Hold on tight, times are changin'

How about throwing this into the mix?
Oregon Mail Tribune

A question of Fairness

The state should not punish friends or relatives by seizing bail money they post
June 20, 2010 2:00 AM
At least two Jackson County judges and its district attorney apparently do not believe there is an issue with jail overcrowding, if their actions and statements over a bail issue are any indication. The more important question is whether they believe in fairness.

The issue arose when a Central Point man, Ken Gutches, posted bail for his son, who had been arrested on sexual assault charges. To his chagrin, Gutches discovered after the trial that the court would not return his bail money, even though his son had complied with all aspects of the bail agreement.

This is no small financial matter: Ken Gutches posted $40,000; his brother, $50,000; and the defendant, $10,000. The money in question is the $90,000 posted by the father and uncle and why the state would even consider penalizing family and friends who step forward to bail defendants out of jail.

In the case of Gutches' son, Brad Gutches, judges Phil Arnold and Dan White have ruled that the court will keep the money until any potential civil litigation is resolved. In a hearing last week, Judge Ron Grensky seemed to support his fellow jurists and was dismissive toward the arguments that Ken Gutches should not be made to pay for his adult son's crimes. No one should confuse the bail question with the issue of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. None of the arguments over the bail suggests that Brad Gutches does not deserve the full penalties of the law for his confessed raping of two women (he was convicted and is currently in prison, serving an 11-year sentence). But 90 percent of the money being impounded does not belong to Brad Gutches; it belongs to family members.

In some ways, this strikes at the very heart of a staple of American jurisprudence: You are innocent until proven guilty. At the time bail is posted, the accused is still considered innocent in the eyes of the law, and in most cases family or friends are not privy to the details of the investigation. All they know is that a loved one or friend needs their help, and they feel confident enough that the accused will not flee that they post the bail amount. They have not posted bail for a guilty defendant, because that guilt or innocence has not yet been determined.

Oregon does not allow bail bondsmen, another argument for returning bail funds posted by others. Because the state does not allow private bondsmen to post bail, the bail must be raised by acquaintances. Truth is, no bail bondsman would post bail in a state where the money could be seized by the court even if the defendant met all the requirements of the court. So Oregon sets a higher standard for private individuals than other states do for bail bond companies.

We — and the court system — should be alarmed at this turn. Would you post bail, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars — for a close friend or even a relative if you thought the court could seize it, or at a minimum tie it up for months or years? Not likely. That means defendants who are not flight risks will fill jail cells, while the usual procession of people accused, or even convicted, of drug and property crimes will walk in the front door of the jail and all too quickly walk out the back door, because of overcrowding.

Beyond that — and above that — is the simple matter of fairness. Brad Gutches is a 27-year-old adult, long emancipated from his family. Why is his father, or anyone else for that matter, expected to pay for his crimes?

It's not fair and it's not right. If the courts plan to continue this sad miscarriage of justice, the Legislature should step in and put an end to it.

hmmmmmmmmmm . . . I know what they need! bondsmen! Here when a defendant posts a cash bond for felony charges once the case is adjudicated the monies are returned less Court Costs,Fines, and Fees ~ unless NG of course, and then 100 % of the money is returned.

_________________


Do not consider anything for your interest which makes you break your word, quit your modesty, or inclines you to any practice which will not bear the light, or look the world in the face .... Marcus Antonius

I AM Some Folks "KARMA" and A MODERATOR @ FRN

That is true in most states. However, as this articles shows, if it is a third party's money used to post the cash bond, it all should be returned to the people who posted it.

Oregon is already considering allowing private surety bail back into the state because of the high fta rates on their 10% or O.R. releases.

"Oregon is already considering allowing private surety bail back into the state because of the high fta rates on their 10% or O.R. releases."

And every other state in the union that's even considering pre-trial release or the elimination of commercial bail should look at Oregon and the other states that have tried these programs, and learn from their abysmal failures. I keep telling myself that common sense will prevail, but I just don't know anymore...

_________________
Doug DiNatale Bail Bonds
Vienna, MO
(573) 368-6672

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

IMHO... Common sense has nothing to do with this scenario, unfortunately. Judges legislate rather than judge from the bench. It is a power thing and a "We know better than you" thing. I think Scott M. had the number on the 'why and how' of the pretrial thing. The answer to this entire process is still hanging out somewhere in right or left field... it may never be fixed, at least not to our industries satisfaction and I have no clue as to what may actually take place. About all I can say is... it is an interesting read.

_________________
Bill Marx, Sr.
"FREE STATE BAIL BONDS"
"FREE STATE INVESTIGATIONS"
DCJS: 99-176979
Cell: 434-294-0222

"Endeavor to Persevere" "Lone Watie"

"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that , comes from bad judgment" "Will Rogers"

There are other paralells to this argument in the criminal justice system. Drug Courts come to mind. The studies that determine the success or failure are not credible, are conducted by the proponents of the system in question, and skew the data to support their jobs and position. Unfortunately, this is not questioned. The intellectuals that live off of this system continue to self aggrandize and seek not the truth.

The truth would allow the proper tweaking or implementation of different programs that may be successful, but that would require removing one's head from the sand. We are no longer facing facts to determine the longevity of a study/experiment/program. We are in fact creating more bureaucracy that does not die.

Point in fact, the Drug Courts are not successful, claim a reduction in recidivism, usually 2 to 22% in the year after completing the program, of course this is while they are on probation and the fact that they face the full punishment of the original crimes is also a factor. What the studies do not address is the following: Is the defendant incarcerated on other charges and not available to re-offend? Is the defendant alive? Is the defendant still residing in the study area? Recidivism is generated by activity entered into NCIC, and we all know how hard it is to get a Sheriff's Department to enter cases into the NCIC, even when they are felonies. These studies must be done on a state and regional basis, not an individual jurisdiction, as criminals travel. The data is collected by the managers of this system and they eliminate certain specific types of crimes, such as technical VOP's, which are re-offenses, but not in their eyes.

Studies of the success or failures of a potential program must be done scientifically, and performed by individuals with no dog in the hunt. We need to analyze and learn from this data so that we may develop programs that do help the offenders and keep our common costs and related taxes down. There must be a cost/benefit ratio consideration when discussing these types of programs. There is an entirely different factor that is not considered: Does a liberal or lenient judiciary present or produce a tangible deterrent to crime? The true cost savings is when the judiciary is conservative and hard on crime, smack the defendant down on the first offense, let their experience be harsh, and therein lies a deterrent to crime. If not completely, at least it will move the criminals to a jurisdiction that is more favorable to their behaviors.

Scott

_________________
R.E. "Scott" MacLean III

"Leaders are like Eagles, you never see them in a flock, but one at a time"

Chesapeake Group Investigations, Inc.
Chesapeake Bail Bonds
877-574-0500
301-392-1100 (fax)
301-392-1900 (Office)

If anyone wants to study the liberal judicial system, they should come to San Francisco. Betwen the court and the district attorneys' office, this would be the perfect example of how lenient CJ effects the crime rates.

Plus you can throw in the sanctuary city policy that allows illegal aliens to commit crimes and not be subject to deportation.

This is what happens when a city, or any government, takes over pretrial release.

http://aboutbail-bailbonds.blogspot.com ... bucks.html

_________________
Tom Duprey
Founding member, NABBI (Nat'l Assoc. of Bail Bond Inv.)
Ca. Bail Agent Lic#1845795
Owner/Operator, Thomas Duprey Bail Bonds
Owner/Operator, Orange County Bounty
(714) 727-4689

I have to agree with Bill. Things are changing for the worse in our industry all over the country. The bond business is Arizona took a nose dive in late 2008, and has not recovered yet. I am not sure it will. Legislative changes, as well as the will of the people in power in our criminal justice system, are making it extremely risky to write bonds in many parts of Arizona. All of the bondsmen (and women) I know are being very selective about the bonds they write, which results in very few bonds being written. That, coupled with the fact that many bondsmen (and women) in an attempt to save money, are recovering, or at least attempting to recover, their own skips, means a dramatic drop in my recovery jobs as well. I am not sure what the answer is, but I know of at least 4 bond companies in Tucson alone that will probably be out of business by this time next year, if this trend continues. Personally, I have retirement income that keeps me going, but I am one of those who is truly addicted to fugitive recovery work, and the recent lack of it is driving me crazy (or more crazy).

_________________
Marvin Bordeaux
Western States Bail Enforcement, LLC
Private Investigator (AZ) Lic. # 1628031
520 253-0317

In CA, over the last 3 or 4 years, there was a large increase in the number of bail agents and recovery agents. Some of it I'm sure was due to the popularity of movies and tv shows about the business.

So like with any other "services" any increase in competition, will result in lower prices and sometimes lower quality of the service. We saw a dramatic lowering in the amount of bail premium collected up front and in some cases, illegal discounts on the over all premium.

Zero down is not uncommon in my area.

Lower prices and lower quality of service. This may have been good for the consumer. But it is bad for the business and public safety as more and more repeat offenders skip court and cause increase delays and cost to the courts.

What has the defendant to lose if they paid little or nothing up front for their bond? Even if they are only free for a couple of months, to some, it is worth the chance to run.

Then the bail agents rely more on bail motions to find technicalities to get relief from having to pay the summary judgments. So the counties are fighting those motions more and more in hopes of collecting much needed money.

In fact, some counties are opposing almost all motions, the legit along with the bad, just to collect the forfeited monies. They can care less whether or not the bail agent gets the defendant back. They know eventually, they will get caught b y LEOs in a traffic stop or some other way.

I don't have an answer to the problem either.