tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66997002123921115572024-03-13T13:46:50.958-07:00Bail BasicsTim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comBlogger215125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-50897050545942882162020-03-09T14:54:00.000-07:002020-03-09T14:54:57.396-07:00The Biggest Issue in Bail TodayI almost forgot to link to this document titled, "The Single Biggest Issue in American Bail Reform Today," which is on my website <a href="http://www.clebp.org/images/Biggest_Issue_in_Bail_Today_10-17-19_.pdf">here.</a><br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure that very few people even understand it yet, or they wouldn't be talking so much about distractions like actuarial pretrial assessment tools.<br />
<br />
Right now on my desk, I have five different drafts of changes to various state constitutional bail provisions that would dramatically change who is released and detained pretrial in America. Most of the them are pretty horrible, and no American should stand for them. I'm knocking down the ones I can knock down, but it's getting pretty lonely, and I think other states are doing it without me even knowing about them.<br />
<br />
Don't you think people should look into this? Learn about this? Help with this?<br />
<br />
Anyone out there?Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-84967815397205147892020-03-03T08:46:00.000-08:002020-03-03T08:46:18.057-08:00ABC's "Strategy"I haven't written for a while, but it's not because nothing is happening.<br />
<br />
I've constantly warned that ABC's anti-bail reform strategy, which includes personal insults, misleading information, and attacking any and all efforts at bail reform no matter how minor, would backfire. I've now heard from two states working on pretrial reforms that refuse to have anything to do with ABC whatsoever. There are likely more.<br />
<br />
When I also heard some ABC legislative testimony the other day, I realized that the falseness of one particular claim was so easily refutable that it was puzzling that nobody did it on the spot. ABC is now being ignored, and it's taking the entire industry down with it.<br />
<br />
Bail agents, you have given up your power to the bail insurance companies, but their strategy is a scorched earth strategy. It's scorched earth because even the most minor and common sense reforms to the bail process likely mean that the insurance companies will lose money. The only way through this thing for agents was to break free from the insurance companies, help the states change (for they all do, in fact, want something to change), and then try to be a part of the solution even if it meant making a little less money. I'm not sure that's even possible anymore.<br />
<br />
I've given up talking to states about eliminating money bail, which is why I haven't written about it for such a long time. Now, the elimination of money bail seems inevitable. These days I'm working solely on what states will do when money bail is gone.<br />
<br />
And really, what states do when money bail is gone is -- or at least could be -- fundamentally a bail agent issue, but it's not an insurance company issue. You could still be a part of the criminal justice system, but you're going to have to shake loose from ABC and the insurance companies to make that happen.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-47126615659500861772019-10-11T07:05:00.001-07:002019-10-11T07:05:28.525-07:00Bail Insurance Companies Sued Under RicoFrom the United States District Court in Montana on Wednesday: "Allegheny and Fidelity created the environment that bred these acts by providing First Call [the bail agents] with a form contract which authorized this conduct <i>and by requiring First Call to bear the financial risk of forfeiture."</i><br />
<i></i><br />
Bail agents, you may not know this, but virtually all insurance companies bear financial risk. Some of them pay out on 98-99% of claims. They make their money on what they call the "float," which is the time between when a premium is paid and a payout is made. They take that money, invest it, and make their profits. As the court noted, however, bail insurance companies don't do it this way. In fact, one bail insurance guy bragged a while back that his company had never paid out on a single claim in 107 years of being in business. Who pays? Well, you know the answer to that. You do, defendants do, their families do. Everyone pays but the bail insurance companies. They've set this whole thing up to make money for nothing over the course of decades. They tried to keep it all secret through their work with ALEC, but we exposed that and now the whole world is taking a hard look at bail insurance that doesn't really insure anything. <br />
<br />
In fact, I used to liken the bail insurance companies to the Mafia, with bail agents just dropping bags of money off onto their porches every week. I suppose that's why Rico seems so appropriate to me. <br />
<br />
I've long since stopped looking at bail insurance company websites because I realized they only tell you about the stuff that makes them look good. Overall, though, money bail - and bail insurance companies -- are not doing well, and I've yet to see any decent plan from them for the future. All I do now is help states draft provisions to (1) eliminate money, (2) create viable preventive detention and then help people sue the states when they don't do those two things correctly. That's what's happening all over America, and ABC's insistence that somehow everyone is deciding to go back to the old days of high, arbitrary amounts of money is just dumb.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-46262191599730408712019-06-17T09:51:00.000-07:002019-06-17T09:51:03.266-07:00ABC's Personal AttacksThis last week two people on two different statewide commissions created to make recommendations on bail directed me to blogs and posts by people in the bail insurance industry (well, one was both a bondsman and an insurance guy, but you get the gist) attacking me personally. Those commission people told me about those posts not because they believed them and wanted clarification, but because they thought they were pretty horrible and couldn't believe they were written. Nice going, guys. You're upsetting the very people you don't want to upset. When they see you go after me, their first thought is that they could easily be next.<br />
<br />
Indeed, this is the third time in as many weeks that I've seen ABC attack me by name. I've been doing this for over 12 years, and I've only named a guy once. That was a mistake, and I wrote about it later by way of apology.<br />
<br />
I do mention the insurance companies by company name because they're the root of the problem facing the industry. But I don't go around naming various presidents, vice presidents, or lobbyists by name. Nevertheless, their response to bail reform is to go after individual people, like me, Justice Daniels, Justice Cantil-Sakauye, Alec K, and others personally, when they could easily simply write about "activists," "bail reformers," "judges," or any of a hundred other terms to describe what is going on. They don't know the substance and so they go after people.<br />
<br />
If you're a bail agent, just take a minute to think about where that has gotten you all as an industry. Across the country, judges and others have decided that they simply don't care if money is left in the system or not. They're just not going to use commercial sureties anymore. That's entirely due to ABC and its burn everything and everyone strategy. Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-43832569415818951262019-04-18T07:21:00.001-07:002019-04-18T07:21:47.788-07:00New Pretrial Group in MichiganThe Governor of Michigan Gretchen Witmer just created a task force on jail and pretrial incarceration. You can read about it <a href="https://www.wilx.com/content/news/Whitmer-initiative-to-improve-jail-and-pretrial-system-508702241.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Just look at the group of folks surrounding her: Chief Justice McCormack, Speaker of the House Chatfield, Senate Majority Leader Shirkey, Michigan Sheriffs Association Director Koops, and Michigan Association of Counties Executive Director Currie. <br />
<br />
In other states, ABC's message has been for those states to keep the status quo. In short, money bail works. In this article, the Governor stated that "the status quo is not working for victims, the accused, and those convicted of crimes." <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-138617661180059062019-04-17T08:38:00.001-07:002019-05-02T05:33:46.964-07:00ABC Must Be Winnng . . . Right? Not long ago I read an ABC post declaring a "Fourth Generation of Bail Reform," apparently marked by states coming to their senses to go back to using money. The inference, of course, is that ABC and the insurance companies are winning at this thing called bail reform.<br />
<br />
But the other day I scrolled down the ABC Facebook feed and saw "Vote No in Oklahoma," "Vote No in North Carolina," "Oppose Bill in Colorado," "New York's New System is Bad," and "Oppose Bill in Nevada."<br />
<br />
Oh, and those are just the ones at the top, and it doesn't look much like winning to me.<br />
<br />
The irony is that the bail insurance companies brought all this on themselves. Starting many years ago, ABC chose to fight literally every reform initiative and ignore states when those states said they wanted to change. I should look to see whether these insurance companies are publicly held. If they are, it would at least make some sense that they would fight everything because they have a fiduciary duty to make money for shareholders. But even if, that's a pretty short-sighted strategy.<br />
<br />
Fighting everything is why, even though money and bail agents are still lawful in NJ, the judges just don't use them anymore. It's why California is getting rid of them. Sure, ABC will fight that, but even if it wins California will just pass something that keeps money and dodges the industry. That's the inevitable result of, for example, publicly insulting the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Yeah, ABC did that.<br />
<br />
ABC and the insurance companies have made it clear that they intend to fight to the end. In doing so, they'll end up taking down the entire industry with them. <br />
<br />
Winning? Nope.<br />
<br />
A Fourth Generation? No, generations of reform take decades, and this one's just getting started.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-9553892350436446822019-03-31T08:07:00.003-07:002019-03-31T08:07:37.570-07:00Tenth Circuit Slams Bail Industry <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjITM7m5FalEj6jrjptHwpH-lwp2OfLjC1PjhxEIUCLTrOKF0JSdEISVb3TxN9mlClfyqatw0r5X5MRIIAE_NTHlltqo2e42NJPhMzucBRlWedJ9S_HcEydrLJfRQ6hJW5l1XsBQhsOXto/s1600/10th.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="142" data-original-width="355" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjITM7m5FalEj6jrjptHwpH-lwp2OfLjC1PjhxEIUCLTrOKF0JSdEISVb3TxN9mlClfyqatw0r5X5MRIIAE_NTHlltqo2e42NJPhMzucBRlWedJ9S_HcEydrLJfRQ6hJW5l1XsBQhsOXto/s320/10th.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
I just read the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals' (where I used to work, above) opinion in <i>Collins v. Daniels</i>, in which the bail industry, some NM legislators, and one former arrestee, whom they claimed could have been released more quickly on a money bond, sued a bunch of judges in New Mexico. The overall thrust of the suit was based on a belief that the New Mexico bail rules and use of the Arnold pretrial assessment instrument violated the constitution. In short, the appeals court affirmed the district court's ruling against the bail industry mostly on jurisdictional grounds (lack of standing, mootness, etc.,) and immunity, but the case reminds me of a couple of big points.<br />
<br />
The first point is that the case highlights the reason why this suit happened in the first place. Remember that bail reform in New Mexico started with a single opinion from the state supreme court writing about how judges were routinely violating the current law as written through the use of money bonds. This caused a stir, and led to both a constitutional change and new court rules. At the time, ABC slipped in and tried to de-rail the constitutional amendment, likely thinking that it could make up any lost ground by lobbying the legislature later on statutory changes.<br />
<br />
The only problem? Well, as I've written before, ABC didn't realize that NM was a "court rules" state, which meant all of the bail rules could be changed <i>without</i> the legislature. When it finally figured that out, ABC made a few feeble attempts to raise a stink -- like some sort of legislative resolution and having the Governor try to derail bail reform in Utah -- but in NM, the damage was already done. This suit, then, was just the last ditch effort by the bail industry in NM to try to fix what ABC had broken.<br />
<br />
The second point is that the case highlights what I have seen as a trend in the bail industry to take anything -- and I mean anything, including a potentially legitimate case -- and try to make it political for use in the rest of the state or even the country. In this particular case, the bail industry hired lawyers who, following the strategy of ABC and others, systematically screwed up the suit by adding various plaintiffs who lacked standing, all while not adequately researching actual precedent. In the end, the district court awarded what it called "Rule 11 Sanctions." Now, if you're an attorney in the federal courts, you don't want those sort of sanctions because they mean that your filing was baseless and/or frivolous. And take it from me, a guy who used to have to decide these things, the federal courts don't sanction people very often.<br />
<br />
So, if ABC even tells you about this case (which I doubt), see if they mention what the court said at the end of the opinion: "This case is a prime example of the waste and distraction that result when attorneys disregard Rule 11's certifications."<br />
<br />
For all you bail agents in other states, do remember this particular case when ABC arrives to help.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-56226734516737840012019-03-08T13:27:00.002-08:002019-03-08T13:27:19.285-08:00Bail Industry Loses a Big OneUsing the bail insurance playbook of legal arguments, the bail industry in California lost a big case the other day in San Francisco.<br />
<br />
You may remember this case. When it was brought claiming constitutional violations through the use of money, all the defendants agreed and refused to fight it. But the bail industry didn't agree, and so the judge allowed the CBAA to intervene so it could provide its best arguments and experts. Unfortunately, it looks like the arguments and experts were provided by ABC and the insurance lawyers.<br />
<br />
ABC has already downplayed the opinion, and said the industry will ultimately win, but they've been saying this a while now. I don't blame ABC for using two what we call "interloc" appeals to make you think everything is going your way. It's true that in two opinions we had some bad language. My side was worried about that language, too, but I'm not. I used to write court opinions, including quick ones in fast appeals that didn't have the benefit of thorough briefing and record, and I'm seeing a trend. Anytime a judge spends time on these cases, it always goes against money as a detention mechanism. I've seen this now for a while. When people don't know much about bail you see one kind of opinion, and when they do know about bail you see another kind. Buffin was the kind of opinion you get when someone learns about bail. <br />
<br />
Plus, these cases are not the only things exerting pressure to change. In fact, if a jurisdiction simply decided to do release and detention on purpose, it would cause a chain reaction of things to happen that would end up with the elimination of money. And guess what? That's what's happening all over America. If you don't understand what I'm talking about, then ABC has been leaving you all out of the discussion.<br />
<br />
By the way, bail agents, in this opinion you can see -- once again -- a court publicly trash the bail industry's expert witness by calling his testimony and research flawed. This guy has been a friend to ABC for a long time, so I get whey they like him and want to give him a bunch of money. But he's really hurting your cause.<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-16901572653186114562019-03-02T06:57:00.001-08:002019-03-02T06:57:33.319-08:00These Will Be Easy To RefuteI just read ABC's comments to the Uniform Law Commission, and boy they're a big mess. It appears ABC still doesn't understand what preventive detention or the word "bail" mean. Refuting them will be a bit of a breeze and likely (once again) embarrassing for the industry.<br />
<br />
It reminds me of footnote 20 in the Harris County order, in which the judge said, essentially, "Boy, ABC, you don't even know what the word bail means, do you?" That's pretty sad.<br />
<br />
Bail agents, these arguments are killing you.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-30991339424209534692019-01-30T06:13:00.000-08:002019-01-30T06:13:11.452-08:00Expect More of This, Bail Agents<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitaLtjGbjOKAnxf5gaBN3b_fLRm2DRCR50ZAkuadbPsW3o9FNN220rgw6PNvqu3VJ01x3VwctaGK-KWHAFSS0qjFoJUCvHv2fTBiG2waI8JkqZT-Wc6-IaS6oASPcS2yOvrpiTjEsbPPo/s1600/money.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="182" data-original-width="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEitaLtjGbjOKAnxf5gaBN3b_fLRm2DRCR50ZAkuadbPsW3o9FNN220rgw6PNvqu3VJ01x3VwctaGK-KWHAFSS0qjFoJUCvHv2fTBiG2waI8JkqZT-Wc6-IaS6oASPcS2yOvrpiTjEsbPPo/s1600/money.png" /></a></div>
<a href="https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-bail-surety-lawsuit-20190129-story.html">Here</a> is a link to a story talking about a big antitrust lawsuit against bail bond companies in California.<br />
<br />
I guess I don't have to tell you that having something like this hanging over your head doesn't really bode well for any sort of referendum vote.<br />
<br />
Note that one of the most damaging statements in the story came straight from the mouth of a bail insurance guy. We actually used other statements from that very same bail insurance company to fight a group called ALEC, which had to come out from under the shadows due to pressure. For whatever reason, ABC and its members sure do like to make damaging statements on the record.<br />
<br />
Lots of stuff the bail insurance companies have done over the decades probably seemed like good things at the time, but it's all coming back on them now. Staying away from public safety, arguing there's no presumption of innocence, setting up barriers to keep from paying forfeited amounts, avoiding any decent self-regulation, fighting any attempt at reform, claiming that their subjective notions of risk trump anything remotely objective, and, now apparently, promoting price fixing.<br />
<br />
You're only going to see more of this sort of thing. It's baked in. Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-45745062425777715942019-01-08T06:01:00.002-08:002019-01-08T06:03:04.830-08:00Fifth Circuit Grants Motion to Dismiss Appeal in Harris CountyYesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the motion of recently elected Harris County judges to dismiss their appeal of the preliminary injunction won by bail reformers last summer. You can read about it <a href="https://m.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Newly-elected-misdemeanor-judges-move-to-end-13502897.php?utm_campaign=CMS%20Sharing%20Tools%20(Mobile)&utm_source=share-by-email&utm_medium=email">here.</a><br />
<br />
As you recall, that's the earth shattering injunction that -- theoretically -- could change bail practices across the nation simply because Harris County practices look identical to those in virtually all American counties. I've been teaching on the injunction since it came out, and it's reasoning is nearly perfect.<br />
<br />
This all means massive changes to misdemeanor bail in Harris County, but the same arguments apply to felonies, and it's just a matter of time before people understand that.<br />
<br />
One outgoing judge quoted in the article said, "I remain convinced that fighting against bail reform was a mistake." Not to belabor the point, but isn't this pretty much what I've been writing on this blog for the past 5 years?<br />
<br />
Indeed, this particular fight was apparently a nine million dollar mistake.<br />
<br />
The article also mentions that the county fired their big shot lawyers. You remember them? They're the ones that the insurance companies said were going to stop bail reform altogether.<br />
<br />
Again I call your attention to ABC's declaration recently that the Third Generation of Bail Reform has "imploded." This is about as far from implosion as you can get.<br />
<br />
I'll conclude with something I wrote in my very first document about bail -- bail reform is inevitable. And yes, accordingly, it's a mistake to fight it. I think the insurance companies know that (although it's hard to tell what they actually know about bail), but they continue to fight perhaps because they understand the future of release and detention in America has no room for them. Theoretically, at least, there is (or maybe was) room for bail agents, but it looks like all of the fighting is really beginning to backfire on the entire industry.<br />
<br />
Winter is coming.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-47049711078182662822018-12-20T11:05:00.001-08:002018-12-20T11:05:25.398-08:00Janice Dotson-Stephens <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2F3i3napnQMsVYCaMci6LIyal1GFYR2gUzxe3642IIFLEU5Ty5_L_SLyubZg8nXqKdgwjEuikw-hTNLVTJwV32-KhfkkVXA9bt5eH3mARM_0-6QdY-YjR9PMyyJlJZpOdUhisTo8BKpU/s1600/janice.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="169" data-original-width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2F3i3napnQMsVYCaMci6LIyal1GFYR2gUzxe3642IIFLEU5Ty5_L_SLyubZg8nXqKdgwjEuikw-hTNLVTJwV32-KhfkkVXA9bt5eH3mARM_0-6QdY-YjR9PMyyJlJZpOdUhisTo8BKpU/s1600/janice.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Say<i> her </i>name. Five months in jail on a $300 bond. Died in custody.<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-82371467250072369342018-12-07T08:25:00.000-08:002018-12-07T08:25:55.021-08:00Exclamation PointAnd to add an exclamation point to the idea that the third generation of bail reform has most definitely not "imploded," this week alone I learned that three new states are having summits and/or creating statewide groups to look at pretrial reform in the next several months. I'm invited to two, and I'm pretty sure I'll be participating in the the third because I've been out there several times already. <br />
<br />
This thing is just now taking off. Get used to being disappointed by the bail insurance companies and ABC.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-4180758091366857682018-11-28T06:31:00.002-08:002018-11-28T06:31:46.154-08:00"The Fourth Generation of Bail Reform?" That's a Joke, Right? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmg9jXIs-TxqTyr3iJEznrYweLJkkwmISTZtzBOTwqxG_Q1fPGg-Rrc146cwkd1iBfZ5b3-XDsQRzxgdTBFwVIgHFvEN6hm4_2uy4E7Lb5JlBqV153zuDoIWXhYiPr2sTGlEkOrjEBMoo/s1600/laugh+2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmg9jXIs-TxqTyr3iJEznrYweLJkkwmISTZtzBOTwqxG_Q1fPGg-Rrc146cwkd1iBfZ5b3-XDsQRzxgdTBFwVIgHFvEN6hm4_2uy4E7Lb5JlBqV153zuDoIWXhYiPr2sTGlEkOrjEBMoo/s1600/laugh+2.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
So in an opinion piece the other day, ABC announced that the "Third Generation of Bail Reform" had imploded and that, in its place, the "Fourth Generation of Bail Reform" had begun, which appears to be some wishful retreat back to the money bail system.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 . . . "<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-89359692595079922002018-09-30T13:19:00.003-07:002018-09-30T13:21:08.950-07:00Changing Bail LawsMy new paper is titled,<i> Changing Bail Laws,</i> and you can find it <a href="http://clebp.org/newchangingmodellaws.html">here.</a><br />
<br />
It again answers the question, "If we change, to what do we change?," and is designed to be used along with my earlier paper,<i> Model Bail Laws.</i> It's shorter, though, so it simply raises the issues, and only solves the ones I thought were most important (like the need for a charge-based detention eligibility net). The longer paper is still helpful, and can be thought of as a template to show states the kind of detail work necessary to answer all the questions and to justify pretrial detention provisions. It is my model. States can come up with a different model, but I expect them to justify it to the same extent.<br />
<br />
I have had several people ask me what they should change in order to accomplish a moneyless system of pretrial release and detention. This paper is my answer. <br />
<br />
If I say to you, "California's SB10 created a detention eligibility net outside of its constitutional boundaries and a further limiting process that is subjective, resource-driven, and ineffective," and you don't know what I'm talking about, then please read these two papers. This, in my opinion, is the future of the field.<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-4008676032318056502018-09-03T09:01:00.000-07:002018-09-03T09:06:05.192-07:00California? Dude! This is the longest I've gone without a blog. I've simply been too busy spreading basically the same message across the U.S. The gospel according to no money bail will soon be coming to you.<br />
<br />
A lot has happened in a month -- some good, some bad, but I really just lack the time to report on all of it. Too many airports and hotels.<br />
<br />
California eliminating money bail is an entirely different matter, however, only because I've been warning about this happening for a long time.<br />
<br />
In multiple blogs I have warned that the bail insurance companies' strategy of fighting everything and everyone while not offering solutions (no, keeping everything the same is not a solution) would eventually lead to the elimination of the industry. And California is simply the latest case in point.<br />
<br />
ABC (oh, by the way, I wouldn't blame the ABC lobbyist for any of this -- he takes orders from the suits in the insurance companies) traveled to California like me and presented its information. Then, when things looked like they weren't going their way, the insurance companies started fighting -- even <a href="https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?rinli=1&blogID=6699700212392111557#editor/target=post;postID=96684306405738901;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=36;src=postname">insulted </a> the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court. Nice going, guys. When the time comes to decide whether to keep commercial bail, people remember all that animosity. So now you're gone, and the only thing that can save you is a statewide ballot initiative?<br />
<br />
Maybe some of you don't remember, but all of this started a long time ago when a bail insurance guy came to my little county and decided to try to end our county pretrial services unit. When that didn't work, and it looked like we might start making changes to the money bail system in our county, the bail industry really ramped up the fight and even eventually tried to run a statewide ballot initiative, basically picking a fight with everyone in criminal justice. We fought back and won big. The irony? The irony is that it was a lobbyist from a California-based bail insurance company that got that whole fight started in Colorado. Again, nice going. When we end money bail in America, I'll be giving a medal to that particular bail insurance company.<br />
<br />
Since then, though, I felt bad about what seemed to be the inevitable plight of the bail agent, and so I spent years laying out a plan that would include those agents in the future of release and detention in America. But the industry did not listen. Instead, through ABC and that other group, it fought everyone -- often personally -- and slowly burned bridge after bridge until finally what you see is everyone simultaneously tossing the industry aside like as an afterthought. <br />
<br />
So now I see from the bail insurance companies' posts online that their plan is to -- yes, you guessed it -- keep fighting. Fight without thinking. Fight without strategy. Fight without a solution. I suppose they have to at this point. But it's too late. Even if those insurance companies win, that fight will only further sour attitudes against the industry, and in the next round there will likely be money but no commercial sureties. Count on it. And that's only if they win. Remember Colorado? I spent 6 months of my life fighting the industry and helped us win that initiative 2 to 1. Someone told me they spent millions on that initiative. We spent $10,000.<br />
<br />
Bail agents, you've hitched your fate to the bail insurance companies and their lousy strategies. You really should have expected this.<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-82721963967148193322018-07-12T13:51:00.001-07:002018-07-12T13:51:23.589-07:00A Bad Couple of Days for the Bail Insurance CompaniesYeah, it's been a bad couple of days for the bail insurance companies.<br />
<br />
First, they lost that big case in the Third Circuit -- you know, the one they convinced you they'd win because they spent all that money on some big shot lawyer. You know, the insurance companies keep trying to convince courts that they know what "bail" and the "right to bail" are, but they keep getting told they're wrong. I find it really interesting that bail insurance companies and their lawyers don't know what those words mean.<br />
<br />
Then, yesterday, the Arnold Foundation mass-released the PSA to all comers. I know the bail industry doesn't know anything about all this, but take my word for it, it ain't good for the bail industry. I never could figure out why insurance companies would base everything they do on actuarial tools except bail. Oh well, all I know is the bail insurance companies don't like them, and now they'll be everywhere. Plus, wait until you see the training behind them! No more money. <br />
<br />
Then, today, there's <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/americans-receptive-to-bail-reform/">this</a> in the National Review. Seems like people in America want to change the way we do bail and no bail.<br />
<br />
Yep, things are definitely changing. Bail reform is low hanging fruit.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-12035504120605254492018-07-10T06:32:00.000-07:002018-07-10T06:32:51.363-07:00Bail Industry Loses in New Jersey (Again)This is getting pretty old. When I go back into the old bail insurance Facebook posts, I see how excited they were about telling bail agents that their savior, Paul Clement, was bringing a suit in New Jersey that will put an end to this whole bail reform thing.<br />
<br />
When the insurance companies lost in the district court, they tried to spin it, but I wrote about it <a href="https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=dcf654a7-9141-ad62-5de0-898365d0a6e7&forceDialog=0">here.</a><br />
<br />
Well, it went up to the federal circuit court, and the bail industry lost again. <a href="https://university.pretrial.org/HigherLogic/System/DownloadDocumentFile.ashx?DocumentFileKey=dcf654a7-9141-ad62-5de0-898365d0a6e7&forceDialog=0">Here's</a> that opinion. I see they're spinning that decision today as well.<br />
<br />
I don't have enough time to document all the instances in which bail insurance companies mislead bail agents by hyping their work at battling bail reform. But I can't think of a single time that a bail insurance company blazed some giant headline of "Breaking News" to announce a thing that, six or seven months later, didn't fizzle out. <br />
<br />
There will eventually come a time when bail agents everywhere will realize that the insurance companies don't know anything about bail, have no strategy to deal with what is likely the demise of the industry (the strategy they've chosen, to fight everyone and everything, is only making judges decide not to use commercial surety bonds), and missed out on the opportunity to actually help jurisdictions with pretrial release and detention.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-49048193010499726892018-06-08T10:44:00.000-07:002018-06-08T10:44:42.980-07:00Wall Street Journal Article About the Bail Industry<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijAlR2FyRP0Vd-7x0hMH9NKtA9bdhUjWeQJGOQG1fcR5YEWoQdJwMy40PLYEp0gAiH6xy9zJJRudvgb3HaMmVE-Uf0FgfM5PDQSw8FjJ6xT4oa7Gu-4Ei4WtV3WVLXbwyD1Whi3lrodv0/s1600/untitled.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="194" data-original-width="259" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijAlR2FyRP0Vd-7x0hMH9NKtA9bdhUjWeQJGOQG1fcR5YEWoQdJwMy40PLYEp0gAiH6xy9zJJRudvgb3HaMmVE-Uf0FgfM5PDQSw8FjJ6xT4oa7Gu-4Ei4WtV3WVLXbwyD1Whi3lrodv0/s1600/untitled.png" /></a></div>
Here are two tidbits from yesterday's Wall Street Journal article about the for-profit bail industry:<br />
<br />
<i>"Overall, the net premiums of bail bonds written nationwide declined for the first time last year following five consecutive yearly increases. In 2017, premiums written dropped 3.8% to $119.5 million, according to insurance-ratings firm A.M. Best."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"The A.M. Best Report shows that the total face amount of bail bonds posted in the U.S. dropped to $15.9 billion last year, a 4.4% decline from 2016 and a reversal in the trend from the previous three years." </i><br />
<br />
How's that ABC strategy of fighting everything look to you now? Are you still winning, or is something else going on? <br />
<br />
By the way, ABC's focus on "risk assessment" is misplaced. Risk assessment tools only replace other forms of risk assessment. Money is risk management. Other forms of risk management replace money. The insurance companies don't know what they're talking about when it comes to risk assessment, which is kinda weird given that insurance companies use actuarial risk assessment tools all the time (and when we explain this to various stakeholders, everyone laughs with that kind of "wow, how can they be so dumb" laugh). The industry has bought into a strategy by bail insurance companies that are ignorant about basic principles of bail, including the very definition of bail (<i>see </i>Harris County order granting preliminary injunction at footnote 20). Accordingly, I expect to see many more articles like the WSJ article in the future.<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-43414475408121751432018-06-06T05:38:00.000-07:002018-06-06T05:38:46.259-07:00Al Jazeera Video About Bail Reform<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JySDEyUygM&feature=youtu.be">Here's</a> a little video about bail reform from Al Jazeera.<br />
<br />
I've been watching posts from the bail industry for a long time, and I can tell you that there is nothing in this video that it'll like. It was a bit of a gang fight, with ABC losing due to its inability to concede certain basic facts about the money bail system. <br />
<br />
So . . . I assume that even though someone from ABC was on the show, ABC either won't mention anything about it, or it'll start attacking Al Jazeera and the others personally.<br />
<br />
ABC's intentional strategy to argue and fight everything, rather than to think of solutions, is the cause of all of this. Bail agents, this is your future.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-71210256254762194652018-06-04T15:40:00.000-07:002018-06-04T15:40:10.953-07:00Judges/County Lose in 5th CircuitYou know, the only reason I think I keep this blog going is to occasionally tell people how things actually turn out.<br />
<br />
ABC's Facebook page still has the big "Breaking News" banner about a bunch of judges in Harris County demanding some new injunction and the County asking for rehearing in the O'Donnell case.<br />
<br />
Well, they lost all those motions.<br />
<br />
You can thank me for bringing you all up to speed.Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-12098543602552119522018-05-31T09:25:00.000-07:002018-05-31T09:25:43.623-07:00John Legend Lends His Voice to Bail ReformHere's a nice video titled, "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vJTcgCDa5U&feature=youtu.be">The Truth About the Cash Bail Industry,</a>" narrated by big time music star John Legend.<br />
<br />
Let me guess, ABC, now you're going to write bad things about John Legend, right?<br />
<br />
Really? Even though he played Jesus?<br />
<br />
Fight, fight, fight. Where has it gotten you?Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-1933166265969864932018-05-10T07:27:00.000-07:002018-05-10T07:27:00.453-07:00Google and Facebook Banning Commercial Bail Ads<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnSZ5H4nBNrW9WeF4IiYA6PD0VMAhVIWug-uMI8hlOatU4W7JNh0NvV-ATTD5A70kSI8hW66csuFRy2PLkyl8oEF3Oija58LijUZR4hbc8YMU14B3IgHKdDeJaKTRjPwlzPQY6uXbRjR8/s1600/face+logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnSZ5H4nBNrW9WeF4IiYA6PD0VMAhVIWug-uMI8hlOatU4W7JNh0NvV-ATTD5A70kSI8hW66csuFRy2PLkyl8oEF3Oija58LijUZR4hbc8YMU14B3IgHKdDeJaKTRjPwlzPQY6uXbRjR8/s1600/face+logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnSZ5H4nBNrW9WeF4IiYA6PD0VMAhVIWug-uMI8hlOatU4W7JNh0NvV-ATTD5A70kSI8hW66csuFRy2PLkyl8oEF3Oija58LijUZR4hbc8YMU14B3IgHKdDeJaKTRjPwlzPQY6uXbRjR8/s1600/face+logo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnSZ5H4nBNrW9WeF4IiYA6PD0VMAhVIWug-uMI8hlOatU4W7JNh0NvV-ATTD5A70kSI8hW66csuFRy2PLkyl8oEF3Oija58LijUZR4hbc8YMU14B3IgHKdDeJaKTRjPwlzPQY6uXbRjR8/s200/face+logo.png" width="200" /></a><br />
<br />
<br />
Several people emailed me to tell me about this. Yep, Google and Facebook are both banning ads from the commercial bail industry. You can read about it <a href="https://www.axios.com/google-bail-bonds-ads-ban-1525720613-6cde91b2-6938-4273-ab86-e0211ee97292.html">here.</a><br />
<br />
Why is this a big deal? Well, in addition to just the fact of it, it's because of a couple of things called cognitive dissonance and backfire. Cognitive dissonance is basically the state of having inconsistent thoughts. People don't like it, and they mostly strive for consistency with their various views. To do this, they often seek information that reinforces preexisting views and ideas. This is a really powerful phenomenon; in fact, in a couple of studies a year or so ago, some researchers actually found that if you hold certain beliefs strongly enough, even objectively false statements will cause you to become even more firmly entrenched in your sometimes false views. In other words, presenting the actual facts to people holding certain false beliefs "backfires," and causes them to believe their false ideas even more strongly.<br />
<br />
This, in my opinion, is why people in the bail industry are constantly befuddled by everything that's currently happening. Everyone in the industry has pretty firm beliefs, and so all statements -- true or false -- are likely woven into the existing narrative of why commercial bail is such a great thing. In fact, if those researchers are right, bail industry people will continue believing that money bail is a great thing, and no matter what we say they'll only believe it more firmly.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij93V_hjVmuN0qm2LrdtG20_xjQq7K15dtNgld9n6XfStSuNT3N4Eae-UOEij7vl9GLiEHcnRiWSrs8FjfUWicpVsMWzkqtkyayTw1Ck31U9Zfm01WvZ_pP4dBulXH7YJOchDb3AmXzyI/s1600/images.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="159" data-original-width="318" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEij93V_hjVmuN0qm2LrdtG20_xjQq7K15dtNgld9n6XfStSuNT3N4Eae-UOEij7vl9GLiEHcnRiWSrs8FjfUWicpVsMWzkqtkyayTw1Ck31U9Zfm01WvZ_pP4dBulXH7YJOchDb3AmXzyI/s400/images.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
But the bigger problem for commercial bail is that the vast majority of people in the United States have absolutely no preexisting notions about bail. That's why, when you explain things to regular people, they don't necessarily like money bail. And it's why, for example, companies like Google and Facebook would immediately choose to forgo advertising revenue from the industry rather than to be a part of the money bail problem. See how it works? Now Google and Facebook have certain beliefs about money bail that they didn't have before, and presumably they'll be looking for facts to support those beliefs.<br />
<br />
By the way, this rather dramatic showing of public disdain for the bail industry is very likely caused by the tactics of ABC, which fights everything, treats their own clients as criminals, and personally attacks and insults those who question the status quo. Oh, and when ABC says people are trying to get rid of people's right to bail, what they mean is money bail, and there's no right to money bail in America. Another part of ABC's strategy is apparently to confuse you about the law.<br />
<br />
I'd tell you more about the law and the fact that ABC's overall strategy is failing, but cognitive dissonance and backfire tells me that you'll only take it to mean the opposite of what I say.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-18246398175253905062018-04-14T05:15:00.000-07:002018-04-14T05:15:08.813-07:00The Bail Insurance Companies' Personal Attacks<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUrfQGmmDzGh6XQcCmitFREAsj-3ALzVGLuBnjpQJM84E71ykHqGV4AGl6zjrK2vZwgHlWkUDfpAxqHTCzXHu8lSJ1KXUHkqjFlOFq3mzA7usUeUiOH8Fof0qLFSW7xyUXogzl75WSemw/s1600/weasel_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUrfQGmmDzGh6XQcCmitFREAsj-3ALzVGLuBnjpQJM84E71ykHqGV4AGl6zjrK2vZwgHlWkUDfpAxqHTCzXHu8lSJ1KXUHkqjFlOFq3mzA7usUeUiOH8Fof0qLFSW7xyUXogzl75WSemw/s1600/weasel_0.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Okay, I'd expect this from PBUS, but not from ABC. But once again, the bail insurance companies show how low they can go by posting personal attacks against various people they believe are behind this generation of bail reform.<br />
<br />
They're trying to subtly hide them by putting all the personal attacks on a separate site and FB page, but unfortunately the address for that is the same address listed for ABC on it's main website. Make no mistake, if it's against bail reform and it's trashing someone personally who is for bail reform, it's probably the bail insurance companies that are responsible for it, no matter how many layers they use to shield themselves.<br />
<br />
Specifically, ABC has been naming people and questioning their motives, insulting them, and even portraying them in horrible (I suppose ABC thinks they're funny) pictures. Really, has anyone ever taken a picture of a sitting justice on a state supreme court and portrayed him as the devil? Yes, the bail insurance companies have.<br />
<br />
Early in my bail career, I named one guy publicly and quickly came to regret it. I shouldn't have named him because he was just doing his job, which just happened to include a radically different ideology than my own. In fact, at the time I named him, I didn't really even think I was doing it as a slight -- it just turned out that way later on. I named another guy privately, but he forced me to do it. Then he decided to become an expert witness for the bail insurance companies, and, well, you're just asking for trouble when you do that. I think maybe he retired.<br />
<br />
Since then, though, I've really tried (and, believe me, it's hard) to not name actual people in this bail reform thing. I'll talk about the companies and their lobbyists, but nobody should have to walk around thinking some goofball has put their picture on the web with horns and a tail. If you know me, you know that mostly I talk about issues (feel free to read some of the papers on my website). I write all the time, and none of it is about individual people, unless you count someone like Alexis de Tocqueville. My last paper was 200 pages and all I talked about was constitutional language. Can't you insurance companies at least try to do the same thing?<br />
<br />
I want you bail insurance people to ask yourselves a question. When you were little, and your mother asked what you wanted to do when you grew up, did you say, "I'd like to trash the personal character of anyone who gets in my way of making gobs of money?"<br />
<br />
The other day a bail insurance dude asked, "Why don't you just ask the bondsmen?" Well, one reason is that whenever we ask people in your industry about the issues, we get personal attacks. And, bail agents, just remember that personal attacks are the sign of desperation. Argumentum ad hominem seems okay, but it never works. The fact that this logical fallacy even has a name ought to tip you off. <br />
<br />
There's still time for you all to create a decent strategy around this thing that doesn't involve personal attacks. The fact that you make them at all, tells my you don't know what that strategy even is.<br />
<br />
This is the sleaziest thing you've ever done, and it plays into the slow degradation of our civil discourse. For that, you get the weasel pic -- twice.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhuebunXxbbIzMYjWhvhm6QvOr_pwbeZpNBL7H8DdLPXpA6p73r8b466Ymh6bfZt_7fsMlGV-0d2KcEAD03YGE11Zmh-PYFtbRMJb3i9dsWN8Wov5ZOmoxl8ygnNL8x-65ToHfQTAUMUo/s1600/weasel_0.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="195" data-original-width="194" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhuebunXxbbIzMYjWhvhm6QvOr_pwbeZpNBL7H8DdLPXpA6p73r8b466Ymh6bfZt_7fsMlGV-0d2KcEAD03YGE11Zmh-PYFtbRMJb3i9dsWN8Wov5ZOmoxl8ygnNL8x-65ToHfQTAUMUo/s1600/weasel_0.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6699700212392111557.post-1201135126973422962018-04-01T06:53:00.000-07:002018-04-01T06:53:25.353-07:00ABC Says Bail Reform is Ebbing . . . I say, better check out the front page of today's New York Times:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDSyIE_BMwcZ2MibWZs1n4Uw7rkRQTPedZIGsivEGjldRveP-MbAHj6hDIk-IXYQbHD_KGVECxTCbxHgtlNs_qboPKp0zFBta_nw-yk80frtT9mIyyxtVQ-ecPguEfyQ1CjhzK7zaTkYg/s1600/image1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDSyIE_BMwcZ2MibWZs1n4Uw7rkRQTPedZIGsivEGjldRveP-MbAHj6hDIk-IXYQbHD_KGVECxTCbxHgtlNs_qboPKp0zFBta_nw-yk80frtT9mIyyxtVQ-ecPguEfyQ1CjhzK7zaTkYg/s320/image1.jpeg" width="240" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
This thing is really only getting started.<br />
<br />
And just wait until they do the deep dive into bail insurance companies!Tim Schnackehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10386670979186204415noreply@blogger.com