by Marc Hyden | Nov 2, 2018 | Top Story
Last legislative session, outgoing Gov. Nathan Deal embarked on one last ambitious endeavor: addressing the state’s problematic cash-bail practices. And in April 2018, the Legislature approved a bail measure that Gov. Deal ultimately signed into law. The statute, however, bears some serious flaws. It laudably states that judges shall consider defendants’ financial circumstances when setting bail. But the measure’s language is vague, giving judges a great degree of leeway to do both good and potentially bad. Furthermore, the law does not fully address the system’s shortcomings. Rather, Georgia’s bail policy may continue to effectively criminalize poverty, lead to more crime and weigh down taxpayers with unnecessary financial burdens. There is an urgent need to fix the system, but Georgia needs a champion to lead this effort. As January 2019 quickly approaches, there will be a new occupant in the governor’s mansion. Whoever that might be, he or she ought to assume Gov. Deal’s mantle of criminal justice reform and fully tackle cash bail’s shortcomings. As it stands in Georgia, after alleged offenders are arrested and booked into local jails, a judge sets a cash bail for their release. Bail is meant to guarantee that once freed, defendants will return for their court date. If they cannot post bail, they risk languishing in jail until their day in court. On any given day in Georgia, there are around 43,000 people housed in the state’s county jails, and many remain there for months at a time. Most of these inmates have not been convicted; rather, they are awaiting trial. The majority of these people are accused of minor crimes, and many...
by Marc Hyden | Sep 26, 2018 | Top Story
The government is no stranger to wasteful spending. In fact recently, Gwinnett County Sheriff Butch Conway came under fire for purchasing a tricked-out 707 HP Dodge Charger Hellcat for a cool $70,000. The unnecessary acquisition was bankrolled through a troubling government tool called civil asset forfeiture. Regrettably, bad public policy and misaligned incentives encourage this kind of behavior, which highlights the need for policymakers to address this issue. Civil asset forfeiture is a mechanism that permits law enforcement officials to seize private individuals’ property with limited due process and little regard for their guilt or innocence. Starting in the 1980s, its use grew rapidly. It was intended to be a weapon in the drug war that would deprive cartels and dealers of their financial basis for operation. But now, law enforcement officers employ the practice more widely and in unrelated contexts, thanks largely to perverse incentives that allow their offices to directly benefit by eschewing due process. In Georgia, police officers are permitted to seize private individuals’ property if there is probable cause to believe that it was linked to illegal activity. The owners don’t need to be convicted or even arrested to lose their property outright. If they hope to recoup their property, then they have a very narrow window of opportunity to present their case in court. In order to recover their belongings, owners must demonstrate that their property wasn’t connected to any illicit acts. None of this occurs in the presence of a jury of peers. Rather, it happens at a bench trial where the sitting judge unilaterally settles the matter. If the owner fails to...
