Four New Bail Articles in the Latest Issue of the Texas Bail Bulletin

The latest issue of the Texas Bail Bulletin is out and once again it is filled with great content.  This most recent issue consists of four new articles on the failed promises of bail reform policies.  They consist of the following:

Right on Crime- Going Rogue: How Radical, Reformist Prosecutors Are Endangering Public Safety (https://pbtx.blogspot.com/2026/07/right-on-crime-going-rogue-how-radical.html)
In the June 2026 report Going Rogue: How Radical, Reformist Prosecutors Are Endangering Public Safety, author Ross Jackson argues that a number of elected “rogue” prosecutors have endangered public safety by adopting blanket non-prosecution policies for entire categories of crime and pursuing unusually lenient approaches toward violent offenders. Drawing on FBI data, the report documents the rise in aggravated assault, homicide, motor vehicle theft, and other crimes in cities such as Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Austin, Chicago, and Baltimore under these prosecutors, even as national crime rates generally declined. Jackson contends that such policies violate prosecutors’ duty to enforce the law, erode public trust, and leave victims without justice, and he recommends stronger state-level accountability measures, including expanded removal authority, greater attorney general oversight, and the possible creation of a chief state prosecutor, to ensure more consistent enforcement of the law.

The Type of Release Matters – (https://pbtx.blogspot.com/search?q=Cynthia+kent)
Drawing on more than two decades of experience as a Texas judge, Cynthia Stevens Kent argues that surety bonds are essential for ensuring defendants appear in court and for managing jail populations. When Smith County attempted to ease overcrowding by liberally granting personal recognizance bonds to non-violent offenders, more than half failed to appear, leading to soaring forfeitures, backlogged dockets, new felony failure-to-appear cases, heavier workloads for law enforcement and prosecutors, and ultimately higher jail populations—the opposite of the intended result. In contrast, surety agents verify defendant information, maintain ongoing contact, notify clients of court dates, and actively locate and return absconders, providing a level of supervision and accountability that personal bonds lack. Kent concludes that surety bonds remain a cost-effective public safety tool that helps reserve limited jail space for higher-risk offenders while supporting the timely and orderly administration of justice.

Personal Bonds Increase Recidivism – (https://pbtx.blogspot.com/2024/04/studies-demonstrate-recidivism-rates.html)
A recent study by John Jay College’s Data Collaborative for Justice found that outside New York City, 66% of defendants released under bail reform who had a recent prior arrest were re-arrested within two years, rising to 67% for those with a recent prior violent felony, with nearly half of all re-arrests involving a new felony. Separately, an updated Yolo County District Attorney’s study comparing matched samples showed that individuals released on zero bail during COVID had a 78% rearrest rate over 18 months, compared to only 33–44% for those who posted traditional bail, and committed substantially more new crimes overall—including 103% more felonies, 130% more misdemeanors, 169% more multiple arrests, and 175% more violent offenses. Together, the findings from both a reform-supporting research group and a California prosecutor’s office indicate significantly higher recidivism among defendants released without financial conditions.

What is the Response of the Activists to the Increasing Failure to Appears as a Result of Simple Release Mechanisms Such as Person Bonds? (https://pbtx.blogspot.com/2026/07/what-is-response-of-activists-to.html)
Growing data from jurisdictions that have expanded simple or unsecured pretrial release shows very high failure-to-appear rates, including more than 75–83% in Houston misdemeanor courts, over 70% in Cook County, Illinois, and nearly 80% in Yolo County, California. In response, activists have largely denied the problem, claimed crime is not rising, and more recently argued that only “willful” failures to appear should count—requiring proof of intentional intent to avoid prosecution. Critics contend this standard is a deliberate effort to further restrict judicial discretion, is practically unworkable because the Fifth Amendment prevents courts from compelling defendants to explain why they missed court, treats all failures to appear as equally damaging to victims and the court process, and ultimately weakens accountability in ways that increase non-appearance, case backlogs, and dismissals.