The following paper analyzes the bail reform initiative in the United States and also elaborates other interrelated issues. Bail can be defined as a temporary release of accused from the incarceration on behalf of some real guarantee that may include bonds, cash or any other property. This bailed asset is given to the court, and the granter also assures the appearance of accused whenever he is required for the criminal proceeding in court. Evidently, when an individual officially accused of committing a criminal offense in the United States; they have to appear before a judge in specific court setting before initiating any proper trial. Most states of the United States at this phase, allow paying a particular and explicitly stated amount of money or equivalent for an accused person to attain a temporary release. Such releases are widely known as the pretrial releases, and according to legal implications, a bailed person is expected to appear before the court on a preset date or any related proceedings.
The legal scope allows judges; depending on their region and state; some prudence to either decrease or elevate the determined sum of bailing money. This alteration of the predetermined amount can depend on several factors that include the type of underlying case, crime and the level of threat by the accused as well as the enticed risk of escape and the likelihood of defendant to obey the implications imposed by bailing process. Individually, if a bailed individual leaves the premises of the United States, in this case, he or she can be repatriated and enforced to return to confront the subject trail. Such extradites conducted with the mutual cooperation of the United States and government of another country. To deal with the bail and its interrelated matters law provided an act of bail reform in 1966 that gradually amended and becomes the Bail Reform Act of 1984. This rule permits judges to indulge a higher level of prudence in adjusting the monetary terms with the accused; under the appropriate conditions. (Bail Reform Act, 1984)
Like all other factors, the Bail reform initiatives too, feature some adverse effects. It is believed that bail system of America is encountering a complicated situation because the initiative of bail that is secured through money or any other asset triggering the unconstructive outcomes. According to the experts, such bonds are leading the society toward pointless discriminations and incarcerations; moreover, such system can exacerbate the racially based inequalities as well as chaos for the poor populace. Majority of pretrial defendants are not financially stable, and it is not easy for them to pay the preset amount of bail to the court. In turn, they have to let go their shelters, custody of the child and sometimes jobs that can impact their criminal cases in the far worse way. (Bronx Defenders, 2015)
At the same time, bail system is an ineffective device for generating positive outcomes from pretrial cases. Money and similar assets are not adequate to assure the defendant’s presence at proceedings and related trails; moreover, its poorly devised mechanism depicts no efficacy to protect the safety measures of community. The underlying purpose of creating the Bail Reform Law was to diminish the numbers of incarcerated people. Through an individualized initiative of taking bail, it was intended to pursue the mechanism for a sure appearance of the defendant to the court trails. No doubt that current bail act provides necessary tools to involved justice stakeholders to acknowledge the purpose. But the primary problem is not the act or its content or intent; the big issue is the absence of practicality. The subject law provides nine forms of bails that also include non-financial bails and judges are authorized to consider different types of bails before adjourning any decisions. According to statute, in all cases of individualized bail; judges are instructed to reflect on all the aspects as well as financial resources of accused before determining the amount of bail. Nevertheless, unluckily absence of comprehension of the extended provisions of bail act; attorneys and court judges do not practice all the available measures. To implement the essence of bail reform statute, it is imperative to augment the range of understanding and knowledge in the area of provided tools for bail.
Several law firms and organizations offer facilitation to create a path to evade the involved risks and adversaries. Through proper guidance, attorneys can structure the decisions making mechanisms to deal with the pretrial bail cases with preserved integrity. Synchronization of decisions and bail reform laws are indispensable to ensure the efficacy of legal procedurals as well as the public safety. A profound understanding of legal implications is significant for fair, transparent and efficient bail system throughout the United States. Moreover, a carefully devised strategy can help jurisdictions to mitigate the negative impact of monetarily based bails to a great extent. Such frameworks sustain solid management and control over reforming tactics to eradicate or decrease money-based bails. Further, such substantially developed structures, in turn, will allow jurisdiction to focus on the risks that are involved in different approaches of bail because through integrated strategies it will become practical to elucidate the interconnected details and other legal considerations of pretrial risk assessment, preventive detention, and supervision. Through such stratagem, legal parties could avoid the uniform implications and approaches and will seek to facilitate other stakeholders to understand some underlying questions and complexities of the subject area.
Work Cited
Bail Reform Initiative. The Bronx Defenders. https://www.bronxdefenders.org/programs/bail-
reform-initiative/
Legal IUS. USLegal. Bail. https://bail.uslegal.com/bail-and-bail-bond-agents/the-bail-reform-act-
of-1984/
