Uncategorized

Arguments against bail bonds bill continue to mount

If you want to get a glimpse of just how crazy and extreme things are getting at the General Assembly during the session’s hectic waning days, check out the debate surrounding this bill from the bail bonds industry that has been sliding through under the radar. It is premised on the truly cockamamie notion that publicly-supported pretrial release programs somehow constitute “unfair competition” for bail bondsmen. We are not making this up.

Over the weekend, the Wilmington Star News had a solid editorial on the topic that ought to be a “must read” for anyone following the subject.

North Carolina taxpayers don’t owe bail bondsmen a living, but a bill that’s making its way through the General Assembly would fatten their wallets at the expense of a pretrial release program that is well regarded by judges and court officials. The Honorables should lock up this legislation in a safe place and throw away the key.

Senate Bill 756 is a reworking of a bill introduced last year on behalf of the bail bonds industry that would have eliminated unsecured bond altogether. This bill is bad in its own right.

Some of its many opponents have dubbed it the “Liberty for Sale bill” because it virtually guarantees higher incomes for bondsmen by making candidates for pretrial release sit in jail for at least 48 hours before they can speak with a representative from the county-funded pretrial release programs.

In voting to advance the bill, a House judiciary subcommittee ignored testimony from judges, court and law enforcement officials, and others who say the bill would result in higher costs for taxpayers and add to jail overcrowding.

Read the entire article by clicking here.

 

 

 

2 Comments

  1. david esmay

    June 18, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    The GOP motto in action, if it’s not broke, how can we , or our friends profit from it.

  2. Dennis Bartlett

    June 18, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    This bill has not been sliding through the NC Assembly. It’s been out there for over a year for anybody with eyes to see, to read, comment on, lobby either for or against. It was introduced on 19 APR 2011. The fact that the pretrial service advocates have been asleep at the switch for over year, reflects poorly on them and not on the nature of the bill nor on those who proposed it and support it. They deserve to to lose this bill especially for denigrating their opponents and fighting dirty at the last minute as a substitute/excuse for their own lack of vigilance and due diligence.