Los Angeles County is set to implement a zero-bail system on Sunday, abandoning the practice of setting cash bail amounts based on the severity of the accused’s alleged crime. Critics argue that this approach favors the wealthy while failing to prioritize public safety.
However, those in favor of a strict law-and-order approach have voiced concerns about the new system. They argue that it removes accountability from the justice system, as the majority of arrestees will be quickly released instead of being held in jail until their charges and trial. They believe this undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system, leaving crime victims feeling disillusioned.
In response to these concerns, Sheriff Robert Luna acknowledges the need to respect the constitutional rights of arrestees but highlights the negative impact zero-bail can have on the morale of deputies and police officers. He emphasizes the frustration of law enforcement officials who work diligently to make arrests, only to see offenders released with citations.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell rebuts the notion that the zero-bail system means criminals will evade punishment for their offenses. She argues against conflating bail with accountability, stating that bail merely enables individuals with financial resources to buy their way out of jail.
The zero-bail system, officially known as Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP), effectively eliminates cash bail for non-violent or non-serious offenses. Those arrested under these circumstances will either be cited and released on the spot or booked and released from a police or sheriff’s station, given a specific court appearance date for their arraignment once charges are formally filed.
If an arrestee is deemed to pose a greater threat to public safety or is at risk of fleeing, they will be referred to a magistrate judge who will assess the case. The judge will then decide whether to detain the individual until arraignment or release them under non-financial restrictions, such as electronic monitoring.
Once a person is charged and appears at their arraignment, a judge has the authority to modify or revoke the defendant’s release conditions.
Last Friday, twelve Southland cities filed a court petition requesting an injunction to halt the implementation of the zero-bail system, citing concerns about its impact on public safety. The date for the legal challenge to be heard has not been determined.
The adoption of the new system is a response to long-standing criticism that cash bail disproportionately favors the wealthy. This system allowed affluent individuals accused of serious crimes to secure their release, while low-income individuals faced prolonged incarceration for lesser offenses. The zero-bail system aims to eliminate this disparity by focusing on the individual’s risk to public safety and the likelihood of them appearing in court, rather than their ability to pay for their release.
Initially implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce jail crowding, a Los Angeles judge later reinstated the system in May by ordering an end to cash bail for the city’s police and sheriff’s departments.
In July, the Los Angeles Superior Court unveiled plans for the PARP system. Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner emphasized the need to ensure that a person’s ability to pay a large sum of money should not determine their pretrial detention. Instead, the focus should be on preserving the presumption of innocence.
However, the concept of zero-bail has raised concerns regarding public safety. County supervisors have reported receiving numerous calls from worried residents, particularly after a recent surge in smash-and-grab burglaries where suspects were arrested, promptly released, and then committed new crimes.
Some residents have urged caution and further consideration before implementing the new system. Others dismiss claims that crime rates will increase as fear-mongering and accuse opponents of manipulating statistics to preserve ineffective policies.
A county report conducted last year during the pandemic’s zero-bail policy found that rates of non-appearance in court and rearrest or new offenses remained below or similar to historical averages. Additionally, a recent report by the Judicial Council of California indicated that a risk-based zero-bail system actually enhanced public safety, resulting in a 5.8% reduction in rearrests for misdemeanors and a 2.4% decline in rearrests for felonies.
Los Angeles Superior Court CEO David Slayton, noting the small percentages, highlighted the significant impact on reducing re-arrests. Echoing Mitchell’s sentiments, Slayton emphatically denied claims that the new system eliminates consequences for criminal behavior. He emphasized that individuals who fail to appear in court, re-offend while on release, or violate their release conditions will face arrest and jail time.
Slayton clarified that the purpose of bail has always been to ensure court appearances and not to punish individuals. A risk-based approach to pre-arraignment detention serves the same goal while considering factors beyond financial capacity.
Officials stress that the zero-bail system exclusively applies to pre-arraignment or pre-trial custody decisions for individuals presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those who are subsequently convicted will face regular sentencing procedures.
Mitchell acknowledges that incidents where individuals released on zero bail commit new crimes are concerning. However, she believes it is equally troubling when individuals are released on cash bail solely due to their financial resources and then commit further offenses.
Supervisors Janice Hahn and Kathryn Barger express their offices’ concerns regarding the new system. They acknowledge the anxiety and fear surrounding its implementation, as voiced by law enforcement and the community at large. They emphasize the importance of effectively communicating the purpose and goals of the system to address public concerns about its impact on street crime.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
