Bail unfairness

California judges from the top down want a better bail system, one based on public safety, not a defendant’s wallet. That sentiment should be a major step in moving to a fairer system that removes the inequity built into the present rules.

The report by a panel of judges was endorsed by state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who has pressed for changes before. She delicately but firmly blasted the cash-bail system which she claimed fails on all counts.

It allows well-off and still dangerous defendants to walk out of jail while poor but unlikely to offend suspects sit behind bars. The public isn’t well served and is stuck paying the jailhouse bill for those that remain locked up. That system “exacerbates socioeconomic disparities and racial bias,” the justice rightly noted.

Her stance should help smooth the road ahead. Last summer an initial effort to phase out bail stalled in the state Legislature under lobbying pressure from bail bond and insurance groups and over concerns about reliable alternatives. Also, the state courts and legal system would need to pick up the bill for pretrial gauging of suspects for possible release.

San Francisco, along with other cities in the state and elsewhere, are experimenting with algorithms and assessments that weigh a suspect’s background and public risk in deciding on bail. It’s not a fail-safe system: A high-profile shooting death here in August was attributed to a suspect who was released due to a flawed risk measurement.

But the cash-bail system is inherently unfair and unreliable. The report comes from judges, who sit at the top the legal system overseeing bail, and they are prepared for reform. That’s a powerful message that Sacramento can’t ignore any longer.