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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT