- Main
Moving Away from Hysteria in the California Bail Debate: The Need for Data and a State Constitutional Amendment
Abstract
A national movement to change bail and pretrial detention is underway.[1] In California, bail reform advocates have attempted to pass Senate Bill 10 which would radically alter the state’s trial court administration of bail.[2] Advocates claim that reform is necessary because detention rates are too high and that the current bail system unfairly penalizes the poor. Although the effort failed to pass last year, it regained strength after the Judicial Council and Governor Brown endorsed the concept of bail reform.[3]
The bail reform debate took a radical turn in a recent decision made by the California Court of Appeals. In In Re Humphrey, the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office filed a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that judges in California violated a defendant’s due process rights by failing to inquire about a defendant’s ability to post bail and whether there could be less restrictive conditions of release.[4] Representing a stark departure from legal precedent, the Court of Appeals and the California Attorney General agreed with the defense’s argument that judges are required to make these inquiries.[5]
In light of these changes, this Article argues that: (1) detention rates are not nearly as high as reformers portray, and specifically in Los Angeles County, those held in jail are the very defendants we want, and are constitutionally required, to detain; (2) bail reform advocates have unscrupulously used Humphrey to exploit the public’s fear that indigent defendants are unfairly placed in custody for minor crimes; and (3) the California Court of Appeals and the California Attorney General undermined the state’s constitutional public safety protection provisions by ignoring legal precedent and finding that the current bail system violated due process.
Main Content
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-