NJ Bail Reform - The Ugly Truth of it.

[cernjSHU]

This new law has been touted in the media. However, what this bail reform does is that almost all people who commit crimes will be released to the streets.

Bail reform was started because there were people stuck in jail with only $1000 to $2500 bail but could not make bail due to their financial situation for petty crimes. What happened was the pendulum shifted completely the other way. Now a guy who commits an armed robbery is presumed to be released from jail! As a result of this law, there will be dangerous and violent criminals walking the street. Expect crime rate of 2017 to have a pretty big spike. What this also does is kill the ability of law enforcement to get informants and snitches.

This will be the worst thing that will be left over from the Christie administration.

 

[TC88]

People will be held based on their risk of flight or risk of repeat offense. No longer will they be held based on how much cash they have in their bank account. Dangerous and violent criminals will not be released from jail to await trial. Accused parking ticket violators will be able to avoid jail while waiting for the hearing. The electorate voted for bail reform last November.

 

[cernjSHU]

People will be held based on their risk of flight or risk of repeat offense. No longer will they be held based on how much cash they have in their bank account. Dangerous and violent criminals will not be released from jail to await trial. Accused parking ticket violators will be able to avoid jail while waiting for the hearing. The electorate voted for bail reform last November.

You are wrong 100%. Did you not see my example from above or do you not think a person who commits an armed robbery is violent? That is a true life example that occurred. That person who commits two robberies is presumed to be released under the new system. Prosecutors now have to file a motion and argue against the presumption to have him detained. So, the prosecutors can lose and he is released and if prosecutors win, the defendant will get bail!

TC88, you are reading press clippings. There is this movement that this is a good thing. There is nothing good with this new system. Anyone who has actually worked in the criminal justice system in the State knows this. By the way, the question on the ballot that was sold to the public was based upon keeping murderers in jail without bail. And furthermore, with the high bails set for murder, an infinitesimal number of murderers ever got released on bail.

 

[TC88]

What about Innocent until proven guilty? The ballot question was sold based on the thousands of nonviolent people languishing in jail awaiting trial at tremendous cost (both to the taxpayer and those in jail). The only people who lose with this new law are the bail bondsman and the network who make money off them.

 

[cernjSHU]

What about Innocent until proven guilty? The ballot question was sold based on the thousands of nonviolent people languishing in jail awaiting trial at tremendous cost (both to the taxpayer and those in jail). The only people who lose with this new law are the bail bondsman and the network who make money off them.

Oh please. nonviolent? Are you including drug dealers in your nonviolent assessment? Whatever the cost while they await trial in County jail pales in comparison to the damage they do on the street.
You have no idea of the effects of this new law.

As a matter of fact the irony is that now every one who gets arrested on an indictable gets to spend a night or two in jail before they get assessed. Before, non violent 4th degree crimes, defendants were given a summons and released on their own reconnaissance that night.

So far I have seen a defendant caught with a handgun released to the streets without bail. This is just the start. You will have violent criminals on the street. This is an ill-conceived and horribly implemented law.

 

[TC88]

I am missing something. What is the difference if this person caught with a handgun is released to await trial without bail or after posting bail?

 

[Merge]

I am missing something. What is the difference if this person caught with a handgun is released to await trial without bail or after posting bail?

Yeah, I think we are all missing something.

Would the person with a handgun normally be held on $2,500 bail?
Were we ok with him getting out of jail with a bail bond?

I believe the discretion is up to a judge to say if they are violent or not? Is that true?
Are the judges to blame?

Not really sure I have a problem with the spirit of the change. It makes sense on paper, but I don't think any of us here are close enough to the situation.

Maybe @cernjSHU can explain the problem a little better?

 

[cernjSHU]

I am missing something. What is the difference if this person caught with a handgun is released to await trial without bail or after posting bail?

The person with the gun would normally have a high enough bail that most would stay in jail awaiting trial. If the person had enough money, they could post bail. But the reality of it is that most were in jail pending trial. Possession of a handgun is a second degree crime punishable 5-10 years with a mandatory 3 year stipulation in jail. Now he is being released.

What also needs to be said is that with people in jail because they could not make bail, law enforcement received a lot of information from jailhouse snitches. With most people going on the street, this stream of information will dry up. There are multiple waves how this hurts la enforcement and the safety of our communities.

Now, the people that are released will never get to trial. That is because there is a speedy trial component of this law. Therefore, the only trials that will get to be tried are murders and sexual assaults. People who commit burglaries, drug dealers even people who commit robberies will be on the street awaiting a trial that won't come. Most of these people in the previous system would be in jail. That would promote plea bargains. If they are on the street, they won't plea, they will just drag it out.

Not many people were in jail for a $2500 bail. You know why? Cause it only takes $250 to bail out. And sometimes a bail bondsman would take less than 10%. Yes there were some but the percentage was so small. This radical change puts us all at risk.

 

[knowknow456]

Can you post a link to the Risk Assessment Form that the system is now supposed to be using? I cannot seem to find it.

The problem you are describing is not the law but the implementation of the law.

 

[Merge]

Not many people were in jail for a $2500 bail. You know why? Cause it only takes $250 to bail out. And sometimes a bail bondsman would take less than 10%. Yes there were some but the percentage was so small. This radical change puts us all at risk.

https://www.pretrial.org/download/research/New Jersey Jail Population Analysis - VanNostrand 2013.pdf

That study says in 2012 there were about 1500 people in NJ jails that could have posted bail at $2,500 and under. 800 for $500.

That seems like a lot? Is that not a lot?

This article also makes a compelling case for the law change.

I don't have a problem with the law. If it is not being implemented properly (which seems to be the case?) that is a different story.

 

[cernjSHU]

https://www.pretrial.org/download/research/New Jersey Jail Population Analysis - VanNostrand 2013.pdf

That study says in 2012 there were about 1500 people in NJ jails that could have posted bail at $2,500 and under. 800 for $500.

That seems like a lot? Is that not a lot?

This article also makes a compelling case for the law change.

I don't have a problem with the law. If it is not being implemented properly (which seems to be the case?) that is a different story.

First of all, that figure represents any person that was in jail with that type of bail for at least one day. So if the person posted on day 2, he is included in that list but he really wasn't sitting waiting. So the figures are skewed. Even assuming all were in until the time they sat for trial, that represents about 5-7% of the prison population So instead of taking common sense corrective measures to prevent that from happening, it completely changed a system for the most part worked and prevented violent criminals and drug dealers off the street.

This is a cautionary tale of theory vs practice (real world)

 

[Merge]

This is a cautionary tale of theory vs practice (real world)

To be fair, your posts are all theoretical though, no?

It is an interesting topic to which I am far removed from, but I do have a cousin that is an Essex county prosecutor so I'll get some input from him as well next time I see him.

 

[cernjSHU]

To be fair, your posts are all theoretical though, no?

It is an interesting topic to which I am far removed from, but I do have a cousin that is an Essex county prosecutor so I'll get some input from him as well next time I see him.

My examples were actual cases.

 

[Merge]

My examples were actual cases.

Of people getting being let go without bail and subsequently committing a violent crime?

 

[cernjSHU]

Of people getting being let go without bail and subsequently committing a violent crime?

No, but that is a matter of time.

 

[knowknow456]

Is the Risk Assessment tool available on line?

After 17 days, there is no realistic way to establish whether or not the law is working.

Is there a rubric that judges and prosecutors follow that leads them to a conclusion on who requires bail and who can be released?

This reform has been coming down the pike for quite some time. It requires additional infrastructure (mostly people) in order to process the criminals passing through the system in a timely fashion. Are the additional people in place?

 

[Merge]

After 17 days, there is no realistic way to establish whether or not the law is working.

Well, as cern said, someone who committed an armed robbery was release without having to pay bail.

Not sure how the risk assessment took works, but I do understand Cern's criticism. Just not sure I agree/disagree with him yet.

 

[knowknow456]

Well, as cern said, someone who committed an armed robbery was release without having to pay bail.

Not sure how the risk assessment took works, but I do understand Cern's criticism. Just not sure I agree/disagree with him yet.

Which brings us back to the original question. Under the old rule, would she have been held without bail? Or would she be walking the streets today after having posted her bail?

Cern has raised a valid concern but I would like to better understand how we got here.

 

[Merge]

Which brings us back to the original question. Under the old rule, would she have been held without bail? Or would she be walking the streets today after having posted her bail?

Cern has raised a valid concern but I would like to better understand how we got here.

My understanding (and correct me if I am wrong Cern) is that bail for armed robbery would have previously been north of 50k with no 10% option, so they would not have been out on the street.

 

[knowknow456]

My understanding (and correct me if I am wrong Cern) is that bail for armed robbery would have previously been north of 50k with no 10% option, so they would not have been out on the street.

I doubt bail reform was intended to release people who's bail was north of $50k. So if that is what is happening, either the law needs to be tightened up or the judges/prosecutors need a better understanding of how to implement the Risk Assessment.

 

[Merge]

I doubt bail reform was intended to release people who's bail was north of $50k. So if that is what is happening, either the law needs to be tightened up or the judges/prosecutors need a better understanding of how to implement the Risk Assessment.

Agreed. Also entirely possible that someone who robbed a store with a gun with no prior record could show up that they are not a risk to do it again. I have no idea.
Still need some clarification from Cern.

 

[cernjSHU]

Bail for a first degree armed robbery would have been $100k. Most people cannot afford to post the bail and thus would be sitting in jail where they are supposed to be. Risk Assessment is not done by judges and Prosecutors. It is done by a unit in Trenton. So it won't matter if you have one conviction or 10 convictions, that is still just deserving of one point.

also remember as part of this is Speedy Trial. Within 180 days, anyone that is sitting in prison has to have their trial. Now there is a thing called excludable time for which can extend the time to no more than 2 years. In Counties like Essex, Hudson, Union 80% of the trials are going to be homicide cases and sexual assaults. The people on the street will never get their cases heard.

This is a law that did not take into account the practice of law and the realities of the state court system.

 

[knowknow456]

I agree that one or ten armed robbery convictions are worth one point. I don't look at a guy with two armed robbery convictions as a better guy than the one with, say, six.

Putting aside this particular law, I always believed we have a right to a speedy trial so I am not sure why that is a bad thing.

You have sounded the alarm but I am more confused than ever. Every arrest passes through risk assessment in Trenton? That seems inefficient.

 

[TC88]

Every arrest does not pass through Trenton (only mercer county arrests). 80% of the trials are not homocide or sexual assault.

 

[cernjSHU]

Every arrest does not pass through Trenton (only mercer county arrests). 80% of the trials are not homocide or sexual assault.

Let's see how I can put this. If a person is sitting in jail awaiting for trial, their case must be heard in 2 years at the very latest. Say a county like Union that averages 24 homicides a year and say 17 get solved a year. Only a couple ever plea so you have 15 to try. Those 15 cases must be tried in 2 years. Realistically, they all have to be tried in the second year. Each homicide trial averages 6 weeks that is 90 weeks. There are 5 criminal trial courts. That is 260 weeks of time. But minus out 6 weeks of judges for each vacation and another 4 weeks of holidays. That leaves you with 210 weeks of trials. Almost half of the trial weeks will be dedicated to homicide cases alone.

Now add in your sexual assault cases. That 80% figure will be awfully close as a result of bail reform.

 

[TC88]

I don't believe that judges get 10 weeks off every year. Isn't more judges part of the bail reform bills?

 

[cernjSHU]

I don't believe that judges get 10 weeks off every year. Isn't more judges part of the bail reform bills?

You are the doubting Thomas. But let me explain this. 6 weeks of vacation. Judges are off from Christmas until after New Years. That is one week. Now take MLK, Two days for Presidents, Good Friday, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Election Day, Thanksgiving and Day after. That is 12 additional days off ok that's 9 1/2 weeks off.

 

[batts]

I don't understand the pros and cons of the new law well enough to comment. However, did the lawmakers even bother to consult with the the judiciary, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel prior to the making such a dramatic change in law? Also, is the new law modeled after a successful reform in another highly populated state? I think that the answer to both of my two questions is a resounding "no", which really bothers me. And what about the bail bondsmen who are suddenly without a means to earn revenue?

 

[knowknow456]

I don't understand the pros and cons of the new law well enough to comment. However, did the lawmakers even bother to consult with the the judiciary, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel prior to the making such a dramatic change in law? Also, is the new law modeled after a successful reform in another highly populated state? I think that the answer to both of my two questions is a resounding "no", which really bothers me. And what about the bail bondsmen who are suddenly without a means to earn revenue?

My understanding
1. Yes they consulted. The law was passed in 2014 allowing 2.5 years for implementation
2. There are other states with risk based bail, but ours is pretty comprehensive. I would characterize NJ as ahead of the curve.
3. Bail bondsmen hate it, fought it and lost.

 

[batts]

My understanding
1. Yes they consulted. The law was passed in 2014 allowing 2.5 years for implementation
2. There are other states with risk based bail, but ours is pretty comprehensive. I would characterize NJ as ahead of the curve.
3. Bail bondsmen hate it, fought it and lost.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[cernjSHU]

I don't understand the pros and cons of the new law well enough to comment. However, did the lawmakers even bother to consult with the the judiciary, prosecutors and law enforcement personnel prior to the making such a dramatic change in law? Also, is the new law modeled after a successful reform in another highly populated state? I think that the answer to both of my two questions is a resounding "no", which really bothers me. And what about the bail bondsmen who are suddenly without a means to earn revenue?

Well, here is the problem. Most County Prosecutors at this time are former Assistant US Attorneys due to Christie. This system is based on the federal system so the Feds sort of like it. But these former federal prosecutors really have no understanding of the State system. The federal system is a different animal. It does not have the volume nor the amount of street crime cases. The Federal prosecutors choose their cases to prosecute meanwhile the State is different because it is more reactionary. Moreover, the Feds do not hand over discovery (evidence) over to the defense.

I know many judges who have voiced their criticism of this. But it was people who did not practice in the State criminal justice system who had the most power in creating this. And that was the biggest problem.

 

[cernjSHU]

And so it begins. Here is an article of a Jersey City guy who shot someone and was released from prison pending trial. He has a felony conviction for child abuse and this guy is on the streets.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/01/jersey_city_man_accused_of_shooting_man_released_f.html

 

[knowknow456]

And so it begins. Here is an article of a Jersey City guy who shot someone and was released from prison pending trial. He has a felony conviction for child abuse and this guy is on the streets.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/01/jersey_city_man_accused_of_shooting_man_released_f.html

Excellent news. Now we have something to work with. So far, the Jersey City guy has not committed a new crime, so it is unclear what would be different had he posted bail.

How does one score a three on the Risk Assessment test? Is the Risk Assessment test part of the public record? Can you post a link?

 

[cernjSHU]

I don't think that there is a link to risk assessment. However, it is very difficult to score high on this risk assessment. What the public doesn't understand that besides people who are accused of murder (who under the bail system almost never bailed out), there is a presumption of release to the streets. Like it or not, the bail system kept these defendants in jail because they would not have enough money to post bail.

Just yesterday I heard of a defendant who was arrested on burglary on Thursday and he was released. He was arrested for burglary on Saturday and he is now released. This is a revolving door of crime.

This system will make the streets unsafe. This story is just the beginning.

 

[knowknow456]

Like it or not, the bail system kept these defendants in jail because they would not have enough money to post bail.

I neither like it nor don't like it. I don't understand it. Beyond a certain financial threshold, the bail system does not keep me as a citizen any safer. If the burglar you reference is poor, I am safer. If he is richer and posts bail, I am not.

If the risk assessment is not managing the risk properly, that is a problem that can be addressed by the legislature. People such as yourself who are in position to know will lobby for greater restrictions. You will no doubt back it with data. But until I can see specifics, this is only a theoretical discussion.

 

[cernjSHU]

More stories. A guy was locked up for carjacking last week was released. Over the weekend, he assaults someone else. We have a serial burglar who was arrested for burglary 4 times in a span of 10 days who is released.

This person would have had bail revoked as he violated his conditions of bail and would have been locked up whether you are rich or not.

 

[knowknow456]

So the serial burglar went through the risk assessment protocol 4 times in 10 days? If nothing else, we are efficient.

 

[cernjSHU]

And it gets worse. A convicted sex offender gets arrested for trying to lure a 12-yr old girl gets released!

http://www.nj.com/ocean/index.ssf/2...sex_off.html#incart_2box_nj-homepage-featured

 

[knowknow456]

We are not communicating well.

You keep pointing out why it is bad. I keep asking how it is bad. I would like some facts if they are to be had.

 

[cernjSHU]

Are you saying people who shoot other people and convicted sex offenders that get arrested on trying to lure a 12-yr old are getting released pending trial is a good thing? I am not understanding your question that you want facts. Those are the facts.

The question may be is that you do not think that the above examples are a bad thing.