logo
FACT FOCUS: Trump claims cashless bail increases crime, but data is inconclusive

FACT FOCUS: Trump claims cashless bail increases crime, but data is inconclusive

Independent2 days ago
As his administration faces mounting pressure to release Justice Department files related the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case, President Donald Trump is highlighting a different criminal justice issue — cashless bail.
He suggested in a Truth Social post this week that eliminating cash bail as a condition of pretrial release from jail has led to rising crime in U.S. cities that have enacted these reforms. However, studies have shown no clear link.
Here's a closer look at the facts.
TRUMP: 'Crime in American Cities started to significantly rise when they went to CASHLESS BAIL. The WORST criminals are flooding our streets and endangering even our great law enforcement officers. It is a complete disaster, and must be ended, IMMEDIATELY!'
THE FACTS: Data has not determined the impact of cashless bail on crime rates. But experts say it is incorrect to claim that there is an adverse connection.
'I don't know of any valid studies corroborating the President's claim and would love to know what the Administration offers in support,' said Kellen Funk, a professor at Columbia Law School who studies pretrial procedure and bail bonding. 'In my professional judgment I'd call the claim demonstrably false and inflammatory.'
Jeff Clayton, executive director of the American Bail Coalition, the main lobbying arm of the cash bail industry, also pointed to a lack of evidence.
'Studies are inconclusive in terms of whether bail reforms have had an impact on overall crime numbers,' he said. 'This is due to pretrial crime being a small subset of overall crime. It is also difficult to categorize reforms as being 'cashless' or not, i.e., policies where preventative detention is introduced as an alternative to being held on bail.'
Different jurisdictions, different laws
In 2023, Illinois became the first state to completely eliminate cash bail when the state Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law abolishing it. The move was part of an expansive criminal justice overhaul adopted in 2021 known as the SAFE-T Act. Under the change, a judge decides whether to release the defendant prior to their trial, weighing factors such as their criminal charges, if they could pose any danger to others and if they are considered a flight risk.
Loyola University of Chicago's Center for Criminal Justice published a 2024 report on Illinois' new cashless bail policy, one year after it went into effect. It acknowledges that there is not yet enough data to know what impact the law has had on crime, but that crime in Illinois did not increase after its implementation. Violent and property crime declined in some counties.
A number of other jurisdictions, including New Jersey, New Mexico and Washington, D.C., have nearly eliminated cash bail or limited its use. Many include exceptions for high-level crimes.
Proponents of eliminating cash bail describe it as a penalty on poverty, suggesting that the wealthy can pay their way out of jail to await trial while those with fewer financial resources have to sit it out behind bars. Critics have argued that bail is a time-honored way to ensure defendants released from jail show up for court proceedings. They warn that violent criminals will be released pending trial, giving them license to commit other crimes.
A lack of consensus
Studies have shown mixed results regarding the impact of cashless bail on crime. Many focus on the recidivism of individual defendants rather than overall crime rates.
A 2024 report published by the Brennan Center for Justice saw 'no statistically significant relationship' between bail reform and crime rates. It looked at crime rate data from 2015 through 2021 for 33 cities across the U.S., 22 of which had instituted some type of bail reform. Researchers used a statistical method to determine if crime rates had diverged in those with reforms and those without.
Ames Grawert, the report's co-author and senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Justice Program, said this conclusion "holds true for trends in crime overall or specifically violent crime.'
Similarly, a 2023 paper published in the American Economic Journal found no evidence that cash bail helps ensure defendants will show up in court or prevents crime among those who are released while awaiting trial. The paper evaluated the impact of a 2018 policy instituted by the Philadelphia's district attorney that instructed prosecutors not to set bail for certain offenses.
A 2019 court decree in Harris County, Texas, requires most people charged with a misdemeanor to be released without bail while awaiting trial. The latest report from the monitoring team responsible for tracking the impact of this decision, released in 2024, notes that the number of people arrested for misdemeanors has declined by more than 15% since 2015. The number of those rearrested within one year has similarly declined, with rearrest rates remaining stable in recent years.
Asked what data Trump was using to support his claim, the White House pointed to a 2022 report from the district attorney's office in Yolo County, California, that looked at how a temporary cashless bail system implemented across the state to prevent COVID-19 outbreaks in courts and jails impacted recidivism. It found that out of 595 individuals released between April 2020 and May 2021 under this system, 70.6% were arrested again after they were released. A little more than half were rearrested more than once.
A more recent paper, published in February by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, also explored the effects of California's decision to suspend most bail during the COVID-19 pandemic. It reports that implementation of this policy 'caused notable increases in both the likelihood and number of rearrests within 30 days.' However, a return to cash bail did not impact the number of rearrests for any type of offense. The paper acknowledges that other factors, such as societal disruption from the pandemic, could have contributed to the initial increase.
Many contributing factors
It is difficult to pinpoint specific explanations for why crime rises and falls.
The American Bail Coalition's Clayton noted that other policies that have had a negative impact on crime, implemented concurrently with bail reforms, make it 'difficult to isolate or elevate one or more causes over the others.'
Paul Heaton, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who studies criminal justice interventions, had a similar outlook.
'Certainly there are some policy levers that people look at — the size of the police force and certain policies around sentencing,' he said. 'But there's a lot of variation in crime that I think even criminologists don't necessarily fully understand.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Asian shares are mixed after Wall Street sets more records for US stocks
Asian shares are mixed after Wall Street sets more records for US stocks

The Independent

time6 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Asian shares are mixed after Wall Street sets more records for US stocks

Stock markets in Asia were mixed on Monday after U.S. stocks rose to more records as they closed out another winning week. U.S. futures and oil prices were higher ahead of trade talks in Stockholm between U.S. and Chinese officials. European futures rose after the European Union forged a deal with the Trump administration calling for 15% tariffs on most exports to the U.S. The agreement announced after President Donald Trump and European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen met briefly at Trump's Turnberry golf course in Scotland staves off far higher import duties on both sides that might have sent shock waves through economies around the globe. Tokyo's Nikkei 225 index lost 1% to 41,056.81 after doubts surfaced over what exactly the trade truce between Japan and U.S. President Donald Trump, especially the $550 billion pledge of investment in the U.S. by Japan, will entail. Terms of the deal are still being negotiated and nothing has been formalized in writing, said an official, who insisted on anonymity to detail the terms of the talks. The official suggested the goal was for a $550 billion fund to make investments at Trump's direction. Hong Kong's Hang Seng index gained 0.4% to 25,490.45 while the Shanghai Composite index lost 0.2% to 3,587.25. Taiwan's Taiex rose 0.3%. CK Hutchison, a Hong Kong conglomerate that's selling ports at the Panama Canal, said it may seek a Chinese investor to join a consortium of buyers in a move that might please Beijing but could also bring more U.S. scrutiny to a geopolitically fraught deal. CK Hutchison's shares fell 0.6% on Monday in Hong Kong. Elsewhere in Asia, South Korea's Kospi was little changed at 3,195.49, while Australia's S&P/ASX 200 rose 0.3% to 8,688.40. India's Sensex slipped 0.1%. Markets in Thailand were closed for a holiday. On Friday, the S&P 500 rose 0.4% to 6,388.64, setting an all-time for the fifth time in a week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 0.5% to 44,901.92, while the Nasdaq composite added 0.2%, closing at 21,108.32 to top its own record. Deckers, the company behind Ugg boots and Hoka shoes, jumped 11.3% after reporting stronger profit and revenue for the spring than analysts expected. Its growth was particularly strong outside the United States, where revenue soared nearly 50%. But Intell fell 8.5% after reporting a loss for the latest quarter, when analysts were looking for a profit. The struggling chipmaker also said it would cut thousands of jobs and eliminate other expenses as it tries to turn around its fortunes. Intel, which helped launch Silicon Valley as the U.S. technology hub, has fallen behind rivals like Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices while demand for artificial intelligence chips soars. Companies are under pressure to deliver solid growth in profits to justify big gains for their stock prices, which have rallied to record after record in recent weeks. Wall Street has zoomed higher on hopes that President Donald Trump will reach trade deals with other countries that will lower his stiff proposed tariffs, along with the risk that they could cause a recession and drive up inflation. Trump has recently announced deals with Japan and the Philippines, and the next big deadline is looming on Friday, Aug. 1. Apart from trade talks, this week will also feature a meeting by the Federal Reserve on interest rates. Trump again on Thursday lobbied the Fed to cut rates, which he has implied could save the U.S. government money on its debt repayments. Fed Chair Jerome Powell has said he is waiting for more data about how Trump's tariffs affect the economy and inflation before making a move. The widespread expectation on Wall Street is that the Fed will wait until September to resume cutting interest rates. In other dealings early Monday, U.S. benchmark crude oil gained 24 cents to $65.40 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, also added 24 cents to $67.90 per barrel. The dollar rose to 147.72 Japanese yen from 147.71 yen. The euro slipped to $1.1755 from $1.1758.

Photos reveal Chile's pursuit of Venezuelan crime syndicate branded a terror threat by Trump
Photos reveal Chile's pursuit of Venezuelan crime syndicate branded a terror threat by Trump

The Independent

time36 minutes ago

  • The Independent

Photos reveal Chile's pursuit of Venezuelan crime syndicate branded a terror threat by Trump

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.

It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland

The National

timean hour ago

  • The National

It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland

The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store