Los Angeles County’s zero-bail system, implemented on October 1, has been the subject of heated debate and legal action. While 29 cities within the county have filed a lawsuit against the new policy, claiming it disregards various factors such as public safety and the gravity of the crime charged, the Superior Court has released data arguing that the system is working as intended.
According to a report covering the system’s first three weeks, less than 3% of individuals booked on suspicion of a crime were re-arrested. The new Pre-Arraignment Release Protocols (PARP) focus on individual risk assessments rather than cash bail. Presiding Judge Samantha P. Jessner stated that the majority of those considered a significant risk are being temporarily held in jail prior to arraignment, while those who pose little risk are being released under non-financial conditions. Under the prior system, those with money could buy their freedom, while low-risk individuals could remain in jail for extended periods if they couldn’t afford bail.
The zero-bail policy generally eliminates cash bail for all but the most serious crimes. Most people arrested for non-violent or non-serious offenses are either cited and released at the site of arrest or booked and later released with orders to appear in court for arraignment. Those considered a public safety or flight risk are reviewed by a magistrate judge who determines whether they should be held in custody or released under non-financial conditions like electronic monitoring.
This new approach was developed in response to criticisms that the traditional cash bail system unfairly benefited the wealthy while leaving low-income individuals in jail for lesser offenses. The system was initially implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to reduce jail crowding and was later reinstated by court order.
Despite the data supporting the new system’s effectiveness, concerns remain. Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna and Deputy District Attorney Jonathan Hatami, among others, have voiced apprehensions that the policy undermines public confidence in the justice system by quickly releasing people arrested for various offenses. Hatami, who is running in the 2024 District Attorney election, argues that any bail reform should prioritize public safety and involve consultation with the county’s 88 cities, their residents, victim groups, and law enforcement agencies.
Los Angeles Police Department Chief Michel Moore expressed a similar sentiment. While he said he was “comforted” that most high-risk arrestees were being held in custody, he remains concerned about individuals who were re-arrested for new felonies after being released due to zero-bail policies or cash bailouts.
Public opinion is also divided. While some residents have expressed fear, especially following a spate of burglaries, others accuse opponents of the zero-bail system of “fear mongering” and using misleading statistics to uphold current, ineffective policies.
In summary, while the zero-bail system is praised by some for its focus on individualized risk assessments and its early data showing low rates of re-arrest, it faces legal challenges and public skepticism. Opponents argue that it disregards public safety and could demoralize law enforcement. The debate continues to unfold, with both sides using data and anecdotal evidence to bolster their arguments. The lawsuit filed by the 29 cities, which represents a diverse range of communities from Santa Monica to Beverly Hills, is set for a court hearing in December.
Getting some real racist vibes here. Cut off State and Federal funding to these towns then.
Your vibe meter (Made in China) is broken, again.
your vibe meter…Made in Trump country???? Obviously.
It is unconstitutional to:
Jail a person based on their inability to pay money to the court.
Treat people accused of the same crime differently based on their access to money.
Once you can figure out how to use money bail without running afoul of those facts, go right ahead.
Several years ago while speaking with Kristin Cook on ssues related to the Scooter Program I simply asked her if she would consider having West Hollywood be known as “A SAFE CITY FOR RESIDENTS & VISITORS” while she appeared to be focused on bright, shiny, scooter objects. Ms. Cook failed to make the connection and continued her laissez faire/ PR approach for the Scooter companies and then departed.
Ever since we have had exponential crime and scooter issues. This is not a difficult problem to get a handle on but if not, we will be exponentially unsafe in either endeavor.
Seems the new law is designed to make it easier to be a thief in Los Angeles–law-abiding citizens be damned.
Only 3% are rearrested because smash-and-grabs don’t get arrested. They walk in, fill up their trash bags, and walk out right passed the security guard. There are lots of crimes these days just like that.
You can be sure that the 3% who do get rearrested committed a really bad crime, and of the 97% who don’t get rearrested does not mean they didn’t go on to continue their life of crime. There is a whole different standard these days for what crimes result in arrest.
Spot on
If the police have concerns that’s enough for me to be concerned. Obviously what they’ve been doing and the direction they’ve been going is not working as crime is out of control. Criminals realize very quickly if there’s no consequence for their actions they will commit crimes. And it certainly seems that policies are bent more to the criminals and not protecting the public as of late.
It does not require one with more than basic intelligence to perceive this. Seems that the police themselves are being undermined.