CA: Bail overhaul plan would limit release of sex crime suspects

People arrested on suspicion of crimes that would require them to register as sex offenders would need a judge’s approval to leave jail while awaiting trial under a change to the state’s new landmark law ending bail.

State senators voted Wednesday to send the bill to Gov. Jerry Brown, just a day after Brown signed the law that will make California the first state to end bail in October 2019. In the place of bail, judges and county officials will determine whether to release suspects before trial based on the likelihood they’ll return to court and the degree of danger they pose to the public.

The update approved Wednesday would make anyone arrested for crimes under the Sex Offender Registration Act, including non-violent misdemeanors, ineligible for release until they see a judge at arraignment. Crimes requiring a person to register as a sex offender can range from indecent exposure to rape. Full Article

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Unfortunately there does not appear to be a way to comment at the source article.

This is so heinously funny. I have to say that I haven’t paid any attention to this latest idiocy but I fully expect that in order to do something good with the corrupt bail system that they had to sell everyone by lying that it’s okay to change it because “we are still gittin dem there $EX offenders!!” Only rubes support the $EX Offender Registries ($ORs).

Take this as a reminder to retaliate today. Ensure that the $ORs do nothing useful today. Do something to harm the criminal regimes that have the $ORs and their criminal law enforcement people. Never, never support those people. Do something today to get resources away from them. If you can’t become one of their suppliers (to soak them dry), buy companies that already are. It is easy to completely hide any involvement that you have.

Void in this article is how the bail “reform” bill uses murky “risk assessment” instruments. When the ACLU finally took the time to thoroughly understand the flaws in using a risk assessment to make black and white decisions, the ACLU — after having supported this bill for quite some time — changed its position because of the risk assessment tool:

Also, here is a letter from Human Rights Watch to Governor Brown that explains the flaws to using a risk assessment “tool” to determine whether one can be released pre-trial:

The undertones between the bail reform and tiered registry laws are eerily similar. Specifically, I fear that both bail reform and the tiered registry — if left unchallenged — mark the incipient beginning to The Minority Report, via-risk assessment instruments, coming to real life. Risk assessments are infecting the Courts. Risk assessments need to be fought with common sense and *honest* logic.

Janet… how does this law ever survive the constitution?

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

This is removing the right to bail if I understand it right

This is a disturbing new law! If you get arrested for a serious crime, you could end up being pressured to enter a plea deal! This might also pressure prosecutors to file more serious charges! Very disturbing!

Here is CA Registrants, family, and friends chance to help change policy according to the article:

A bail industry-backed group on Wednesday said it will try to place a referendum on the November 2020 ballot to repeal the new law. If it can collect roughly 365,000 signatures within 90 days of Brown’s signature on Tuesday, the law would be blocked from taking effect until voters weigh in.

Ultimately Brown insisted on giving judges the power to jail or release defendants. Criteria will be set by county supervisors — the kind of local control Brown prefers.

SB 10:
Those who cannot be released prearraignment include: those arrested for specified sex offenses, domestic violence, stalking, violating a protective or restraining order, a crime that includes violence, a third DUI, a DUI with .20% blood alcohol level; a person who had three or more failure to appears in the last year; a person who was pending trial or sentencing for another offense; a person who was on post-conviction supervision; a person who threatened a witness; a person who violated a condition of pretrial release in the past; a person convicted of a serious or violent felony in the last five years.

I thought bail was a constitutional right, per the 8th Amendment?

“a third DUI” they get not 1, not 2, but three chances?

What ever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? After this passes, no judge is going to let arrested individuals go until trial- this will be horrible also.

advocates of the bail system are going to undue it by asking the voters to overturn it anyway….

This looks ripe for an attack- ALL people arrested are presumed innocent until proven guilty- regardless of the alleged offense. Due process requires that all like people are treated equally. Misdemeanor vs felony would probably be upheld, but specific misdemeanor crimes? Yeah…no.

Criminal Justice Advocates Raise Concerns about New California Law that Abolishes Cash Bail
By Innocence Staff

This would have destroyed my family had it been law when I was arrested. The only way I could keep my wife and children in their house was because I received bail and could work to support them whike my case was in process.

I think Governor Moonbeam must have smoked some really bad weed the day he decided to sign this. Why not assess a defendant’s income and use an affordable scale based on that income to determine bail? If they are living below the poverty level, then they get released at no charge. Or is that too simple for the morons in Sacramento to figure out???

How about convicting the sex offender without a trial. Or maybe they can just give cops permission to execute suspected offenders on site.

Man I’m torn on this one, the only downfall of this law is if the risk assessments are not based on empirical evidence such as verified actual recidivism rates and a fair set of rules governing a judges decision and not left up to individual counties or local DAs to set the criteria for release. This will be fine for the low risk offenders with non-violent crimes and would be a great step in the right direction to equality in our justice system. I for one have seen the inequality in the bail system when my old boss got arrested for having 42 stripped and smashed cars waitng for recycling. Because he was a millionaire he was out in a matter of hours whereas when I was eighteen and stole a car with my brother I spent like three werks in jail with outrageous bail until my pd convinced the judge I would be in danger keeping in since I was so young and i had no record. The samething with traffic violations, He would speed thru redlights and just ignore any traffic law at any time he wanted simply because the fines did not matter to him so as long as he did not go over the limit in points wkth DMV to have his license suspended he cared less whereas when I got tickets in the past and cannot afford to pay it then it’s just a domino effect that can trully ruin your life. Like I said I see a lot of desent on this issue but I think we need to see details and actual language of the law. The fact that it appears to be up to individual counties makes it suspect though. Remember any serious or sex offense you already have to have bail hearings and how many of those end up with outrageous unattainable bail amounts. I guess what I am saying is if it is fair it would be a good thing but we all know it probably will not be and in actuality the court could use the already existing language of the constitution that says no excessive bail to reach the same desired results. Bail is excessive if you cannot afford it to begin with but judges and DAs are already out if control when it comes to following the constitution. Like I said I’m torn on this one especially since I was actually able to bail out for five grand when I got arrested but I do not think that $50,000 bail would be avaible any more they way they treat these types of offenses now bails are usually hundred grand or more and no way the average joe living paycheck to paycheck can just payout ten grand. IDK man…

You’re right, bail is supposed to be insurance you come back and stand trial. That’s all. You weren’t supposed to pay an exorbitant fine, unless you broke bail and didn’t appear. Unless I am missing something, it is not the bail that is the problem, but excessive bail determined by the judges. And yeah, for “innocent until proven guilty”, we have substituted “dangerous unless locked up ” for most anyone accused.

I for one still think these quotes are what should be followed.
As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote,”Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”
Benjamin Franklin went further arguing “it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”
No matter the charge if the suspect has not previously failed to appear or has not fled the country to escape trial then they should be released immediately. Very easy solution is to tag a person with a GPS and take away their passport. Although this is still unconstitutional if they appear to be that dangerous by clear and convincing evidence place a surveillance man/woman on them until trial is complete. That is the only possible answer I can come up with off the top of my head…See Nessar could have just been tagged with the GPS and had his passport revoked until after trial whereas Gorrido could have been tagged and surveillance put on him, maybe expensive but not really, hell of a lot cheaper than housing him in jail. At least at about the same cost…