Bill Overview
Title: PACE Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes that a state court located in an area where monetary bail is prohibited has the authority to hold on bail a criminal defendant determined to be dangerous or a repeat offender. In addition, a state or political subdivision that prohibits monetary bail waives sovereign immunity in an action for damages as a result of a dangerous criminal being released without monetary bail.
Sponsors: Rep. Malliotakis, Nicole [R-NY-11]
Target Audience
Population: People in regions with prohibition of monetary bail
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill targets regions where monetary bail is not permitted, directly impacting defendants in those areas who are deemed dangerous or repeat offenders. This demographic includes individuals facing criminal charges in those jurisdictions.
- The legislation indirectly affects communities in these areas by potentially increasing public safety if dangerous or repeat offenders are held on bail rather than released.
- State and political subdivisions that prohibit monetary bail will have operational and legal implications due to the waiver of sovereign immunity. This involves state governments and their judicial systems.
Reasoning
- The impact on individuals will largely depend on their involvement with the criminal justice system, especially in areas where monetary bail is banned.
- Judges, court personnel, and community members living in these jurisdictions may have varying perceptions of the impact on safety and fairness.
- Changes in wellbeing under the policy can be influenced by the balance between safety improvements and legal or community costs associated with holding more individuals on bail.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel somewhat safer knowing that potentially dangerous individuals won't just be released due to lack of bail.
- I am concerned about possible injustices or mistakes in deciding who is considered dangerous.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Public Defender (Chicago, IL)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could lead to overcrowded jails and systemic strain.
- I'm worried about my clients being unfairly held without a true case of danger.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Community Organizer (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act might roll back important reforms I've been advocating for.
- The potential for misuse and abuse of power worries me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Police Officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support holding repeat offenders to protect our communities.
- The policy should have robust checks to avoid targeting the wrong people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Houston, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The safety of my neighborhood is my top concern, so I'm for it.
- I hope it sincerely improves safety and doesn't have negative side effects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is necessary to prevent past incidents in my life from happening again.
- There must be a clear guideline to assess dangerousness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Judge (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This allows for better judicial discretion in handling repeat offenders.
- It's crucial to exercise caution and maintain fair standards.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautious about this causing disparities, targeting socio-economically disadvantaged individuals.
- Monitoring the real-life outcomes will be interesting to see.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Freelance Journalist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this bill could lead to increased incarceration without fair trial.
- The accountability in judicial decisions should be very high.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Criminal Defense Attorney (Boston, MA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can lead to a reduction in judicial fairness and increase biases.
- Defendants’ rights must not be overlooked while focusing on public safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 3: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 5: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 10: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Key Considerations
- Impact on judicial expenditure and resources required for additional assessments and holding of defendants.
- Liability risks and associated legal costs due to the waiver of sovereign immunity in case of damages.
- Potential effects on public safety and local criminal justice landscapes, both financial and social.