Recently in Policy Category

Law enforcement contends that the new bail law is a "public safety disaster" because it is giving too many dangerous people "get out of jail free" cards.  The bail bond industry has already launched an attack to stop the implementation of the new law that poses to destroy businesses and put thousands of people out of work.  The ACLU and other civil rights groups contend that the new law does not "adequately protect against racial biases and disparities that permeate our justice system."  Law enforcement, the entire bail industry, civil rights groups, and defense attorneys all oppose SB 10 for very different reasons.  As noted in my post yesterday, all groups contend that the law goes too far, albeit in opposite directions.

Is there a compromise that can be reached that will not eviscerate the bail bond industry, will keep dangerous people locked up, ensure their appearance at trial, and take into account a person's ability to afford pretrial release so that poor defendants who pose a low risk of pretrial misconduct are not being preventatively detained at higher rates? 

California eliminates cash bail

| 1 Comment
California Governor Jerry Brown signed "sweeping legislation" into law yesterday that will completely eliminate all cash bail for pretrial detainees as of October 1, 2019, and replace it with "risk assessments" and non-monetary conditions of release.  

SB 10, co-authored by Senator Bob Hertzberg (D - Los Angles) and Assemblyman Rod Bonta (D - Alameda), was first introduced in the Senate in December 2016.  The Bill was co-sponsored by the ACLU and had the support of multiple civil rights groups.  Bail reform advocates argued that cash bail systems unfairly punished the poor--those with money could buy their freedom, while low income individuals could not.  They argued that the ability to pay had nothing to do with whether an arrested individual is a danger to the public or likely to flee pre-trial.  Advocates were pushing for reforms that implemented risk assessment tools to better help guide judges in making decisions as to who should be detained pre-trial.  Only those who are dangerous or flight risks should be detained.  Eliminating cash bail altogether, however, was not on the table. 
Attorney General Sessions has issued a charging directive to federal prosecutors. The heart of it is this:

[I]t is a core principle that prosecutors should charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense. This policy affirms our responsibility to enforce the law, is moral and just, and produces consistency.  This policy fully utilizes the tools Congress has given us.  By definition, the most serious offenses are those that carry the most substantial guidelines sentence, including mandatory minimum sentences.

There will be circumstances in which good judgment would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application of the above charging policy is not warranted.  In that case, prosecutors should carefully consider whether an exception may be justified.  Consistent with longstanding Department of Justice policy, any decision to vary from the policy must be approved by a United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, or a supervisor designated by the United States Attorney or Assistant Attorney General, and the reasons must be documented in the file.

Second, prosecutors must disclose to the sentencing court all facts that impact the sentencing guidelines or mandatory minimum sentences, and should in all cases seek a reasonable sentence under the factors in 18 U.S.C. ยง 3553.  In most cases, recommending a sentence within the advisory guideline range will be appropriate. Recommendations for sentencing departures or variances require supervisory approval, and the reasoning must be documented in the file.

The headline of this post states the explicit policy now adopted in Baltimore.  As summarized in this entry from Prof. Berman, the State's Attorney's Office has embraced a policy of treating lawful citizens more harshly than illegal immigrants for identical conduct.

Of course, this is the same State's Attorney's Office that famously brought very serious charges, including homicide, against six police officers, and failed to prove a single one.  In one case, there was a mistrial; in the next two, an African American judge acquitted the defendants on all counts; and after that, the prosecutor gave up, having achieved her principal goal from the outset, to wit, having smeared the cops without enough evidence to persuade anyone outside of street demonstrators and arsonists of their guilt.

Welcome to Charm City.
LifeZette, a new on-line magazine, is a breath of fresh air in Washington, DC. Instead of the weary, threadbare cliches from the liberal Establishment that have been driving the conversation inside the Beltway for decades, it presents a frankly conservative perspective.  

I was grateful to be able to contribute mine this morning, "Trump Can Reverse the Deadly Spike in Violent Crime."

Slain Officers' Families Oppose Prop. 57

| No Comments
The family members of slain Los Angeles County sheriff's Sgt. Steve Owen and Palm Springs Officer Lesley Zerebny spoke out this week against Prop. 57, calling it a lie, a farce and a "criminal's bill of rights."

Read their remarks here.

Mac Donald v. Solomon

| No Comments
In a written debate regarding what the next presidential administration's policing and criminal justice policies should be, published on on Real Clear Policy, Manhattan Institute scholar Heather Mac Donald and Danyelle Solomon from the Center for American Progress face off.  This is the third part of a series on major policy ideas, from left to right.  It is worth reading.

Here is Mac Donald's piece, here is Solomon's and here are their responses to each other.

Monthly Archives