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: Individuals involved in or affected by the criminal justice system in areas with no monetary bail
Estimated Size: 6600000
- The PACE Act of 2022 impacts individuals involved in the criminal justice system where monetary bail is prohibited.
- The bill is likely to affect criminal defendants who might be held on bail if they are deemed dangerous or repeat offenders.
- Communities in areas with no monetary bail will be affected as courts gain discretion to hold individuals awaiting trial.
- The bill could impact victims or potential victims who might be at risk from dangerous offenders released without monetary bail.
- It affects legal entities like state courts and political subdivisions that must adapt to new liabilities and procedures regarding monetary bail.
Reasoning
- The PACE Act of 2022 primarily impacts individuals and communities involved in or affected by the criminal justice system, specifically where monetary bail is not employed.
- Not all individuals in these areas will feel the effects; certain demographics, such as those directly involved in bail proceedings or those living in affected communities, will be more impacted.
- Our interviews should capture a spectrum of potential impacts, from those experiencing no change to those feeling a significant social or personal effect.
- Some resources will be involved in supporting legal and justice system changes, impacting the budget allocation.
- The program size limit suggests targeted effects rather than widespread, systemic change across all affected regions.
Simulated Interviews
Public Defender (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law concerns me as it undermines some of the reforms we achieved with bail elimination.
- It may lead to unjust detentions based on bias or poor judgment of dangerousness.
- My clients will face new uncertainties in their pre-trial arrangements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Judge (Albany, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act provides necessary flexibility to detain individuals who may pose a threat to community safety.
- It balances community safety with the rights of defendants.
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 | 8 |
Community Organizer (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is potentially regressive, jeopardizing community trust in justice reform initiatives.
- My work will become harder as we witness more pre-trial detentions which may not always be justified.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 9 |
Police Officer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Positive step towards discouraging repeat offenders from engaging in more crimes when released before trial.
- Provides a better tool to ensure community safety and reduce crime rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Social Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reintroduction of bail may result in needless detentions affecting families we serve adversely.
- We need to focus more on crime prevention and community programs instead.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Criminal Defense Attorney (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act may translate into more work defending repeat offenders prejudged dangerous without adequate evidence.
- Our justice system should focus on fairness and not jail individuals on mere assumptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Policy Analyst (Austin, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy allows courts more discretion which may have both positive and negative repercussions.
- Monitoring its implementation closely will be crucial in determining its true impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Graduate Student (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having been through the system personally, I am wary of how this policy might lead to more inequity.
- We should focus on rehabilitation and root causes rather than increased incarceration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Community Safety Advocate (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a welcome change as it could deter repeat offenders from committing crimes while awaiting trial.
- Communities should still focus on preventive measures and holistic recovery support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Victim Advocate (Miami, FL)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Victims will feel more secure knowing potentially dangerous offenders could be held on bail.
- We need to ensure the policy is applied fairly and ethically.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $15750000, High: $31500000)
Year 3: $22050000 (Low: $16537500, High: $33075000)
Year 5: $24255000 (Low: $18191250, High: $36382500)
Year 10: $29530200 (Low: $22147650, High: $44215350)
Year 100: $204455596 (Low: $153341697, High: $255569495)
Key Considerations
- There will likely be increased operational costs for state and local court systems.
- The bill might necessitate increased judicial resources to assess the dangerousness and risk levels of defendants not subject to monetary bail.
- Additional training and legal oversight might be required to implement the new policies.
- Potential legal liabilities for states and subdivisions could result in increased legal and insurance costs.