Supreme Court’s bail reform behind NM crime spike
Getting arrested for any crime in our state is no longer something offenders fear or dread
Bail reform was brought to our state by the late N.M. Supreme Court Justice Charles Daniels. With the backing of the Supreme Court opinion he authored, Walter Brown v. The State of N.M., he traveled the state convincing voters, citizens and the like that he had the answers to the crime problems. He claimed 30% to 40% of county jail inmates were there simply because of their inability to post the cash bond set by a judge. He said the bondsmen were further responsible for this because only the rich people could afford to bond out, leaving the poor languishing in jail. He also said the offenders who are dangerous or a flight risk would be dealt with accordingly. The worst of the worst offenders would be denied bail and the low-level, non-violent offenders would be quickly released.
It all sounded great then, as Daniels was very convincing. The true test came on July 1, 2017, when the final component of bail reform took effect. People arrested and booked into county jails were no longer afforded their right to bail. Everyone was and is held in jail without bond, pending their first appearance before a local judge. In addition, the Arnold Foundation risk assessment tool was now being used to do what judges should be doing, assessing risk. The assessment tool we were told is also supposed to predict future behavior of an offender, which also didn’t work. The tool quickly became an exercise in futility because it recommended a release on recognizance for virtually every offender, regardless of the crimes committed, criminal history, failure to appear history, etc. It didn’t matter what the current charges were, misdemeanor or felony, the offender was back on the street in a day or two.
No longer was getting arrested something offenders feared or dreaded. The people committing the crimes no longer had to worry about posting any sort of a bond or a bondsman chasing them down when they didn’t appear for court. The new bail reform rules made R.O.R. the preferred method of release and pre-trial services supervision the new standard. Unfortunately, much of this has failed, leaving N.M. with a crime problem that no one seems to know how to fix. This problem starts and ends with the N.M. Supreme Court as it allowed Daniels free reign and has yet to do anything to correct what is obviously wrong.
When politicians such as Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, who paved the way for Justice Daniels, publicly admit that bail reform is a failure and is the cause of our spike in crime, then change may start. When the decision makers see that people are in jail because they are accused of committing a crime(s), not because they claim to be poor. When judges once again are required to do their own risk assessment and set bonds when an ROR is not sufficient to ensure attendance in court. Only then will we start seeing the changes we all say we want.
My solutions and ideas to fix the crime problems are not just mine, but the opinions of many people I have spoken with. Our ideas are pretty simple: You break the law, you get arrested and you go to jail. A quick release on just a promise to appear for court will be reserved for those who are truly nonviolent, low-level offenders that have a record of appearing when ordered to.