Understanding the “Cashless Bail” Controversy

The term “cashless bail” has become one of those phrases that’s tossed around in politics, often creating confusion. Advocates for reform coined it, and it quickly caught on, but the reality is quite different from what many assume. What’s really being offered is what’s known as protected bail—a system that relies on personal funding and is designed to ensure the accused show up in court while also protecting the public.

It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it? The word “cashless” might make it seem like we’re on the side of good. But in reality, we accept all kinds of payments, taking financial risks, and bear legal responsibilities to bring defendants into court. We operate around the clock, generating jobs, contributing to taxes, and releasing the accused in a way that is accountable. When necessary, we even track fugitives to keep victims safe and assist prosecutions. Courts and judges that still grant bail recognize its importance—after all, they have a vested interest in making sure it functions properly.

New Jersey’s Shift

Back in 2016, New Jersey implemented the Bail Reform Act, which effectively stripped the accused of bail rights and replaced them with a taxpayer-funded pretrial release system ruled by bureaucrats. The consequences were notable:

• The accused can now be kept in custody without bail until their trial.

• Counties are spending millions annually on these pretrial programs, which are often managed without charge by private entities.
• Accountability has diminished—bounty hunters, who had every incentive to ensure defendants appeared in court, have been sidelined.

The outcomes were, well, predictable. Consider Ed Forkion, a Marine Corps veteran who, despite not committing any violent crimes, was held for 447 days without the option for bail due to witness tampering allegations linked to his social media activity. I even tried to help by providing $2 million in secured bonds for his release, but the system wouldn’t accept it. Why? Because New Jersey no longer recognizes the rights that come with bail.

Former President Trump called for an end to cashless bail, labeling it a “complete disaster” that drives crime rates in cities and puts law enforcement personnel at risk.

The financial implications are staggering. New Jersey’s County Association even filed a lawsuit against the state in 2016, claiming that the new mandate had drained the county budget. Today, residents are still shelling out millions for a system that is reportedly less accountable and effective compared to its predecessor.

Where It Might Lead

Tennessee seems poised to go down a similar road as New Jersey, with other states also contemplating comparable changes. Once bail rights are taken away, recovering them is extremely challenging. There’s a troubling pattern here—shifting responsibility from personal accountability to public expense, and moving from proven, self-sustaining systems to costly government programs.

The “Cashless” Myth

Politicians who back “bail reform” often do so without a genuine understanding of its implications. They might chase whatever seems popular, as if discussions around “funeral home reform” could dominate headlines tomorrow, shifting focus instantly.

A poignant reminder: the mother of a murder victim recently lamented about the “no cash bail” situation, saying, “This is what he wanted.”

The bottom line seems clear: the idea of “cashless bail” isn’t really about fairness. Instead, it replaces private industry with cumbersome government processes, funded by taxpayers.

A Balanced Alternative

After his conviction, Trump exhibited some leadership in seeking reforms. Addressing justice reform before trials is crucial. The 8th Amendment suggests that the accused have a right to bail, and defending this right on a national level is imperative.

There is a way to strike a balance, where judicial discretion is maintained, public safety is prioritized, and the accused still appear in court—all without increasing the financial burden on taxpayers. A sensible bail system can achieve just that.

Congress needs to act now to safeguard bail, before the ripple effect of New Jersey’s decisions spreads to more states. Without intervention, taxpayers will face increased costs, accountability will diminish, and victims may be left waiting for justice.

We in the private bail industry stand ready to collaborate with leaders who recognize the essential role private companies play in the criminal justice system. We’re like “criminal justice miners.” Even in difficult circumstances, we keep the system operational, and it’s often a challenging job.