Bail reform and pre-trial justice are topics that have sparked significant debate in recent years. As the criminal justice system strives to balance fairness with public safety, Stephen Millan, an experienced criminal defense attorney, offers a unique perspective on the need for reform. His insights on the subject focus on the issues inherent in the current bail system and the need for more equitable and humane alternatives.
Understanding the Bail System
At its core, the bail system is designed to ensure that individuals accused of crimes appear in court while allowing them to remain free until their trial. Traditionally, bail involves a financial guarantee that the defendant will return to court after being released. However, critics argue that the bail system disproportionately impacts low-income individuals who are unable to afford the cost of bail, leading to unnecessary pretrial detention. In turn, this can disrupt their lives, harm their employment, and even lead to a higher likelihood of conviction, as defendants may feel pressured to plead guilty simply to end their prolonged detention.
Stephen Millan believes that the current bail system is flawed and needs comprehensive reform. He highlights that while bail is meant to ensure court appearances, it too often punishes people for their economic status rather than their risk of fleeing or committing further crimes. “The system shouldn’t be about wealth, but about whether someone poses a risk,” Millan states. His stance aligns with growing calls for reform to make bail decisions more equitable and based on factors such as flight risk, potential harm to others, and the defendant’s ties to the community.
The Impact of Pre-Trial Detention
Pre-trial detention, which occurs when a defendant is kept in jail before their trial, has a far-reaching impact that goes beyond the individual. Millan emphasizes that many defendants, especially those in pretrial detention, are often innocent until proven guilty. Keeping individuals in custody before their trial can lead to devastating consequences, including the loss of employment, disruption to family life, and the loss of a sense of autonomy. Furthermore, prolonged detention may result in a higher likelihood of conviction, as those who are detained may be more inclined to accept plea deals simply to secure their release.
Stephen Millan points out that pretrial detention disproportionately affects low-income communities and people of color, compounding existing inequalities within the justice system. He advocates for a shift toward a more nuanced approach to pretrial justice that does not automatically assume that all defendants must be incarcerated while awaiting trial.
Reform Proposals: Risk Assessment Over Cash Bail
In advocating for bail reform, Stephen Millan calls for a move away from the cash bail system, which he argues often punishes individuals for their poverty rather than their potential risk. Instead, Millan supports the use of more comprehensive risk assessment tools that evaluate a defendant’s likelihood to flee or commit a crime while awaiting trial. These tools consider a variety of factors, such as prior criminal history, community ties, and the nature of the offense.
Risk assessments, when used appropriately, can help judges make informed decisions that better reflect the true risk a defendant poses, without relying on their financial ability to pay bail. Millan believes this approach could help reduce the number of people incarcerated before trial, ensuring that pre-trial detention is reserved for those who pose a genuine threat to public safety.
Public Safety and Reform: A Balancing Act
One of the primary concerns in the debate over bail reform is ensuring public safety. Critics of bail reform argue that eliminating cash bail or reducing pre-trial detention could lead to an increase in crime. Stephen Millan acknowledges the need to protect the public, but he stresses that safety should not come at the expense of fairness and justice. He advocates for a more individualized approach to bail decisions, where judges consider a defendant’s unique circumstances and make informed decisions based on evidence rather than blanket policies.
