Alabama House of Representatives passes bill restoring partial bond payments for release
Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, speaks to Rep. Steve Clouse, R-Ozark, on the floor of the Alabama House of Representatives on April 1, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. The House passed legislation he filed to allow judges to issue percentage bonds. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama House of Representatives Thursday approved legislation allowing defendants to pay less than the full amount of the bond to be released from jail as their cases proceed in court.
HB 42, sponsored by Rep. Chris England, D-Tuscaloosa, passed 66-32. It allows judges to issue a percentage bond to defendants to be released from pretrial confinement instead of paying a bail bond company to secure their release.
'A few years ago, we passed an amendment to the Alabama Bail Reform Act that removed three words,' England said during the discussion on the floor. 'The three words were, 'a part of,' so it basically requires the total sum of the bail to be paid in order to secure release. This bill restores those three words so it would allow judges to take partial, percentage bonds.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
If an individual fails to appear in court, the money paid by the defendant will be returned to the court to pay for expenses or restitution.
England filed similar legislation in 2024 that was approved by the House of Representatives but did not come out of the Senate..
The bill leaves just about all the language of the Alabama Bail Reform Act in place but adds the three words that England referred to during the floor discussion back into state statute.
HB 42 has been one of the few criminal justice reform bills that the House chamber has approved for the session. The House Judiciary Committee hosted a public hearing on the legislation in late February with one person speaking on the legislation.
Victor Howard, who owns a bail bond company based in Madison County, said the bill fails to hold people accountable and will not entice people to appear for their scheduled court.When defendants are not able to pay the full amount of their bond, they'll pay a bail bond company a percentage of the total bail amount, typically 10%, and the company assumes responsibility for the person to appear at their scheduled hearings.
In March, the House Judiciary Committee voted to approve the bill and allow it to move forward to the full House chamber.
Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Matthews, who voted for the bill, called it 'a small step, but it is a step in the right direction.'.
'We have done so much for title bonds, payday loans, but there is no reform and no oversight on this,' he said during floor discussion. 'Let's work together to take it to the next step.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Mike Johnson Goes After Musk for Mega Bill Meltdown
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he was let down by Elon Musk's bombshell rebuke of the Trump administration's signature legislation as lawmakers swiftly took sides on the debate. Speaking to reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday, Johnson launched into a defense of President Donald Trump's 'One, Big, Beautiful Bill' after the recently departed DOGE chief branded it a 'disgusting abomination' that would 'massively increase' the budget deficit. 'Let me say this: It's very disappointing,' Johnson said of Musk's comments. 'I've come to consider Elon a good friend. He's obviously a very intelligent person, and he's done a lot of great work… But with all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong.' Johnson maintained that the mega bill delivers on Trump's campaign promise of putting America first and saves the government more than $1.6 trillion—despite analyses from nonpartisan organizations like the Congressional Budget Office and the Penn-Wharton Budget Model estimating that the measure would cause the deficit to soar by about $4 trillion. The House Speaker said he and Musk spoke at length over the phone on Monday to discuss the bill, which the tech mogul blasted in an earlier interview with CBS News. 'I extolled all the virtues of the bill, and he seemed to understand that,' Johnson said. 'We had a very friendly conversation about it.' Musk has become increasingly vocal about his opposition to the bill since leaving the Trump administration. He told CBS last week that the measure 'undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,' and wrote in X posts on Tuesday that the 'massive, outrageous, pork-filled' legislation would 'burden American citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' he said. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' House Republicans narrowly passed the bill last month in a 215 to 214 vote, with all Democrats uniting against what they described as a giveaway to billionaires at the expense of vulnerable American families. Musk's comments divided GOP lawmakers and appeared to unite Democrats. Four Republican senators were exasperated when they spoke to Politico about Musk's latest jab. North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said Musk was 'entitled to his opinion,' while North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer said: 'I like Elon Musk, but he's one man.' Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said lawmakers would continue to work on the measure. 'We need spending reductions, no doubt,' Schmitt said. 'I think the Senate should make the bill substantially better, and I hope and believe we'll do that,' Cruz added. Several other Republicans joined their Democratic colleagues in agreeing with Musk's take. 'I agree with Elon,' Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said on X. 'We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake. We can and must do better.' Utah Sen. Mike Lee wrote in a reply to Musk's post that 'the Senate must make this bill better.' Florida Rep. Anna Paulina Luna threatened to withhold votes if the bill fails to codify the sweeping cuts made by DOGE. 'NO CODIFY VOTES? Then guess what: NO VOTES,' she said. 'Half the reason GOP took the majority is because of Trump and Elon and now they are too scared to codify!' Several Democrats, led by Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, echoed Musk's scathing criticism of the bill. 'If even Elon Musk, who's been part of the whole process and is Trump's buddy, says the bill is bad, you can imagine how bad this bill is,' Schumer told reporters. 'Musk said people shouldn't vote for the bill. Let's hope the Republicans follow him, not Trump.' 'Breaking news: Elon Musk and I agree with each other,' Jeffries said in a press conference. 'The GOP tax scam is a disgusting abomination.' Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders similarly agreed with Musk. 'Musk is right,' he said on X. 'Let's defeat this disgusting abomination.'
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Extent of FBI's targeting of ‘radical traditionalist Catholics' greater than Biden officials claimed, GOP senator reveals
Documents released by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on Tuesday appear to contradict former FBI Director Christopher Wray's claim that a controversial 2023 memo targeting 'radical traditionalist Catholics' was a one-off and the work of a single bureau field office. Extent of FBI's targeting of 'radical traditionalist Catholics' greater than Biden officials claimed, GOP senator reveals The Biden-era FBI chief told House lawmakers in July of 2023 that the memo – which described the purported overlaps between Catholics who oppose abortion rights and would-be terrorists as an opportunity for 'threat mitigation' and 'source development' – was 'a single product by a single field office.' However, the new FBI files obtained by Grassley show the bureau produced 'at least 13 additional documents and five attachments that used anti-Catholic terminology,' as well as a second memo updating the FBI's Richmond Field Office's case against 'radical' Catholics. 4 FBI Director Christopher Wray testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2023. 'Director Wray's testimony was inaccurate not only because it failed to reveal the scope of the memo's production and dissemination, but also because it failed to reveal the existence of a second, draft product on the same topic intended for external distribution to the whole FBI,' Grassley wrote in a letter to current FBI Director Kash Patel on Monday, demanding more documents. The second FBI memo, released by Grassley, was also drafted by the FBI's Richmond office and repeated the 'unfounded link between traditional Catholicism and violent extremism.' The backlash over the whistleblower disclosure of the initial memo led the Richmond office to never release the second version, according to the Iowa Republican. However, the first 'anti-Catholic Richmond Memo' was 'widely distributed' in February 2023 to more than 1,000 FBI employees nationwide, according to Grassley's findings. 'This raises serious concerns that FBI field offices may have relied on the Richmond memo, and placed groups in their areas of responsibility under suspicion based on reporting from the deeply-biased sources used in the memo,' the senator informed Patel. Additionally, the new documents reveal that Richmond FBI officials worked with the bureau's field offices in Louisville, Portland, and Milwaukee as they drafted the memo – further belying Wray's testimony. 4 The memo described the purported overlaps between Catholics who oppose abortion rights and would-be terrorists as an opportunity for 'threat mitigation' and 'source development.' mariangarai – 4 President Joe Biden delivers his farewell address to the nation from the Oval Office of the White House on Jan. 15, 2025. Getty Images 4 Sen. Chuck Grassley attends a confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill on Jan. 15, 2025. REUTERS Grassley and numerous conservatives and Catholics have criticized the FBI for largely relying on the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center's 'hate group' classifications when putting together the memo. 'I continue to investigate the Richmond memo and the culture at the FBI that allowed it to be produced and approved,' the senator informed Patel.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Bruno Fernandes rejecting Saudi Arabia is good news – and not just for Manchester United
It's easy to get annoyed at Bruno Fernandes. As an on-pitch presence, he's not especially likeable. His face seems permanently set to 'complaint' mode. He nags at referees. There was that undignified episode when Manchester United lost 7-0 to Liverpool a couple of years ago and he essentially threw a tantrum on the pitch. Advertisement But, as much as anything, that just illustrates something we all know: that on-pitch manners do not necessarily maketh the man. You hear plenty of stories about Bruno being a good guy, which at the very least balances the apparent petulance, most notably his attempt to pay for United staff to attend the FA Cup final after their free travel and accommodation were nixed as part of Big Jim Ratcliffe's cost-cutting drive. He also tends to be the one who 'fronts up' to the media after United defeats, when most of the time he's the least of their problems. That might feel minor, but doing it means one of his younger, more junior, probably struggling team-mates doesn't have to. Fernandes currently plays for a particularly bleak type of football institution: one that's rich and high profile, and thus commands a lot of attention, but one that can't win games, and is run by people who seem intent on flushing any goodwill they might have down the toilet through redundancies, price rises, cutting charitable grants and whatever else they have planned in the name of austerity. This is a club that has been carried on the pitch by their best player and captain for longer than he probably cares to remember, and one that you have little confidence is going to turn things around any time soon. In short, you wouldn't blame Fernandes for desperately grabbing at any plausible life raft that happens to float past. Which brings us to his decision to turn down Al Hilal this week. 'It would have been an easy move,' Fernandes said at a Portugal press conference on Monday evening. 'I had Ruben Neves and Joao Cancelo there, two people I have a great friendship with. But I want to stay at the highest level, play in big competitions, because I still feel capable. I want to keep being happy, I'm still very passionate about this sport, and I'm happy with my decision.' Advertisement Fernandes was reportedly offered a contract that would have more than doubled his already significant wages to move to Saudi Arabia, with Al Hilal also apparently prepared to pay a £80million ($108m) transfer fee to extract him. Most United fans will naturally be delighted. Not only do they keep their best player, but they will be protected from the dispiriting prospect of their club probably frittering away a crucial windfall; of all the clubs you would trust to cash in on their star man and use the money to responsibly beef up their squad, United are at the bottom of the list. But the rest of us in Britain, Europe, the non-Saudi world, should be pleased, too. It is, on the most basic level, refreshing to see someone have the conviction to turn down that amount of money. I can't confidently say that I would. If you can, then fair play to you. Fernandes' representatives met with Al Hilal, so we can assume that he didn't turn the offer down on moral grounds, otherwise he might not have even entertained it. It's also true that it's easier to reject that kind of approach when you already earn £250,000-a-week at one of the world's biggest clubs. Fernandes is not exactly hard up. But it's still pleasing that a player has not signed up to the Saudi project; someone of standing has rejected being a representative of the ultimate purpose of their move into sport, whether you call it sportswashing, soft power or something less charitable. The players that have agreed to move to the Saudi Pro League so far have generally fallen into three categories: ageing legends in decline, like Cristiano Ronaldo or Sadio Mane; excellent-but-not-quite-elite types in roughly their peak years, like Ruben Neves, Ivan Toney or Aleksandar Mitrovic; and relative journeymen, such as your Daniel Podences or Georges-Kevin N'Koudous. Advertisement What they haven't really yet managed to snag is a genuinely elite player at the peak of his powers from one of the elite clubs; a player who could probably slot happily into most top European teams and who represents a legitimate loss to one of the 'legacy' leagues. You could argue Karim Benzema (who was the reigning Ballon d'Or holder when he joined Al Ittihad) or Riyad Mahrez (fresh from Manchester City's treble-winning season) fit into this category, but they were 35 and 32 respectively when they made their moves. Fernandes is 30, but still performing as if in his prime, so would probably have been the SPL's biggest coup from a purely football perspective, if not a PR one. As it is, one of the Premier League's best players is staying in the Premier League, and will continue playing at a level of competition that befits his ability. Whether it's for that reason, or a sign that not everybody can be bought, or that not everyone can be persuaded to represent state project — take your pick — this should be celebrated. This is all said with the caveat that Fernandes is staying… for now. We have been in this position before, where someone turns down a move to Saudi Arabia initially, only to reconsider. Steven Gerrard, who rejected an offer to become Al Ettifaq manager in June 2023 then joined them the following month, springs to mind. This article might look pretty silly if Fernandes flip-flops. He also isn't necessarily staying at United: should a competent European team make him and United an attractive offer, he may still leave. We also shouldn't pretend he's a saint who is sticking around purely for altruistic reasons, for the history of a proud football club that he simply can't abandon. He has made this decision for essentially the same reason that all of those players who have moved to Saudi: because it is in the best interests of him and his family. If a better alternative presents itself, he will probably take it, and rightly so. But for now, Bruno Fernandes is not moving to Saudi Arabia, and we should welcome that fact.
