States will learn that outdated bail systems are a disaster. Blue states are first.

Outdated bail laws let extremely dangerous individuals out of jail (if they can pay) and result in unintended consequences

In recent published opinions on criminal justice, bail has again emerged as a political boogeyman, with critics quick to label reform a “disaster,” particularly in traditionally liberal states. However, such sweeping criticism fails to acknowledge the benefits of bail reform when it is executed properly.

Contrary to alarmist claims, most states and cities that have implemented bail reform are experiencing decreased crime rates. New Jersey beat the U.S. trend in violent crime reduction four years in a row after enacting bail reform, with property crimes showing similar success. In fact, crime fell in most cities in 2023, including those that have enacted bail reform. This suggests that smart changes to the pretrial system may actually be contributing to safer communities. It’s a testament to the fact that reforming the bail system isn’t just about fairness—it’s about preserving civil liberties, protecting due process, and ultimately enhancing public safety.

As a former prosecutor, I’ve seen firsthand the flaws in the cash bail system. Individuals charged with minor offenses—often nonviolent and low-level, like driving under restraint—were unnecessarily incarcerated simply because they lacked the financial means to post bail. Meanwhile, repeat offenders with multiple prior charges, including more serious crimes, were able to secure release by virtue of their wealth. Not only does this system perpetuate inequality, but it also fails to adequately address genuine public safety concerns. Indeed, victim advocates have recognized increased safety for victims in jurisdictions that have reformed bail, such as Illinois.

Moreover, as some acknowledge, bail reform policies often allow for a revocation of their bond if an individual fails to comply with bail conditions, such as attending court appearances and remaining law-abiding. By revoking bail for those who violate its terms, the system demonstrates that compliance is essential—and that non-compliance has consequences. Other than a few anecdotes, critics have failed to provide evidence that this mechanism does not work.

Bail reform seeks to introduce evidence-based practices that consider factors beyond financial resources. Efforts must be thoughtful and include safeguards like pretrial risk assessments, support services, pretrial services, and expansion of preventive detention for high-risk defendants. But ultimately, reform has the potential to better prioritize personal freedom and taxpayer dollars along with public safety.

Of course, bail reform isn’t without challenges. Like any significant policy change, it may require fine-tuning as it progresses. Some jurisdictions may need to include additional protections; others may need to adjust which offenses face release or detention. But dismissing reforms outright overlooks the positive impact they can have when implemented thoughtfully and will likely exacerbate issues like overcrowded jails, congested courts, and wasteful allocation of taxpayer money.

We can all agree that the bail system should not be a revolving door into and out of the criminal justice system, but an increased use of cash bail will not change that. Rather than reverting to outdated practices that disproportionately penalize the poor and perpetuate cycles of criminality, we must continue to refine, update, and improve bail reform efforts to create a more effective and fair model.