Some Utah lawmakers voted Wednesday to encourage Utah courts to stop a new screening process meant to identify a defendant’s “background information, failure-to-appear records and history of violent offenses.”
When prosecutors charge a person with a crime, the judge can order pretrial release, bail or pretrial detention. Judges use bail and pretrial detention to protect public safety and ensure that defendants appear for court proceedings.
The judiciary’s plan is to give judges more background information on each defendant in a criminal case, not just the new charges filed against them, so the court will have a better grasp of who needs to be held and who poses little enough threat to the community that they can be released pending trial.
In a legislative committee hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Paul Ray told the committee that the court should have come to the Legislature before considering such a “dramatic policy change.”
In case Ray needs a reminder, Utah’s Constitution entrusts the court with its own administration. “The Supreme Court shall adopt rules of procedure and evidence to be used in the courts of the state.”
Besides that fact, the court’s reforms are no surprise. It is disingenuous for Rep. Ray to suggest the Legislature did not know the court was planning these reforms.
In his report to the Utah Legislature in January, Utah Chief Justice Matthew Durrant told the Legislature he was concerned about Utah’s current bail system, especially regarding defendants who could not pay bail. He noted that pretrial detention “means separation from their family and often a loss of their employment, with the accompanying loss of income.”
The Legislature’s own auditor general, noting that the “pretrial landscape is changing,” released a report in January that concluded that “pretrial release decisions are made without adequate information.” The auditor reported that judges “lack basic information when making pretrial release decisions” and that lack of information “negatively impacts public safety, taxpayer resources, and defendant outcomes.”
In addition, the court published a report in November 2015 after extensively reviewing pretrial release practices. In its report, a court committee found, “Utah’s laws discourage judges from exercising discretion to make individualized decisions regarding pretrial release.” “Judges are not given the information they need when making a pretrial release or monetary bail decision.”
The court’s report concluded, “There should be a presumption in favor of pretrial release, free from financial conditions.”
In other words, the court signaled in 2015 that it would be moving toward a system that preferred pretrial release over money bail requirements based on the level of offense. Such system will be a fairer way to treat individuals while calculating actual risk.
The Legislature has made great strides in showing its willingness to reform the criminal justice system. The Legislature should continue these efforts, even in the face of alarm from lobbyists with clients worried about losing money.
The executive director for the American Bail Coalition warned legislators about a more-detailed charging report, saying, “The biggest problem is that it never recommends bail. It always recommends release.”
Exactly.