Zero Bail Program implemented in LA County, replacing cash bail system.
Los Angeles County Implements Zero-Bail System, Sparking Controversy
Starting October 1, Los Angeles County will transition to a zero-bail system, abandoning the practice of setting cash bail amounts based on the severity of the crime. Critics argue that this approach favors the wealthy and does little to ensure public safety.
However, the move to zero-bail has faced backlash from law-and-order proponents who believe it undermines accountability in the justice system. They argue that releasing the majority of arrestees quickly erodes confidence in the criminal justice system among crime victims.
“Our communities have not been shy about telling us how nervous they are about this change,” said Sheriff Robert Luna, expressing concerns about offenders being immediately released from custody.
Related Stories
-
Law Enforcement, Officials Question Zero-Bail Schedule to Start in Los Angeles County
9/28/2023 -
Man Chugs Beer, Drives Car on Venice Boardwalk Hitting a Pedestrian
9/29/2023
Sheriff Luna acknowledges the importance of respecting the constitutional rights of arrestees but emphasizes that zero-bail can demoralize law enforcement officers who work hard to make arrests, only to witness offenders being released with just a citation.
Supervisor Holly Mitchell counters the argument, stating that the zero-bail system does not equate to criminals evading punishment for their offenses. She highlights the danger of conflating bail with accountability, emphasizing that bail simply means having the financial resources to secure release from jail.
The zero-bail system, officially known as Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP), largely eliminates cash bail for non-violent or non-serious offenses. Most individuals arrested for such crimes will either be cited and released in the field or booked and released at a police or sheriff’s station, with a court appearance scheduled for arraignment once charges are filed.
Arrestees deemed to pose a higher risk to the public or a flight risk will be referred to a magistrate judge, who will assess the case and decide whether to hold the person in custody or release them with non-financial restrictions, such as electronic monitoring.
Once charged and appearing in court for arraignment, a judge may modify or revoke the defendant’s release conditions.
On Friday, twelve Southland cities filed court papers seeking an injunction to block the implementation of the zero-bail system, citing concerns about public safety. The timing for the legal challenge to be heard is currently unknown.
The zero-bail system addresses long-standing criticism that cash bail disproportionately favored the wealthy, allowing affluent individuals accused of serious crimes to secure their release while low-income individuals remained incarcerated for lesser offenses. The new system assesses the risk an offender poses to public safety and the likelihood of them appearing in court, rather than relying on cash bail.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the county initially implemented a zero-bail system to prevent jail overcrowding. In May, a judge reinstated the system by ordering an end to cash bail by the Los Angeles police and sheriff’s departments.
Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner of the Los Angeles Superior Court announced the plans for the PARP system in July, emphasizing that a person’s ability to pay should not determine whether they stay in jail before trial or are released.
However, concerns about public safety have arisen regarding the zero-bail system, particularly following a recent surge in mob-style smash-and-grab burglaries. County supervisors have received numerous calls from worried residents, urging caution before implementing the new system. Some residents argue that the previous zero-bail system during the pandemic was ineffective and led to increased crime rates.
Conversely, supporters of the zero-bail system dismiss claims of rising crime as fear-mongering and accuse opponents of manipulating statistics to maintain ineffective policies.
A county report from last year analyzing the impact of the pandemic-era zero-bail policy found that rates of failure to appear in court and rearrest or new offenses remained similar to historical averages.
The Judicial Council of California also released a recent report indicating that a risk-based zero-bail system actually enhances public safety, resulting in a 5.8 percent decrease in rearrests for misdemeanors and a 2.4 percent decrease in rearrests for felonies.
David Slayton, CEO of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assured the Board of Supervisors that the new system does not imply a lack of consequences for criminal behavior. Individuals who fail to appear in court, re-offend while on release, or violate their release conditions will face arrest and imprisonment.
Officials emphasize that the zero-bail system only affects pre-arraignment or pre-trial custody decisions for arrestees who are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Those who are convicted will be sentenced as usual.
While acknowledging the concerns expressed by the public, Supervisor Janice Hahn recognizes the attempt at justice reform but acknowledges the anxiety surrounding the new system. Supervisor Kathryn Barger also acknowledges the concerns raised by constituents and emphasizes the need to explain the goals of the new system and ensure that criminals understand the consequences of their actions.
What are the concerns raised by critics of the zero-bail system regarding public safety and accountability?
The zero-bail system. Critics argue that releasing individuals without requiring any financial consequences could potentially lead to an increased risk to public safety. They fear that offenders will be released without any accountability for their actions and may continue to commit crimes.
Advocates for the zero-bail system highlight the need for fairness and equality in the criminal justice system. They argue that cash bail disproportionately affects low-income individuals who may not have the means to pay for their release. This system aims to address this inequality and ensure that individuals are not being detained simply because they are unable to afford bail.
The implementation of the zero-bail system has sparked a heated debate among members of the community, law enforcement officials, and policymakers. Both sides present valid points, but finding a balance between ensuring public safety and promoting fairness in the justice system is a challenging task.
Sheriff Luna expresses concerns about offenders being immediately released from custody. He acknowledges the need to respect the constitutional rights of arrestees but believes that the zero-bail system can demoralize law enforcement officers who work diligently to make arrests, only to witness offenders being released with just a citation.
On the other hand, Supervisor Holly Mitchell counters this argument by stating that the zero-bail system does not mean criminals are evading punishment. She emphasizes the importance of separating bail from accountability, highlighting that bail is simply the financial resources required to secure release from jail. Mitchell believes that non-violent or non-serious offenders should not be detained based solely on their financial status.
The zero-bail system, known as Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP), eliminates cash bail for certain offenses. Most individuals arrested for non-violent or non-serious crimes will either be cited and released in the field or booked and released at a police or sheriff’s station. They will have a court appearance scheduled for arraignment once charges are filed.
However, arrestees considered to pose a higher risk to public safety or flight risk will be referred to a magistrate judge, who will assess the case and decide whether to hold them in custody or release them with non-financial restrictions, such as electronic monitoring.
Despite the arguments and concerns raised by various parties, twelve Southland cities have filed court papers seeking an injunction to block the implementation of the zero-bail system. These cities cite concerns about public safety and believe that the system could potentially put their communities at risk. The timing for the legal challenge to be heard is currently unknown.
It is important to note that the zero-bail system aims to address long-standing criticisms that cash bail disproportionately favored the wealthy. This often led to affluent individuals accused of serious crimes being able to secure their release while low-income individuals accused of lesser offenses remained incarcerated. The new system focuses on assessing the risk an offender poses to public safety and their likelihood of appearing in court, rather than relying on cash bail.
The COVID-19 pandemic initially prompted the implementation of the zero-bail system as a way to prevent jail overcrowding. Judges ordered an end to cash bail by the Los Angeles police and sheriff’s departments. The plans for the PARP system were announced by Presiding Judge Samantha Jessner of the Los Angeles Superior Court in July. The emphasis is on ensuring that a person’s ability to pay does not determine whether they stay in jail before trial or are released.
As the zero-bail system is implemented in Los Angeles County, the controversy surrounding its effectiveness and impact on public safety continues. The arguments put forth by both critics and supporters highlight the complexities involved in achieving a fair and equitable justice system that also ensures public safety. It remains to be seen how the zero-bail system will evolve and its potential long-term effects on the criminal justice system in Los Angeles County.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...