INC NEWS - Officials could revise bail-bonding policies (Herald-Sun)

[Caleb Southern]

I am pleased to see that our judicial officials are starting to get the
message about the revolving door at the Durham County Jail. And I am pleased
to see Judge Bushfan acknowledge that judges do indeed have discretion with
bail bonds; their hands are not tied.

However, based on the comments of D.A. Nifong below and at the September PAC
2 meeting, we could do without the condescending attitude from our elected
officials. Give the community some credit. We know what is going on, and
these issues are not that difficult to understand.

Furthermore, I do not buy Nifong's argument that bail bondsmen are regularly
posting high bonds for favored customers for a minimal fee. If I were a
bondsman who make a living off a 15% commission on the bond, and a regular
customer charged with a serious felony came to me to get out of jail on a
$100,000 bond, I would not post this bond for free. I would make the
$15,000. I would certainly not risk losing $100,000 of my own money as a
bondsman if the suspect fled, without making any money on the transaction.
This scenario does not pass the smell test.

Caleb Southern

***

Officials could revise bail-bonding policies

By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson at heraldsun.com
Nov 26, 2006 : 12:22 am ET

After years of taking it on the chin over what's widely criticized as a
revolving-door court system that puts criminals back on the streets almost
as soon as they are arrested, Durham judicial officials are considering
revising bail-bonding policies next year.

And they may hold a public forum as early as January or February to help
judges decide whether bonding guidelines need to be updated in response to
evolving community conditions.

Current guidelines have remained unchanged for at least six years.

At the top of the felony scale, the guidelines provide no bond for those
facing possible death penalties for first-degree murder.

The highest dollar figure on the chart is $200,000, suggested for
first-degree rape suspects and first-degree murder cases not involving
potential capital punishment.

The recommended bond in second-degree murder cases is $100,000. The maximum
penalty for that crime is roughly 40 years in prison.

>From there, suggested bail numbers go all the way down to $1,000 for Class I
felonies, the lowest felony level on the books in North Carolina. Offenses
in that category include public cross-burnings, safecracking and false bomb
threats. The punishment goes up to 15 months behind bars.

Judges can deviate from the suggested dollar amounts at their discretion,
but are supposed to be guided by public safety considerations, a person's
previous criminal record and the likelihood a suspect might flee, among
other factors.

District Attorney Mike Nifong is among those advocating a public forum
before local bonding guidelines undergo possible changes.

"There's really a lot of misunderstanding out there," he said in an
interview. "There's kind of a systemwide misunderstanding of what we do and
how we do it.

"Once things are explained to people, whether they like what they heard or
not, they are appreciative. It's good for members of the community to be
informed and to give us their input. An informed citizenry would likely be
less quick to assess blame when things go wrong."

But Nifong said public perceptions of a revolving-door court system probably
will persist no matter how much local bonding guidelines are tinkered with.

Many believe it is too easy for criminal suspects to get out of jail on low
bonds, only to commit new offenses and keep repeating the process in a
vicious cycle of community-endangering violence.

Durham's revolving-door reputation has received intense scrutiny from a
private watchdog group called the Durham Crime Cabinet and numerous writers
of letters to the editor, among others.

"Whatever the [bail] numbers are, they're not necessarily going to address
this perception," Nifong acknowledged. "And it doesn't matter what your bond
is if you can post it."

Four years ago, a judge went way above the bonding guidelines and set bail
in the $800,000 range for first-degree murder suspect Michael Peterson, who
did not face the death penalty. Peterson soon went free by putting his
million-dollar house on the line as bond collateral.

He later was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole for
the fatal beating of his spouse, Nortel Networks executive Kathleen
Peterson.

Similarly, a judge initially doubled the suggested $200,000 bond for three
first-degree rape suspects in the controversial Duke lacrosse case. But the
bonds then were lowered to $100,000 each.

The three defendants -- Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans --
posted bail even before the reduction.

According to Nifong, professional bail bondsmen can manipulate the system by
giving favors to criminal suspects they trust.

While bondsmen normally charge a nonrefundable fee of 15 percent, they can
undercut or raise the fee as much as they like, he said.

"It makes for kind of an artificial system," he added. "The bondsman can
require as little or as much as he wants to get you out [of jail]. It's
whatever he feels comfortable with. This means things are not as cut and
dried as they appear to be. Our bonding policies do not directly address
that."

Like Nifong, Chief District Judge Elaine Bushfan supports a public forum on
local bonding policies.

"Traditionally, one thing we have not done well is to talk to the people
about what we do and how we do it," she said. "I just think it's time to
educate our constituency. I believe it's appropriate to speak with the
public before we decide to change things."

But suggested bond amounts never will be set in stone, according to Bushfan.

"It is in a judge's discretion to make decisions about this," she said.
"That discretion cannot be taken away. Even if we revise the numbers,
judicial discretion will remain."