 13% of all accused criminals not show for trial hardly seems worth bragging about. Any bondsman who had 13% of his defendants on the lam would be looking for a new line of work.

Washington D.C. has tens of thousands of open felony warrants, and of course no one from the Pretrial Services Agency goes out looking for any of them. They do claim to send friendly text messages — which surely has D.C.’s most dangerous fugitives quaking in their boots.

On paper the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia looks fantastic. In return for the hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars ($231,304,986 in 2015) they produce beautiful four-color reports and lofty mission statements like this:

The GPS tracker was attached to the suspect's fake leg.

The GPS tracker was attached to the suspect’s fake leg.

The Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia (PSA) assists judicial officers in both the Superior Court of the District of Columbia and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by conducting a risk assessment for every arrested person who will be presented in court and formulating release or detention recommendations based upon the arrestee’s demographic information, criminal history, and substance abuse and/or mental health information.

For defendants who are placed on conditional release pending trial, PSA provides supervision and treatment services that reasonably assure that they return to court and do not engage in criminal activity pending their trial and/or sentencing.

PSA supervises approximately 16,000 defendants each year, and has oversight for approximately 4,000 individuals on any given day. PSA’s caseloads include individuals being supervised on a full range of charges from misdemeanor property offenses to felony murder. PSA administers evidence-based and data-informed risk assessment and supervision practices to identify factors related to pretrial misconduct and to maximize the likelihood of arrest-free behavior and court appearance during the pretrial period. PSA continues to improve its identification of defendants who pose a higher risk of pretrial failure, enhance its supervision and oversight of these defendants.

Supervise defendants to support court appearance and enhance public safety. PSA effectively monitors or supervises pretrial defendants to promote court appearance and public safety.

It sounds impressive, right? Of course most jurisdictions would be hard pressed to budget $230 million in order to supervise 4,000 defendants. (It’s nice to be the Federal Government.) Regardless, the Pretrial Services Agency has served the District of Columbia for nearly 50 years and is widely recognized by advocates of publicly funded pretrial release programs as a national leader in the field of pretrial supervision. They regard the Pretrial Services Agency’s “innovative supervision and treatment programs” as models for the criminal justice system.

What does this actually mean when they brag about how well this government program supervises and monitors accused criminals who are released pretrial? According to their own questionable records, more than 13 of every 100 released to their “supervision” abscond. And as for the ones that don’t become fugitives?  How, precisely, are they supervised in order to support court appearance and enhance public safety?

In April of this year, Quincy Green, 44, was arrested in Washington D.C. and accused of gun charges. He was released from jail pretrial through the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia. Green was enrolled in the program’s most restrictive form of pretrial release:  a GPS tracking bracelet. He joined the ranks of some 400 other defendants in D.C. who are awaiting trial and roaming about the capital while wearing a GPS tracker.

On May 19, 2016, Dana Hamilton was fatally shot. D.C. police suspected that Quincy Green was the murderer but the Pretrial Services Agency insisted that Green was confined to his apartment and that the GPS tracker proved he was not in the area where the murder took place. Eyewitness testimony and even sightings of Green by police officers were dismissed because the agency’s GPS data “proved” otherwise.

Finally the police obtained a search warrant based in part on a statement that the “devise barely moved” over the course of three days, something that somehow escaped the notice of the pretrial agency engaged in actively “monitoring” his whereabouts.

Police found the GPS tracking devise in Green’s apartment, attached to his prosthetic leg.

“I don’t understand how someone could put this device on a prosthetic leg,” said Sgt. Matthew Mahl, chairman of the D.C. police union. “It is frustrating for us as police officers to have one of our defendants released, especially when talking about dangerous crime like guns–and then to know that the accountability for these defendants isn’t always up to par.”

The director of the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia said all the right things, of course, including “This is the first instance where something like this has happened, and the results were tragic.”

It’s no doubt the first time they put a GPS tracker on a fake leg but it’s certainly not the first or last time that they release violent criminals with no one held accountable for either appearance in court or public safety. Guess how many employees of the pretrial agency will be fired over the murder of Dana Hamilton? Do you think they will cancel the contract with the private contractor who supplies and fits the GPS bracelets on the accused criminals they release? It’s naive to think that either will happen. Rather, the pretrial releases agency will continue to sell gullible taxpayers and politicians a bill-of-goods, that they safely release and supervise accused criminals.

Imagine the immense indifference and utter apathy required in order to fit a GPS tracker to a fake leg. This is far more than a forgivable lapse or simple mistake. This is the act of a person with absolute security that comes from knowing he cannot actually be held accountable. You would never ever find a bondsman making such a mistake since by definition he or she is accountable.  This kind of couldn’t-possibly-care-less attitude thrives amongst government employees where no one is actually held responsible for what happens. The budget of Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia will not be adjusted one penny following this tragedy. After a flurry of memorandums regarding not fitting the GPS trackers over a sock, the murder of Dana Hamilton will be quickly forgotten.

But it will not be forgotten by the 72-year old mother of the murdered victim: “This was the worst thing that ever happened to me. That man was supposed to be in his house.”

This is what the “free” publicly-funded pretrial release charlatans try to pass off as neutral, unbiased, and “evidence-based” when they peddle their baloney.

I recently received a link to a blog written by a disingenuous lying twat named Tim Schnacke. Schnacke wants to eliminate financially secured bail. That’s certainly his prerogative and he is not alone in his misguided beliefs. There are a number of folks — invariably on some version of the public dole — who think financially secured bail is somehow wrong. They try to create data to support their position but, lacking that, they typically fall back on their fundamental belief that what we do for a living as bail agents is somehow morally wrong. They don’t like us. They don’t like that we earn a living (“money bail”). If you scratch hard enough what they really don’t like is “caging” people. (This is their latest euphemism for jailing criminals.)

Tim Schnacke, liar

Tim Schnacke. Academic degrees? Yep! Integrity? Not so much.

Tim Schnacke and the folks like him advocate that when a police officer makes an arrest for a crime — immediately following the arrest — the officer should apologize to the accused for society’s many shortcomings. The officer should also express remorse for the inconvenience of having had to endure the arrest. After issuing a sincere and heartfelt apology, the police officer should then uncuff the accused criminal and issue to them a written notice to pretty please appear in court for their trial. What could possibly go wrong with that?

But I don’t begrudge Tim Schnacke for being a misguided and naïve moron. He, of course, holds quite a different opinion of himself (taken from his website):

“I think I’ve had plenty of formal education, and I hope I’m not forced to get any more (although I’m taking two classes on Coursera!)

And even though he wants to eliminate my livelihood, I don’t have any qualms with him running his outfit “The Center for Legal and Evidence-Based Practices” and hustling up as many handouts and grants as he can. (I am not sure how he makes a living but panhandling on the internet is part of the mix.) What does irk me, though, is that Tim Schnacke consistently and repeatedly claims to be neutral.

“The Center is neutral and nonpartisan, but articulates positions when they are supported by unbiased research and laws with firm constitutional bases.”

On his website, he writes:

“I’m Tim, a neutral voice in the world of bail reform and pretrial justice.”

Astoundingly, he italicizes and bold faces “a neutral voice,” presumably to emphasize his shameless lie

Does this well-educated (“I have a law degree, a masters of law degree, and a masters of criminal justice degree in addition to the two degrees that I got in college!”) dolt sound “neutral” to you? Please read the following excerpts from his blog and website and make a determination as to whether he is unbiased and neutral.

“The secured money bail system not only causes countless harms to society, it defies virtually every notion of American freedom and equality that we defend in our founding documents. Its very existence makes us worse.”

“The American bail system hasn’t worked since 1900.”

“This generation of bail reform, as most of you now know, is not so much a fight against bail agents as it is a fight about money at bail – which is why the statement on the agenda of all the “threatening arguments against the bail industry” is so misleading.”

“with insurance companies making money for doing nothing”

“when people are fully educated in bail, they automatically move toward change, and that change involves adopting a risk-informed system of pretrial release and detention (both for assessment and supervision) using less or no money.”

“the current system – with all of those huge amounts of money based on charge – is fundamentally flawed”

“the idea of a bail schedule being anything less than arbitrary and completely irrational is ludicrous.”

“As my dear friend’s delightful middle school daughter might respond, “OMG!” Doesn’t discriminate against the poor?! Are you nuts? It’s a money-based system, for goodness sake. Bail agents only help defendants with money.”

“we have simply spent too long not thinking money bail wrong”

“There may be a place for private pretrial in America, but the window for finding that place is rapidly closing.”

“Personally, I don’t think money is ever appropriate, but for those judges having a hard time with that idea, using an unsecured bond at least gets the defendant out of jail quickly”

“If I were in the bail insurance business, I would stop trying to pick apart the Arnold study and start trying to figure out how to change my business practices so that defendants deemed safe enough for release would at least get released quickly, even if that meant I might not make as much money.”

“They are a business, after all, supported by big corporate insurance companies with a fiduciary duty to make money despite whatever erosion to justice that may cause.”

“We need complete reform, and we can only accomplish that reform by intentionally leaving out many of the people responsible for the current broken system.”

“The other day I had an older gentleman who had been involved in criminal justice for decades try to argue with me about what he saw were the benefits of secured money bail.”

Does any of this poppycock sound remotely “neutral” or “objective” to you?  Schnacke is a poster child for opponents of accountability in pretrial release practices. When the data doesn’t support their beliefs, these hypocrites shamelessly lie and change their terminology. (“Calling it ‘Risk Assessment’ will work!”) This is why Schnacke is so adamant in his claims that bail is not about appearance. (“The purpose of bail itself is to release people!”)

If Schnacke can persuade gullible policy makers that bail is about release and not appearance then pretrial release programs can compete effectively with private bail. Any program — even inept ones run by government employees — can release people from jail. That’s the easy part. The answer to jail overcrowding according to these morons? It’s simple. Just release defendants from jail and ask them to please appear in court for their trial date. In Schnacke’s fantasy world, bail is solely about releasing people from jail. That has never been the purpose of any of the thousands of bail bonds I have been involved in posting. Each bail bond we post is a commitment and an obligation to have the defendant appear in court. Failing in that obligation, we risk paying a substantial penalty to the state.

Hypocrites like Schnacke claim that bail agents don’t arrest bond skips and return them to court following a non appearance. (“I have research to prove it!” he claims.)  Have you ever met a single bail agency owner who has not located, apprehended and surrendered their bond skips back to the court? Have you ever met a bail agent who hasn’t on occasion had to pay a bond forfeiture because he or she was unable to locate a fugitive in time? I have not.

Private bail works because independent committed bail agents are financially accountable to the courts for the appearance of accused defendants. To protect their financial guarantee, bail agents enlist the support and participation of the accused defendant’s family members, friends, and employers to help ensure their appearance.

Pretrial release on private financially secured bail works. Tim Schnacke? Not so much. In lieu of actual work, he prefers to panhandle on the internet and try to convince anyone who will listen that our honorable profession ought to be eliminated and replaced with ineffective government programs. Here then is my “neutral” and “objective” informed opinion of Tim Schnacke: He is a liar and a hypocrite.