There’s another shake-up in the bail insurance lobbyist world, due, I suppose, to a rapid decline in America’s desire to use an antiquated, unfair, and ineffective system of release and detention based on money. But this time the shake-up reveals more than one issue facing the bail insurance companies. Yes, the use of commercial surety bonds is slowly declining and that business, as it’s currently practiced, will likely become extinct. Even bondsmen websites have re-published newspaper stories saying as much. But the bigger issue concerns how, exactly, to deal with the decline right now. Should they adapt, or should they fight?
The bail agents I talk to understand that despite the decline there’s still likely some place for them in what I call “private pretrial,” which involves persons doing the sort of risk assessment and mitigation that courts and the general public are demanding today. Jurisdictions across America want risk assessment, they want people who can make recommendations to the court, and they want people who can perform at least minimal pretrial supervision designed to mitigate known risk for public safety in addition to court appearance. Moreover, they want all of this for all defendants, and not simply for the ones who can afford it. It’s the kind of stuff that pretrial services agencies and programs do every day, but it’s only happening in about 10% of American counties. Private pretrial, if it’s structured like our current public pretrial programs, is a viable option for jurisdictions that don’t currently have pretrial agencies. Indeed, we have at least one operating here in Colorado, and as far as I know, it’s working pretty well. The bail agents who recognize the potential for private pretrial and who are the first to market will probably make a killing.
The problem is that there’s no place in private pretrial for insurance company backing because a private pretrial system wouldn’t be based on those big, arbitrary money amounts everyone is used to. Thus, unlike bail agents, there’s simply nothing to which the insurance companies can adapt. Accordingly, the only option those companies have is to fight a war to keep the current system in place.
But to wage that war, the insurance companies need bail agents. They need bail agents to faithfully repeat what the insurance companies say about the benefits of an industry that everyone else in America is questioning. They need bail agents to pass out “studies” that the insurance companies know are flawed. They need bail agents to make ridiculous statements like, “the purpose of bail is only to provide court appearance,” or “pretrial release is a failed system.” And I’m sure they’ll need bail agents even more in the future because they’ll come up with more studies, craft more statements, and hire more lobbyists to keep fighting for a system that gives the insurance companies money for essentially doing nothing.
Insurance companies need bail agents to do everything possible to keep their minds off of the fact that the surety bail system currently hinders release, has nothing to do with public safety, and can hang on only through back-room political deals fashioned by those oily lobbyists. In short, they need bail agents to fight for insurance company profits, and never to dream of a system that doesn’t include insurance company participation, even if that system might save the agents their own jobs.