This has always been the problem with ABC and the insurance companies it represents: it simply doesn't know anything about bail. If it did, it would see that this generation of reform is only just beginning, is inevitable based on historical markers and the issues involved, and will not end simply due to the various hiccups caused by states jumping the gun. And even if it stopped, as it eventually will (history shows it will take decades, though), you won't see another "generation" immediately after it. Generations of reform are separated by long periods of time. But ABC doesn't understand bail. And it certainly doesn't understand bail reform. Cases in point: (1) for the first 7 or 8 years or so in this generation, ABC said there wasn't anything wrong with bail; in this piece it says it's a "broken system;" (2) for the first two or three years, they denied the presumption of innocence even applied to bail; in this piece it ends its piece by calling it "precious." I could go on.
So if ABC knew anything about bail reform, it wouldn't say a generation has "imploded," let alone announce that another generation has begun. No, ABC is telling everyone that bail reform has imploded to make sure it's agents have no doubts about sending all that money to the insurance companies. After all, the insurance companies have quarterly profit reports to maintain (recall that the amount of money paid to those companies in 2017 dropped for the first time in 5 years). Bail reform is scaring the crap out of the insurance companies, and they need money to fight it -- no matter how lousy their strategy might be.
Think of bail reform broadly. Whenever we see the wrong people in or out of jail, we see bail reform. This has happened throughout the history of England and America, and it's happening now. What is the cause of this dilemma today? Our use of money at bail. But even if we decided to use money differently at bail -- for example, if judges made all bail amounts affordable -- the reform movement would not be over, because using money differently would only illuminate what the states must change in order to do pretrial release and detention on purpose. That means changing statutes, constitutions, and court rules.
I called this the "Third Generation" because I saw it as a movement that would go far beyond the money system and that would ultimately affect all states (just like the previous two). I still believe that. And if you're a bail agent out there, and you don't understand exactly what I'm talking about when I talk about nets and limiting processes, unintentional and intentional detention, then ABC hasn't fully explained what this generation of reform is even about.
Oh, and imploding? Tell that to California. The people in charge in that state are already comparing the bail industry to the plastic bag industry (they tried the same thing with a referendum), and so the California agents' days are clearly numbered.
Imploding? Tell that to the five or six other states who are showing me language that eliminates money and makes gigantic changes to their constitutions to re-draw the line between purposeful release and detention. By the way, in these discussions, our big debates are about intentional detention; getting rid of money is often an afterthought.
Imploding? Tell that to the multitude of jurisdictions who will be adopting the PSA (after doing their homework, they'll how actuarial tools can be used properly) and will begin doing release and detention on purpose through the training of LJAF. That, in turn, will also lead to massive legal changes. Heck, even if states completely reject actuarial risk tools, they'll just use some other form of risk assessment (you don't replace money with risk assessment as ABC writes, you replace one form of risk assessment with another form of risk assessment), and it'll still be the end of money. Everyone on our side knows that. Money screws up intentional release and detention. Every time ABC says, "They're replacing the right to bail with risk assessments" or "They're replacing money bail with risk assessments," I get to go in and correct it, and the states are listening to me because ABC's error is so fundamental.
By the way, since I don't blog much anymore, I thought I'd clear one thing up. ABC places a lot of force behind what we all call the "100 signatory letter," in which a bunch of civil rights groups called for not using actuarial risk tools and then give a bunch of cautions in case states still decide to use them. There isn't enough space to explain it here, but the call to not use the tools is wrong and won't work in any event. In fact, the letter itself lists two or three really great reasons for why a state might want to use one. Once you list good reasons, the issue becomes not whether to use one, but how to use one. Scholars who have studied these tools in depth have all said there's more than just the two or three good uses, and states will use these things in any event.
But I write this aside because it was due to ABC's incredible spin on that letter that caused those same 100 groups to release a document decrying money bail, opposing the commercial bail industry, and condemning ABC for misleading jurisdictions. That document -- the one ABC doesn't tell you about -- is really forceful when I hand it out around the country. We'd have never created it if ABC had just stuck to the facts about the original letter. Bottom line is that if anyone puts the brakes on "risk assessment," it's only because they jumped the gun on bail reform and need a bit of education. When educated, states reject money and see this form of assessment as merely an evolutionary step in a 1,000 years of risk assessment. ABC isn't a part of the discussions I have, so it's probably no wonder that it doesn't know anything about what people are really saying about "risk assessment," including actuarial tools. Remember, though, that's ABC's fault. It had a chance to join with everyone to find solutions, but all it did (and does) is fight. Actuarial assessment isn't something you fight, but ABC simply doesn't understand that, or basically what I'm even talking about.
That aside, the Third Generation of Bail Reform is most definitely not "imploding." If anything, the bickering about how, exactly, to do release and detention is a clear sign of its growing strength. If people weren't making changes, they wouldn't be talking about this stuff. Twelve years ago most people simply told me, "If it ain't broke . . . "
So that's why I can only figure that declaring the reform movement over is a ploy designed to keep agents from jumping ship. But I get it. ABC would like to paint me and others like me as crazy when we say, "Bail reform is inevitable." But I've been doing this now for about 12 years, and I haven't been wrong yet. I called this the Third Generation simply because parts of it cannot be stopped. It's not about rich and poor (although that's important). It's not about how we assess risk (although that's important, too). The movement is about change, and by advocating that states "return to the simple system" that existed for the last 400 years, ABC has missed the point entirely. States want to change and ABC is fighting change. It's that simple.
You bail agents should back up and assess what's going on here. I've said that the insurance companies don't know anything about bail, that his opinion piece just affirms what I've said. There's still one way for bail bondsmen and women to stay in the business of release and detention in America, but it means distancing themselves from bail insurance companies, hiring a lobbyist for themselves that doesn't peddle the insurance company garbage, and starting on a plan that helps states figure out how to release and detain the people they want to release and detain with what used to bail agents as a part of it. In an intentional release/detain system, you won't be seeing those gigantic numbers (you know, like "$100,000 bail," which is why the insurance companies will be gone), so get used to the idea of making service work money. Like I said, at the end of the piece ABC admits the system is broken. So quit thinking like bail insurance companies, and start thinking like reformers and help states change.
What have you got to lose? After all, it's not like the insurance companies have been your friends. They don't do anything because you do all the work. They don't lose any money because you take their risk. Instead, they lose in state after state because they fight everything the states want to do. Oh, and they make dumb statements like, "The Third Generation of Bail has imploded."
