By Assemblyman Alex Sauickie
Something extraordinary happened in Trenton in 2014. A large, bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in a Legislature controlled by Democrats – working in the summer, no less – came together with Republican then-Governor Chris Christie and representatives of the state judiciary to devise and enact a monumental change in criminal law.
This included a major amendment to the state constitution, which can only be done by the voters. The amendment was overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 62% to 38% after glowing editorial endorsements and little opposition.
The new law, commonly known as “bail reform,” was born of consensus and bipartisanship. But today, many are having second thoughts, at least about how some crimes should be handled.
The new law essentially ended the right to get out of jail before trial by posting cash bail. Instead, a system was created whereby arrested suspects are assessed on how likely they are to show up for their trials, to pose a threat to public safety, or to obstruct the criminal justice system. Based on the assessment, a recommendation is made to the judge on whether to hold or release the suspect.
The law requires the assessment to be done using a “risk assessment instrument.” New Jersey uses the Public Safety Assessment developed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, according to the state judiciary’s website. Stay tuned for a twist on this.
“Bail reform” is working extraordinarily well and it would be a mistake to try to improve it, a former attorney general under Gov. Christie wrote in a recent column. However, that advice came about seven months too late, after Gov. Murphy had signed a change to the law that passed by solid bipartisan votes, with several objections to be sure. That change encourages the pretrial detention of those arrested for offenses that qualify under the “Graves Act,” which imposes mandatory minimum prison terms for people convicted of certain crimes involving a gun. The law was passed after a number of urban mayors, including those of Newark, Paterson and Trenton, pressed for its enactment.
Momentum seems to be building for even more changes. I’ve heard from police, sheriffs, prosecutors and others that change is urgently needed. Mostly, that need is associated with the huge increase in carjacking over the past couple of years, although some dispute any connection with releasing suspects before trial.
At an Assembly committee hearing in December on carjacking, there was bipartisan agreement on the need for new reforms. As I write this, a Senate committee is scheduled to consider bills relating to pretrial release, including one that creates a presumption of pretrial detention for carjacking and burglary suspects.
That former AG’s column notes with apparent pride that only New Jersey’s “bail reform” received an “A” grade from the Pretrial Justice Institute (PJI). That sounds prestigious and suggests we should respect the institute’s opinion.
That’s why it’s interesting to note that, in February 2020, the PJI reversed its prior support of “pretrial risk assessment
tools” such as the one mandated in our law, because they “are derived from data reflecting structural racism and institutional inequity.”
Months later, the group elaborated with strong language, saying “these tools are not able to do what they claim to do – accurately predict the behavior of people released pretrial and guide the setting of conditions to mitigate certain behaviors. [They] simply add a veneer of scientific objectivity and mathematical precision to what are really very weak guesses about the future, based on information gathered from within a structurally racist and unequal system.”
I think we can dismiss that “A” grade, and work instead to get solid grades from the public on keeping them safe by punishing and deterring crime.
Alex Sauickie is a lifelong Jackson resident who represents his hometown and 13 other towns in the State Assembly.
###
Note: This opinion piece originally appeared in The Jackson Times by Jersey Shore Online in its publication dated March 4, 2023.