tv Brookings Institution on Role of Monetary Sanctions CSPAN April 1, 2019 7:07pm-8:03pm EDT
to achieve reform across our country. >> thanks so much to all of our panelists. we are going to have a brief break and be here for the second panel. . >> and we continue with continued ways to the criminal justice system in the ways of fees, fines and bails. focusing on how the system with negatively impact the poor and minorities. this is 50 minutes. >> the first panel, set up this conversation well to continue essentially what was discussed. and i won't, you know, volunteer travis because new york is in the house. i really wanted to appreciate the conversation apt the principals that the previous
panel shared. and really, tee this conversation up with what for me became personal even though it wasn't personal, to really frame i think the principals of what we are talking about here, which is kalif broweder. many of you may know the story of kalif browder. he was 17 years old when he was arrested for allegedly stealing a backpack. as a result of that arrest, he ended up spending three years in prison, two of those in solitary confinement for two reasons. one is he refused to plead guilty because he says he didn't do it. and that's one of the reasons he actually spent so much time in jail and that's an important part of the story to remember. and then the second was that the
judge, both the prosecutor requested and the judge imposed $3,000 bail. now, the way the story ends besides three years in prison, two of those years in solitary confinement as a teenager, is that he committed suicide after his release. jennifer goner man who wrote the story that brought this individual story to light was really bringing to light a story of a system that doesn't work. and i wanted to frame that out because at all points of kalif brower's story is the police and the police officer's decision to arrest him what was based on
shaky testimony at the point of arrest and then there was the prosecutor's use of their effort to extract a plea deal that resulted in bail, and then his inability to make that bail. and his refusal in the absence of not having money to be kept in jail for that length of time without having been convicted of a crime, which is also then about the backlog of the judicial system itself in not even being able to bring that case to trial to determine if he was even guilty. and i want to share one other -- because at the time i was in the administration as his counsel, so one of the things the city started doing, which i think is important in the absence of legislation, in the absence of
state legislation, to start doing as much as the city could to reduce both the number of people who are even being taken to jail in the first place in the form of telling -- and the city council is hugely important -- stopping in the first place and giving desk appearance tickets. but for people not to spend any time in jail and we ultimately included creating a social worker who was actually attached to the case so that as a result people were not only spending less time in jail, literally where i think 11,000 people avoided jail now as a result of the reforms. but 87% of them returned to court. so a lot of the reasons why we say that we are putting up bail, we have been able to demonstrate there are ways to work the
system to ensure the people come back, which is some of what we are going to talk about. but i really wanted to frame it around kalif browder and not all results in suicide. but we are talking about real people and talking about people who are often, often caught up in the system that doesn't work for them where bail becomes one part of systemic abuse. so with that i want to start with you, jay, in telling us what we have learn and what that tells us about possible solutions. >> okay. great. thanks very much. so i'm going to talk about -- try to represent the views in a sense of goby and crystal i can't think presented a great paper for us in the hamilton project and lay out what they sketch out with the pretrial system and in particular the use of bail. as barbara mentioned in the open, last night if it was a typical night, there were
probably about half a million people in jail in america who had not been convicted of a crime. and about 90% of them a judge had said could go out if they could pay a certain amount of money, but they couldn't and so they were in jail. and so that's just incredibly stark fact about how widespread the problem is and i'm really glad you opened that way, to think about what this means to an individual and think about how many individuals it's happening to every night. bail use is up across the country, from decades ago. we used to let a lot more people out of jail after arrest, release on recognizance. it's wide set across felony offenses, not that we said 20 years ago oh, no, we are letting too many people arrested for violent crime out. no, across a whole range of offenses we allow bail more than
released on recognizance, assuming they will come back for trial. it's less expensive and we will talk about poverty in america and important to remember the people involved in the criminal justice system are disproportionately jail. if you look at those arrested you initially doubt they are right because the numbers are way too low relative to median incomes until you realize how disproportionately poor they are. when the median bail is $10,000, there is a wide group of people that literally no way they are paying. in many cases and many states and jurisdictions, they could go to a bail bondsman and pay a premium and get it posted. but 10% premium, there is no way someone is paying 12,000 out of pocket, so they are in jail. it's also, though, in many cases
not just these high ticket numbers. if you go back in new york city before what we are talking about, you would have half the people in jail on bail on felonies had amounts of 500 or $1,000 or less. it's not that they were given high bails intentionally to keep them in jail. a judge was perfectly fine them going free, but 500 or $1,000 was not going to happen, so they stayed in jail for a long period of time. what i think the contribution of this paper is looking at the impacts of pretrial detention. because you are assigned randomly to a bail judge, that is in a sense a gold mine for economists because it gives you this randomness that you can see the causal impact of being stuck in jail and what it lets you do is some get a judge and some get
someone for lenient. and you are far more likely to be convicted of a crime and plead guilty of a crime. interestingly you are not more likely to spend more time after adjudication and this goes to the point, robin opened this with, you are giving time served or probation. but you have a criminal record. two years later you are much less likely to be employed and much less likely to have income and more likely to commit crime again because you have a criminal record, probably less employable in our labor markets. so just quickly some of the policies you could take and i will move on to our far more knowledgeable panel, we are employing far too many people -- it's the cost of keeping them in
jail and not the long run costs and clear evidence we should be moving far more to release on recognizance to never bringing someone into jail to begin with and do things to ensure they show up simply like text messages and making it so they can read it. you don't have to house them in jail to get them to show up. and beyond that you could do more in terms of noncash, nonincarceration ways to track people if you think there is risk, whether it's ankle bracelets or meeting with someone once a week to make sure they are still around. there is a lot more to say about that. but i will leave it to the rest of the panel. it's clear it is a system keeping too many in and a huge number of ways we could improve that. >> thank you. so joanne wallace, coming from
the per specificive of the legal aid, share with us those suffering under the bail system, but also what other systemic issues you may see i know you may want to talk about what contributes to the problem. >> sure. i know we are talking about economics, but i want to start with values. right? so school children, every day they pledge allegiance to a symbol that stand for this country and we tell them it stand for liberty and justice for all. originally conceived and created, bail was with those values. for people to come back to court as an incentive for people to come back to court for their hears to stand trial. it was about letting more people out of jail before -- while they are waiting for their trial. but instead, its purpose has been totally changed. instead our jails are filled
with people who as people have said over and over again this morning, are presumed innocent. they are not convicted of the crime for which they are charged and indeed many of them not convicted of anything, but they are locked up simply because they don't have the money to pay their way out. so almost every day we see a new story. you can read about someone that has been harmed by this system of bail that is in too many jurisdictions, like mr. wolf in chicago, a cellphone captured him thrown to the ground and he got charged by a faulty police officer and spent 3 1/2 months in jail because he couldn't afford to get out. in fact, the money they were going to use to pay his bail was spent because his uncle died and they had to pay for funeral expenses. people in that situation are anywhere from 30 to 75% of the
jail population. for people of color, there is this double whammy, right, on one hand african americans, latinos are disproportionate in poverty and likely to get a higher bail for the same offense that their white counterparts are getting lower bails set and they are less likely to be released on their own recognizance. at the end of the day when people are locked up because they can't afford to pay, it is destabilizing on individuals and families and communities. they lose their jobs. you can lose your home. you can lose your ability to take care of your family, your loved ones, and in addition, physical and mental-health issues that existed before people are in the system can be exacerbated.
first of all, the stress of everything that has happened to you and second, because of inconsistent or nonexistent medical treatment that often exists in our jails and prisons. so the bottom line is that locking people up just because they can't afford the price of their freedom, you know, is unfair, un-american, and doesn't have to be that way. in fact, we are having this conversation in a jurisdiction that has approximately 90% release rate of people who are charged with crimes. and they are a very low rate of ra sit ricitivism. 90% that do, they are nonviolent offenses. we have models that the system
of bail and the harm do not have to happen. so in dc, not that you can't use money bail, but it is prohibited as a means or reason for detention. and instead, what has contributed to those very impressive numbers are, number one, having a preventative detention system where there are procedural safeguards. it's having a well resourced pretrial services agency. having a well resourced public defender service that provides seoulous representation. there is no one way to address the issues and concerns that we were talking about this morning. so in d.c. when you come into court for the fisting time, you have an attorney there. and that's really where i want to end. the reality is people not in the
criminal justice system are really shocked when you tell them all around the country, people come, get arrested, go to court for the first time and go in front of a judge that decides whether they go home or not while waiting for their trial, days, weeks, months and there is no attorney to comfort and guide them. this is something we are not talking about very much in terms of the bail system, when we talk about bail reform, pretrial reform, we are not really having that conversation about the intersection between counsel and how it impacts what happens to individuals in the system. so i will say much more to come. but at the end of the day counsel is a key part of being able to ameliorate the impacts of the bail system we have, as well as challenging the system to make sure that the tools we put in place are used
appropriately and properly, helps us to do better to develop better tools, better systems by helping us to make sure that promising innovations, to tease out promising innovations and reveal junk science where appropriate. >> professor alex tabar, you are an economist, probably only one on the panel, which means we are going to test your skills, so obviously implicit in what we are hearing in the discussion about reform is whether or not cash bail should exist at all. right? so should it exist? shouldn't it? what's your view? >> yeah. so i guess my role on this panel is to be the bad guy, which anthony hopkins says those are the best roles, so that's okay. look, two points tonight. first of all, the case for the
movement to eliminate cash bail is a person who is innocent, who is wrongly arrested for a minor crime who rots in jail because they can't afford bail. as you pointed out, these cases do exist. we have such cases and deserve attention. however, they are not paradematic. this is a paper that covers 500,000 arrests between 2008 and 2013. 35% were for a violent crime, including 12% for murder, sexual assault, or robbery. drug misdemeanors were 12%. most of the arrested had priors.
3.2 prior felony arrests and 5 prior misdemeanor assists. convictions were less than assists, which suggest to me that maybe the system isn't convicting enough, though interpretations will obviously differ. nevertheless, typical arrested person has been arrested multiple times previously. now, given all this, i think actually most americans would be pretty surprised to find that most people are released. two-thirds released off the bat and more are released when they are assign bail and then make bail. now, it is true that quite a few people who are assigned bail don't make bail. and i will come back and talk about those in a minute. of the people who are released, given their extensive history with the criminal justice system, it is perhaps not surprising to find that 15% fail
to appear on the day of their trial. a whopping 25% are rearrested and 2% arrested for murder, sexual assault, or robbery. now, these are rearrest rates, which are almost certainly an under estimate of crime rates. now, what role does money bail play in this? well, first, the people who do not make bail, they are obviously not a random sample of the people that have been arrested, but people who do not make bail are on average more dangerous. twice as many arrests and twice as many convictions. for example, the average defendant who doesn't make bail has six previous felony arrests
and four previous failures to appear. four previous failures to appear, the average. now, what's going on seems obvious to me is there is a group of people who is job is crime. when released they go back to their job. and they continue to do this until they are convicted of a crime and spend some time behind bars. so that's point number one. point number two, i just want to say a brief word on some of my work with eric feland on the bond system. because most of the people assigned bail, they don't have the cash, so they borrow money from a bail bondsman. that gives the bail bondsman a strong incentive to make sure that the person appears for trial. and they actually do this in a lot of interesting beneficial ways.
they remind the people. they call them up, send them text messages, the bail bondsman is actually an unappreciated help to the defendants, helping them to navigate the system. second, if they do fail to appear, the bail bondsman can send a bounty hunter after the defendant that didn't appear. and they are the only people who systematically go after and bring in who fail to appear. the bounty hunters are the long arm of the law. and we find people released on commercial bail are 28% more likely to show up and if they fail to show up, 50% more likely to be caught quickly and to not be at large within a year. so my points really are this, to
summarize is when we are talking about a radical measure, such as eliminating cash bail, we need to focus on the par da mattic cases of the people we are talking about. if we are eliminating cash bail, yeah, we are going to let some people go, but more often we are going to let guilty people go as well. so we want to be aware of who we are talking about. second, if we eliminate cash bail, we eliminate the bounty hunter and that is one of the highly incentive systems that actually work and we need to keep that in mind when doing so. >> thank you, so i want to assure everyone we are going to have a good discussion about what strategies are and what we need to think about. but robin steinberg, you have been working on national bail fund, but also seeing what's
happening locally around the country. can you share both your, you know, experience with bail reform and also if you want to chime in on any views, we will come back to those conversations. >> sure. first, i appreciate my comments of my fellow panelists and particularly joanne's comments that is a painful reminder of the cost of justice. i experienced as public defender in south bronx. and there is obviously the human and moral cost and the economic price some of us referred to here that we all pay. we spend 14 billion every year holding people in jail pretrial. that's 38 million a day. and when you factor in the collateral consequences, runs as high as 140 billion annually we spend holding people in jail who haven't been convicted of a
crime. and it's already been talked about it is staggering. half a million sitting in jail tonight. that affects 2.5 million every year and we turn in this country through this country. each one is a human life, it's important to remember that. that human life is connected to a family and that family is connected to a community. one of the things that make the conversation about bail reform so complicate and why we find problems finding solutions is so confusing. because rather than diving into the facts that describe the big picture, our mind tend to drift to the rare, hypothetical, the unforgivable and scary and maybe that's human nature. maybe it's the result of a narrative of fear that paved the
way to massive incarceration, and maybe we all just watch too much law and order. but whatever it is, it takes us down the wrong path, rather than look to what usually happens or what most people do, we end up creating a system that protects against the very rare thing that is might happen. we wind up legislating around the exception. we don't do that in every area of our lives. we take risks daily, calculated risk. we can chemotherapy for cancer and drive cars, the number of wrecks a day are huge and tragedies are relatively small, so we get up and drive to work. focusing on that can be a distraction and frankly it leads us to justify some of the most horrible things we do, from torture and solitary confinement
to the death penalty to name a few. so let's not do that. let's talk about the things we know, not the things we fear. i have to address a couple things alex said before i move on with my comments. by focusing on the exception and scary and by telling all the felons that are going to be on the streets, is to scare us. if you scare us enough, you will get americans to justify doing anything, even granting a bunch of barely regulated individual vijilanties. what happens when you are charged with the scariest of offenses, murder. davis in 2009 bureau of justice statistics say when released pretrial, 95% return to court
and zero% were rearrested while out on bail. that data leads us to the question while the most serious offenses pretrial detention is necessary or justified. let's talk about some of the recent reliable data and what it teaches us. not many states embarked on statewide or system wide reform. but a few have and shed some light on this issue. we start with new jersey passed the justice reform act that overalled their system to provide a presumption of relief for most people and prohibition of the use of cash bail except in the rarest circumstances, in the first year new jersey reduced its prison capacity by 23%. what did the data tell us about crime rates? since that statute passed 2 years ago, violent crime rates have fallen 20%. and let's look across the river in new york city. new data released from the study
that analyzed 5 million cases between 1987 and 2018. the bail has risen from 50% to 76% and approximately three-quarters of the accused are released on their own recognizance, meaning no conditions, no cash or no ankle monitors, new york city is much of the -- cities in america. do they come back to court? yes. perhaps most important and to remember is new york city crime rates have continued to plummet, making new york city one of the safest cities in america. so while talking about reimagining a pretrial justice system without having used as a proxy for race or class, we need to center ourselves in the conversation and ask ourselves what would you want if your
loved one was in the system, for some so far you that may seem unimaginable or too far fetched, but it is probably not for the person sitting next to you or in front of you or behind you because the new data shows one in two families have had an immediate family member booked into jail. we cannot afford to have bad policy drink by the exception. so how do we find a way to a fair criminal justice system? the answer may be simpler than you think. building into a system a presumption of release for most people. and the data we have been collecting at the project has been scaled across the country, we are learning more and more. we are now at 11 sites across the country where we are using philanthropic dollars to bail people out and tracking what we are learning and understanding what people need when they get out. we are tracking the data and
what we have learned is that in fact most people will come back to court inaugurated and in the bronx we started our project over 50% of the cases were dismissed and what we are learning about and this is my final point is the barriers to coming back to court are rarely intentional and purposeful, they are connected to poverty and lack of access to simple things like lack of transportation or child care. remember to distinguish not just using the dumb blunt failure to appear, but to separate intentional failures to appear to things like poverty and lack of resources. i met a woman who had to choose between buying a gallon of milk or gallon of gas to get to court
and those are unique across jurisdictions. as rolling out, we will be unpacking what those myriad of obstacles are. but we will be back where we are. not only viable, but efficient, cost effective and help us balance the scales of justice so everyone in america, regardless of wealth, race, or background is afforded no more and no less the basic promise, but still unrealized commitment our constitution has articulated that there is supposed to be equal justice under the law. >> just noted i heard agreement between alex and ronan. we should not use the outlier and you both agree the number of people that return are high, depending on how you view 15%. >> so i do want to turn to the
vera institute. tell us, you work on prosecutorial reform and we were talking about how it impacts how people are detained. tell us more about the prosecution side and what we need to think about. >> thank you, myra and the hamilton project is having this really important conversation. i think before i dive right into the prosecutor's role, i love the way the conversation has been centered in personal stories and really how this issue is just one of many in a broader problem with our entire criminal justice system. so this is just one aspect we are focusing on today. i want to start by sort of sharing my personal story
because i think it basically ties together these other things we are showing or talking about. so i was a prosecutor for 12 years before taking this role at the vera institute of justice, and about 10 years ago as a nonprosecutor working in court, i received a call from my younger brother and he had never been in trouble before, in fact, had left college to go into an missioonary program. and he called me from a jail cell and that was probably the most shocking call i had in my life, just completely unexpected. and he was in jail in jackson, tennessee from stealing from his job and what we learned over several months is he was
stealing to uphold a substance disorder he had for 15 years. something his family knew nothing about. that process, he was held, he was not -- with no criminal record. he didn't have the opportunity for bail, held pretrial and it took about three months before he had the opportunity to plea. he was charged with 32 felony counts for each instance of returning an item of clothing and keeping the money. and had to plea to 32 felony counts to get out, which is what we know happens, people plead guilty to get out. and then, you know, as we know, how substance issues disorders are, he failed and ended up back in jail for a year before he could actually get out and get connected with the program that really did help him change his life around. so you can imagine as a
prosecutor going to court every day asking for people to be detained. in terms of how this is one issue in a broken system, the other piece of my story that i think is important is i'm also a daughter of a father that was a victim of a heinous robbery that resulted in him being beaten so badly he was in intensive care for nearly a month and suffered a closed-head injury for all of our lives, he still suffers the effects from and that was more than 20 years ago. i watched my father go through something so heinous and traumatic , we did not call the police to find out if they got the guys. i assume they never got them because we never got a call asking us to get involved in the process. not one person of a call to see what happened, what investigation did you do because we didn't see anything in the system that could offer us anything that could make us
whole from what had happened or any avenue of safety from that. so our system is not working not just for the people who are charged in it, it is not working for victims. and that brings me to the role of the prosecutor and what do prosecutors need to do about this. so prosecutors often see themselves -- and i think they are -- guardians of justice. so for a long time we talked about prosecutor's roles are more -- it is to seek justice. i think the problem is prosecutors for too long focused on how do you address harm in individual cases and individual incidents and no one is stepping back and looking at harm as a systemic level and the guardians of justice have a particular role that can be played in this movement to end cash bail. first, because we know judges listen to prosecutors, we know they don't set bail. we know that what they say has significant impact on the
decisions judges make. we know from a study in chicago that 90% of the time prosecutors recommended release, the judge granted release. we know some studies done in new york that the prosecutor's recommendation was the single most influential factor in terms of what decisions their judges made ultimately on bail. so not only do prosecutors play a role in sort of the everyday what's happening in court, but what we do is work with prosecutors across the country and encourage them because you are a guardian and have a role in addressing and acknowledging the harm the system is on communities, you also have an obligation to relieve the fight for change. and we have seen them take republican stances on cash bail and see them being part of the influence in the leaders in the system because they have that role. people listen to the lead prosecutor and they should be using that power to help push these initiatives forward. so i look forward to engaging
more on the conversation, but i think in particular, prosecutors have a very important role to play. >> certainly a lot of work being done on what it means to be a reform prosecutor in this country today. so i have fantastic questions from the audience. i want to start with one that picks upped on several of the questions. but going back to this issue of what is the purpose of bail, right, so that therefore -- because i think alex makes a really important point, is traditionally public safety has been something that is considered in the pretrial process and how do start at a macro level and looking at individual cases. so what is the role of bail in the context of public safety? in other words, is it a factor? so essentially alex, you are saying it is and how we think about that. i think some of our experiences at least i would say at local
levels, a lot of the reform are recognizing a lot of the folks are not dangerous, so it's not an absolute around detention, but maps out the conversation. where do you see that fitting in? jay. >> first is we need to remember bail is not the only choice and roughly 6% or so of people are just held. like the judge says you shouldn't walk the street. that's an option the judges have. there is something very odd about using bail as a way to keep people in because what it does is it says, you know, i'm going to set a bail amount that i think maybe you won't make, but if you are rich enough to make it or organized crime and someone can draw on resources, you can get out, but if you are poor you can't. as an economist and social scientist, i appreciate the stories people are telling because i think they are
incredibly important, but for me i go to data because that's what i do. when you look at the data on this topic, it's hard not to think we are doing it wrong and -- and yang do good work in their data. if you want to deter people with pretrial crime, you could do that. but if you wanted to do that, you would have a lot less crime. we are detaining a lot of the wrong people because we are using screen of wealth as opposed to different screens. there aren't counsel at the bail hears, so much randomness and on this point.
they were,, or someone would've committed if you let my people appear so you're not actually reducing crime by detaining more people, because you are turning people who will later on, i'm just by detaining them. >> so, i think i would like to start from what bale is not, or maybe what was about to become a which was as i said earlier, it was supposed to incentivize coming back to court. right, he posted many, you do not want to lose her money, you win money back, so you're going to come back to court, it turns out, it did not even work for that original purpose, because, we now know, that is really, what impacts most people's ability to come back to court. and, what we have, a criminal justice system first of all, that was largely designed by and for the middle class. but in fact, in our criminal
justice system, most of the people that he use it are not. and so, what keeps people from coming back to court, is a system that assumes you can get a day off of work, because you have leave, you know. it does not assume that you are in a, you are in a minimum or below minimum wage job, and if you come back to court, you're going to lose your job, and your ability to feed your child. and so, there are other, in order to get people back to court, we have to deal with those realities. and, in terms of the purpose of bail, there are other things that we need to be doing, and other initiatives that are happening across the country, that are more effective, even at, you know the original purposes, achieving the original purposes of bail. and, before i passed the mic, so to speak, one of those things actually, his counsel. ending, counsel, if you are
appointed counsel early in the case, you have someone there, who is going to call you up, and say, or who can call you up, and say you know what we will talk to before you, and we will remind you you have to go back to court. you have someone who understands that you do not have the amount of money that you, that bond was set at, and can go back to the judge, and can ask for you know, lower bail, based on your ability to pay. if you look at statistics, whether it is left to counsel a pivotal study that was done in baltimore, here's back, so that if you have counsel at those early stages, you are to have times more likely to be released on your own recognizance, that was in nonviolent offenses, and to have more times to have your bail reduced, to a level that you can actually make. and, recently, as part of the department of justice innovations and public defense
project, alameda county, which was one of eight california counties, that did not provide counsel in those initial hearings, it, they reversed that trend, they now are providing counsel, and in the early stages, we are seeing what used to be a 1% release rate in so many cases, to a 20% release rate, and those are early returns.>> thank you. did you -- >> so the original purpose of bail is actually get people out of jail. so, the original understanding was everyone was held until trial, this is going way back. and so, dale is actually a way to get out of jail. i think, i think we need to keep that in my view, the thing we need to keep in mind, is, i actually agree with quite a bit of what robin says, but have a different perspective on that. and, none of this follows, it is, we eliminate bail, so that means, that just means we give the judge a binary decision, let this person out, on our
recognizance, or detain them. now, if we do that, and, keeping the american public as concerned about crime as we are today, and if judges start to release a lot more people, the american public is going to be very very upset. and was going to happen, i worry, is that the plan to eliminate cash bills will completely backfire, because, the public will force judges to detain more people. so, bail is kind of like a halfway house, gives judges some, a movement, between zero and one. it says, well i am not going to release them on their own recognizance, but, if they can get their family to help them out, if they can have an incentive to come back, i will release them on bail, rather than detaining them, and i worry that we instead, are going to eliminate cash bill, in fact we're going to detain more people. >> you know, the question of the court, that we can limit
cash bill, but what comes next is the question, and i do not think it is a binary choice, i do not think it is cash bail or you are in, we know that cash is not the incentive that makes people come back, we know that summer 12 year project in the bronx is the bronx freedom fund that shows that when we use those that she's 95% of people came back, we know that from the bail project that is rebooking the same results that are shown that people come back when we are using philanthropic dollars to peter bell, so cash, literally cash would create a two system of justice, as you alluded to, one federation for everybody else, but if people charges the same crime, one can get out, and one cannot, so cash bill, actually, you know, needs to be limited. i do think though, what we are talking about this question of public safety, i want to add another dimension, because it is when i do not think gets talked about nearly enough. we know what the evidence is, right, the evidence that you related to, is that if you hold the intro jill patel, as they are more likely to create it, a criminal get out, then they have been all their life, but if we're talking oxygen risk and risk assessment, we are thinking and talking about in that, that sort of conversation around bail reform, but never
makes its way to the conversation, is the reality that we know the evidence is clear. that the risk to the safety of people in jail, the 2.5 billion people a year, 12 people here, or half 1 million on everything on it, the risk to them, is identifiable, it is proven, and it is evidence-based. it is a risk to their mental health, the fiscal health of families, their communities. that risk is very high. , they are part of the public. we talk about public safety, as if low income communities, and communities of color, and marginalized communities are not part of the public. they faced these things deeply affected, and effective standby being held in pretrial detention, and it has to make its way in, so when we are talking about risk assessments, we are talking about the outliers, that something bad may happen over here if you release people, but you know from the data, and the evidence is on this side, that millions of people generations of people, right, have had their lives destroyed, by lease
better, like sandra bland, and some the other names.>> i want to at to the question two, jeremy, so, one, just to say, just a note, some studies that are out there, one, maryland, which actually, i thought you were going alex, he went a little bit of a different direction, but, when maryland put limits on cash bail, it actually saw the unintended response of an increase, in the number of people who were held, in other words, judges, would you know, the suggestion being that judges were there for using their discretion in the absence of having bail options, to actually hold more people, and, so that goes back to the discretionary behavior, right, and, that whether it is prosecutors, or judges, but sometimes, even if you eliminate certain forms of opportunity, does that have an unintended consequence, cannot sing it is, is just the question that is borne out by
some of the experience, and some of the experiment happening. so, i was hoping, and, also, just a point of study that, even 2 to 3 days, of pretrial detention, a study out of kentucky, from 2013, showed a 40% increase in the likelihood to commit crime. is a veritable panel, see i'm talking too much. so, what i wanted to add, is this context of, discretion, when we are thinking about, the policy solutions around reform, and whether or not discretion is going to continue to be a problem. says you have a press tutorial -->> yes, so, sir, this is so loud. i think, it is kind of drawing from both, in an agreement, with both axes, and what we said earlier, and how we do things, sometimes based on outliers. that, this is really where we see things, like what happened in maryland.
had the, unintended impact of resulting and more people being held. and, a lot of what drives that, is the fear of the headlines. so, you know, the judge, the prosecutor, you know, the system actors, do not want to have their fingers pointed at them, as being the person who agreed to release someone who causes harm. i think one of the ways that we need to combat this fear, is that we continue to lift up facilities that we have been doing today, of the harm, that is happening on far greater scale, by holding people in, pretrial. in that, we have got to be, we just got to be got to do a better job, of recognizing that one, if our system changes, then there is no finger- pointing at one party or the other, that it is a system decision to remove money from it, and i practice here in dc, as joanne did, so, for 12 years, so, to me, it is still foreign to me, to understand why is money being used to make pretrial pretrial detention decisions, because, i never had that in my practice. but, we, but we have to do some things, just as a society, as a
community, as media, who was telling stories, of combating the fear of the headlines, so that people are not exercising discretion, in ways that are driven by personal fear. >> right. well, i am sorry we did not get all the fantastic questions, so i think some of them got answered in the exchange, but i really want to think this incredible panel. for the important insights, that you should, and all the solutions.>> [ applause ] >> c-span's washington journal, live every day, with the news and policy issues, that impact he. coming up to the money, oregon democratic congressman earl blumenauer will discuss marijuana legalization, and the new york republican congressman tom reed will join us to talk about the future of healthcare in the u.s. also, a discussion of cuts to central american aid,
with the wilson centers benjamin good and. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal, live at seven eastern tuesday morning, join the discussion. >> on tuesday, army and air force officials testify on their budget requests for 2020, which include $182 billion to the army, 165 billion for the air force. the house armed services committee holds that hearing, it gets underway live at 10 am eastern on c-span three. stomach and, after that the military justice officials examine a cases of special assault are currently being handled in the military. they've also testified before the house armed services committee, and that begins life tuesday at 2 pm eastern, also on c-span three. >> the house and senate are in session this week, and on wednesday, the house will consider reauthorization of the violence against women act, which expired in february. that legislation aims at
preventing all types of abuse, and providing additional resources for victims. it is also possible that lawmakers will take up a senate passed a resolution to end u.s. military involvement in yemen's civil war. followed the house live on c- span. stomach and the senate continues to debate a bill that provides nearly $13 billion in aid to areas affected by hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters. also this week, a resolution offered by obama republican james langford, that would shorten the amount of time the senate has to consider certain judicial and lower-level executive nominations, from 30 hours, to two hours. follow the senate live, on our companion network, c-span two. >> the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.>> as not, what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. >> [ cheers and applause ] >> and the people who knocked these buildings down, will hear all of us in.
>> [ cheers and applause ]>> t she spent nearest notebook, the president, noticed historians rank america's best and worst cheat executives, provide insight into the lives of the 44 american presidents. through stories gathered by interviews, with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced, and the legacies they have left behind. published by public affairs, c- span's the presidents will be on shelves april 23rd, you can preorder your copy as a hardcover, or e-book today. at c-span.org/the president, or wherever books are sold. >> next, several democratic members of congress discuss what is next for healthcare, climate change, and data privacy issues. this was part of the new democrat coalition action fund, policy conference. it is three hours and 45 minutes.