Senate Bill 10 Pretrial Release Explained

25 Feb, 19

• in Laws

Is it fairer to release someone from jail based on how much money they have or based on the risk they pose to the community? This is the central question behind California’s recent bail reforms. The Senate Bill 10 Pretrial Release program was created to address concerns that the old cash bail system unfairly punished the poor. The new law requires a risk assessment for every person accused of a felony, aiming to make the system more equitable. However, this change has sparked significant debate and has had a massive impact on the bail industry. While the goal is a fairer justice system, the new process can be confusing and stressful for families caught in the middle. We’ll break down how this new law works and what it means for you.

Senate Bill 10 made huge impacts on California’s pretrial release system. Traditionally, you could bail out of jail if you have enough money to do so and the pretrial release program was reserved for people who couldn’t make their bail. Senate Bill 10 impacts the bail bonding industry in California drastically, though, because it serves as a bail reform program that makes it so that every person charged with a felony has to go through a risk assessment to see if he or she can be released on a risk-based release. The way that California’s pretrial release system works now is by making everyone accused of a felony go to a pretrial assessment. During the pretrial assessment, the court will evaluate various factors pertaining to the defendant and his or her case. Some of the factors that the court will take into consideration include the background of the accused, such as whether he or she has been convicted of any crimes before, most particularly if he or she was ever charged with leaving the scene of a crime. jumping bail or not showing up for court. The court will also take into consideration the nature of the charge. Charges that the court deems to be more serious and that come with a higher flight risk might prevent the defendant from winning a risk-based release. In short, instead of people being able to make bail now, the court will assess the risk of each defendant before turning the ones it deems ineligible to the detention system. In order to be held in the detention system, the defendant must have a preventive detention hearing. During the preventive detention hearing, the court will evaluate many assessors of risk, similar in nature to the ones that are assessed for pretrial release, to determine whether or not the defendant is deemed dangerous enough to need to be detained to prevent him or her from committing any more crimes in the meantime while the trial is ongoing. One of the assessors of risk that California’s Assessment Services will take into consideration is the risk that still exists to the victim. If the victim is still alive or any other people close to the victim are deemed to possibly be in danger upon the release of the defendant, then Assessment Services could asses the risk level of the defendant committing another crime if released throughout the trial period too high to release him or her. There are many critics of this new bail reform program. Some people believe that it’s in violation of the California Constitution and the belief that people are innocent until proven guilty. However, for those in favor of Senate Bill 10, the new law that requires the court to assess the risk level of each defendant prior to release enacts a more equal justice system that makes it so that all people will be treated equally regardless of funds and the ability to pay for bail or not. These people argue that poor and rich defendants are treated more fairly under the new law and that it is not in violation of the California Constitution. Of course, having the court assess the risk level of each defendant to determine whether or not he or she can be released on pretrial release or not definitely cause the bail bond industry to take a big hit. Bail bond companies primarily make their money by posting bonds for people who are given them and are able to pay the percentage required by the bail bond company to get them out of jail throughout their trial period. Not only do bail bond companies see Bill 10 as a detrimental bill to their industry, but they also argue that it punishes potentially innocent people who could be found not guilty in a court of law. If not guilty, they’ll have lost all that time that they could have been working and carrying on about their lives sitting in a detention center simply because the new law makes it where they can’t post a bail they would otherwise have been able to post. Bill 10, whether positive or negative, appears to be here to stay for a while at least, so bail bonds companies have to learn how to take the hit.  

Also Read:- Elimination of Money Bail. Who will bail out the industry?

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between the old bail system and the new one under Senate Bill 10? The biggest change is the focus. Before, getting out of jail before trial often depended on whether you could afford to pay bail. Now, for felony charges, the decision is based on a risk assessment. A court evaluates how likely a person is to return for their court dates and whether they pose a danger to the public. It’s a shift from a money-based system to a risk-based one.

So, can I still get a bail bond for a loved one in California? This new law significantly changes the process, but it does not eliminate bail bonds entirely. The key difference is that a risk assessment now happens first for felony cases. If the court determines the person is not a high risk, they might be released without bail. If they are deemed a risk but still eligible for release under certain conditions, a bail bond might still be an option. The process is just more complex, and a bail bond is no longer the automatic first step for every felony case.

What exactly does a “risk assessment” involve? During a risk assessment, the court looks at several key factors to decide if someone should be released before their trial. They will review the person’s criminal history, paying close attention to any past instances of skipping court dates. The seriousness of the current charge is also a major consideration. Essentially, the court is trying to predict the person’s behavior if they are released.

What happens if the court decides someone is too high-risk for release? If the initial assessment finds that a person might be a danger to the community or a flight risk, they are not automatically kept in jail until trial. Instead, they will have a preventive detention hearing. This is a more in-depth hearing where the court again evaluates the risks, including any potential danger to the victim. The outcome of this hearing determines if the person will be detained or released with specific conditions.

Why is this new law so controversial? The debate comes down to two different ideas of fairness. Supporters believe the new system is more just because a person’s freedom is not determined by their wealth. They argue it creates a more equal playing field. On the other hand, critics worry that it punishes people who are presumed innocent. They point out that someone who could have posted bail might now have to stay in jail, potentially losing their job and disrupting their life, all before being found guilty of any crime.

Key Takeaways

• Release Is Now Based on Risk, Not Money: For felony charges in California, Senate Bill 10 replaced the traditional cash bail system with a risk-assessment model. A judge now evaluates a person’s background and the nature of the charge to decide on pretrial release, rather than setting a bail amount.
• Expect a Pretrial Assessment: After a felony arrest, the first step is no longer posting bail but waiting for a mandatory pretrial assessment. The court reviews factors like past convictions and the current alleged crime to determine if the person can be released without paying.
• The Process Can Be More Complex: While intended to be fairer, this new law creates uncertainty for families. Release is no longer a simple financial transaction, and a person who could have afforded bail might now be detained if a judge deems them a risk, making the situation more confusing for those trying to help.