Opinion: Prop. 25 is not the solution to flawed cash bail system

As a public defender, community organizer, and retired judge/former Independent Police Auditor we care deeply about justice in the courts.  It is easy to agree that our current cash bail system has serious flaws.  But replacing a discriminatory cash bail system with an an even worse risk assessment-based system that creates more ways to keep people in jail pretrial, is not the solution. That is why we strongly urge our community to vote no on Prop. 25.

We are voting “no” on Prop. 25 because the actual details of implementation amplify much of the current injustice in our criminal court system.  A close reading of the fine print of Prop. 25 reveals three problematic flaws.

First, Prop. 25 is based on controversial risk assessment tools — an artificial intelligence instrument that analyzes a person’s socio-economic background, past convictions, age, and other factors to “predict” risk levels for the potential of committing a new offense or likelihood of returning to court. This computer generated predictive model is widely criticized by leading national civil rights organizations and data scientists for perpetuating the very bias of the system it purports to address. Policing and prosecution have been biased against Black and Brown communities for generations; consequently, the data used to determine future potential risk is inherently discriminatory as well. The more a community is policed, the more it has system contact, and more system contact is reflected in the risk assessment score. This flawed reliance on predictive tools fails to remedy the basic injustice of the cash bail system: unfair pretrial detention of those who are presumed innocent.

  California security guard pleads guilty to impersonating a federal agent for Homeland Security

Second, Prop. 25 gives too much discretion to law enforcement.  Once an arrestee is designated “low,” “medium” or “high risk,” Prop 25 carves out numerous categories of exceptions for how an arrestee is treated, with more harsh treatment and longer pre-trial detention for people arrested or charged with certain offenses, even though the risk assessment results have demonstrated that the booking or charging decision itself provides no predictive information. For example, imagine that two roommates argued while drinking beer and one roommate threw a beer bottle at the other.  If the police arrest the bottle-thrower for felony assault with a deadly weapon (a strike offense), that arrest decision will result in prolonged incarceration, even if the bottle thrower is deemed to be low risk.  If the police arrest that same bottle-thrower for a non-strike felony or misdemeanor assault, the bottle-thrower would be released pre-trial.  Basing the duration of a person’s pretrial incarceration on a police officer’s decision is unfair.  Giving more discretion to police officers without any check or balance will disproportionately affect neighborhoods of Black and Brown residents that are more heavily policed. Plus, in every county besides Santa Clara County, Prop. 25 mandates that pretrial services be run by probation departments rather than community providers — giving resources to law enforcement, rather than to the community.

Finally, Prop. 25 asks voters to enact a law, without informing them of its troubling legislative history.  When the bill that has …read more

Source:: The Mercury News – Entertainment


(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *