“Cash bail is unfair. It means rich people go free and poor people sit in jail for the same crime.”
Bail reform sounds compassionate until you see the results. After New York eliminated cash bail for many offenses, rearrests surged 30% for released defendants. A New York judge released a man 6 times who kept committing crimes. The purpose of bail is public safety, not punishment.
Key Talking Points
- 1New York bail reform led to 30% increase in rearrests of released defendants
- 2Chicago study: felony defendants released pretrial committed 45% more crimes
- 3Bail's purpose is public safety and ensuring court appearance, not punishment
- 4Victims of repeat offenders are overwhelmingly in low-income communities
The Full Response
The fairness concern is legitimate — in principle, pretrial detention shouldn't depend solely on wealth. I'll grant that. But the bail reform experiments have produced alarming results that suggest the cure is worse than the disease.
New York's 2020 bail reform eliminated cash bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. The results were swift. An analysis by the New York City Criminal Justice Agency found that rearrests of released defendants increased approximately 30%. High-profile cases of repeat offenders released without bail committing new crimes — sometimes within hours — became a regular occurrence.
Chicago's experience was similar. After Cook County largely eliminated cash bail in 2017, a University of Utah study found that felony defendants released pretrial committed 45% more crimes than under the previous system. Violent crime in Chicago subsequently surged.
The fundamental purpose of bail is not punishment — it's ensuring defendants appear in court and protecting public safety. When a judge sets bail, they're making a risk assessment: is this person likely to flee or commit more crimes if released? Cash bail is one tool for managing that risk.
The alternative systems proposed — risk assessment algorithms — have their own serious problems. The Arnold Foundation's Public Safety Assessment, used in many jurisdictions, has been criticized for both racial bias in its algorithms and for releasing high-risk individuals who go on to commit violent crimes.
Better solutions exist within the current framework: reforming bail schedules so amounts are proportional to the charge and the defendant's means, expanding pretrial services and monitoring, using GPS ankle monitors for nonviolent defendants, and ensuring speedy trials so no one sits in jail for months awaiting trial.
The compassionate-sounding policy of releasing everyone without bail has resulted in real victims — often in the same low-income communities where the defendants live. True justice considers victims' safety alongside defendants' rights.
How to Say It
Acknowledge the fairness concern — it's real. Then present the data from cities that tried reform. Center the victims, who are often the same disadvantaged people the reform claims to help. Offer proportional bail reform as the better alternative.
Sources — The Receipts
- •
- •
- •
Community Responses
Have a great response to this argument? Share it below. Approved responses appear for everyone.