Replies

Officials could revise bail-bonding policies

By John Stevenson, The Herald-Sun
November 26, 2006 12:22 am
After years of taking it on the chin over what's widely criticized as a revolving-door court system that puts criminals back on the streets almost as soon as they are arrested, Durham judicial officials are considering revising bail-bonding policies next year.

And they may hold a public forum as early as January or February to help judges decide whether bonding guidelines need to be updated in response to evolving community conditions.

Current guidelines have remained unchanged for at least six years.

At the top of the felony scale, the guidelines provide no bond for those facing possible death penalties for first-degree murder.

The highest dollar figure on the chart is $200,000, suggested for first-degree rape suspects and first-degree murder cases not involving potential capital punishment.

The recommended bond in second-degree murder cases is $100,000. The maximum penalty for that crime is roughly 40 years in prison.

From there, suggested bail numbers go all the way down to $1,000 for Class I felonies, the lowest felony level on the books in North Carolina. Offenses in that category include public cross-burnings, safecracking and false bomb threats. The punishment goes up to 15 months behind bars.

Judges can deviate from the suggested dollar amounts at their discretion, but are supposed to be guided by public safety considerations, a person's previous criminal record and the likelihood a suspect might flee, among other factors.

District Attorney Mike Nifong is among those advocating a public forum before local bonding guidelines undergo possible changes.

"There's really a lot of misunderstanding out there," he said in an interview. "There's kind of a systemwide misunderstanding of what we do and how we do it.

"Once things are explained to people, whether they like what they heard or not, they are appreciative. It's good for members of the community to be informed and to give us their input. An informed citizenry would likely be less quick to assess blame when things go wrong."

But Nifong said public perceptions of a revolving-door court system probably will persist no matter how much local bonding guidelines are tinkered with.

Many believe it is too easy for criminal suspects to get out of jail on low bonds, only to commit new offenses and keep repeating the process in a vicious cycle of community-endangering violence.

Durham's revolving-door reputation has received intense scrutiny from a private watchdog group called the Durham Crime Cabinet and numerous writers of letters to the editor, among others.

"Whatever the [bail] numbers are, they're not necessarily going to address this perception," Nifong acknowledged. "And it doesn't matter what your bond is if you can post it."

Four years ago, a judge went way above the bonding guidelines and set bail in the $800,000 range for first-degree murder suspect Michael Peterson, who did not face the death penalty. Peterson soon went free by putting his million-dollar house on the line as bond collateral.

He later was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole for the fatal beating of his spouse, Nortel Networks executive Kathleen Peterson.

Similarly, a judge initially doubled the suggested $200,000 bond for three first-degree rape suspects in the controversial Duke lacrosse case. But the bonds then were lowered to $100,000 each.

The three defendants -- Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans -- posted bail even before the reduction.

According to Nifong, professional bail bondsmen can manipulate the system by giving favors to criminal suspects they trust.

While bondsmen normally charge a nonrefundable fee of 15 percent, they can undercut or raise the fee as much as they like, he said.

"It makes for kind of an artificial system," he added. "The bondsman can require as little or as much as he wants to get you out [of jail]. It's whatever he feels comfortable with. This means things are not as cut and dried as they appear to be. Our bonding policies do not directly address that."

Like Nifong, Chief District Judge Elaine Bushfan supports a public forum on local bonding policies.

"Traditionally, one thing we have not done well is to talk to the people about what we do and how we do it," she said. "I just think it's time to educate our constituency. I believe it's appropriate to speak with the public before we decide to change things."

But suggested bond amounts never will be set in stone, according to Bushfan.

"It is in a judge's discretion to make decisions about this," she said. "That discretion cannot be taken away. Even if we revise the numbers, judicial discretion will remain."
URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-792537.html