Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

Reform bail system, don't discard it [Commentary]

The Sun editorial on amending the bail system ("Better Bail," Nov. 29) argues that changing the bail system from a financial-based system to a risk-based system would provide a fairer way of getting defendants to court regardless of financial status, but such a move would likely create many more problems that it will ever solve.

Judges make decisions about bail with input from prosecutors, defense attorneys and pretrial investigators. The system we have now, while far from perfect, mandates that defendants who deserve release on some kind of bail will get a bail as long as there is a surety attached to them coming to court.

By having bail bondsmen involved, there are licensed, bonded, insured officers of the court who take on significant risk for a defendant deciding to skip town and not appear for court.

The reality show "Dog: Bounty Hunter" showcased these risks when star Duane Chapman and his team were dispatched to locales across the country to chase suspects who skipped their obligation to come to court.

Bail bondsmen can be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars if their clients don't show up to court, and they are a very good check and balance on defendants thinking of skipping.

Bondsmen are required to take 10 percent down, such as $10,000 on a $100,000 bond, though most will take less up front and collect the rest in a payment plan.

It is true that poorer defendants (and their families) won't always have the money to make bond even when the amount might be reasonable for more well-off defendants. But that's a reason to improve the system, not throw it out.

Cash bails are not the answer. They force clients to come up with cash, the entire amount, and poorer defendants rarely can afford that, whereas someone in their family might be able to afford putting up equity in a home as surety, where less cash is needed.

Requiring bondsmen to collect less than 10 percent is an option. If bondsmen were forced to collect only, say, five percent on bonds higher than $50,000, then more defendants could afford the bail if payment plan amounts could also be amended.

Without having some kind of prod, defendants released in a risk-based system, which seeks to gauge their likelihood of flight or danger, won't have any incentive to come to court with nothing holding as surety. The higher-risk defendants would still be sitting where they are now, held without bail in jail until their trial dates.

The state would be forced, on the lower-risk ones, to spend thousands of dollars chasing those who disappear and have no assistance from the bondsmen. Now, bondsmen have the onus to chase skips because it's their money — or insurance rates — on the line.

So, let's improve but not jettison this system.

Thomas Maronick Jr. is a Baltimore lawyer and radio host on "The Tom Moore Show" on AM 680 WCBM. His email is tom@maronicklaw.com.

To respond to this commentary, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Maryland's pretrial detention is unfair [Commentary]

    Delays in reform lead to added taxpayer expense and unnecessary incarceration for some defendants

  • Where it was made matters

    Where it was made matters

    She walked slowly up the aisle, picking up every single blender on the shelf in Sears. Holiday music played joyfully in the background. "It's all made in China," she said, gently returning the box to the shelf. Disappointment flashed across her face as she slowly moved on to the next box.

  • Educators call for an end to PARCC testing

    Educators call for an end to PARCC testing

    While a modest reduction in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) testing hours, announced last week, is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough to address the many problems of the new online, high-stakes standardized assessment.

  • Veto of felon voting bill disenfranchised 40,000 Marylanders

    Veto of felon voting bill disenfranchised 40,000 Marylanders

    After the death of Freddie Gray, leaders from Annapolis came into our neighborhoods, shot some hoops, attended church services and gave lip service about change. But those leaders have never endured the high levels of poverty, lack of access to fresh food, dilapidated housing or high levels of...

  • Whatever happened to antitrust?

    Whatever happened to antitrust?

    Last week's settlement between the Justice Department and five giant banks reveals the appalling weakness of modern antitrust.

  • Can the GOP win back the White House?

    Can the GOP win back the White House?

    So far, the 2016 Republican presidential primary is a complete puzzle to me.

Comments
Loading

82°