Growing criticism against Mass. Bail Fund comes up short

by | Aug 20, 2020 | Everything Boston, Latest, Trending | 0 comments

The shock of a violent offender’s jail release doesn’t nullify the association’s commendable racial justice strategic mission.

The ongoing debate encompassing the Massachusetts Bail Fund is, at its center, an instance of an outrageous anomaly being utilized by pundits of the not-for-profit to sabotage everyone’s benefit of the program. What’s more, it additionally uncovered how regularly examiners abuse bail to hold defendants.

A month ago, the fund, which has been overwhelmed with donations in the wake of global racial justice protests, posted a $15,000 bail for the immediate release of Shawn McClinton. McClinton, a 39-year-old twice-sentenced sex offender who was being held on rape charges, purportedly proceeded to assault another lady upon his release.

It’s unquestionable that McClinton shouldn’t have been released, given that he is blamed now for carrying out another appalling wrongdoing. In any case, the issue isn’t whether the bail fund should have paid McClinton’s bail — it’s that an important procedural step in due process was omitted. Suffolk County prosecutors could have, and ought to have, asked an appointed judge that McClinton be held without bail, which would have required an immediate hearing.

Rather, prosecutors requested McClinton to be held on an expensive bail. Suffolk County District Attorney Rachael Rollins said a peril hearing would have been re-damaging to the supposed victim since that individual would have been approached to affirm in the trial. But, a hearing could have been held without the supposed victim’s essence. What Rollins and the pundits of the bail subsidize miss is that this discussion would be debatable if McClinton were affluent. His family may have paid the bail and most likely nobody would scrutinize the bail fund or his family.

Which takes us to the strategic the Mass. Bail Fund and comparative charities that have sprung up everywhere throughout the nation. On standard, they contradict pretrial confinement and cash bail since it excessively influences non-white individuals and low income families. “We are a non-judgmental, abolitionist bail fund. We post bail for people regardless of charge or court history,” the nonprofit said in a statement posted on its website. “We do this work because pretrial detention is harmful and racist.” It causes defendants “to lose their housing, lose their jobs, lose their children, and potentially lose their lives,” the statement read. “And throughout the Commonwealth, judges and prosecutors impose higher bails on Black and Brown people than white people for the same categories of offenses.” (The fund cited an analysis from the Massachusetts Trial Court that showed that white defendants had higher rates of release on recognizance and were subject to lower bail amounts than Black and Hispanic defendants.)

The fund’s administrator, Michael Cox, disclosed to WBUR that the fund has consistently existed to free individuals who are too poor to even think about affording their own bail. “I’m a survivor of sexual violence while I was incarcerated,” Cox said. “I think that this myth exists that the carceral system is used to eradicate sexual violence and violence in all forms, and that’s not true. We’re merely moving people around.”

Bail has one target: to ensure defendants return to court to deal with their indictments. Most by far of individuals who are delivered pretrial on bail — about 85 percent, as indicated by ongoing information from the Massachusetts Trial Court — don’t default. Without bail, the inability to-show up rate is even lower. Also, just around 7 percent of those liberated before their trial were accused of another criminal offense while the past case was pending.

By concentrating on that 7 percent, pundits of the Mass. Bail Fund miss the forest for the trees. What doesn’t get discussed enough are the a huge number of defendants whose lives and families are hurt and damaged, sometimes unsalvageably, on the grounds that they are imprisoned while anticipating trial. Or then again the defendants, similar to Cox, who are casualties of violence while they are detained.

The fund’s administering premise — that the current system is destructive and racist— is an honorable one. The overpowering truth is that there is no genuine issue with regards to defendants appearing in court. What’s more, when there is an authentic concern for public safety, there are lawful strategies set up to hold individuals who may be a peril to society.

When society is centered around correcting the wrongs of one-sided policing and criminal justice, and given that ethnic minorities are bound to be held on bail and on higher amounts of bail, the fund’s racial justice work is basic and must be secured. The failures that prompted McClinton’s release ought to be handled another way.



Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *