What Is The Purpose Of Bail? It Depends On Who You Talk To

While discussing the California bail system, a Santa Clara County district attorney said, “It’s just so difficult to get guilty pleas from defendants who are NOT in custody.” (Emphasis added) These statements, along with many others I’ve heard over the course of my research, serve to reinforce common misunderstandings about the bail system. These misunderstandings, in turn, have misdirected conversations about what the U.S. bail system is intended to accomplish.

Immediately after hearing the district attorney make this statement, I thought to myself, “if a defendant is truly guilty, a fast and easy guilty plea would certainly save the county a lot of resources and it would be in the best interest of the community because it would ensure speedy justice for the victim.” However, a fast and easy plea deal is not beneficial to everyone when we consider the effects of detaining individuals prior to trial.

Over 62% of county jail inmates are NON-CONVICTED individuals. This means that over half of the jail population is made up of people who have not yet been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Individuals accused of a misdemeanor spend more than 30 days in jail before they are tried and either found not guilty or convicted. When we consider all of this, it’s reasonable to assume that many individuals who are wrongfully accused may be coerced into a guilty plea simply because they are desperate to get out of jail.

District attorneys are charged with proving an accused individual’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Negotiating plea deals is also an important and necessary part of their job. Therefore, keeping defendants in custody is beneficial to this part of their work because it provides an incentive for the accused to agree. This however, has absolutely nothing to do with the purposes of the U.S. bail system. Stated another way, the U.S. bail system is not in place to keep a defendant in custody for the sake of helping district attorneys do their jobs. In this post, I will provide commentary on other misconceptions I’ve found during my research.

To date, I have uncovered and corrected some of the misleading information available to the public about the U.S. bail system in an attempt to foster public discourse in a meaningful way. In a previous post, I took it upon myself to provide readers with a thorough understanding of the term “bail.” Unsurprisingly, when I read a publication that uses misleading information to further spread the belief that bail must always involve money, or that it should accomplish anything other than what its meant to accomplish, I am quick to respond with complete and accurate information.

On November 1, 2012, the Golden State Bail Agents Association published a testimonial written by one of their attorneys, Mr. Albert W. Ramirez. Mr. Ramirez’s testimony, while not technically wrong, is misleading and demands some elaboration. This testimony was made before the California General Assembly. In this post, I don’t intend to disprove Mr. Ramirez and I don’t intend for this post to serve as a response to his statements. I only cite to his testimony because it provides an illustration of the common misconceptions I’ve found during my research.

In this post, I will supply that elaboration by offering an accurate statement of the issue at hand and then following with an explanation of how the statements made by Mr. Ramirez are misleading. I don’t urge readers to read or accept Mr. Ramirez’s testimony because I have taken issue with the way in which it misleads readers. Further, it is not necessary to read the testimony as I’ve included the relevant statements for my commentary.

Myth: Money bail opponents think bail is too expensive.

Truth: Advocates for bail system reform seek to reduce the number of detained pretrial defendants in order to achieve a fair and effective system.

Mr. Ramirez maintains that, “California’s commercial bail system has been under attack by the ACLU” and that the “ACLU’s primary criticism of commercial bail is that it’s too expensive.” (Page 1) First and foremost, “the attack” as he calls it is not necessarily on the commercial bail system, as the ACLU and other groups have clearly indicated that their concerns are directly associated with the entire bail system as a whole. On numerous occasions, the ACLU has specifically been critical of the money bail system for the detrimental effects it has on the poor. For example, a dangerous but wealthy individual may be released from custody by paying money bail while a person who does not pose a danger to society may be held simply because they cannot afford to do the same. Both of these scenarios are bad for obvious reasons and have absolutely nothing to do with the commercial bail system.

Further, concerns over the U.S. bail system stem from the large numbers of individuals currently incarcerated. While the ACLU has indeed urged states to pass more stringent regulations for regulating commercial bail, it’s important for readers to be aware that stringent regulation is not an attack on the commercial bail industry, but rather a means for protecting the rights of the indigent, who happen to be the clients of private commercial bail companies. Some states such as New Jersey have already taken steps towards this.

Myth: The effectiveness of any bail system is best measured by failure to appear rates.

Truth: The bail system is in place to both ensure a defendant’s appearance at court and ensure public safety.

Many commercial bail supporters (including Mr. Ramirez) misguidedly rely on the failure to appear (FTA) rates to argue that commercial bail is much more effective than other forms of release such as Own Recognizance release (OR). David Ball at the Santa Clara University School of Law illustrates why FTA is not a great measure of effectiveness. For the purposes of this post, the key takeaway from Professor Ball’s article is the fact that while the bail system is in place to ensure a defendant’s appearance in court, that’s not all it’s meant to accomplish and ensure.

Mr. Ramirez correctly states, “Our criminal justice system cannot function if defendants fail to appear for their court proceedings,” but he completely disregards the fact that these failure to appear rates do not capture the whole picture. (Page 1) For one thing, a defendant may be returned to custody due to being rearrested (possibly on different charges). When that occurs, there is virtually no chance that he will miss any court dates as he is in custody and the jail officials will simply surrender him to the court on his given court date. Mr. Ramirez, like many other commercial bail proponents, completely ignores the fact that the justice system is also meant to guarantee a defendant’s release under the least restrictive conditions and ensure public safety.

Myth: Commercial bail is a necessary component of the criminal justice system.

Truth: There are many alternatives to commercial bail such as releasing people on “bail” without the need for bail bonds.

The effectiveness of a pretrial release method must include considerations of both the defendant’s likelihood to appear for their scheduled court date and their threat to public safety. As already mentioned, bail is meant to ensure that a defendant appears at his court date. This requires the court to impose certain conditions upon a defendant’s release in order to ensure that he shows up to his court date. When determining bail terms and conditions, a judge is required to consider whether the defendants pose a risk to public safety.

Mr. Ramirez cites to “The most comprehensive study ever done on bail” in an attempt to undercut the entire purpose of bail by simply focusing on failure to appear. (Page 3) The testimony ignores the fact that pretrial release determinations vary from state to state with regards to criteria used and the specific conditions of release. In some states, defendants are much more likely to be released with little to no consideration of their threat to public safety or their likelihood to appear in court. This is important because a pretrial system that considers the threat to public safety in their determination for release will likely provide a much more thorough interview and as such likely to release fewer defendants.

Mr. Ramirez states that “A risk assessment tool is merely a questionnaire consisting of a list of factors that have been shown to correlate one way or another with criminality or flight risk.” and then proceeds to question the validity of such findings. (Page 6) Specifically noteworthy is the fact that Mr. Ramirez’s fails to acknowledge that some jurisdiction, such as Santa Clara, have a comprehensive system in which defendants are thoroughly interviewed and the determination about their release is made after a long process.

In Santa Clara County, federal and state constitutional protections from excessive bail are often successfully implemented through pretrial release programs.

One key issue in Mr. Ramirez’s testimony is the fact that many of his statements rely on the idea or assumption that people have “the right to bail.” As previously stated, “bail” refers to all types of pretrial release, not just those made in exchange for money. (Page 3) The protections and rights prescribed by the federal and California constitutions do not guarantee that an individual is entitled to any specific type of release from custody. In fact, some defendants are not entitled to any kind of release at all.

It is certainly true that many California residents, along with many other U.S. residents, have money bail set, and that they often use commercial bail companies when they cannot afford to pay the full amount of money required by the court. Thus, while many residents use commercial bail companies to secure their release from custody, it is not true that “bail” is usually implemented through commercial bail companies. Courts not only release defendants by setting an amount of money that must be paid by the defendant to the court—they also release defendants on certain conditions, or simply cite and release the individual with a promise to return to court.

More importantly, protections from excessive bail are embedded in the Constitution of the United States as well as in many state constitutions. Unlike the misguided statement I quoted at the beginning of this post, these protections are specifically designed to protect defendants from entering into coerced or false guilty pleas. Also, contrary to popular belief, this protection does not grant an individual the right to pay a bail agent a large sum of money in exchange for his freedom.

This protection simply grants an individual the right to be released from custody, while he awaits his trial, under the least restrictive conditions. I mention the term “popular belief” because this is yet another misguided assumption that a lot of Americans (myself included) have been led to believe by statements from officials in high positions (like the district attorney), news coverage, and other popular media.

Why does this all matter? Misunderstandings about the U.S. bail system and the protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment have limited conversations about how this system can be improved both to ensure community safety and a defendants appearance in court. Money bail has become the norm and many have accepted it as the only system simply because it’s all we have known. These limitations have blinded most people from truly appreciating the fact that money bail does not accomplish any of its goals. These limitations have also allowed many to ignore the fact that there are alternatives to bail. A meaningful conversation about bail reform is long overdue and it must begin with accurate information.

 

 

 

Risk-Based Bail- The Money Bail Fix since 1966. Part 1- How The Bail Reform Acts Tackle Money-Bails Biggest Problems.

While money bail is deeply flawed, the answer to this problem will require more than just getting rid of commercial bail bond companies; they are a mere symptom of the “one size fits all” bail schedule model. The solution as we will see is risk-based bail. It’s recently been employed in New Jersey and hailed as the ideal model. But as novel as it sounds, risk-based bail has been around since before we set foot on the moon. For over 40 years, the federal courts have been able to tailor release based upon the risks of a specific defendant, be that failure to appear (FTA), or danger to the community. Further, these risks are mitigated with the least restrictive measures available. Assuming a defendant’s risks are accurately measured, conditions exist to mitigate risk, those conditions are actually enforced, there is no apparent need for the bail bondsmen. This is probably why there is no federal bail schedule and hardly any bondsmen in federal court.

There is often a distinction between law in the books, and law on the ground. As such, this post focuses on the former: the history of congressional bail reform, the alternative bonds used in federal court, and how we got the current elements of risk-based bail. The follow up post demonstrates one such instance of how risk-based bail has been rolled out here in the federal Northern District of California.

Continue reading “Risk-Based Bail- The Money Bail Fix since 1966. Part 1- How The Bail Reform Acts Tackle Money-Bails Biggest Problems.”

Illegal Bail Practices

I was driving last Sunday when an ad came on the radio for Aladdin Bail Bonds. Intrigued, I turned up the volume in time to catch the ad telling listeners to go with their agency, because other agencies only give you “gobbledygook.” I smiled to myself. The “gobbledygook” of the bail industry is what I had been thinking about for weeks. Heck, my whole criminal law and policy class had been thinking about it for weeks. Let me tell you, dear reader, about the “gobbledygook” of the bail industry, in the form of all the illegal practices that get bail agencies into trouble.

As I talked about in my last post, the bail industry is fiercely competitive. This has led some bail agents to turn to illegal bail practices to stay in the game. Just last year, a sting brought down 31 bail agents in 5 of our local counties (Santa Clara, Alameda, Mon20800521029_9d77204ea8_nterey, San Benito and Merced County). In Santa Clara County, the sting involved some of our most prominent bail agencies: Aladdin Bail Bonds, All-Pro Bail Bonds, and Bail Hotline Bail Bonds. The sting, ironically named “Operation Bail Out,” was put together through cooperation between the California Department of Insurance and the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office. This cooperation was long overdue. The California Department of Insurance had been receiving complaints against bail agents for years. As early as 2013, there were so many complaints that the Department of Insurance thought it necessary to send out a “reminder” letter of solicitation laws to all licensed bail agents in California.

Even local bail agents themselves had been pushing for better enforcement of bail laws. The former President of the Santa Clara County Bail Association told me that he had been recommending enforcement of the laws for years. Frustrated with the illegal practices of other bail agencies, he had been pushing for there to be a Department of Insurance regulatory officer placed in our area. There currently is none, and having one would help the Department of Insurance investigate claims of illegality. He even supported the idea of bail agencies paying a $10 fee on every posted bond that would be paid to the Department of Insurance to fund this. But his complaints and suggestions got nowhere.

So what exactly gets bail agents into trouble? Let’s examine the ways. Continue reading “Illegal Bail Practices”

Why accepting credit cards for bail won’t help poor individuals secure pre-trial release.

One of the recommendations made by the Santa Clara County Bail Working Group is to accept credit cards or debit cards at county jail facilities. [Revised Bail and Release Report, Page 10].  Defendants with access to a credit card will be able to avoid using commercial bail bond agencies altogether. This would allow individuals who are arrested on non-felony charges to post their bail using their own funds with more ease.[1]  While this provides an alternative to commercial bail bond companies, it may not be what is best for every defendant.

Before moving forward, I would like to point out that, under the proposal from the Bail Working Group, this form of payment would only be available to individuals arrested for misdemeanor conduct who are entitled to own recognizance release.  This means they should not have to pay anything unless the court makes a finding on the record that money bail should be imposed for public safety reasons or to ensure his or her appearance in court.  This post will address what an individual should consider before using a credit card, assuming that they are not eligible for own recognizance release.  If an individual does not have the access to the funds in their account and has a credit card, they would have the choice of using that credit card to pay the entire amount or using the services of a commercial bail bond company.

Some of the considerations a defendant should make before using a credit card to pay their bail are:  the interest rate of their credit card; the amount of time before they get that money back; and the fact that they may not receive the entire amount paid at the conclusion of their case.

While using a credit card may be the better option in some cases, paying 10% to a bail bondsman may be the better option for others.  After weighing these considerations, a defendant may find that using a commercial bail bond company to secure release prior to trial is a better option in some instances.  I do not address bail forfeiture (i.e. the process of losing your bail deposit when a person fails to appear in court).  I will be addressing the above-mentioned issues based on the assumption that the individual makes all of their court appearances. Continue reading “Why accepting credit cards for bail won’t help poor individuals secure pre-trial release.”

Privatization of Money Bail

In a previous post, I described the basic structure of for profit bail and addressed potential concerns with the privatization of this section of criminal justice. This post will address whether private bail agents save taxpayers’ money, increase efficiency and innovation in pretrial release, allow policymakers to focus on policy instead of procedure, streamline and downsize government, and, for their customers, whether they increase flexibility of service, quality of service, and the appearance rate in court.

The best approach to this analysis is to look at the service needed, the service actually provided, and the comparative costs and benefits of the private system against public systems. (Here’s an alternative analysis concluding that financial remuneration for pretrial detainees is a preferred solution). The service needed is simple. We presume the innocence of criminal defendants and, in order to not deprive them of liberty without any proven reason, we release the defendant pending trial. The public wants assurances that the released defendant will: 1) not endanger public safety during pretrial release and 2) show up to court (or prevent a failure to appear, “FTA”). Money bail only addresses one of those needs – the failure to appear, discussed below. For the sake of argument, and because the bail industry claims to protect public safety, I address public safety first. Continue reading “Privatization of Money Bail”

ARRESTED FOR A MISDEMEANOR?

This semester, the Criminal Law and Policy class researched the way bail operates in Santa Clara County. The class discovered that individuals that have been arrested and taken to the main jail do not have access to information about own recognizance release during the booking process.  While there are advertisements for commercial bail companies, there is nothing posted in “the tank” to explain to people that they might not need to pay to be released before the conclusion of their case.  I wrote about the potential problems this could cause for people accused of a misdemeanor crime who are entitled to own recognizance release absent an express finding from the court that other terms of release should be imposed.

After learning about this problem, my colleague Ruby Renteria and I decided to create a document that would explain to individuals their potential eligibility for citation and release or own recognizance release that could be posted in the tank.  We made the sheet below available to the Bail and Release Work Group and it was circulated during their last meeting.  We hope that this marks the beginning of the process to make this sheet available to the individuals in need of this information.

Click here to view the Own Recognizance Release Information Sheet.

The Price of Avoiding Incarceration

In my previous posts, I have discussed the general stages of the justice system, the fines and fees associated with the pretrial stage as well as the fines and fees associated with being in custody. To complete the discussion regarding the fines and fees associated with the life cycle of a criminal defendant’s journey through the justice system, I will be focusing on how money affects a person once they have been sentenced and are eligible for diversion programs. This post will illustrate how money is typically a factor in determining whether a person serves their punishment in out-of-custody diversion programs and the ramifications that this practice has.

Alternative sentencing is the general umbrella term that is used for different avenues of punishment rather than incarceration. The goal of alternative sentencing is to identify and use effective sanctions that address an offender’s underlying problem in efforts to advance public safety and the chances of reoffending. Alternative sentencing is similar to deferred entry of judgment pursuant to California Penal Code sections 1000.-1000.6. Deferred entry of judgment for adults is a special drug and alcohol education program that; offenders who commit certain drug crimes can have their charges dismissed upon completion of the program.

Santa Clara County frequently utilizes both the Sentencing Alternative Program, Inc. and the Sheriff Weekend Work Program when allowing individuals to serve alternative sentences in lieu of jail time. Both programs highlight that the programs benefit the community, the offender, and the state since the offenders pay to participate. Programs like these can be incredibly beneficial for an offender since they allow time to be served on the weekends or nights, allowing the participants the ability to keep their jobs, homes, and maintain family ties. However, these benefits come at cost. For example, the Sentencing Alternative Program charges, along with various miscellaneous fees, a sliding fee ranging from $35-$250 based on the number of hours an offender is assigned to complete. The cost to participate in the Sherriff’s Work Program is not publically available, however, their site does relay that the program incurs no cost to Santa Clara Citizens or the Department of Corrections as participants pay a fee.

The imposition of these fees puts indigent and poor defendants at a disadvantage: even if they are eligible for the program on the basis of their sentences, they will not be able to participate because of inability to pay. This disadvantage does not fall solely on those who have no money, but also those who are struggling to feed, clothe, and house themselves (and their families) while working multiple jobs. The inability to serve alternate sentences can have detrimental effects on these populations as jail time would likely cause them to lose their jobs and create difficulty securing employment upon release.

These alternate sentencing programs help offenders avoid jail and prison time, allowing them to escape the very system that some argue creates more crime. They can also be beneficial for the community, public safety, reducing recidivism and even the fiscal budget. However, these benefits should be tangible for all those eligible, regardless of a person’s ability to pay. Otherwise, our system is effectively handing out harsher punishments for those who are poor.

Policy

The nation’s current criminal justice system is punishing poor and low-income individuals at a disproportionate rate. Not only are people being thrown into jails and prisons because they cannot afford to pay various fines and fees, but these same people are facing a much harsher time in custody than their affluent counterparts.

There have been numerous studies to show that there is a correlation between the time an individual spends in custody and the likelihood that he will commit another crime. Imprisoning people based on a failure to pay and racking up fines and fees against them while they are in custody is not benefiting society in any way: incarceration is costly and the tremendous debt that people are incurring is almost never repaid. Moving to an individualized punishment system similar to Finland, where fines and fees are assessed based on ability to pay and income, would not only help save taxpayers’ money, but it would be a system that actually treats individuals fairly.

 

Bail Exoneration: the Rest of PC 1305

My last post explained how the complicated process called bail forfeiture works in California. In California, that process is governed by the first few subsections of Penal Code Section 1305 (PC 1305). The rest of the law deals with the situations where, once bail is forfeited, bail is then exonerated.

After a defendant’s bail is set and he or she misses a court date, the bail is forfeited. If the court declares that bail is forfeited, the defendant’s money goes to the county after a long period during which it might still be exonerated (more on this below). If bail is exonerated, then the “surety or depositor shall be released of all obligations under bond,” i.e., the bondsman or defendant does not have to pay.

There are a lot of ways that, once bail has been forfeited, it will then be exonerated. In fact, most of the law is written detailing those scenarios. That is especially important because few defendants deposit their own money with the court, i.e., pay cash bond, so defendants rarely reap the benefit that so much of PC 1305 tries meticulously to preserve. In this post, I explain bail exoneration via PC 1305 and illustrate the ways that the law is written to favor exoneration, which almost by definition favors bail bond companies. Continue reading “Bail Exoneration: the Rest of PC 1305”

Money Can buy you Happiness in Jail

As I have previously discussed, the criminal justice system has become an avenue for the government to make money. We are seeing an influx of cities, counties, and states using criminal charges as a basis for monetary charges assed in exchange for someone’s physical freedom during pretrial, to charge for basic needs while in custody, and to charge for post-sentencing court-imposed requirements. My previous post focused on pretrial release fines and fees and my next post will hone in on the fines and fees related to diversion programs and post-sentencing release, which means this post will illustrate fines and fees imposed while in custody.

A defendant may be in custody at any time once she is arrested for a crime. She may be in custody both pending and during trial because she was ineligible for release (either by statute, a judge’s discretion, or because she did not have the means to pay for her release), or she may be in custody as part of her sentencing. Typically, a person in jail, opposed to prison, is there either pretrial or during trial but pre-conviction; awaiting sentencing and/or transfer to another facility; or serving a relatively short sentence, usually a term less than one year. Prisons are long-term holding facilities that typically house individuals who were convicted of a felony and sentenced to serve more than one year. This post will include fines and fees imposed and collected in both jails and prisons. 

Pay to Stay

The in-custody fee that tends to have the most visceral reaction is the practice of ‘paying to stay’ or charging a ‘per diem’ fee. These fees, typically utilized by county jails, but also in place in prisons, actually charge inmates a daily ‘room and board’ fee for being incarcerated, as if the person 804af573e62f82bd5a90a97b187e0671checked into a hotel. Nationwide, it is unclear whether or not these fees begin accruing while a person is in custody prior to sentencing, if the per diems are only imposed once sentencing has taken place, or if, like in California, the fees can be charged retroactively for pre-sentencing custodial time after a person has been sentenced. Continue reading “Money Can buy you Happiness in Jail”

A Monopoly On Information: How Advertising In Jails Is Problematic For Defendants

Imagine being arrested and finding yourself in a jail cell. You have no access to a phone or the outside world. You know you have to show up for work the next morning but you have no idea what’s about to happen to you. You’re confused, afraid, and you would do anything to get out.

A few hours later you’re placed into “the tank” where an officer begins to ask you question. The tank is a holding cell filled with other recent arrestees all awaiting their fate. There’s not much to look at in “the tank” but you do notice a poster on the wall. The poster gives the names and numbers of many different bail bond agencies. You have no idea what a bail bond is and you’re still confused about what’s about to happen to you, but the advertisement tells you these agencies can help you get out.

product-2

The questioning stops and you ask if you can call one of the agencies. The officer allows this phone call without hesitation. Your call goes right through at no cost to you (not yet, anyway). This is because bail bond agencies generally contract with the jail phone service providers to ensure that defendants inside the jail have immediate access to them.

 

You speak to an agent named Bad Boy who promises he can bail you out in forty-five minutes. Unlike the officers and other law enforcement personnel you’ve come in contract with since your arrest, Bad Boy treats you like you’re human. At this point, you agree to pay him $5,000.00, 10% of the total cost of bail, to come bail you out. He tells you he can contact your wife for you and let her know you’re coming home. But most importantly, he tells you “everything is going to be okay” now that you’ve contacted him.

A few hours after you hang up the phone, Bad Boy comes and picks you up from jail. However, instead of taking you home, he takes you into his office to sign a lengthy contract that you don’t understand. At this point, you’re so exhausted that you sign without reading it (and because Bad Boy was so nice and polite). You are now facing a multitude of inconveniences: criminal charges from your arrest, expensive court fines, missed work, and now a contract with a bail bond agency where you have agreed to pay thousands of dollars.

This scene is all too familiar for those who have spent enough time researching the bail system in the United States. Many issues arise out of this particular scenario. First, some defendants can be released on their own recognizance (OR) at no cost and may benefit from waiting to obtain a pretrial services assessment. Second, these types of contracts place defendants and their families in a very vulnerable position.

In this post, I will discuss advertising in Santa Clara County Main Jail. Specifically, I will look at the way in which bail bond agencies have been given a monopoly on the information available to the accused. A monopoly is complete control of the entire supply of a service in a certain area or market. For the purposes of this discussion the service provided is information about release available to the accused and the area or market is the jail. Those in control are the bail bond agencies. Readers must note that private defense attorneys are also allowed to advertise in county jails. While this also raises several concerns, I only discuss bail bond agency advertising because of the specific impacts associated with that advertising: how these agencies control the information available to a defendant and in some instances are a defendant’s only method of contact with the outside world.

I use the term defendant and accused interchangeably because it is often the case that someone may be arrested and never actually charged with a crime. My post begins by discussing how advertising has made its way into the county jails. I will then proceed to identify the steps involved in determining the ins and outs of this advertising. I will conclude by posing many unanswered questions pertaining to the negative effects of this form of advertising.

The Unexamined Consequences of Allowing Advertisements in County Jails:

In a letter dated March 1, 2016, John Hirokawa, the Santa Clara County Chief of Correction, recommended that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara (the County) approve an agreement with the Jail Advertising Network (formerly known as Partners for a Safer America.) I will proceed in this post by referring to the Jail Advertising Network as Partners for a Safer America (PSA) because that is the name used in many of the Santa Clara County records. The agreement was approved. It allows PSA to sell advertising space in the Santa Clara County jails, bringing in over a hundred thousand dollars in revenue for the department of corrections(DOC). The only people/entities eligible to purchase advertising space are bail bond agencies and private defense attorneys.

In his recommendation, Hirokawa discusses the history of similar agreements made by the County and provides minimal information on the potential impacts of approving the agreement. Hirokawa writes, “the recommended action will have no/neutral” impacts on children, seniors, and sustainability. In one of his concluding statements, he indicates that the “DOC … would lose over 100K in revenues” if this agreement is not approved. Hirokawa’s letter fails to so much as even mention some of the potential negative consequences of this approval. For example, allowing for such advertisements without informing defendants of the potential for OR release may result in a defendant unnecessarily paying thousands of dollars to a bail agent. This lack of awareness or willful blindness on the part of the County is troubling primarily because it shows a complete disregard for the financial welfare of the accused, many of whom are their constituents.

Partners for a Safer America (Jail Advertising Network)

Let me digress for a moment to provide some background information on PSA and what it is they actually do. Simply stated, they are a company that contracts with counties all over California to sell advertisement to bail bond agencies. They keep anywhere from 20-30% of the profits and the County gets the rest (usually 70%-80%). The advertisement or product they produce is a poster board (as shown above). While this may sound simple, their home page provides a much more expansive interpretation of their work. The home page begins by describing the financial troubles faced by law enforcement agencies all over the United States. Their sales pitch concludes with a thought-provoking sentence, “As we grow in the number of institutions we support, we hope to realize the vision of safer, more secure communities from coast to coast.”

Untitled

At a first glance, it appears as though PSA is an agent of the counties they “support.” PSA’s website further encourages this mistaken belief by declaring their purpose is to provide “financial support and resources to those who keep our communities safe” and by using photos like the one above. To a naive outsider, it appears as though the PSA mission is much broader than simply providing advertising for bail bond agencies and private defense attorneys. 

 

Continue reading “A Monopoly On Information: How Advertising In Jails Is Problematic For Defendants”