MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

New Orleans D.A. Complains About Community Bail Funds Releasing Low-Level Offenders

Organization helps poor people cover costs to get out of jail before their trials. Why is this a problem?

Trapped in jailMuhammad Annurmal / Dreamstime.comSome criminal justice reformers aren't waiting for court systems to "fix" bail so that poor people aren't stuck behind bars even when they're not flight risks or community threats. Some charitable people have launched community bail fund organizations that collect donations and then use that money to bail out people who cannot afford to cover the costs themselves. If those defendants behave and return to court as promised, the money is returned to the community group and can be used again for others.

One such group is the New Orleans Bail and Safety Fund, whose members say they've paid bail for about 200 people since it was founded a year ago.

New Orleans District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro isn't happy about that. Accusing the group of being naïve about the folks it's dealing with, he tells New Orleans' Fox affiliate that the fund is "playing a very dangerous game with public safety."

What drew this sudden attention to the group? It put up the bond for a guy named DeQuan Ayers, who was arrested for possessing two and a half pounds of marijuana. His bond was set for $3,500. Though Ayers' crimes may seem like small potatoes here, he had a lengthy criminal background and a history of not showing up for court. He was later arrested for allegedly beating up and robbing a tourist in the French Quarter. A magistrate subsequently increased his bond to $50,000.

But when you start looking at the two sides in this debate, they are not entirely opposed to each other. Cannizzaro's concerns appear to be that the fund is overly reliant on the magistrate's evaluation of the defendant's risk. The folks behind the fund say they get recommendations for who to bond out from public defenders and deliberately choose only those with bonds below $5,000, meaning that they are looking for low-risk candidates themselves.

Both sides are fundamentally arguing the same thing: that judges (magistrates, in this case) are not really doing the work of assessing risk when deciding the conditions of release for somebody who has been charged (but not convicted) of a crime, and that they are overly reliant on fixed schedules based on charges. Cannizzaro sees the bail amounts that are too low, making it possible for dangerous people to be able to get out to commit more crimes. The people behind the bail fund see judges relying on these schedules and thus keeping poor people stuck behind bars even though they're not dangerous.

These concerns are not contradictory. Both problems can be happening at once. They originate with the same underlying problem of lackluster risk assessments and a court system focused on churning through pretrial hearings as quickly as possible.

Bail fund member Jennifer Schnidman Medbery has started speaking out publicly in response to the critique. She says that the fund has seen a 92 percent success rate in getting the people they help to return to court.

More importantly, representatives of the New Orleans Bail and Safety Fund say that in about 65 percent of the cases they take on, prosecutors subsequently refuse the charges. That number matters because criminal justice experts who want to see bail reform note that people who are unable to pay for bail are more likely to plead guilty and more likely to face harsher penalties for crimes. People stuck in pretrial detention have little leverage or negotiating power and feel pressured to accept bad plea deals or even plead guilty if it will end the case. Louisiana, remember, has the second-highest incarceration rate in the country. (For a long time it had the highest, but it was recently overtaken by Oklahoma.)

Cannizzaro disputed the organization's numbers in that Fox interview, claiming that his office only refuses the charges in 15 percent of felonies. Note that, again, this isn't actually a contradiction, and both Cannizzaro and the bail fund may be telling the truth. Cannizzaro is referring to a larger pool of arrests (and felonies at that). The bail fund's representatives are talking about a pool of about 200 people, carefully selected because they seem to be low-risk candidates.

The fund is keeping its pool of beneficiaries under wraps. We don't know whether the charges would have been dropped anyway or if prosecutors specifically dropped charges because they lost leverage over the freed defendants. If that's the case, it puts some more perspective on Cannizzaro's complaining.

Recall as well that two federal judges have ruled in separate cases that the Orleans Parish bail system and its systems of fines and fees are violating defendants' constitutional rights by being arbitrarily high. The cases also highlighted the fact that the money from these high bails is being used to fund the court system itself, which creates a disincentive for the courts to release people, making the bail fund's work all the more necessary.

Photo Credit: Muhammad Annurmal / Dreamstime.com

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    It's a problem because DAs are dicks.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Some charitable people have launched community bail fund organizations that collect donations and then use that money to bail out people who cannot afford to cover the costs themselves. If those defendants behave and return to court as promised, the money is returned to the community group and can be used again for others.

    I honestly cannot think of a better way to deal with this. I'll donate to this organization, and others like it.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    New Orleans District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro isn't happy about that. Accusing the group of being naïve about the folks it's dealing with

    Additionally, I can't think of anything dumber. "The folks it's dealing with" have presumably been granted bail. So we're fucking done here. The fact they were able to come up with it is not a travesty of justice. It's the system working exactly as it was designed.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Kinda. Is the charity going to hunt them down if they skip?

    I think that is the primary "complaint".

  • Eddy||

    At the very least the charity will lose the money it risked on the person.

    Perhaps they could hold another fundraiser so they can hire some good bounty hunters.

  • Eddy||

    That's the same penalty as if the guy puts up his own bail then skips. I mean, he won't hunt *himself* down.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    Maybe, but not a very good complaint. The one who posts bail is not in any way obligated to 'hunt them down' if they skip. Just as a wealthier person would not hunt himself / herself down. The point, I think, is that now some more people who cannot post their own bail can escape jail prior to conviction. And, if anything, the charity has even more incentive than a typical bail bondsman to select the proper individuals, since it will not have the ability to hunt the accused down.

  • Lost in the Woods||

    My thoughts, exactly. Really, in a ideal world, all 'folks' in question should post bail in some fashion, and be in a position to prepare their defense outside of a jail cell.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    People stuck in pretrial detention have little leverage or negotiating power and feel pressured to accept bad plea deals or even plead guilty if it will end the case.

    The true source of Leon's ire. If they get out they might not hand him an unearned conviction.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Perhaps the simple point is that it is important for defendants to have some skin in the game when it comes to not jumping bail.

  • Sometimes a Great Notion||

    That's true but that isn't a requirement for anyone posting bail. People have friends or family put up the bail for them all the time. Plus if this group isn't mindful of who they bail out they won't be operating for long because their fund will be bankrupted if they don't get the bail back after trial.

  • Jerryskids||

    Cannizzaro disputed the organization's numbers in that Fox interview, claiming that his office only refuses the charges in 15 percent of felonies. Note that, again, this isn't actually a contradiction, and both Cannizzaro and the bail fund may be telling the truth.

    They both may be telling the truth but only one of them is a shitbag claiming that his truth refutes the other's truth when clearly it doesn't. Just because I'm wearing blue socks doesn't prove that you're not wearing a green shirt and arguing that it does prove it makes one either an idiot or a shitbag willing to use any methods no matter how ridiculous in an attempt to win an argument. Which, come to think of it, is exactly how a lot of prosecutors approach their job.

  • Eddy||

    Unlike prosecutors, these bail funds stand to lose actual money if they bet wrong on a case.

    If the fund is bottomless, they can bail out whoever they want regardless of risk.

    But if their resources are limited, they will do what these guys are doing - bailing offenders considered low risk. Of course they'll make some errors, like with the dope guy, but they pay for their errors if their guy doesn't show.

  • Eddy||

    "...the money from these high bails is being used to fund the court system itself, which creates a disincentive for the courts to release people, making the bail fund's work all the more necessary."

    Wait a minute, walk me through this...they way you phrase that, it sounds like the court system only gets money under this arrangement if someone skips bail, which they can't do if they never posted bail in the first place.

    Perhaps I'm missing some detail here?

  • Eddy||

    Wait, you're saying they set high bail so that defendants can post the money then skip out, thus forfeiting the money to the court system, and the higher the bail the more money gets forfeited?

  • Alan@.4||

    Seems as if there are problems on both sides.

  • Curly4||

    Now if this community bail bond group chose the wrong candidate to pay the bail bond and the candidate commits another serious crime then why not hold the community bail bond group liable for the expenses to the person(s) harmed by the person out on bail that they supported?

  • Ogladalo||

    Does that currently happen if a family member pays bail for someone? If not then why require that for the community bail bond group?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online