Journal of Student Research 2018

67 Alabama’s Pretrial Criminal Process: Structural Violence Within the Bail Bond Industry The main issue with amending the Alabama bail schedule is that the bail bond industry, which makes about 2 million dollars per year nationally and a large national lobbying group, would lose a large amount of money and a referendum to require representation for unfit bail settings would cost both the state and the citizens (Kight, 2017). Both the first and second actions leave at least one party with lower funds. Creation of a new bail assessment strategy may not be a cost to any party, but it does not address the issue of setting bail to the severity and level of violence of a crime, which is the root of the structural violence present in Alabama’s justice system. The easy option would be to go with Action 3 because it would be of no cost to the state, but it does not fix all the issues that come with the bail bond industry such as; occurrences of excessive bail settings and the disproportionate bail settings for violent and non-violent crimes. Action 2 would come with a large amount of backlash because it would be an entitlement program, but it is one that is crucial to helping Alabamian citizens still awaiting trial in jail, because it is the only action plan that helps those already affected by the structural violence. Action 1, while most heavily concerning because of money, is the most preventative option; it would be able to decrease the most amount of people being affected by these laws. While this action would have received a large amount of backlash in the past when citizens believed in a “War on Drugs,” it would likely have a large number of constituents supporting the change. Similarly, Williams (1978) argues that the bigger issue that must be addressed is the stigma of socialism that can accompany any type of government intervention in the privatized bail bond industry. There is a common perception that our government is growing substantially, and by creating amendments or referendums, there will likely be an outcry about too much government intervention. While there would be instances of backlash, the benefits for constituents outweigh threat of the prior. Of the three options, Action 1 has the most benefits for constituents and result in the least amount of negative repercussions for the citizens of Alabama. Because of its preventative nature, it would benefit the majority. Implementation could begin with an initiative or referendum, or Alabama’s state representatives could take action and create a bill alongside Alabama’s Senate. It would lower the bail settings for non-violent crimes; including drug-related offenses. This would not legalize any drugs, but it would charge defendants with high bail. This system would also allow for those of lower socioeconomic status to get fair and just bail, which the current system fails to do. After implementation of the bill, it would also be beneficial to also examine past cases that have experienced excessive bail and get these defendants the justice they deserve.