Michigan bail reform bills aim to drop the price tag on the presumption of innocence
newsdepo.com
A bipartisan group of legislators in Michigan’s state House and Senate introduced a package of bills on March 13 that would result in major reforms of the state’s bail system. If the legislators are successful, low-income residents will no longer have toMichigan bail reform bills aim to drop the price tag on the presumption of innocence
A bipartisan group of legislators in Michigan’s state House and Senate introduced a package of bills on March 13 that would result in major reforms of the state’s bail system. If the legislators are successful, low-income residents will no longer have to sit in jail before their trial dates just because they’re poor. In most U.S. states, the cash bail system in effect creates two separate criminal justice systems: one for the wealthy and well-off, and one that’s completely different for those who can’t purchase the presumption of their innocence. As Daily Kos reported in November, 451,000 people are currently incarcerated nationwide because they can’t pay bail amounts of as little as $300. According to state Democratic Rep. David LaGrand, who has been working on bail reform since 2014, on any given day “probably more than 10,000” people are incarcerated in Michigan alone due to their inability to post bail. According to LaGrand, his package of bills will accomplish four major reforms. The first will be to provide people who have been arrested with a financial disclosure form they can fill out and hand to judges so the judges have an idea how much bail—if any—those before their bench can afford to pay. “In Michigan right now, judges don’t necessarily know how much money people have available to them when the judge sets a bond,” LaGrand explained to Daily Kos. “That means judges can inadvertently set, for example, a $300 bond for someone who’s only got $200 in their pocket. And there’s no difference between a $300 bond and a $1 million bond if you’ve only got $200.” The second reform would require judges to explain their decisions when ruling on whether or not someone who has been arrested will be released or detained before trial. This will allow defendants to explain circumstances that judges may incorrectly assume make the defendants a flight risk. Read more