Bail Bonds in the Media
There have been articles in the recent past that talk about how the Bondsman should be responsible for the actions their clients take while released on bail.
My questions is: Should the Judge also be responsible? Should the DA be responsible? If the judge or District Attorney felt that the defendant posed a risk to anyone or was a flight risk shouldn’t they have held them on a “No Bail”? Why the judge issue a bail amount if he felt the defendant was a risk? And why didn’t the District Attorney argue to keep the defendant in custody rather than issue a bond?
Who’s really at fault here? The answer is: It is the responsibility of the defendant himself to obey and comply with the rules and laws the Government has set forth. It is not the responsibility of the Bondsman, Judge, DA or Family members of the defendant to force him to comply with the law.
Often times articles are written about how a Bondsman is responsible and how it’s the Bondsmen’s fault that the defendant committed additional crimes while on bail. Actually studies show that people on bail are much less likely to commit crimes while on bail than when released on their own recognizance.
If the media needs someone to point a finger at when a person on bail commits a crime they should be pointing the finger at the defendant himself. And if that’s not good enough the media should point the finger at the judge who decided that the defendant did not need a bond and should be released on his own signature.
One Response to “Bail Bonds in the Media”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
No doubt. Why should we be responsible for a defendants actions. A bail bond is simply an appearance guarantee it is not a “performance bond”.
Should’nt the judge and DA be accountable if they set bail for a person or let someone out on an OR? They are the ones who decided the inmate was not a risk to society.
Good Blog! Appreciate the articles Keep it up!