Bill to scrap cash bail OKd by Assembly
SACRAMENTO — The Assembly passed a long-sought bill to end money bail on Monday, the same day that criminal justice reform groups that had been allies in pushing for the legislation pulled their support.
The bill, SB10, by state Sen. Bob Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, would overhaul a system in which defendants are released depending on whether they have the money to post bail, which supporters say too often leaves low-income people in jail awaiting trial. SB10 garnered bare minimum support to pass the Assembly in a 41-27 vote and now moves back to the state Senate, which has two weeks to decide whether to send it to Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.
“This current broken system has created such unfairness, such injustice,” said Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Alameda. “It has also failed to keep us safer, because it’s not based on safety. It’s not based on one’s risk. It’s based on wealth, an arbitrary and irrelevant factor.”
The American Civil Liberties Union of California and other groups that were supporters of the
bill changed positions on Monday, saying amendments last week give courts too much power in deciding who should be released and will further exacerbate “racial biases and disparities that permeate our justice system.”
“As much as we condemn the commercial for-profit system of bail, we cannot stand and let SB10 become the law of California,” said Abdi Soltani, executive director of ACLU Northern California.
Lawmakers said Monday that the prospect of ending the cash bail system outweighed those concerns.
“This may not be the perfect bill,” said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, who voted in favor of SB10. “It may not go as far as people may want from the so-called left or the so-called right, but we have to do something . ... The system desperately needs to be reformed.”
Under the legislation, California would no longer require people accused of crimes to post bail to go free while awaiting trial. Revisions to SB10 that were made on Thursday would, however, tell local courts to create their own evaluation system for deciding who can be safely released while awaiting trial or sentencing. While ankle monitors or other conditions could be required for a person’s release, those conditions would have to be nonmonetary.
People accused of nonviolent misdemeanors would be released within 12 hours after being booked. But there would be exceptions: People with recent serious or violent felony convictions, multiple failures to appear or allegations involving domestic violence would not qualify. For all other cases, local courts would decide how to assess who is at low, moderate or high risk of re-offending or fleeing when determining whether someone should be released after an arrest.
The California Bail Agents Association has aggressively fought the bill — which would effectively eliminate the bail industry in the state — saying that it will lead to fewer people showing up to court. Many Republicans opposed the measure on Monday, along with three Democratic Assembly members.
“Getting rid of our current bail system will only make California less safe,” said Assemblyman Travis Allen, RHuntington Beach (Orange County). “By eliminating bail, criminals will stop showing up for trial. By stripping bail bondsmen of their power to bring criminals to justice, more criminals will roam free.”
Lawmakers who voted for the bill said it creates a system focused on a person’s risk to the community, instead of their ability to pay bail.
“Thousands of sex offenders, rapists, murderers are let out because they simply have money, somehow we are safer by keeping that system?” asked Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego.
Several groups that once stood behind SB10 say the bill will simply result in more people accused of crimes being detained, regardless of whether they can pay to get out. The California Public Defenders Association and San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi’s office are among the groups that removed their support of the bill.
“It gives tremendous discretion to judges to decide who to detain, and experience shows that this discretion is likely to be used in a way that over-predicts dangerousness and in a racially discriminatory manner,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at the UC Berkeley School of Law. “Eliminating money bail is essential, but this is the wrong way to do it.”
Gina Clayton-Johnson, executive director of Essie Justice Group, an organization representing women with incarcerated loved ones, said lawmakers should take note that her group is opposing the revised SB10 after pursuing the bill for so long.
“People are telling us you don’t know how big of a deal it is to end the bail industry,” Clayton-Johnson said. “Let me tell you who knows how big of a deal it is to end the bail industry: It’s women with incarcerated loved ones who are going into debt, putting up homes for collateral, who have been trying to bail out our loved ones for years, who have been exploited by this industry. We know what it means to end the bail industry. So you take it from us when we say this is a bad deal.”