Bail Reform Didn’t Die, It Evolved

For years, bail reform has been a political punching bag — blamed for crime, weaponized in elections, and filling news headlines. Recently, a conservative wave swept the country as voters shifted right, and tough-on-crime rhetoric took over. Many thought bail reform was dead, but it didn’t disappear. Instead, it evolved — this time with a more balanced approach.

Crime is down, but one issue keeps coming up in many places: repeat offenders. Too often, individuals cycle through the pretrial system and frustrate law enforcement and the public. Dangerous individuals can secure release if they have the funds to pay exceptionally high bonds under the cash bail system.

At the same time, jails are packed. Locking up more people makes it worse — pushing already short-staffed deputiesto the limit and wasting taxpayer money. Pretrial detention costs billions yearly, and some counties are paying to send detainees elsewhere because jails are full.

The challenge is clear: Bail needs to be fixed so communities aren’t stuck with an expensive, ineffective system. Voters also still demand action on public safety. That’s why many states are moving away from broad ideological overhauls and focusing on targeted, practical solutions with the new era of bail reform.

For example, Alabama proposes a system where defendants pay a portion of their bail directly to the court instead of going through a bail bondsman. This keeps people accountable while eliminating unnecessary costs and middlemen. It may not be a sweeping reform, but it takes a practical step toward addressing a flaw in the system.

Another common-sense fix is court notifications, which many cities and states have already implemented or are considering. Many people miss court dates not because they’re on the run but because they forget or don’t know when or where to show up. Doctors and dentists use text reminders because they work — courts should do the same. Studies show that reminders reduce failures to appear, leading to fewer re-arrests and saving law enforcement time and money.

Jail isn’t the right place for most first-time, non-violent offenders. Holding someone behind bars for a minor offense can have devastating consequences — costing them their job, home, or even custody of their children. Research shows that detaining low-risk individuals actually increases crime, as people with disrupted lives are more likely to re-offend. That’s why states like Colorado create a presumption of release for most misdemeanors. Judges can still set cash bail for flight or safety risks, but this keeps jail beds open for those who are truly dangerous — not just those who can’t afford bail.

Of course, fairness isn’t about releasing the right people — it’s also about holding them accountable. If states make it easier to release low-risk individuals, they must also ensure swift consequences for those who violate release conditions. Public safety depends on a system that is fair and firm.

That’s why some states are taking steps to keep real threats off the streets. Texas and Tennessee, for example, are expanding preventive detention to ensure that individuals with long rap sheets or serious charges can’t simply pay their way out. This approach makes sense — if used carefully. Without clear limits, jails will remain overcrowded with people who don’t need to be there. Any policy like this must require strong evidence and follow “least restrictive” guidelines to ensure fairness and efficiency.

This new era of bail reform won’t be perfect. Some states will go too far, one way or the other. But the shift from broad, one-size-fits-all policies to practical, research-backed solutions is progress. The goal isn’t to release more people or detain more people — it’s to make sure the right people are in jail while using resources wisely, keeping communities safe and improving government efficiency.

Bail reform isn’t dead. It’s evolving. Done right, it will leave a system that works better for everyone and helps keep us safer.