Introduction: The private bail industry is at the center of a political and legal debate over the future of pretrial release. Advocates of ‘cashless bail’ and bail reform argue that the current system is flawed and that replacing it with a government-funded alternative would make the justice process fairer. However, the industry itself is pushing back, arguing that reforms would replace a constitutionally protected, privately funded system with a taxpayer-backed bureaucracy that is less accountable and more expensive. This conflict is being fueled by real-world consequences, as seen in states like New Jersey, where the replacement of secured bail with a government system has led to inefficiencies, financial strain, and a lack of accountability.
The Role of Secured Bail: Secured bail, as the private bail industry describes it, is the opposite of the misleading term ‘cashless bail.’ It is a system where individuals can post bail through private entities, ensuring that defendants appear in court and that the public is protected. Unlike the alternative system of cash bail, which requires defendants to post cash to secure release, secured bail allows for various forms of payment, including bonds, and is legally liable for ensuring that the accused attends court. This model is argued to be more efficient, with the industry operating 24/7 and taking financial risks, thus avoiding the costs that would be passed on to public budgets.
New Jersey’s Bail Reform Act and Its Fallout: The article cites New Jersey as a clear example of what happens when the right to bail is removed. In 2016, the state passed the Bail Reform Act, which eliminated the right to bail for many defendants and introduced a county-funded system. This shift led to predictable issues, including prolonged detention without bail and a massive financial burden on local governments. The case of Ed Forchion is used as a stark example — a Marine veteran was held for 447 days without bail, despite a $2 million bond being offered by the private industry. The state, however, refused to accept the offer, claiming that the right to bail no longer existed, leading to a breakdown in the system. The article argues that the state’s failure to fund this new bureaucracy created a financial disaster, and taxpayers now pay the price for a system that is less effective and more costly.
Political and Financial Implications: The private bail industry is not just a service provider but an industry with financial stakes. Critics claim that politicians who support ‘cash,less bail’ reforms often do not fully understand the consequences, as they are chasing a funded narrative rather than the realities of the system. The article suggests that if the same level of zeal was applied to a ‘funeral home reform,’ the outcome would be similar. The private industry argues that these reforms are not about fairness but about replacing private enterprise with a bloated, taxpayer-funded alternative. The financial effect of these reforms would be significant — counties are spending millions annually on a system that is less effective and less accountable than what it replaced.
Call to Action and Future Concerns: The article concludes with a call to action for Congress to protect the existing secured bail system before more states follow New Jersey’s path. The private bail industry warns that without intervention, the costs to taxpayers will continue to rise, and accountability will diminish. The article emphasizes that a balanced approach — one that maintains judicial discretion, protects public safety, and ensures that defendants appear in court — is possible. Secured bail is presented as an effective solution that meets these criteria and should be preserved. The industry is ready to work with officials who recognize the value of private enterprise in the criminal justice system, ensuring that the system remains functional and accountable.