Bail bondsman proposal at odds with pretrial screening

Listen to this article

A pending legislative proposal to revive a state-run bail bonds system could impede the progress of two counties’ new pretrial screening programs based on risk evaluation.

The bill, yet to be introduced, is a modified reboot of a budgetary provision vetoed by Gov. Scott Walker last year. Both were designed to jumpstart local economies.

“This is a job creator,” said Vince Trovato, legislative aide to Rep. Scott Krug, R-Wisconsin Rapids, the primary author of the pending legislation, “and something that has worked in 47 other states. So with economic conditions today, we want to do what we can to spur economic growth and this is a way to do that.”

As many as 1,500 new jobs could have been created by the vetoed 2011 budget provision, and Trovato said that estimate holds under Krug’s proposal, as well.

But Milwaukee attorneys and judges argue the revised proposal runs contrary to the evidence-based pretrial system launched Jan. 17 in Milwaukee County. Eau Claire plans to launch a similar system.

“Judges would lose their authority,” Milwaukee County Chief Judge Jeff Kremers said, “to ensure bail decisions are made based on risk factors and not economics.”

The pretrial screening system, established through an 18-month federal grant, allows judges and court commissioners to order pretrial monitoring, bail or incarceration, based on factors including prior criminal record, employment history and housing status.

Kremers said bail bond companies are in business to make money and not to enhance public safety, which makes their proposed return a potential setback for the effectiveness of pretrial screening, especially for low income defendants.

“The reality in Milwaukee is that minorities tend to have less means to post bail, and are less likely to get out of jail,” he said. “The result of the bail bond system could be discrimination of lower income folks who aren’t able to come up with the automatic bail bond fee.”

Krug’s proposal allows bond agents to be paid 10 percent of the bond amount issued by the court with the rest being insured by the bond company and collectable by the court if the defendant fails to appear in court.

But debt collection isn’t the business of the courts, said presiding Milwaukee County Felony Court Judge Rick Sankovitz. A bail bond system would undermine the ability of judges, he said, to make pretrial decisions based on evidence.

“If a person can make cash bail at a lower level than what we propose,” he said, “they may not have to follow any of the pretrial precautions we set, such as staying sober or mental health monitoring.”

Wisconsin outlawed bail bondsmen in 1979 and Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm said the system is outdated as a model to set bail.

He opposed last year’s budgetary provision and said prosecutors and judges have evolved in their assessment of risk and determination of what type of supervision is needed for a defendant.

“Instead of outsourcing a cash bail system, we should actually be getting away from cash all together,” Chisholm said. “Those we identify as too great a risk, we should detain them until the case is over. Other people should be released on conditions of supervision, but not necessarily with cash.”

Chisholm also questioned the motive behind the new bill, suggesting it is nothing more than a business deal by legislators.

“We should be looking towards this problem to address bail issues and not trying to just create work for somebody,” he said. “I’m sure somebody is getting plenty of contributions for supporting this effort, but it’s just not needed.”

[polldaddy poll=”5894990″]

Trovato said the bill provides stricter licensing requirements and oversight than the budget provision to avoid corruption, including annual distribution of a list of licensed agents to circuit courts and a ban on bond agents contracting with specific attorneys or law firms.

Agents also could face fines up to $5,000 for violating regulatory rules established by the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services.

The initial licensing fee would be $1,000, with unspecified education and training requirements needed for renewal, according to the pending bill.

Trovato declined to comment on whether the proposal impairs the ability of judges to use the risk-evaluation model, but he said any concerns would be considered during discussion of the bill.

“Certainly, we don’t want to create additional hardship for people and our intention is not to butt heads with anyone,” he said. “But Wisconsin should get ahead of the curve on this and in my opinion, we are already behind.”

But Kremers said the legislation is a misguided attempt at fixing something that isn’t broken, but just in need of an update.

“It’s not a problem,” he said. “The problem is the need for more evidence-based decision making, and we are fixing that.”