Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: 270Th episode of objectively speaking. I'm Jag. I'm CEO of the Atlas Society. I'm very excited to have bail attorney Ken Goode join us from Houston.
And he's going to discuss new changes to border enforcement, examine whether or not there's credible evidence that increased deportations lower violent crime rates, how local law enforcement partnerships with federal immigration authorities are affecting communities, and what risks and benefits policymakers should weigh as they debate immigration enforcement and public safety. Ken, thanks for joining us.
[00:00:40] Speaker B: Well, thank you very much for having me. It's good to be here.
[00:00:43] Speaker A: Absolutely.
Would love to start with a bit of your origin story, where you grew up, how you were raised, how you became interested in this issue, and how your career brought you to this point.
[00:01:00] Speaker B: Sure.
How would I start that? I always like to say I'm a Christian, strong Christian. I'm married to another attorney, and we have two children, two girls.
And my oldest just got engaged and my youngest is in college, so getting older and older every day. But from my perspective, I grew up, you know, the grandson of a sharecropper. So, you know, I'm one of the American success stories.
My parents were the first ones in their families that went to college. They got married and dropped out, and then they had kids and then went back to college. So they, they were public school teachers. So they stressed the importance of an education to all of us. And, you know, they had four kids that we all have college educations. And when I was growing up, my mother and I, this sounds so corny, but we would watch Perry Mason, and so that was something we would do together. And so I always had a dream of becoming a lawyer. And I will say it was a dream at that point, not a goal. So I really didn't know how to fight for a goal. And so I had to learn that. I went to college and I graduated in three years with a double major instead of four.
But I worked full time, so it reflected on my grade. So I didn't get into law school the first time I applied. I had to.
I got a master's degree and taught high school for two years. Like, my parents were school teachers. And then I reapplied and I went to law school and I really found the found my place there. I loved, loved it. I mean, I don't think a lot of people love law school, but I loved it. I was a law review. I was on a lot of national teams. And so I just was very blessed.
Graduated, went into private practice, was lucky to get partnered with or put with somebody who was a very good teacher of how someone practiced law. I mean, he was, he was the type of attorney that at that time, if you were a defense attorney, you were above the fray of litigation. That wasn't him. He was, he was kind of the type person that if you want to get down in the mud and fight, we'll get down in the mud and fight. And so that was the way I was kind of taught to prosecute, practice law. And so I did a lot of litigation early on defending doctors and hospitals. And then that kind of transitioned to appellate work. I mean, I went to a medical malpractice seminar one time where they had new and important cases, just a presentation on that. And three of the five cases were from our little office in Tyler, Texas. So I just feel like I was very blessed with the trial team that we had and the type of exposure we had. I was on court TV early in my career. I argued a case before the supreme court of Texas and won it when I was a four year lawyer.
And so I've argued cases before the court of criminal appeals and the bail issue. And so as a result of my appellate background, I kind of started looking at these bail issues and the constitutional issues and how they were being applied by the courts early on. And as a result of that, I determined we had to become experts in this field.
And I hate to say the word expert, we had to become very knowledgeable on this area of the law. And so I've published a bunch of articles and I highlight the important cases in the rulings. And I have continued to do that now for, for a long time.
[00:04:18] Speaker A: So let's talk a little bit about that history. First of all, let's just pretend that we are starting from scratch. What is bail?
Has it been something that has always been in America? Does it go back further to, you know, English law?
Tell us a little bit about that whole institution.
[00:04:38] Speaker B: Well, you know, bail in Texas has been around for over 200 years and it came with us with our settlers from England. So it's part of the common law that came with us. And you know, common law is a phrase that means custom and practice. I mean, I don't think we realize that in England they really don't have a lot of paper statutes or like a paper constitution. They have custom and practice. And so that's one of those things that came over with us. So. And we have. It's changed since it got here. And so what is bail? It is, you know, we hear all the time now, well, this person has been arrested, but they've not been found guilty. So the presumption of innocence, they should just be released. But that's. That's not bail. Presumption of innocence is when you go to trial.
Bail is what assurance you're going to give the court that you're going to return to answer the criminal charges that have been filed against you. And, you know, we've been told for years that most people will come back, everyone will come back. They want to resolve their criminal case. So they really shouldn't have to give anything. They should just give their little promise. And we've learned through Covid and these periods of time where we tried all of these theories of bail reform on steroids because of the pandemic, that's not true.
We have such high failure to appear rates when we do these simple release mechanisms. So bail is really. When you think of the criminal justice system as a conveyor belt, you know, it's every year it's having about the same number of cases being added to the conveyor belt. The conveyor belt is. The bail system is. Is what determines the speed upon which the conveyor belt runs. Because if you get. If people come to court, you can get their cases resolved. If they don't, then their case has to be put on hold, because we can't try a case without the person. And the more cases put on hold, the more backlogs you have. And then that puts pressure on judges to dismiss cases. And when you do that, the criminals see that as a green light to commit more crime.
[00:06:47] Speaker A: So bail is someone gets, I get convicted or I get accused of a crime. Right. I'm awaiting trial before the judge for the initial hearing. And then how is bail assigned? Is it just up to the complete discretion of the judge? Are there rules and regulations and different states in terms of how that's determined? And then I post bail, say it's, you know, $10,000 or $50,000. How do people come up with that money and do they get all of it back in any case?
[00:07:24] Speaker B: Or, you know, it depends on the jurisdiction where, you know, states regulate bail.
And so it's going to be determined by. On a state by state basis. So let's start with Texas, and we'll expand out. So in Texas, if you're arrested on a charge, then you're going to be taken before a magistrate. The magistrate is going to do your initial appearance, and they're going to set bail.
In Texas, they could grant you a personal bond. Unless it's a Violent offense. And if it's a violent offense, they can't give you a personal bond. And so personal bond is the taxes equivalent of simple release. So once bail is set, and if you're not eligible for a personal bond, then you're going to have to post a bond. In Texas, there's three types of bonds. We've already mentioned personal bond, there's a surety bond and then there's a cash bond. So in your example, posting a $10,000 bond, if it's cash, then you're going to have to post $10,000 with accounting, or you can go to a bail bondsman, pay a premium, which is usually 10% of the face value bond. So you have to pay $1,000 here in the example, and then they'll post a bond guaranteeing your appearance for any hearings in the case and they're guaranteeing that you will return. We go to other states, then it can be different variations of that. I think the best example would be like Illinois, you know, we hear from that in the last year they got rid of cash bail. Well, no, they got rid of cash bonds. They had gotten rid of surety bonds.
The bail industry, you know, 10 or 15 years before that, and they started having problems. Then, you know, each release, you know, a cash bond, a personal bond, a surety bond, all have substantially different failure to appear rates. And so, you know, the personal bond has the worst, so the simple release mechanism has the worst appearance rate. And then the private industry surety bond has the best appearance rate by far. And so you can see just the release mechanism in use is going to impact the backlogs of cases or courts. And so that's one of the things that people are not looking at when policymakers are just making policy decisions not based on what's best. They're just doing it based on politics.
[00:09:37] Speaker A: Okay. And at the risk of looking completely stupid, bail and bond, are these, are they interchangeable or is there a distinction?
[00:09:45] Speaker B: Yeah, I think they're synonyms. I mean, I would use, probably use, use those terms interchangeably.
Bail is probably the.
A bond is an example of. No, I would say bail is the amount of a bond that the court sets for you. So if a judge sets bail for $10,000, then you have to post a $10,000 bond.
But yeah, I would think that in general the terms are interchangeable and that.
[00:10:13] Speaker A: Bond gets returned to you upon appearing at court.
[00:10:18] Speaker B: Okay. So it depends on the type of release mechanism. So if you're using a personal bond, it's just your promise so you haven't put up anything. So once the case is resolved or discharged, the bond just ends. On a surety bond where you've paid a premium. Once the bond you do everything you've said you're going to do, then the bond is discharged, there's nothing to return. It's a piece of paper where we're guaranteeing, if it's cash, the county in Texas will withhold a little percentage as a fee for processing it. But then it will return the cash bond, the 10,000 less that little percentage to whoever posted it.
[00:10:56] Speaker A: Okay. All right. Well, now that we've got those basics cleared up, I'm feeling a little bit more confident.
In your opinion, should there be more of a distinction in bail options between violent crimes, property crimes and victimless crimes, or are those distinctions generally made?
[00:11:17] Speaker B: I would say we do make. We are making distinctions based on those crimes. Currently, like in Texas, we have set a list of violent offenses that are no longer eligible for simple release.
Do I think we should be doing that?
No, I'm not in favor of tying the hands of judges.
I think we should give discretion to the judges.
We should give more discretion to judges. I think the problem that we're having in this criminal justice reform movement is we're doing just that. We're tying the hands of judges on low level offenses.
And as a result, organized crime, gangs and career criminals see that and they see the opportunities that are raising. And so they'll just commit that crime over and over and over again.
If there's a policy or a statute that requires the judge to exercise no discretion, as long as it's that same charge, they have to be released over and over again on the same result. And I think that's bad. I think that creates a system where misdemeanors become the training ground for tomorrow's felonies.
[00:12:22] Speaker A: So some have suggested that bail amounts should be based on risk assessments of the accused. How liable are they to not show up?
Why have some researchers concluded that risk assessments shouldn't be relied upon? And what's your view?
[00:12:42] Speaker B: My view is risk assessments should never be used in making pre trial determinations.
I think that's supported by not only the science. I think the most recent researchers have all concluded that risk assessments should not be used for pretrial bail determinations.
And also the largest digital companies in the world issued a joint press release saying that risk assessments should not be used in pretrial bail determinations. And the reason why I think we should not be using them is because we're replacing an automated system, which is what we're trying to get away from with a new automated system and both is taking away the discretion of the judge and try to impose a decision. And in this situation we're imposing the decision of an algorithm over the judge and specifically on risk assessments.
Risk assessments are really good at predicting what groups will do, but they're really bad at predicting what individuals will do. And also in predicting what individuals will do, there is a.
They take into consideration your racial makeup of the group. And so there is a racial makeup of that prediction which I think everyone agrees we should not be using. I think that's the source of why we, you know, everybody agreeing we should not be using risk assessments. But it's still something that these pre reformers or the advocates for change still come back and push and we still have that. There's the Arnold foundation that pushes risk assessments because they designed one. But it's just replacing one automated system like a bail schedule with a new automated system when what we should be doing is setting more discretion for judges instead of less.
[00:14:41] Speaker A: So correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that you've argued that jails should assess people when they are arrested to see if they need mental health help instead of incarceration.
If that is the case, I would ask how do we guard against abuse of that process where defendants might try to use mental health claims to avoid accountability?
[00:15:06] Speaker B: Well, I agree with you. The mental health issue is one of those areas that if you and I could come up with a solution, we'd probably become billionaires, I mean billion with a B. Because it's one of those areas that is elusive. And the concern that you've raised is, is, is I agree with wholeheartedly.
Because if you've got someone, if you've got these groups, organized crime, gangs and career criminals, and they find they figure out, hey, if I just say I have a mental health issue that's like a king's X on my underlying criminal case, then shock, shock, shock. Everybody's going to that are in these groups are going to spread the word, say you have mental issues.
I do. I don't know if I agree that we should assess everybody because that's the potential problem.
But the reason why this is an issue that evades us on our solution is what are we going to do with these people? I mean, we used to have mental facilities, facilities where we sent people that had, were in mental crisis. And over time we have, we've reduced them, we've closed them and we don't really have a lot of alternatives other than jail and the prison system. That's the reason why those facilities have become the largest mental health facilities in states and in systems. And so this, the problem with this bail reform movement, this criminal justice reform movement, they're now using mental health as well. We don't want them in the criminal justice system when we have nothing else, no other system set up to send them. And so we've even seen the president bring that up recently about we need to bring back mental facilities. And I don't know if we can, because the reason why they closed is because they were an easy target to reduce funding if a county had funding issues, because they don't have a constituency that's always arguing for them. And so if we bring them back, it's going to have the same problem. And so the reason why they closed eventually or ultimately is because class action lawsuits were being filed against them, because we had examples of people dying from starvation, they were not being cared for properly. And so I'm worried that would happen again. And so I agree we don't have a good solution for mental health. But mental health cannot be the king's axe to any criminal case. That's what happened in the north with the woman from Ukraine who was stabbed by a gentleman who had been arrested 17 times. He had substantial mental health. Even his own mother said he should have been in jail and she was pleading for people to do something with him because she couldn't control him. And that's the example of where we are in a criminal justice reform movement where we, we allow that issue to be a checkmate against the criminal case and it's costing people's lives.
[00:18:05] Speaker A: Well, next week at our 9th annual gala in Chicago, we're going to have as our keynote Michael Shellenberger, who has actually written and spoken on this issue quite a lot, particularly in his book San Francisco and, you know, but spending billions of dollars on homelessness policies that aren't working very well. And I think he makes the case that we need to be focusing on not necessarily this issue as one of lack of housing, although we do have a crisis in terms of housing availability, but also focusing on the issues of mental health and addiction and dealing with those directly. So I'm looking forward to that.
[00:18:51] Speaker B: I have a personal story on that sister who had a car accident in 1989 and then started a 30 year drug addiction to prescription medication. But she also had a brain injury there that slowly got worse and worse and worse. And so ultimately, at the end of her time here on Earth.
I stepped in and had a court declare her incompetent, and I was her guardian for the last five years of her life.
And so I would say even if you go through periods where people. People with mental issues, you know, you. They run off your family and you're. You're estranged for an extended period of time, if you can come back into their life and get control, that's their best chance. There's nothing else that will overcome. That is their best chance at surviving and flourishing.
And I think her last four years were probably some of the best years because she was. Her medications were regulated and she got on the assisted living welcome committee. I mean, she was like the cruise director for the assisted living place because she was so much younger than the remaining people there, but only because families dipped in was she able to reach that. That point. Without that, I mean, she would have died years earlier.
[00:20:13] Speaker A: Wow, that's a very affecting story. And maybe that is a little bit part of your origin story as well in terms of what motivates you to do this work. Now, part of what motivates me to do this work is that every week when we have this live show, we have a loyal audience and they always ask such great questions. And while I often procrastinate and get to them at the end, I want to try to turn to some of them now, because before we continue on with this conversation and we get away with some of the topics that we've just talked about.
So kingfisher21 asks, how should people understand judges?
Are they impartial or political?
[00:20:52] Speaker B: That's a great question. You know, in the last election in Texas, there was a group that ran ads saying, vote Republican judges.
I think that we are in a period of time, and I'm hoping we're ending that, where I think judges have become overly political in certain parts and probably predominantly in our urban areas. And the reason for that is because we have made criminal justice reform, or it has been for the last few years, the issue that causes people to get angry and come out and vote. And so you see that being used by one side of the electorate or one side of the political extremes saying, you need to get mad, you need to come out and vote. You need to vote for us. I think that ended with Trump's election. We've been. We probably could have, should have had a backlash two years before, but because of the ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States on the abortion issue, that kind of. The backlash from that masked the building backlash on Criminal justice and immigration reform. So I see that changing.
But I tell people that we need to go one more election cycle where we're voting law and order, and then both parties will return to being strong law and order parties, and we can then go back to our normal identity politics fight.
[00:22:21] Speaker A: All right. Alan Turner asks, how effective are judgments made on the level of bail assessment signed? Should courts prioritize risk of flight or risk of danger to the community when deciding bail? I think we already answered that, but I don't know if you had anything else to add.
[00:22:37] Speaker B: Well, you know, I think that depends on where you are, because the state, you know, like New York, the dangerousness is a specific thing that judges are not allowed to consider in setting bail. But in Texas, those judges are required to consider both elements. The risk of flight and the risk that they will commit another crime. And that's set out in, you know, like 17.15 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.
I think when we're giving judges more discretion, and, you know, that's a risk, I mean, when we're giving them more discretion, they would have the discretion to set bail very low if. And that could be a problem as well. But that's not my experience. My experience is the left will push to tie the hands of judges so they can't do anything. And then, and then, you know, when the pendulum clings too far to the right, then it's saying people are arguing we should hold everybody, the middle. And the public will not support either extreme. They won't support releasing everybody because crime will increase. It's not sustainable. They won't release. They won't support holding everybody because they're not going to pay for that. And so the middle ground is having a strong accountability system and using more of the private surety belt system. I mean, we have to recognize that using discretion means that we're not going to have the same bond amount set for you and for me. Because the whole purpose of discretion is we only want that amount of pressure to be imposed on you and that amount of pressure to be imposed on me that is necessary to make us change, to become productive citizens. And once we have a criminal history, well, then it needs to increase the inroads that the bail reform movement has made. The advocates for changes, they. They want to. They argue we should treat everybody the same and that you're not being treated the same because of your identity. And so you should get mad about it when that's just absolutely not true. And that's. That's. We're Kind of getting out of that period of time.
[00:24:42] Speaker A: Candace Morena asks where I live, New Mexico. I know they've moved away from cash bail. What's the alternative and how effective is it?
[00:24:53] Speaker B: Okay, that's a great question, because let's, let's compare a fair to a period. So the private surety bail system has the lowest failure to appear rate. It's like less than 10%. It has to be. Or they can't.
You know, the business is not functional. They won't survive.
But a cash bond where you, you post the entire amount of bond has a twice the failure to appear rate of that. And then when you get into these simple release mechanism, which I know New Mexico is using more of the simple release mechanism, they have a 50, 60, 70% or higher failure to appear rate. And you can see what impact that has on the criminal case. Like California, we have seen examples where they have simple release for all misdemeanors, but they overlap on top of that, the Speedy Trial Act. So if you don't show up, they can't make you come and they can't extradite you between counties because it's just a misdemeanor. And if you don't come back within a certain period of time, the case is dismissed. So I did a podcast with the DA from, from California who said the failure to appear rate in California on misdemeanors across the state is about 80%.
The criminal justice system cannot function with those types of failure to appear rates. That's what the politicians are not looking at when they're pushing these alternatives. Because there was a judge who was on a news nation town hall former judge who was talking about this very issue, and she said, until you have an alternative to the private surety bail system that has the same high level of accountability and the same low failure to appear rate, you don't have an alternative. So what we're doing is we're engaging in experiments using systems that don't work and have substantially higher failure to appear rates. And that's why you're seeing crime go up in some of those areas.
[00:26:48] Speaker A: Did I get that right, that you said you were having a conversation with the California DA who said failure to appear rates in California or some areas were as high as 80% across the.
[00:26:59] Speaker B: State on all misdemeanors?
[00:27:02] Speaker A: That's pretty hard to believe.
[00:27:05] Speaker B: What's hard to believe? And it's hard to believe that we're not talking about that more. I mean, he also released a study that compared nonviolent offenders One released on simple release, one released on a surety bond and found that the person released on simple release had a 200% greater chance of committing a new violent offense in the next 18 months. I mean, the California legislator looked at that legislature, looked at that data and they stopped their bail reform movement as a result of it. But you look at it and you go, why would we ever use any of these alternative simple release mechanisms if we're going to put the person in a situation where they have a 200% greater chance of committing a new violent offense in the next 18 months? You wouldn't.
[00:27:52] Speaker A: Okay, so let's say someone here in California shoplifts, and that's considered, I'm assuming, a misdemeanor. And they are supposed to appear in court. 80% of the time they don't. And then that case gets dismissed. And so what happens when they re enter the the criminal justice system again for again say shoplifting are, is that that's going to be on their record, right?
[00:28:22] Speaker B: On their record is dismissal, so it can't be used against them. I mean, and you know, on top of that, what have we done? So, like, we had proposition 47 in California where we reclassified theft under $950 from a theft felony to a misdemeanor. The argument at the time was, well, they'll still have to respond to their misdemeanor crime, so they'll have to, you know, answer for it, but they'll be able to get jobs. And then what happened in our urban areas?
Prosecutors decided, well, you know, since it's now a misdemeanor, we're no longer going to prosecute theft under $950. So we've got situations in California where shoplifting under 950, we just the DA's quit prosecuting. And we've seen what happens there.
Stores are closing because they can't survive $25,000 a day in shoplifting, crime in the area, increase drug use, increase commercial property values. Nosedive went down to like 30%.
And then as a result, Proposition 34 pass, rolling back a lot of Proposition 47. But what happened was the legislature in California decided not to fund Proposition 34. So we passed it, but they haven't funded it. So it's still in limbo.
[00:29:44] Speaker A: My modern Gault asks, have you followed the federal charges against Judge Hannah Dugan or obstruction?
[00:29:52] Speaker B: I have followed them a little bit and followed the federal judge. The judge refused to dismiss it, and so it's still pending. And I thought the interesting arguments that she was making Was she had a judicial immunity, absolute immunity for taking the defendant and his attorney and taking them out the back way so they could avoid federal law enforcement. And the court rejected that argument and said she did not have absolute immunity and the case is still pending.
[00:30:26] Speaker A: Okay.
Jackson Sinclair asked, do you think the 8th amendment still helps to prevent excessive bail?
[00:30:37] Speaker B: Yes, I do.
That is the the problem. The problem with that is that is not the vehicle that people use when they're attacking bail. Because we have a whole body of case law defining what is excessive bail. And under that case law, your ability to pay does not make bail excessive. So the attacks that we see on bail or we have seen for the last seven or eight years is based upon due process and equal protection. Those are the arguments that were gaining ground and now have been knocked down by the federal court. So the most recent case on it was the Daves versus Dallas county case from the fifth Circuit. It was an en banc. So the entire court issued an opinion and they said that these cases should no longer be filed in federal court. They don't want to micromanage ongoing criminal cases. And so they've ordered the courts in the fifth Circuit to abstain on those cases and dismiss them. And I think that is probably what the majority of the courts are doing. That case went up to the Supreme Court and they denied cert. So I think that gives an indication that the federal courts have decided they don't want to be in this as a political issue.
[00:31:56] Speaker A: Okay, well, I think that takes care of the last question I was going to ask.
So let's talk about border enforcement and the effects that that may have had on lowering border violent crime rates.
How much of the long term drop, however, in crime rates is really about becoming a wealthier society versus improvements in policing, law and accountability?
[00:32:24] Speaker B: I don't agree that we've had a long term drop in crime rates. I mean, if you just Google crime rates, you're going to get all these pseudo studies that have been issued by these activist groups that are all.
I mean, it's just not. They're not being honest. They're advocating and they all say crime is not increased, crime is going down. And you don't have to trust us. You just look at the FBI statistics. Well, I wrote an article last October about why we should question the accuracy of the FBI crime statistics. And then sure enough, like 10 days later, they were updated and suddenly they showed crime increasing.
And there's a whole bunch of. We could spend 20 minutes talking about why that is.
Because they changed over to a new system. And to report on the new system, you have to have a new equipment. And some of the largest law enforcement agencies in the country weren't using the new equipment yet. And yet the social scientists were saying, scientists were saying it was not accurate. But we still have all these left advocacy groups saying, oh, you don't have to believe us. Just look at the FBI statistics. And you've got politicians quoting the FBI statistics. And so when that changed, like in October, it was just a month before the election, that, I mean, if you diagram the timeline, that is when people started saying Trump is Hitler, trip Trump is a fascist, because they went full throttle yelling that because they could no longer talk about crime. And the, the overlap between immigration policy and criminal justice reform policy is so similar. It's just incredible. You know, we hear, we heard, well, we can't enforce immigration, we can't have a secure border, we need a new statute.
And then we found out we didn't need a new statute, we needed a new president.
There's, it's very similar on criminal justice reform. We know how to decrease crime.
We teach it in our colleges. The problem is the advocates are arguing to not use those. And that's what's being done. We're tying, you know, like we're tying the hands of judges on release decisions. We're tying the hands of immigration enforcement to prevent that, and we're tying the hands of law enforcement so they can't use the tools that they've been taught on how to reduce crime.
[00:34:55] Speaker A: All right, well, we talked about this briefly before we went live. A previous guest on this show, Brian Kaplan, cites data showing that immigrants, both legal and illegal immigrants, have incarcerated incarceration rates 30 to 60% lower than Native born Americans. He references studies like a 20, 2018 study from the Cato Institute indicating that undocumented immigrants in Texas had a 37% lower conviction rate.
What's your view of those statistics and how do they drive your findings?
[00:35:35] Speaker B: So let me quote using something from my sharecropper grandfather. Hogwash.
You know, I've looked at this issue, I've looked at it extensively. And what they do is they, and like you mentioned, they use illegal immigration with legal immigration and they blend all those numbers together to say it's decreased, it's not an increase.
And you cannot reconcile, I mean, let's just say you cannot reconcile the statement that Venezuela emptied their prisons and sent them to America with, we're going to have reduced crime, even though when we have gangs that have taken over apartment complexes I mean, those are completely inconsistent. And so I would respectfully argue that, I think when they're making those kind of statements and they're quoting data and they're using both legal and illegal immigration data, which I think there's very little illegal immigration data for a specific reason. But when you're using both, I think you're intentionally cooking the books to try to get to an advocacy result and not showing what the data shows. You would need to go to academia and go behind their paywalls to find the real data, the real truth.
[00:36:55] Speaker A: Before we were talking about, for example, an 80% failure to appear rate in California for people that have been charged with the crime and are to come back later for a court date, have you looked at whether or not there's any difference between failure to appear rates for illegal versus legal?
[00:37:19] Speaker B: We do. We do. I have looked at data on that for illegal immigrants because, you know, we have a lot of data in the industry about they will ask for a hearing, they'll claim that. They'll claim status that gives them a right to a hearing. And when they do that, they'll be given a bond. Those types of bonds have probably one of the highest failure to appear rates, and that's a surety bond that's by the industry. So even that will have a 50% failure to appear rate. And so every other person for that is going to fail to appear. And a lot of what we're seeing on enforcement right now is we'll see where people had a hearing, they didn't show up. And so there's an order for their removal from the country, and they just, they ignore it. And so, you know, we just saw the example of a superintendent from a school, I don't remember the state where he just got picked up by immigration because he was here on a visa, overstayed it, had a removal order, and continued and got a job working as superintendent of the school when he didn't have a legal right to do that. And I think people are upset about that being done. I think there's a lot of stuff coming out now that is undermining the supporters for him. But I think the data shows that people who are here illegally and have hearings and have bonds have a very high failure to appear.
[00:38:52] Speaker A: So we have talked about the connection between immigration, law enforcement on one hand and then the issues of law and order and justice system and getting these cases adjudicated and getting, you know, accountability for criminals and restitution or at least resolution for victims. But when we look at that Interconnection. Wouldn't you say that having ICE agents at courthouses, that's certainly going to have an impact on failure to appear rates for illegal aliens, legal immigrants, wouldn't it?
[00:39:36] Speaker B: I think it could. I don't think there's any data that shows that. But, you know, we've, we've have an increase.
Well, wait a minute. We're seeing this in the news only because there are jurisdictions that are not cooperating with ICE because they're taking the position that this is a civil order instead of a criminal warrant. And so they're splitting hairs. They're saying, well, if it was a criminal warrant, we would cooperate with the federal government, but since it's civil enforcement, we're not going to cooperate with them. The vast majority of states have cooperated on that issue for numerous years. And if they show up at the courthouse, it's seamless. We never even hear about it. We're hearing about it because it's suddenly becoming an issue in these states where they're either a sanctuary city, a sanctuary county, a sanctuary state, where they're directing their law enforcement not, not to cooperate. And honestly, isn't it safer for, isn't it better for public safety to release someone from jail into ICE custody instead of release them in the community and then have ICE go and collect them? So I would argue that I don't think where the two systems cooperate, it's better for public safety, not worse.
[00:40:59] Speaker A: Have you looked at any differences between recidivism rates for illegal aliens versus citizens?
[00:41:07] Speaker B: No, there's not any data that looks at recidivism rates for illegal aliens versus citizens. But recidivism is an issue that we constantly look at for the criminal justice system. And I think the release mechanism will have a substantial impact on recidivism. So if you, you know, we've already pointed out, or I've only pointed out the study from California from a DA who looked at those issues and found a 200% greater chance of committing a new violent offense in the next 18 months just by being released on a simple release mechanism. So that would say that release mechanisms has a substantial impact on recidivism. So. And why is that? So if you're released on a surety bond, you usually got your family involved, and so they're there telling you, hey, Ken, you still have value. I think you can still turn this around and we're standing up for you.
And that has, I mean, we're taking that impact or that chance away from people when we're using like in New Mexico, and we're limiting the private industry bond system. And what they don't realize is the very communities that they claim they're helping are the ones that will get hurt the most. Because as crime increases, it increases quicker in our minority communities. And by and large, one of the things we don't talk about is crime is we commit crime within our racial group predominantly. That's the reason why 50% of all murder victims in the United States are young black males. And by and large, the person who murdered them is usually a young black male as well. And somewhere in this criminal justice reform movement, we've decided to side with the murderer over the victim. And I think that's changing, and it needs to change more.
[00:43:05] Speaker A: Well, as Ayn Rand said, pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent. So let's talk a little bit about the vilification of ICE officers. What kind of impact is that having in terms of morale, enforcement, even cooperation with local authorities?
[00:43:24] Speaker B: Well, I think that the attacking of the ICE officers is intentional and it is intended to, is a warning shot against ICE that they should not be in their area. And, and it's being done to try to intimidate them. We can argue it's not, but that's exactly what it is.
And I think that it's having the opposite impact right now because we had that big, beautiful bill had a lot of funding for ICE officers. And so just like military people who are going into the military is increasing by record numbers and they're meeting their goals. The same thing with eyes. When you do something and it catches on with the public that you're doing the right thing, then I think, I mean, we're at a crossroads. We have one segment, and I think it's a segment made up of eggshells that is standing up to a segment that is based on what we believe is right and correct. And if the eggshell segment is really partially being funded and so it is being directed, it's not something that is building on its own. It will fall apart very quickly, or it has the potential to. But we see this thing coming to a head because it's two different philosophies. I mean, I would say it is the George Soros coalition fighting against the rest of the country. And we'll see if, if he can intimidate his way out of this or whether he will be intimidating himself. But I, I, it's going to be an interesting fight going forward, and I don't think he's winning it currently. And that's why you see it getting more violent.
[00:45:13] Speaker A: So let's talk about what the solutions are. Given your perspective, what broader legal reforms would be best to restore public confidence in the justice system while still protecting individual rights?
[00:45:28] Speaker B: You know, I'm always looking for the middle ground, what we can compromise on. And so I've always argued for that. But I'm just going to tell you, on this criminal justice reform, bail reform movement, I'm not sure there's a compromise when one side of the debate is lying all the time or they're, you know, like I've been on debates with people from, from the left. Some of them are very courteous and we're respectful for each other. But when they get, but others, when they get to the point where they can't respond to my arguments, then it goes into toxic language. I'm a racist. Jails or cages, it's in, it's using language that's intended to signal their, their supporters that the debate's over. They should not be required to respond to me anymore because of their identity and my identity. And so those, that debate can go on, I mean, and what they're advocating for is not sustainable.
So I don't think there is a compromise. And so I think what the reforms that we need to do are we need to go back to what we know works.
We need, and we need to add, update that, bring it forward with the technology improvements that we put into the system so we can monitor someone how long they've been in jail after they've had bonds that. But we need, actually, we need to use the private industry more, not less. We need to get people to go to court. We need to get their cases resolved and we need to monitor them. If they're still in jail after 72 hours, we need to get them remedistrated, but we need to have a strong case of accountability. And I would say the model for this is Sanchez versus Alabama, which is a case that went up to like the 10th Circuit. They had to live under a preliminary junction that just ordered them to release everybody under these simple release mechanisms. And they stood up and said they were going to appeal, they weren't going to settle, they weren't going to give in. I think the sheriff was a former Marine and he just did this thing right? So they, they lived under it for four years and then ultimately the case was reversed.
And in talking to the sheriff, he said they, the case came back, they reinstituted a system of accountability. The criminals learned that if they didn't do what they said they would do or were supposed to do, there was accountability. And what do you know, Crime slowly came down within about six months because criminals knew that if they didn't change their actions, there would be consequences. We have to go back to that. We have to get rid of this philosophy of, you know, King's acts on accusations of crime. We have to get rid of this philosophy that the real victim is the cross criminal defendant, not the victim themselves.
[00:48:24] Speaker A: Kingfisher21 asks, do you think county judges in Texas have too much authority? Do you think some of that authority should be under a different role?
[00:48:35] Speaker B: No, I don't think judges have too much authority.
I mean, the one area I'm probably.
[00:48:41] Speaker A: About, Lina Hidalgo, when he asks this.
[00:48:45] Speaker B: She'S not a real judge. Lena Hidalgo is the county judge over the commissioner's court. So she's the administrative judge for the county.
Do I think she has too much power? No, I think she's left of left. And I think she was elected very young. She just announced that she's not running for reelection. I mean, she's a person who was elected that, you know, probably I should keep my mouth shut. I don't have anything nice to say about her. She's run the county into the ground and she's mad. She's leaving mad because they won't enact or have elections on tax increases like she wants. Even her. I mean, she's started fights even among the Democrats.
[00:49:26] Speaker A: It's kind of what's happening right now with the shutdown. Unless, you know, Trump agrees to increase taxes and increased spending.
[00:49:34] Speaker B: I mean, I think the messaging on the, on the shutdown is galvanizing to, you know, the, the Democrats want so much money to give free health care to illegal aliens, which was just taken out by the big beautiful bill, if that's the phrasing. I mean, we'll see. I think the best point that I've seen on the shutdown is every other time there's been a government shutdown, the minority party controlled one of the three chambers. The House, the Senate was the presidency. So this is the first shutdown where the minority party had no control of any of the three and still shut down the government.
So it's going to be interesting to see. I think this, this shutdown was going to happen. It had to happen because Schumer in the Senate was lambasted for not shutting down the government months ago, and his favorability has gone way down. So if you see that, you would say there was. There was no other, no other alternative, but the government was going to be shut down. And I would argue for politics alone trying to save him in New York. And I don't think there's any good out for him. There's nothing that doesn't hurt him further.
And so it's going to be very difficult for there to be a resolution. I mean, my wife is a staff attorney for a federal judge. So, you know, one of the things she's been looking at or getting is emails today about how long do they have funding to pay their employees before the funding runs out because they're, they're required to work whether they're paid or not on a government shutdown?
[00:51:20] Speaker A: Well, some of the Republicans I've spoken with, like Grover Norquist, has said that there's plenty of people in the administration that are fine with this shift shut down because it's actually giving them increased ability to further downsize some of these bloated bureaucracies and that that will allow them to again, just further move this.
[00:51:45] Speaker B: From a smaller argument that the leader of the Senate for the Democrats made on why he didn't, he didn't do the shutdown months ago. And in response to this threat, the president has said all those things, exactly what you're saying. And I agree. I mean, there is the potential that this gives the president additional powers that he would not otherwise have had to enable him to downsize the size of government, which I do think is one of his goals in all of this.
And maybe, I mean, I would even accept as part of it, it's a payback for what they've done to him for the last few years. But I'm probably one of those that say I'm probably okay with it because I agree with him on that. I think if, if, if a Democrat or Republican administration had tried to do to him what, to a Democrat what they've done to him, we would have riots in the streets. And, and this was outrageous. And I think by the, I mean, someone said when he was reelected that we're going to be watching, watching movies about this situation for the rest of our lives. I do agree with that.
[00:52:54] Speaker A: So is there, you know, we're imagining the way a functional justice system should look, should work? Is there a state in the US or even abroad where you say, you know, that's a model that other states should aspire to, or by contrast, states that are particularly dysfunctional?
[00:53:16] Speaker B: Well, I think there are multiple states that are particularly dysfunctional. Illinois, California and New York. But if I was going to hold one up as a model, I would say probably Texas Texas has gone the opposite direction of entire hands of judges. What they've done is limited their ability to use simple release mechanism systems for violent offenses. And according to the latest statistics from the Office of court administration registration, 83 to 80%, 86% of all releases in Texas are done by the private surety bail system. So we're, we're leaning substantially on them to get people to come to court, which is the best release mechanism to do that, to ensure they get there and to get their cases resolved as quickly as possible. What these other states are doing is they're putting politics above anything else.
It's just, it's, we've got to this system where if you're going to raise money, you have to state certain positions. And one of those positions on the left is you have to be in favor of bail reform, criminal justice reform. So we, we have to get past this period of time. We have to remove politics.
And we always have politics in issues where the politicians make decisions. But it's gotten really extreme. We're not looking at what's been, I mean, we're, we've got areas in urban areas where they're denying that crime is, is a problem. You know, we've got the, the governor of Illinois, yeah. Doing a little tour of the safe part of town saying, we're safe, we don't need this. And we've got then members of the public saying, please, Trump, come here. We have a substantial problem and our politicians won't even address it. I mean, we've got to get to the point where we agree, when we agree something's not right working, then we'll try something else. But we're at the point where the people that are advocating this is what I say. The Democrat Party has outsourced their criminal justice reform policy, their bail reform policy. They've outsourced it to advocates. Advocates will never acknowledge they're not working. And so until we do, until the Democrat Party loses on criminal justice reform another election cycle, they're going to stay where they are right now and we need them to lose. So they will return to be a law and order party like they have been historically.
[00:55:43] Speaker A: All right, well, this has been quite an education for me and I think many in our audience who I want to thank for your wonderful and very insightful questions as always, where can we follow your work and continue to watch your progress?
[00:56:02] Speaker B: Sure. Well, thank you for having me. But if people want more information about me or our group, you can go to pbtx.com pbtx.com.
we have a blog where we highlight important criminal justice stories, but we also have our own podcast. There's a link on the menu, or you can just go to thebellpost.com thebailpost b post.com and all we do is talk about criminal justice issues, bail reform issues, what works and what does not work.
[00:56:32] Speaker A: Well. Fantastic. Well, thanks again, Ken. And thanks, all of you, for joining us. Make sure to join us next week. I think it's going to be on a Tuesday, because Wednesday I'm flying to Chicago for our 9th annual gala on the on Thursday, the 9th of October. So I'm very excited about next week's guest as well, Stephen Macedo. He's going to join us to discuss the book he co authored called In Covid's How Our Politics Failed Us. I'll see you then. Thank you.
