Gutting Washington’s bail system would leave us vulnerable to crime | Opinion

Under current Washington law, most people charged with crimes are presumed to be released pending trial. But that presumption has limits and requires balancing factors meant to protect the public. A new proposal before the Washington Supreme Court would erase much of that balance. It would even remove the provision allowing judges to deny bail in capital cases — and replace it with the new standard that strongly favors release.

At a time of growing concern about crime and accountability, this is a step in the wrong direction.

Plainly put, the new proposal undermines one of the justice system’s most practical tools: bail. Bail allows defendants to be released pretrial and creates a financial incentive to appear. When defendants fail to appear, cases are delayed, victims are re-traumatized and public costs increase.

Currently, bail may be imposed where there is a likelihood the defendant will not appear. The proposed change would require prosecutors to prove a “high likelihood of willful flight to avoid prosecution.” Proving intent to flee before it happens is extraordinarily difficult, let alone proving intent with a specific motive. This would make bail nearly impossible to impose.

Additionally, the proposal creates a presumption that a defendant need pay only 10% of the total bail to secure release — with no meaningful accountability for the remaining 90%. A $250,000 bail set for a fentanyl dealer would, in reality, function as a $25,000 release. That amount could be posted by anyone, even criminal associates, with no obligation to pay the remaining $225,000. At a time when communities are grappling with the devastating and deadly consequences of drugs, weakening a primary mechanism for ensuring accountability is dangerous.

We don’t need to imagine how this will turn out because we have seen it play out. Philadelphia began releasing offenders on 10% of their bail. When they failed to appear, the court was unable to collect the remaining 90%. Reports indicate that over $1 billion is owed to Philadelphia court in uncollectible debt.

This proposal goes further. For misdemeanors, it would cap bail at $200 with the same minimal 10% payment required — just $20 to secure release no matter how many times the defendant has failed to appear in the past. Judges would actually be prohibited from considering relevant factors that might justify higher bail.

This proposal would also dismantle Washington’s longstanding private bail bond system. That system allows defendants to secure release through a third party, while placing the financial risk on private parties; not taxpayers. That system ensures accountability because the agent has a financial incentive to find the defendant and ensure their return to court — colloquially known as bounty hunters. Under this new proposal there will not be anyone out looking for a defendant who failed to appear for court. Why would anyone propose these changes? Proponents argue they are necessary to protect against pretrial incarceration based solely on someone’s poverty. But our current system already requires courts to consider a defendant’s financial circumstances when setting bail.

At the same time, judges must also evaluate risk of nonappearance, danger to the community, and interference with justice. In other words, our system already balances fairness to the individual against the need to protect public safety and ensure accountability. It allows for careful, case-by-case judgment-something this proposed one-size-fits-all approach would significantly undermine.

Finally, it is important to recognize a reality supported by decades of research — a relatively small group of repeat offenders is responsible for a disproportionate share of crime. A system that weakens accountability at the front end, by making it harder to detain those individuals, risks compounding that problem.

Washington’s current approach strikes an important balance. It protects the rights of the accused while preserving judicial discretion to consider the full facts of each case, including risk to the community, likelihood of appearance, and the interests of justice.

This proposal would replace that balanced system with rigid rules and unrealistic standards, would tie judges’ hands, limit accountability, remove incentives to appear in court orders, and increase risk to public safety.

We should be strengthening our justice system, not weakening one of its core safeguards. The Washington Supreme Court should reject this proposal.

Mary Robnett is Pierce County prosecuting attorney. Kristen Wynne is chair of the Tacoma Business Council.