Colorado Proposition 102: Clarification, Sources, and Facts.

Recently, there have been a number of op-eds written about Colorado’s Proposition 102. Here are a few:

The Denver Post

The Denver Post

Boulder Daily Camera

Here is a link to the proposition itself. You can see that the new language is in a different font than the rest of the current Colorado Revised Statutes: Proposition 102.

Let’s set out some definitions which will help clarify the argument.

A bail bond is a system by which the court seeks to ensure that a defendant appears to face their charges. Based on the defendant’s criminal history (if any) and the nature of the charges (violent crimes, felonies…), a judge may issue a Personal Recognizance Bond, which is an unsecured agreement that the defendant will show up in court. Surety Bail Bonds are when the court imposes a financial burden upon the defendant to show up in court. The court may decide the charges warrant a $5000 bond. The defendant can either give $5000 to the court directly, which may be used to pay the fines associated with the charges, and will be given back to the defendant once they are sentenced, or, the defendant, either choosing not to put all the money down or not able to afford it, contracts with a Bail Bondsman, who is then responsible for the appearance of the defendant in court, and for paying the full amount of the bond if it is forfeited (the defendant does not show up in court or flees).

If a defendant should flee justice, the Bail Bondsman then takes it upon himself to locate the defendant and take them back to jail by means applicable under state law.

Now, down to business. After reading the proposition itself, it is clear that in its current state, Colorado Revised Statutes has no set limitations as to who may be released on pre-trial release, which we must infer is decided by the judge deciding the case. It is also a judge’s duty to set the amount of the bond based on the gravity of the charges, and the criminal history (if any) of the defendant. Is not unreasonable to think that a judge would reserve pre-trial release for non-violent, first time offenders?

Opponents of Prop 102 state that this will flood the jails by people now not eligible for pre-trial release to be fed and housed at the taxpayer expense, and that there is no evidence that defendants on unsecured appearance bonds have any different rates of appearance than on secured bonds.

I’d like to see their sources. Here is a US Department of Justice: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report that studied the 75 largest counties in the nation from 1990 to 2004. It tracked statistics for pretrial release felony defendants. Yes, felony defendants are also eligible for pretrial release under the current system. It states that “failures to appear on unsecured releases were twice as high as those on surety bond”.

Also, a study from The American Legislative Exchange Council which shows errors in how statistics are tracked by pretrial release services. In 2009, the study showed that only 68% of pretrial release services tracked failure to appear rates, and only 38% track the re-arrest rate. These are important factors to take into consideration when considering the efficacy of pretrial release systems, aren’t they?

When looking at these figures, it clearly shows that when the statistics were properly tracked, unsecured release had roughly twice as many failures to appear than secured release did.

So, the Proposition is trying to “hoodwink voters”, and fight “pretrial services that keep arrestees [sic] out of jail by tracking them with ankle bracelets, Breathalyzers and other forms of monitoring”, according to the Denver Post columnist. Where are the statistics? We wish to fight against pretrial services that have failed, not only in their stated mission, but in tracking the rates of their own shortcomings. Bail Bonds also require conditions such as BAC monitoring and ankle bracelets, though the way the article is structured one would be led to believe the bail industry is against such things.

Also stated is that “complaints are rising against Colorado’s licensed bondsmen” and “two… companies are under investigation for ripping off customers”. This is merely an appeal to emotion, more than anything. Or should I be concerned about rising sex crimes in the journalism industry? (Link: Award Winning Reporter Charles Leaf arrested for aggravated sexual assault of a minor.)

No, for both arguments are equally as silly.

I believe that we need clear language in Colorado Revised Statutes that sets limitations on who can and cannot receive pretrial release, and we should favor whichever program works the best, which in this case is the private bail bonds industry.