Mark Walker reports that Second Circuit Judge Doug Hoffman is trying to reduce overcrowding in the Minnehaha County jail and disruption in the lives of accused criminals by doing extra research on folks coming to his courtroom for arraignment and going easy on bond requirements for those who he decides pose less risk:
People in his courtroom who are accused of non-violent drug offenses are now less likely to wait for their day in court behind bars, he said. His goal is to keep locking up violent offenders but not disrupt the lives of those who made mistakes and found themselves on the wrong side of the law.
“Given the fact that the jail has been full to overflowing recently, it seemed to me that it made the most sense to get moving on this,” Hoffman said [Mark Walker, “Judge Looks to Reset Conversation on Jail, Bonds,” that Sioux Falls paper, 2015.12.12].
Hoffman tells Walker that he estimates four out of five inmates in the Minnehaha County Jail are defendants (a.k.a., innocent citizens) awaiting trial.
Expect the lucrative bail bonds industry to start throwing mud at Judge Hoffman for cutting into their profit margins. They’ll scour the news for one anecdote to discredit Hoffman’s efforts for fear that we’ll all realize how unnecessary their industry and the whole discriminatory bail scheme are:
San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is also rejecting the industry’s concerns to support the suit. “There are no sound policy justifications for detaining arrestees based on their wealth status. Indeed, there are strong policy reasons not to do so,” the man charged with managing public safety for San Francisco County says in an affidavit submitted alongside the EJUL request for an injunction.
Mirkarimi rejects the bail-bonding industry’s argument in part because there just isn’t a problem of people skipping bail. “As much as 99 percent of folks are actually showing up to their court appearances,” Telfeyan said. The pre-trial monitoring and reminders systems the sheriff’s office uses are highly effective for people who make bail or are released on their own recognizance.
“Now that there are all these tools at the county’s disposal, there’s really no need for the bail-bonding companies,” Telfeyan said. Instead of providing a public service, they “are only there to impose an interest-based penalty on folks who are poor” [Alan Pyke, “Why California Jails Poor People Unless They Pay the Bail Bondsman,” ThinkProgress, 2015.11.03].
Bail bondsmen are arguably worse predators than payday lenders, as their desperation-based business model leaches off the dread authority of the state. Perhaps Judge Hoffman’s experiment in more informed, less discriminatory bail practices will save some South Dakotans from the predations of the poverty industry.
One wonders if when the strong arm of the law drops on Mr. Joop Bollen (a.k.a. innocent citizen) he will be given the same courtesy of getting out of jail free.
Republicans do not see problems unless it is costing them money.
Democrats do not see solutions unless it is costing someone else money.
fact rather than vengeful sobriquet philosophy:
republicans burned down world’s economy, shut down government, and conducted scorched earth obstructionism killing annually 100 of Daniel’s neighbor’s without health care since dems passed the ACA compromise.
whhhoooooooooooooooooooooosh
If Bollen gets out of jail free,it won’t be because he is innocent,imho.
Nice “Powers”ful dagger.
Daniel, just because fact checking won’t save you, or mercer’s SD values of carnivore football silliness once-proliferate in this state, or tsitrian’s marines we all love, say it like it is in war and republican politics: digging in your conservative heels will only result in FUBAR
It is interesting how a positive public policy can grow from differing motives. To me the motive of protecting an individual’s freedom would be the driving force behind this bail policy change, regardless of economics. To the judge, the motive appears to be to avoid the cost of over crowded jails. The good news is that both motives can lead to a positive result.
The same appears to be happening with the Medicaid expansion. While many of us feel the expansion makes sense for humanitarian reasons, our Republican friends focus more on the monetary benefit it can bring the state. Under either motive, however, the expansion policy can and should happen.
bcb-Dakota could have had the first 2 or 3 years free,but they didn’t trust the gubmint,or so they claimed. It could have been they didn’t want the poor to have insurance,just as easily.
mfi, That seems to be a result of an irrational hatred of our President, and everything he supported, that overwhelmed the financial motives for the expansion. To bad Obama didn’t advocate more and bigger guns for everyone. We would see all kinds of new Republican restrictions on gun ownership, all motivated by a desire to poke the President in the eye.
thousands have died in South Dakota since Obamacare was crammed down our collective maw.
Hundreds of thousands have lived in South Dakota since Romneycare – Federal version was passed by a majority of congress before they collectively quit doing anything.
Rohr-the ACA passed both houses of congress without a single wingnut voting for it. That was when Dems controlled both houses and stuff actually got done in congress despite rw opposition.
The judge’s common sense is, perhaps unknowingly, replicating that of the first territorial judge in Deadwood – who refused to jail opium addicts unless their charge was associated with an alleged violent act.
Cory wrote:
>>>“Bail bondsmen are arguably worse predators than payday lenders, as their desperation-based business model leaches off the dread authority of the state.”
Boom. Thanks, Cory, for a great post on a very important topic.
“Bearcreekbat” wrote:
>>“To me the motive of protecting an individual’s freedom would be the driving force behind this bail policy change, regardless of economics… The good news is that both motives can lead to a positive result.”
Liberty generally produces economic benefits.
John wrote:
>“The judge’s common sense is, perhaps unknowingly, replicating that of the first territorial judge in Deadwood – who refused to jail opium addicts unless their charge was associated with an alleged violent act.”
When the legal system endeavors to protect a person from himself or herself (as opposed to protecting him or her from others), it interferes with private charity and creates long-term costs to society that always outweigh the benefits.
If there were not these bail bondsmen, would not many poor and potentially innocent people remain locked in an iron cell instead of spending Christmas or Festivus or Kwanza or Jazznica with their families?
John, what an interesting historical note! I don’t think Walker’s article mentioned Hoffman considering addiction as a reason to set a higher bail. But Kurt, while I appreciate your dedication to principles, if the county has an empty cell where it can lock up an addict and provide treatment, should a judge really say, “But it’s not my duty to keep this addict from overdosing, so off to the streets, and let’s hope private charity steps up”? If you’re worried about private charity, couldn’t the judge say, “I’m letting you out of jail, but only on the condition that you report to [insert reputable addiction counselor or treatment center] and not touch drugs between now and the end of your trial”?
Kurt, if it’s not already stated above, please tell us the Libertarian critique of the bail bonds industry.
Daniel and Roger, you both over-generalize… but I’ll focus on beating up Daniel.
Judge Hoffman’s take on bail is not inherently a partisan position. His party affiliation is not stated in the article. He’s just looking for a way to ease costs for the criminal justice system. The judge is not raising taxes to build more jails. He’s taking less money and less liberty from citizens and leaving more workers in a position where they can keep their jobs, provide for their families, and stay off the government dole. That’s a pretty good solution. The price: (1) extra work by the judge and judge’s staff to gather and evaluate info on the accused, (2) a little more risk that released arrestees will flee or reoffend, and (3) less profit for bail bondsmen in their exploitation of the criminal justice system and the poor. What’s so bad about that?
its 2015, and 60 minutes tonight broadcasts new gay drug czar who tells it like it is about addiction’s deadly costly accepted rampage in the world (sounds like guns in the USA, huh?:)
most American watchers likely disbelieve the science and you don’t see this coverage on faux news. we’ve known this for at least 30 years and yet another generation will be sacrificed to this illness for the sake of capitalism.
up until now, judges were oblivious, and prosecutors still are, and they jail these people as criminals. sick, really.
guys (and young female hippsters like erin the pay-day lender) or like chuck Brennen get wealthy by our lack of understanding and their opportunistic lack of ethics. daugard types just nod–“sure”, “ok w/me”. those people….10-19% of south dakotans, I think compose the victims. they are us.
cory, your statement to “not touch drugs between now and the end of your trial” is an impossibility for an addict ill with the active disease of addiction (if it is indeed an illness which AMA has said it is for 50 years, but yah never know).
Prosecutors and Judges have used this contractual language for more than 50 years and put “those people” without means is jail and prison, exacerbated their medical condition, and maimed, killed and otherwise adequately cared for them in custody, drawn out their custody, and HAVE TAKEN NO RESPONSIBILITY for this blatant, systemic failure.
We are talking 10s or 100s of millions of people at billions of dollars of annual unnecessary costs to the public, families and victims of the system. It is still going on every day in Pennington County. Criminal Justice Reform in the last year or two? RIGHT.
votes, not solutions, were daugaard and jackley’s motives. except for brennan, we are pawns in this state. if any of you people think you are not affected by addiction, have coffee with me sometime. (but not grudz please:)
grudz drunken stoned sick addicts don’t spend happy holidays with their familys
Ms. leslie, are you for getting these possibly innocent people out of jail or for leaving them in the jail? I ask because it seems to me they could not get out of jail without these bail bondsmen fellows, and if they weren’t put in jail in the first place there could be no intervention in the “drunken stoned sick addict” behavior. They need a little scaring straight. Or slapping, in the symbolic sense. Drugs are bad, they are bad.
I’m a rotten addiction counselor.
cannabis!
Speaking of bondsmen making less money. Hardly a week goes by that Pat Powers doesn’t chastise the SDDP for not running a Senate candidate, yet. Reading between the lines Mr. Powers is really saying, “How am I gonna get any of that GOP campaign donation cash if the GOP candidates don’t need me to lie for them?” Sorry, Pat. If you had validity making political predictions you’d have seen this coming.
Christmas is a hard time for bloggers. Especially those with kids that need presents and wives that need money for presents. One can sense their crankiness in December. Merry Christmas Bloggers. Without you guys and ladies what would the old, retired, retreads who check the computer continually in search of someone to listen to them, do all day?
Cory asks:
>“But Kurt, while I appreciate your dedication to principles, if the county has an empty cell where it can lock up an addict and provide treatment, should a judge really say, ‘But it’s not my duty to keep this addict from overdosing, so off to the streets, and let’s hope private charity steps up’?”
In most cases a judge should follow the laws, including bad laws that require him or her to lock people in cages “for their own good” and forcibly “help” them. Maybe more to your point, the costs of the empty cell and treatment that preexist in the above hypothetical are part of the costs to society that I believe outweigh the benefits of government intervention.
>“If you’re worried about private charity, couldn’t the judge say, ‘I’m letting you out of jail, but only on the condition that you report to [insert reputable addiction counselor or treatment center] and not touch drugs between now and the end of your trial’?”
I’m not sure what that scenario has to do with private charity, but it gives “reputable addiction counselor or treatment center” a monopoly that’s the wildest fantasy of the bail bondsman. Said counselor or center will generally engage in deeper price gouging than a bail bondsman, and with less reliable results.
>“Kurt, if it’s not already stated above, please tell us the Libertarian critique of the bail bonds industry.”
I’m not sure there’s a libertarian critique of the industry itself, but some in that industry intentionally create the impression that their victims have no other options.
Judge Hoffman did not mention the revolving door between the cops, jail, the court, and treatment, hopefully this is part of judge’s consideration. There exist a network of the same alcoholics and addicts that keep the system busy.
It is probably a safe question to ask at point is alcoholism and addiction a crime if no one is being harmed except the addict or alcoholic.
It is also a safe question, Mr. C, to ask what to do about them regardless of any criminal issue.
Should we let them languish, on public property, perhaps simply to become a nuisance or a victim or end up being bused out of town, or to be a public mockery, or perhaps even until they expire of their own overindulgence?
Or do we save them from themselves, and if so, how?
Answers to this problem seem hard to come by from any front or political party.
i vote for the yellowstone supervolcano.
Can anyone here justify putting someone in jail for doing something someone somewhere says is bad for that someone?
I’ll eat some deep-fried potato flakes, have a gin-and-tonic, and smoke a bowl while I await your answers. Meanwhile I am slow cooking a bunch of pork fat, which I plan to eat with generous portions of salt and carbohydrates tomorrow.
Lynn, how much prison time is about right for punishment for abusing oneself?
The judges in SD say they tend to jail those who have a hope of recovery from their sins of abuse. Addicts, have little hope so they tend to not jail them. Shows their confidence in the smokers future differs from some.
[Porter, you’re right: blog traffic ticks down significantly during the holidays (although that observation is skewed by big Octobers and Novembers in election years). People aren’t as interested in talking politics during December (thank goodness we referred SB 69 so folks didn’t have to start circulating nominating petitions this month!).]
Victims with no other options—Kurt, that sounds exactly like the response the payday loan sharks give to proposals to regulate their industry. Hmm… do the payday lenders and bail bondsmen hire the same PR people?