I take issue with the article “Cash bail system reform being explored in Pennsylvania” (May 1, TribLIVE). According to the Pennsylvania Bulletin, “The goal of the bail determination procedures is for the least number of people being detained … to reasonably ensure appearance for court and the safety of the community.”
One of the main considerations is whether the defendant has reported to court as ordered in the past. If the ACLU did not factor this into its study, in my opinion, that is a fatal flaw. We also don’t know at what point in the case the ACLU drew its bail figures.
The article should have been accompanied by another setting forth the cost to taxpayers for the court issuing warrant after warrant for defendants who cannot bother to report as ordered. In my experience, magisterial district judges tend to be lenient with defendants on their first trip before the bench and will continue that bail when a case is held for court if defendants have complied as ordered. When bail goes up is, among other reasons, when a defendant has to be chased down and brought to court by law enforcement.
This is a complex issue requiring a deep dive into statistics by a committee composed of all participants in a case: the judiciary, clerical staff, district attorney, public defender, private bar, ACLU and whatever other entities contribute to bail setting in each county.
Nancy Galvach
New Kensington