The [Oklahoma County Jail] is the county’s most restrictive resource. It is not a humane or effective response to issues such as mental health or substance abuse.”
TIMOTHY TARDIBONO, Executive Director, Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Advisory Council
OKLAHOMA CITY – Oklahoma lawmakers could be gearing up for another run at changing the state’s bail bond system, following the defeat of a reform measure earlier this year.
With a little less than four months to go before the beginning of the new legislative session – and the 2020 election cycle – members of the House of Representatives continue to struggle with criminal justice reform issues. Their most recent effort: reforming the bail bond system. Earlier this year, state lawmakers attempted to make changes in the system with Senate Bill 252. The measure, written by Senator Roger Thompson, R-Okemah, and Representative Chris Kannady, R-Oklahoma City, would have dramatically increased the use of “recognizance bonds,” a written promise to appear in court without a monetary bail, used by those charged with nonviolent offenses.
Despite bipartisan support and months of work, the measure failed in the House of Representatives on a 45-49 vote. “Senate Bill 252 is a critical next step in the justice reform process,” wrote Ryan Gentzler, an analyst for the left-leaning Oklahoma Policy Institute. “The proposal follows the lead of many other jurisdictions across the country that have limited money bail in recent years. Far-reaching bail reforms enacted in New Jersey in 2014 have led to a 24% reduction in the pretrial jail population, and crime rates have declined in the years since. California passed a sweeping bail reform law last year that will eliminate money bail altogether when implemented in October 2019.”
Within the past few weeks, a joint House-Senate committee conducted an interim hearing on the bail bond system. That hearing could spark another round of legislation next year designed to change the bail bond system. Timothy Tardibono, Executive Director of the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Advisory Council, told lawmakers they should focus their efforts on keeping people out of jail through assessment and diversion programs. He said those efforts could focus on intervention and substance abuse. “Our priorities should not necessarily be on the back end but the front end,” he said. “At early decision making in the pre-trial stages.” He pointed to the Oklahoma County Jail as an example, calling the facility a humanitarian crisis. “We have people in the (Oklahoma County Jail) that, with the right oversight and intervention, could be successful in the workplace. We cannot continue to let this issue in our county go on. The jail is the county’s most restrictive resource. It is not a humane or effective response to issues such as mental health or substance abuse.”
Tardibono said a study by the Vera Institute made six recommendations for reforming the Oklahoma County justice system, including methods of keep people charged with lower-level offenses – nonviolent – out of the jail entirely, the creation of an evidence-based process for deciding who stays in jail while their case proceeds and who goes home, improving the processes that move cases through the court system, creating alternatives to jail for residents with mental illness and substance abuse disorders, the ending of incarceration of those who don’t have money to pay fines, fees and court costs. Julie Warren, the Director of State Initiatives for the Right on Crime project said reforming the bail system is an issue that many states are examining. She said one cost-effective method was text message notification for those who have court appearances.
“It really undercuts that, ‘Okay, I forgot’ excuse,” she said. Warren said other states are increasing the use of electronic and Global Positioning Satellite system monitoring. “We are trying to find if there are other solutions than just bail,” she said. But not every group is embracing the idea. Across the country, representatives of the bail bond industry have pushed back. In Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Bail Bondsman Association said the House’s interim hearing was filled with presentations “where the presenter has no problem providing misinformation and false facts to decision-makers.” “For example, they (speakers at the interim hearing) made several statements about studies existing that show that own recognizance release is not only just as effective as release on a financially secured bail bond, but in most cases better,” an unsigned posting on the bail bondsman association’s website said.
“They even brought in a researcher from Open Justice Oklahoma that provided statistics for Tulsa County showing that those released on OR bonds failed to appear (at a very respectful rate of 15%. Meanwhile, those released on a financially secured bail bond failed to appear at an astronomical rate of 26%. When asked about the sample size, the researcher pointed out that they picked about 200 defendants out of the population as their representative sample. It sounds to me more like cherry-picked 200 defendants in order to get a result that supports your position.” Kenny Boyer, an Oklahoma City bail bondsman, gave lawmakers statistics from Oklahoma County which, the association said, were very different than those presented by the opposition.
“Ken had accumulated an actual list, not a cherry-picked sample, of (the number of) failure to appears at first arraignment,” the association’s website said. “His data covered from January of 2019 up to the current date. It showed that the FTA rate for those defendants released on a financially secured bond had an FTA rate of about 6%. It also showed that those defendants released on an own recognizance bond had an FTA rate of 57%. Once again, this shouldn’t be shocking to anyone, because it is common sense. No supervision and no accountability equal “no appearance” at court.” This year, the organization announced its opposition to SB 252. The bail bondsman group’s previous president, Raymond Merrill, said language in the bill presented a major concern for Oklahoma communities and would defendants be released with only a “promise” to return to court.
“When Own Recognizance bonds are used, defendants are less likely to be brought to justice and crime victims are revictimized when their offenders fail to appear in court,” Merrill said. “For example, those released on OR bonds in Oklahoma County in February 2019 had a failure to appear rate of 57%. As our state moves toward educated criminal justice reform, we hope legislators will strongly consider the negative ramifications of this catch-and-release bill and protect our communities by voting against it. Our priority has always been, and will always be, protecting Oklahomans and this piece of legislation falls drastically short of that.” Still, even with the opposition, many experts believe lawmakers will make another effort to change the bonding system. Joe Magana, the Oklahoma Director for Americans for Prosperity said state policy leaders should change the bonding system to end unnecessary financial burdens (on those charged with crimes) that don’t serve a governmental purpose. “We should focus on the risk to the community and not how much they can pay,” he said.