ILNews

Supreme Court committee studying alternatives to bail

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state’s new criminal code reconfigured crimes and punishments but while offenders may face different outcomes, some will still languish in jail prior to trial because they do not have the money needed to be released.

Bail is the primary way defendants get out of jail in Indiana. Usually courts order offenders to either pay cash to the court or use a bail agent to post a surety bond to get released from county detention. Those who do not have the money to pay bail stay behind bars.

During the 2013 and 2014 sessions of the Indiana General Assembly, legislation was introduced that would have made small changes but largely left the current bail system in place. The Indiana Supreme Court has since convened a special committee to examine alternative pretrial release programs which would not end bail in Indiana but could significantly reduce its use.

The Committee to Study Evidence-Based Pretrial Release was established by Indiana Chief Justice Brent Dickson in December 2013. The Supreme Court wants a study and evaluation of the risk-assessment tools that are available to determine when pretrial release is appropriate and under what conditions.

Criminal defense attorney Stephen Dillon makes a strong argument for change with the simple assertion that the state’s current bail system is unfair. Rich defendants can get out of jail before their trial while poor defendants have to remain in custody.

Dillon, chair of the Indiana State Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, is a member of the Supreme Court’s pretrial study committee. Echoing the thinking behind evidence-based forms of pretrial release, he advocates basing the decision to discharge not on money but on whether the defendant is a danger to the public or a flight risk.

Among the objectives the Supreme Court gave the study committee was finding a way to give all accused individuals access to release regardless of their personal wealth. In addition, the court asked the committee to report on avenues to establish a release system that is proportional to the risks the defendant presents; will enable offenders to continue their normal lives and employment as much as possible; and will allow accused persons to receive treatment and rehabilitative services.

The 14-member study committee is made up of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers and state legislators.

Release based on risk

Pretrial release has become a key issue with the implementation of the new criminal code. Committee member State Rep. Jud McMillin, R-Brookville, pointed out the study committee is addressing the concern that many local officials have about jail overcrowding.

The new code aims to keep low-level, non-violent offenders in the county jails rather than place them in the Indiana Department of Correction. Having some alternatives to bail could provide a better way to reduce the inmate population since a significant proportion of people are currently in the local jails because they cannot afford the cash or surety bond, he said.

Both Dillon and McMillin noted the present bail system does not consider an offender’s risk of committing another crime while on pretrial release. Instead, county jails have a bail schedule based on the level of offense. If the accused has the money, the cell door can swing open.

In Kentucky, the process is different.

Within 24 hours of being arrested, every defendant undergoes a risk assessment that largely consists of a state and national criminal background check as well as a brief interview. Then the defendant is ranked as being of low-, moderate- or high-risk, and the pretrial officers make a recommendation to the local judge.

Next, the judge decides the terms of any pretrial release. While in all cases the bench has the discretion to add conditions, generally low-risk offenders are released on recognizance and moderate-risk offenders are also released but monitored. Judges are given complete discretion regarding high-risk offenders.

Bail is still an option, and judges can impose a monetary condition to release. However, the funds are paid directly to the courts.

“Research has shown time and time again that posting money has no bearing on returning to court or risk to the public,” said Tara Klute, general manager of the Kentucky Division of Pretrial Services.

The success of Kentucky’s program is clearly illustrated in the statistics. In fiscal year 2014, a total of 216,760 individuals were arrested in the Bluegrass State. Of the 68 percent who obtained pretrial release, 87 percent appeared for court hearings and 92 percent did not commit another crime while on release.

Convincing all 92 counties

Northwest Indiana’s Porter County has had a supervised pretrial release program for more than 20 years. Defendants are classified as low-, moderate- or high-risk and assessed for whether they need treatment for a substance abuse or mental health issue.

According to Stephen Meyer, chief probation officer at the Porter County Probation Department, the local jail is one of the few in the state that is under capacity. Also, even though Porter County is the ninth-largest county in Indiana, 40 other counties are sending more inmates to the DOC.

Meyer, who is a member of the study committee, said counties are receptive to looking at what can be done better, yet they can be resistant to change. That gives the committee a “daunting task,” he said, of trying to pull all the players together and consider alternatives to bail.

Klute attributes Kentucky’s ability to get all its counties to comply with pretrial release to the Legislature. The Statehouse passed measures outlawing commercial bail bonds in 1976 and mandated judges use pretrial risk assessment reports in 2011.

Getting all 92 counties in Indiana to agree to institute alternatives to bail will be difficult, McMillin acknowledged. As happened in Kentucky, he believes the Indiana General Assembly will have to legislatively address pretrial release.

The committee has previously met twice and plans to meet again in August. No deadline has been set for the committee to submit its report to the Supreme Court.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT