Fugitive Recovery Network (FRN)
http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/

COLORADO 102
http://fugitiverecovery.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11386		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  mikeyj19d [ Thu 21 Oct 2010 10:18 ]
Post subject:  COLORADO 102
Well it is that time of year again, time for all the automated phone calls and all the good beer commercials are being replaced with those trashing political opponents. I have always kept an eye on politics and government but never really been as into them as I have been the last couple years. I have learned that if I truly want to make a difference I need to pay closer attention. I have always looked at major changes in amendments but kind of glanced over the ones I never heard about on TV or the radio. This election year I am actually studying the blue book that Colorado sends out to us and I found a proposition I was interested in and would like to hear some other peoples take on it, especially if you are from Colorado or your state has seen something similar. Being new to all of this I am interested in hearing some veteran opinions.





Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs
Proposition 102 proposes amending the Colorado statutes to:
prohibit the release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to supervision
by a pretrial services program unless that defendant is arrested for his
or her first offense that is also a nonviolent misdemeanor.

Summary and Analysis
In the United States, an individual accused of a crime is innocent until proven
guilty. Most defendants have the right to be released on bail that is not excessive
rather than remaining in jail pending the outcome of a trial. However, some serious
crimes are not bail able offenses under Colorado law, including murder, kidnapping,
and treason. In addition, persons arrested for a violent crime who have been
previously convicted of a violent crime, or who are out on bail for a violent offense, are
also not eligible for bail.

Definition of bail and bond.
After an individual is arrested, the court sets the
amount of bail, the type of bond, and any other conditions of release. The primary
purpose of bail is to ensure that the defendant appears for trial. A bond is an
agreement between the defendant and the court under which the defendant agrees to
comply with all of the conditions of release and to pay the bail amount if he or she
does not appear in court.
The court may order one of two types of bonds, unsecured or secured. With an
unsecured bond, the defendant is released on his or her promise to appear, but is
required to pay the bail amount if he or she does not appear in court. With a secured
bond, the defendant either pays, or promises to pay through a commercial bail
bondsman, an amount of money or interest in property before he or she may be
released from jail pending trial. Although there are judicial district guidelines for
setting bail, the court has the discretion to set the amount of bail and type of bond on
a case-by-case basis after considering criteria set forth in law.
If the defendant cannot afford to pay the bail amount, he or she can pay a fee to
get a bond through a commercial bail bondsman, secure a bond using real estate, or
remain in jail. In addition to financial conditions, the court may order any number of
other conditions of release, which could include supervision by a pretrial services
program.

Pretrial services programs.
Under current Colorado law, most defendants
qualify for release to supervision by a pretrial services program on either a secured or
unsecured bond. There are ten pretrial services programs that are publicly funded
and serve over 70 percent of the state's population. The programs are located
primarily along the Front Range, with the exceptions of Weld, Pueblo, and Mesa
counties. Pretrial services programs provide two primary functions. First, they assess
defendants and provide information and recommendations to the court regarding the
defendant's risk to public safety and the likelihood that he or she will appear in court.
The court uses this information in setting the defendant's amount of bail and type of
bond.
Second, pretrial services programs provide community-based supervision to
monitor defendants prior to trial through various methods, such as periodic visits with
the defendant, drug testing, and substance abuse treatment. Failure to comply with
the pretrial services conditions may result in the defendant being returned to jail while
awaiting trial.

Proposition 102.
Currently, the court may release the defendant to supervision by a
pretrial services program on an unsecured or secured bond. Under Proposition 102, the
defendant may only be released to a pretrial services program on an unsecured bond
if the offense for which he or she has been charged is his or her first offense and is
also a nonviolent misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a crime, less serious than a
felony, punishable by a fine and a term of imprisonment in a city or county jail as
opposed to a state prison. In all other cases where the defendant receives pretrial
18 services, the court must order a secured bond. This measure does not prohibit the
court from releasing the defendant on an unsecured bond without pretrial services.
Author:  speezack [ Thu 21 Oct 2010 17:55 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
Colorado is only one of a number of states that are faced with the "Pretrial services" situation...

Virginia, my state, has been deeply involved in this ongoing scenario.

Here is a link to some Virginia activity related to this subject, included are links to other websites and organizations that may be of use in providing further info. I have noticed that the link to the "bailtruth" site is now down...

This is an older post... January this year, but should still be pertinent to this thread.

There are many variations in the wording contained in proposed legislation related to the expansion of pretrial services... much has been said about 'their' condemning and removing commercial bail in its present form.... there in lies the meat.

My short comment would simply be that "I believe there is room for both pretrial services and commercial bonding... but it has to be a partnership involving mutual benefit, mutual trust, mutual communication for the solving of mutual problems... ". Somehow, I do not think that has taken place to date... at least not in Virginia.

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=10713&start=0&hilit=pretrial

Quote:
In all other cases where the defendant receives pretrial 18 services, the court must order a secured bond.


I find this line to be rather refreshing.
Author:  Sam Sartain [R2T] [ Sun 24 Oct 2010 02:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
I have been researching this proposition and in most cases I do not understand where it will benefit the people of Colorado in the long run of things...

Then again...with most politics it is hard to understand the politicians point of view because I can't get my head that far up my arse.
Author:  Mdbtyhtr [ Sun 24 Oct 2010 08:38 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
Sam
Very simply, There are costs associated to pretrial release not associated with commercial bail. These costs are born by the taxpayer. Commercial Surety, which affords you income as a recovery agent, does not cost the taxpayer a single dime. More so, the Commercial Surety industry saves the taxpayer additional money, uncompensated. How many times do you recover a defendant who has additional warrants, that you are not paid for because they are not related to a bond? Examples would be Child support Warrants, Violation of Probation Warrants, Arraignment Warrants etc.

Pretrial release is, by definition, any form of release from custody prior to trial. This would include Commercial Surety. The confusion is when alternate forms of release take on the nomenclature of pretrial release in an all encompassing fashion. Pretrial release is Federally funded and requires additional state money to facilitate and maintain the services that are offered. The latter issue is often over looked or hidden in one fashion or another. The fact is, that alternate forms of release cost you, the taxpayer, money that you don't have to spend. There are significant studies performed on a Federal level that indicate that alternate forms of release are expensive, do not work and do not meet any minimum standard of cost-benefit ratio of success vs. money spent.

The most recent form of abuse performed by alternate forms of release methodologies is Diversion Programs. These are alternates to trial and punitive measures collectively. These include Drug Courts, Counseling Programs, or anything used in place of a criminal trial and resulting punitive measures. None of these programs attend to the needs of the victims, and focus solely on the defendant. Anyone that has dealt with addictive personalities is painfully aware that you cannot get an individual to successfully complete a rehabilitation program if it is not their choice.

I hope this has clarified our position and shed some light on the struggle.

Scott
Author:  speezack [ Tue 26 Oct 2010 06:50 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
Quote:
Very simply, There are costs associated to pretrial release not associated with commercial bail. These costs are born by the taxpayer. Commercial Surety, which affords you income as a recovery agent, does not cost the taxpayer a single dime.


That is an extremely important point in this overall debate. Every taxpaying citizen in every state that involves tax supported pretrial needs to be aware of this point.

Quote:
Pretrial release is Federally funded and requires additional state money to facilitate and maintain the services that are offered. The latter issue is often over looked or hidden in one fashion or another. The fact is, that alternate forms of release cost you, the taxpayer, money that you don't have to spend. There are significant studies performed on a Federal level that indicate that alternate forms of release are expensive, do not work and do not meet any minimum standard of cost-benefit ratio of success vs. money spent.


Extremely important and very often overlooked as mentioned.

In Virginia, the stated agenda of pretrial services is to completely eliminate and replace commercial bonding with a fully tax based agency that creates yet another bureaucratic nightmare of government controlled, inefficient, overstaffed, funded by tax dollars (your money) that will simply continue to grow and become even more inefficient just as most other government organized replacements to private industry have become through the years...

I simply point to several examples of government vs. private industry... Government health care vs. private (our health care system may need some major overhauling but do you really believe the government is the answer!!!)... and consider the US postal service vs. UPS and Fed Ex... look at the efficiency, the bottom line and the operations of each.

Quote:
The most recent form of abuse performed by alternate forms of release methodologies is Diversion Programs. <<>> Anyone that has dealt with addictive personalities is painfully aware that you cannot get an individual to successfully complete a rehabilitation program if it is not their choice.


I hate to post quotes and rehash these statements and issues but this has to be hammered into our thought process... it is imperative that we look at these issues in full light...

Scott, you are nailing this issue so clearly... these statements make me want to climb on a soap box and yell to the world... take off our blinders and look around at what is happening ....................... damn!! I get excited... :shock: :shock:

I rest my case.
Author:  bailagent100 [ Wed 03 Nov 2010 08:12 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
Apparently, the voters in Colorado have decided they want to pay for pre-trial release programs.

Proposition 102 went down in a crushing blow...63% against & only 37% for it.

:cry:
Author:  speezack [ Wed 03 Nov 2010 10:08 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
Well, my comment would only be that their marketing, advertising and presentation was better...

In my humble opinion... a major contributing factor in any political result has to do with.....(and I figure this will get some comments)... how pretty or good looking the candidate or the speaker may be on either side... and/or how eloquently or slick they may be in their presentation of the facts... it does not always reflect the true facts on the issue... I know that many people view the facts and try and make legitimate, knowledgeable decisions... but there is always a very large number that vote based on emotions and not facts... I did not follow this issue to a great degree in Colorado but I would think that had a lot to do with the outcome.

I think on the surface, PreTrial Services may sound like a good thing but if viewed in the daylight and with all the facts to consider... it is not the cure-all that it is made out to be... I watched and read several presentations by both sides and frankly... I could see differences that brought this on... again, this is my opinion but I did not think the proponents did a very good job of selling the facts. Obviously not!!

The interview with the sheriff and the attorney... did you see that... frankly, I think the sheriff did a much better job... he was much calmer, presented his side in a very believable way and answered the questions in a better way and also, the speech given by the fellow representing the National coalition (I can't recall his name) I thought he was not at all effective... again... MHO...

Well, the political process was served... the voters spoke... our issue was defeated... for the moment, it is over, move on.
Author:  bailagent100 [ Thu 04 Nov 2010 07:04 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
No argument on any point you raise from me, Bill. Of course, we all are entitled to our own opinions but I do find it interesting that your and Steve G.'s opinions are so different, with regard to those chosen to lead the effort...if we are, indeed speaking of the same people.

This was essentially a 2 to 1 defeat for the industry in Colorado. The 173,000 signatures that were submitted to get the initiative on the ballot gave me a false sense of security about how this would go. I was rather stunned at the outcome, personally.

There has been no word from APOB or SafeStreetsColorado or corporate, as yet. Nothing. Crickets. I suspect they are still formulating a response. They, like I, are probably wondering what to do with this sleeping dog we just awakened.

Professional regards.
David Platt
aka: Bailagent100
Author:  speezack [ Tue 09 Nov 2010 06:47 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
Dave, which Steve G. are you talking about? I know 3 Steve G's? and I might expand a bit... I don't have anything against anyone that is in the lead on this but the interview I watched with the speakers I listened to... well, our side was frankly not as strong as the opponents... I watched them again after reading your post and came away with the same feelings.

I think our main line was one of "making the streets safer... by not releasing criminals without proper restraints or supervision" but the parallel reason and the main one for us as an industry was to maintain and save the commercial bail bonds business and that was the point that the opposition keyed on and threw back at us... I think they did a good job (unfortunately) of pointing that out as our true agenda... they made it look as if we were actually acting out of self preservation and not citizen safety motivation.

Making the streets safer was a good point but we all know the true agenda and of course the true agenda on the other side was simply putting commercial bonding out of business and placing the control, the money and the power in the hands of yet another bureaucratic government agency to replace a private industry. That of course was their true agenda... so everyone has a line on this action... it just depends on your perspective... and again... your opinion is like they say........ everyone has one.

We just didn't get our point across. period.



PS: Like all political issues... you have to motivate the voters... and when the agenda is personal, as is this one to the members of our illustrious industry... and the general public could frankly care less about our personal agenda... you have to hang the cause on something that... again... motivates the voters. This issue had to be "spun" in that direction... it just didn't get the job done... again... "We just didn't get our point across. period."
Author:  speezack [ Tue 09 Nov 2010 08:23 ]
Post subject:  Re: COLORADO 102
We all know that we deal frankly with a very small portion of the public and the rest of the citizenry have little or no idea or could care less who or what a bail bondsman or a bounty hunter need or do other than the unfortunate occasional movie or series on TV that they see and laugh at and to that end we have to deal with the realities of our industry.

LE and the judicial system is generally looked upon as the "serious" side of the criminal element in our country. The bail bond and bounty hunter side is, for the most part, looked at in the "Midnight Run" or the "Dog" light. That is a very difficult perception to get around and when tossed into the political arena it is even more difficult to display as "serious".

When the 'Walmart, Professional Wrestling and Jerry Springer' citizenry are often (not always but often) in control... getting a serious vote out is somewhat difficult. When people vote on politicians or key issues based on how "pretty" they are, what color they are or how it keys on a personal agenda like raising the price of cigarettes for example... or some other similar superficial reason... it is no doubt or wonder that things are going the way they are.

Therefore, our fight is uphill all the way and has been since it's inception. All we can do is try and maintain our honest character and portray our industry and ourselves in a light that will hopefully get around this TV persona... it will continue way past my involvement and hopefully we can prevail and our industry will continue to provide the service that we know it can.

... and that's about all I have to say about that.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/