I can understand the knee jerk reaction from many readers to be outraged by the zero bail release of the people arrested here. I’m especially empathetic to those who have lost family members to the opioid crisis. I used to feel this way as well, but after reading a lot of literature from the experts, I am now firmly on the side of zero bail being better for our community and the country.
This is the justice system working well and as intended – a reminder to us all that people are innocent until proven guilty. I think we’d all want due process applied to ourselves and this is no exception.
For those open to challenging their own beliefs on this, here are a few resources and stats to check out:
1. There is no evidence linking bail reform (i.e. zero bail) to higher crime rates (Source 1)
2. Those who await their trial in the community instead of in jail are no more likely to be re-arrested after bail reform was passed than before (Source 1)
3. Cash bail disproportionately punishes poor communities, which are already over-policed. Rich people can pay bail, poor people have a harder time doing so. (Source 1)
4. Those who can’t pay bail and stay in jail for non-violent and misdemeanor crimes before court dates return to jail or prison at higher rates. Some jail now leads to more jail later. (Source 2)
5. Sonoma County jails are already chronically understaffed. Putting more people in those jails won’t help staff or inmates. (Source 3)
One final quote from this report from the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Center for Public Safety Initiatives (Source 4) stands out to me – I hope that Sergeant Juan Valencia reads it:
“Responsible leaders should demand proof that the changes to the bail laws have caused crime increases (as opposed to a correlation) and that the changes being advocated will address those causes. To date, every legitimate analysis of the data has made no such case for change.”
If we want to reduce crime and get drugs off the streets, that’s a fine idea. Cash bail just isn’t the solution.
Laura, your usual sharp reporter's eyes have failed you on this story. You repeated the scare story from the Sheriff's Office without asking the most basic questions: how many people released with no bail failed to show up for their court hearing compared to how many failed to show who posted bail prior to the change in bail procedures? How many people released on no bail committed new crimes compared to those released with bail. When non-violent crimes required bail what was the ethnic breakdown of those who could not make bail versus those who could? etc
The County has an Integrated Justice System that can produce answers to these and other questions with a simple data base query. The fact that the Sheriff's office did not give you this data as part of their account of the event should make you very suspicious.
I understand the equity arguments for no bail. I guess my real question is why should people possessing a 1/2 a pound of fentanyl be eligible for bail at all.
Laura, the arguments for no bail aren't only about equity (please see my comment above). There is no data that cash bail reduces crime, or that keeping the people featured in this article in jail while they await a court date keeps anyone safer. The data is just not there. I understand the frustration, but we should be looking for solutions that are actually effective at reducing crime and keeping us safer. Again, the law here was followed correctly, for non-violent and misdemeanor crimes (which this is), the law does not require paid bail. This is due process.
Again, my real question is why should people possessing a 1/2 a pound of fentanyl be eligible for bail at all? They should be in jail awaiting trial. According to the sheriff's office, possessing 1/2 a pound of fentanyl is a felony. If it's not, it should be. When you sell fentanyl, you basically know you are selling a substance that could kill someone. Two teenagers allegedly died from this last week, and two more were hospitalized, as you may recall. Does this body count not worry you? I don't doubt that the law was followed correctly in this case--what I'm questioning the wisdom of a law that would set two fentanyl dealers free to await trial--assuming they'll stick around for said trial. (Maybe you and I should have a bet about that.)
A cynical investigative reporter should be doubtful of the report from the sheriff on the size of the bust. There are a number of things that men like to exaggerate the size of and drug busts is one of them
Does anyone think this was their first or their last sale? Pretty jaw dropping that they get to walk away without at least putting up some serious money.
Astounding. A half pound of fentanyl could undoubtedly kill everyone in Sebastopol. Far more people actually — a 2-milligram dose is enough to kill the average adult. And these people are free to walk. Perhaps we should re-define the terms for zero bail.
I can understand the knee jerk reaction from many readers to be outraged by the zero bail release of the people arrested here. I’m especially empathetic to those who have lost family members to the opioid crisis. I used to feel this way as well, but after reading a lot of literature from the experts, I am now firmly on the side of zero bail being better for our community and the country.
This is the justice system working well and as intended – a reminder to us all that people are innocent until proven guilty. I think we’d all want due process applied to ourselves and this is no exception.
For those open to challenging their own beliefs on this, here are a few resources and stats to check out:
1. There is no evidence linking bail reform (i.e. zero bail) to higher crime rates (Source 1)
2. Those who await their trial in the community instead of in jail are no more likely to be re-arrested after bail reform was passed than before (Source 1)
3. Cash bail disproportionately punishes poor communities, which are already over-policed. Rich people can pay bail, poor people have a harder time doing so. (Source 1)
4. Those who can’t pay bail and stay in jail for non-violent and misdemeanor crimes before court dates return to jail or prison at higher rates. Some jail now leads to more jail later. (Source 2)
5. Sonoma County jails are already chronically understaffed. Putting more people in those jails won’t help staff or inmates. (Source 3)
One final quote from this report from the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Center for Public Safety Initiatives (Source 4) stands out to me – I hope that Sergeant Juan Valencia reads it:
“Responsible leaders should demand proof that the changes to the bail laws have caused crime increases (as opposed to a correlation) and that the changes being advocated will address those causes. To date, every legitimate analysis of the data has made no such case for change.”
If we want to reduce crime and get drugs off the streets, that’s a fine idea. Cash bail just isn’t the solution.
------
Source 1: https://www.theusconstitution.org/news/the-pros-and-cons-of-ending-cash-bail/
Source 2: https://www.jjay.cuny.edu/news-events/news/real-impact-bail-reform-public-safety
Source 3: https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/county-in-crisis-more-sonoma-county-jail-deputy-jobs-go-unfilled-as-overti/
Source 4: https://www.rit.edu/liberalarts/sites/rit.edu.liberalarts/files/docs/CPSI%20Working%20Paper_2023.04_Bail%20Reform%20Data.pdf
Laura, your usual sharp reporter's eyes have failed you on this story. You repeated the scare story from the Sheriff's Office without asking the most basic questions: how many people released with no bail failed to show up for their court hearing compared to how many failed to show who posted bail prior to the change in bail procedures? How many people released on no bail committed new crimes compared to those released with bail. When non-violent crimes required bail what was the ethnic breakdown of those who could not make bail versus those who could? etc
The County has an Integrated Justice System that can produce answers to these and other questions with a simple data base query. The fact that the Sheriff's office did not give you this data as part of their account of the event should make you very suspicious.
I understand the equity arguments for no bail. I guess my real question is why should people possessing a 1/2 a pound of fentanyl be eligible for bail at all.
Laura, the arguments for no bail aren't only about equity (please see my comment above). There is no data that cash bail reduces crime, or that keeping the people featured in this article in jail while they await a court date keeps anyone safer. The data is just not there. I understand the frustration, but we should be looking for solutions that are actually effective at reducing crime and keeping us safer. Again, the law here was followed correctly, for non-violent and misdemeanor crimes (which this is), the law does not require paid bail. This is due process.
Again, my real question is why should people possessing a 1/2 a pound of fentanyl be eligible for bail at all? They should be in jail awaiting trial. According to the sheriff's office, possessing 1/2 a pound of fentanyl is a felony. If it's not, it should be. When you sell fentanyl, you basically know you are selling a substance that could kill someone. Two teenagers allegedly died from this last week, and two more were hospitalized, as you may recall. Does this body count not worry you? I don't doubt that the law was followed correctly in this case--what I'm questioning the wisdom of a law that would set two fentanyl dealers free to await trial--assuming they'll stick around for said trial. (Maybe you and I should have a bet about that.)
A cynical investigative reporter should be doubtful of the report from the sheriff on the size of the bust. There are a number of things that men like to exaggerate the size of and drug busts is one of them
Does anyone think this was their first or their last sale? Pretty jaw dropping that they get to walk away without at least putting up some serious money.
Astounding. A half pound of fentanyl could undoubtedly kill everyone in Sebastopol. Far more people actually — a 2-milligram dose is enough to kill the average adult. And these people are free to walk. Perhaps we should re-define the terms for zero bail.
wow. they could have killed someone, and they are free to try again.