the Bail Bond Process
As the COVID-19 pandemic made it harder to fill jails, courts began to release low-risk offenders on ankle monitors instead of traditional incarceration. Aside from the obvious benefit of freeing up space in overcrowded prisons, electronic monitoring can be a useful tool for probation and parole officers to track offenders’ locations and prevent them from skipping town or committing new crimes. However, these devices are often associated with a wide range of restrictions that can make them difficult to use. For example, some wearers are required to submit a list of all their upcoming planned travels 72 hours in advance, which can include everyday stops like getting gas or going to work.
In addition, some individuals on house arrest are not allowed to leave their designated home zone. If they do, the ankle monitor will send a signal with their location to the monitor company and could trigger law enforcement action. In addition, many house arrest defendants must keep a close eye on their finances and report to a case manager if they run into financial problems or are behind on their payments. This can put them back in violation of their court-ordered conditions, which may lead to additional fees or even traditional incarceration.
Despite these criticisms, the reviews for bail bonds system is deeply ingrained in the U.S. legal system. Various states have different regulations governing the bail bonds industry, and some are exploring alternatives to the traditional cash bail system. In recent years, there has been a growing movement advocating for bail reform, with a focus on finding more equitable solutions that balance public safety concerns with the principles of justice.
How Do Ankle Monitors Impact the Bail Bond Process?
Some argue that the use of ankle monitors disproportionately impacts black people. Author Jacqueline Browne points out that surveillance is nothing new for Black communities, from the branding of enslaved people to Jim Crow segregation and the shackling of prisoners. As such, she contends that these historical inequities can shape where and on whom monitors are imposed. She adds that the city of St. Louis pays roughly $90 a day to detain a person awaiting trial at the city’s notorious Workhouse, while it only costs them $10 a day when they have to pay EMASS to wear an ankle monitor.
However, the bail bonds system is not without criticism. Detractors argue that it creates a two-tiered justice system, where those with financial means can secure their freedom while those without resources remain incarcerated. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the industry’s practices, such as aggressive tactics to ensure defendants appear in court and the potential for exploitation of vulnerable individuals.
The varying costs of the ankle monitor can have an impact on the bail bond process. When the judge sets a bail amount, the bond company must take the costs of the monitor into consideration. This means that a person who is required to wear an ankle monitor will be required to cover a larger percentage of their bail, which can affect their ability to post it in the first place. However, a qualified lawyer can often help to reduce the cost of the device and the accompanying GPS fee by arguing for a lower bail amount or by seeking out alternatives to the device altogether.