Entries Tagged as ''

Electronic Monitoring vs. Private Surety Bail Bonds

Mr. Samuel R. Wiseman

(Florida State University – College of Law)

Re: Your article on EM vs. Bail

I would have to assume that you have not done your homework and due diligence on the effectiveness of Electronic Monitoring. Private Surety Bail has a 99% success rate at getting people to court and ensuring justice is served. If our clients do not go to court we then pay the court the entire amount of the bond and that money usually comes from the defendants family. Its the ultimate proven solution that when a defendant absconds his family is then responsible for his actions. All the while at NO cost to tax payers.

Electronic Monitoring is a false sense of security for people that don’t know any different. The general public hears the words GPS bracelets and monitoring of defendants. Well, what they see in movies and what is reality is not the same. Bracelets are cutoff daily by defendants wearing them. EM simply keeps the scared and honest people that made a mistake more honest. EM is not a behavior modifier for the bad guys. Also, when you take into consideration government monitoring of people I would ask you who pays for that? It comes from tax payers. And when those bracelets are cutoff by defendants who then pays the $1,500 invoice for that defective monitor? Also, once the monitor is cut and the defendant absconds who then chases down that defendant? Law enforcement? On whose dime? Tax payers? Private Surety Bail chases people down for times as long as 2 years on our own dime and our own time at no cost to tax payers.

Bail has been a proven method of guaranteeing appearance at no cost to tax payers and it is a self sustaining system that is paid for by the offender and his family. Not to mention that it is the only system in America that when it fails to perform it pays into the criminal justice system the forfeited amount of bail. Private Surety Bail promises accountability from its clients to the criminal justice system.

I invite you to do some research on the effectiveness of GPS units. There are many¬† articles about offenders cutting monitors off and published articles about the ineffectiveness of GPS. Here’s a few:

It is such a problem that law makers want to pass legislation that it is against the law to cutoff ankle monitors:

Quite possibly one of the more heinous of offenders: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/01/sex-offender-parolees-cut-off-GPS/

I can go on and on about the failures of GPS. And again, I would invite you to show me the failure rates of Private Surety Bail failing to get people to court to answer to their crimes.

Respectfully submitted,

Sean Cook

PBUS Conference

Renewed my PBUS membership this week. The Professional Bail Bondsman of the US conference in Las Vegas lask week was great. We had some great speakers like Dennis Bartlett from the American Bail Coalition and Jerry Watson from AIA. This may have been one of the best conventions in years in my opinion. The speakers were great, the vendors had some great new products and it felt like a really well done convention. The new president of PBUS is dynamic and very personable and really cares about this industry. Thank you Scott Hall!

Sean Cook

Private Surety Bail Bonds vs. Electronic Monitoring

What works best to guarantee a person accused of a crime appears in court when they are supposed to? One might say the newest technology (Electronic Monitoring and GPS devices). This couldnt be farther from the truth but lets explore the issue. Electronic Monitoring (EM) consists of Home Confinement bracelets, GPS units and alcohol testing devices. These are all fine products but they do not guarantee that a defendant will appear in court. Defendants have no “skin in the game”. Meaning they have no accountability and no one to answer to other than law enforcement, and theyve already proven they have no regard for the law (assuming theyre guilty). Not to mention that all EM devices are monitored by private companies that get millions of alerts per day and most of them are false and are simply flaws in the technology. These monitoring companies have a lag time before they report to law the proper authority. Often the proper authority is a probation officer or a judge or a district prosecuting attorney. And these guys are not sitting by their phones 24 hours a day waiting for their defendants to skip town so when a monitoring company calls them it is usually when they are not in the office. So, there is a major lag time before law enforcement is notified when a defendant absconds as compared a bail bond client absconds. Bail Agents are always open and always have someone on call waiting for a call about a client that is skipping town. Not to forget bail companies have a 98-99% success rate at getting people to court to answer to their charges.

When a person is released on bail it is usually because a family member has “put up” the bail for them. Meaning they have signed and pledged some form of collateral and guarantee that their family member will appear in court. This usually gives the accused some sort of feeling that if they dont appear their family will lose the entire amount of the bail. So , while people mioght not care about law enforcement or might not care about bail bond companies and skipping town, they usually wont skip town adn leave their family holding the bag.

Bail has been in existence since the 1600’s in England and was originally used to guarantee that both the defendant and the plaintiff appeared in court. It has been a proven method of guaranteeing appreance of the accused for hundreds of years.

Recent EM cases showing it needs more time to develop its technology:




Sean Cook Premiere Bail Bonds