Testimony in Support of HI HB127, Relating to Pretrial Release
Testimony from:
Lisel Petis, Senior Fellow, R Street Institute
Testimony in Support of HB 127: “Relating to Pretrial Release.”
February 7, 2025
Hawai’i House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee
Chairman Tarnas and members of the committee,
My name is Lisel Petis, and I am a senior fellow at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization. R Street engages in policy research and analysis dedicated to common sense solutions that make government work smarter and more effectively. My work at R Street focuses specifically on criminal justice and civil liberties. Given our commitment to pragmatic policies that improve fairness, public safety, and government accountability, we have a strong interest in House Bill 127.
As a former prosecutor, I have seen firsthand how the current bail system disproportionately impacts low-income individuals who lack the financial resources to secure their release, leading to unnecessary pretrial detention that exacerbates social and economic instability.[1] In Hawai’i, 40 percent of the jail population is homeless and 60 percent remain in custody due to inability to afford bail.[2] Meanwhile, Hawaiʻi’s prisons are over capacity, forcing the state to house hundreds of inmates in private, out-of-state facilities.[3] It is necessary to ensure pretrial detention is only used to protect public safety and guarantee court appearance—not as a penalty for poverty or a drain on public resources.
House Bill 127 establishes clear guidelines for determining a defendant’s ability to pay while recognizing that public benefits are a lifeline, not disposable income. It streamlines the bail process by presuming individuals earning less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level cannot afford bail, allowing judicial resources to focus on assessing risk. For those earning above that threshold, the bill ensures that bail is set at an amount they can reasonably pay within forty hours of arrest, reducing unnecessary pretrial incarceration and promoting fairness in the justice system.
Additionally, the bill requires the court to record written findings justifying the conditions imposed to ensure the defendant’s appearance, protect the public, or both. This requirement increases transparency and accountability in pretrial decision-making, ensuring that conditions are justified based on individualized assessments rather than arbitrary financial thresholds. It also helps ensure that pretrial conditions serve their intended purpose rather than functioning as a form of punishment.
Pretrial detention should be reserved for those who pose a legitimate risk to public safety or are likely to abscond, not those who simply cannot afford to buy their freedom. Detaining individuals who are unable to pay bail has severe consequences, including loss of employment, housing instability, and disruption of family structures.[4] For those already facing housing insecurity, unnecessary detention only deepens the cycle, making it even harder to regain stability.[5] Furthermore, research demonstrates that even short-term pretrial detention increases the likelihood of future criminal behavior.[6] By implementing policies that prevent the unnecessary detention of low-risk individuals, House Bill 127 strengthens public safety outcomes while maintaining judicial discretion for truly dangerous offenders.
Additionally, reducing unnecessary pretrial incarceration promotes fiscal responsibility by cutting costs associated with housing individuals in jail who do not need to be there.[7] Taxpayer dollars should be allocated toward interventions like behavioral health issues, not wasted on detaining individuals who pose little to no risk. House Bill 127 aligns with best practices in criminal justice policy, ensuring a smarter use of resources that balances public safety with responsible government spending. It ensures that pretrial detention is used judiciously and that no one is incarcerated simply because they are poor.
I urge the committee to support this bill and take a critical step toward a more just and effective pretrial system. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you,
Lisel Petis
Senior Fellow
R Street Institute
lpetis@rstreet.org
[1] Lisel Petis, “Our current cash bail system isn’t keeping people in our out of jail based on lethality—and it should be,” R Street Institute, Dec. 10, 2021. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/our-current-cash-bail-system-isnt-keeping-people-in-or-out-of-jail-based-on-lethality-and-it-should-be.
[2] Kevin Dayton, “Green Proposes Spending Another $30 Million on a New O’ahu Jail,” Honolulu Civil Beat, Dec. 30, 2024. https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/12/green-proposes-spending-another-30-million-on-a-new-oʻahu-jail.
[3] Kevin Dayton, “Tough Choices on Hawaii’s Prisons and Jails Lie Ahead, Official Says,” Honolulu Civil Beat, Oct. 1, 2024. https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/10/tough-choices-on-hawaiis-prisons-and-jails-lie-ahead-official-says.
[4] Lisel Petis, “Tools for Safe and Smart Bail System Changes,” R Street Institute, June 7, 2023. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/tools-for-safe-and-smart-bail-system-changes.
[5] Lisel Petis, “Breaking the Cycle: Effectively Addressing Homelessness and Safety,” R Street Institute, October 2024. https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/4_FINAL-r-street-policy-study-no-311.pdf.
[6] Leon Digard and Elizabeth Swavola, “Justice Denied: The Harmful and Lasting Effects of Pretrial Detention,” Vera Institute of Justice, April 2019. https://vera-institute.files.svdcdn.com/production/downloads/publications/Justice-Denied-Evidence-Brief.pdf.
[7] Will Dobbie and Crystal S. Yang, “The economic costs of pretrial detention,” Brookings Institute, March 24, 2021. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-economic-costs-of-pretrial-detention; Kevin Dayton, “Tough Choices on Hawaii’s Prisons and Jails Lie Ahead, Official Says,” Civil Beat, Oct. 1, 2024. https://www.civilbeat.org/2024/10/tough-choices-on-hawaiis-prisons-and-jails-lie-ahead-official-says.