By Ilana Siyance
On Friday January 31st, the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ) admitted that it failed to secure a program that could give judges a powerful tool to keep tabs on potentially violent defendants released under NYS’s infamous new bail reform law. Eight months ago, the measure was passed by the Albany legislature nixing cash bail as an option for judges in most misdemeanors and other non-violent crimes. The law did, however, allow judges to order that anyone charged with a felony or in connection with domestic violence and sex-related cases be tracked with electronic ankle monitors to ensure that they return to court. The GPS-enabled ankle monitors would act in lieu of bail to safeguard a criminal’s reappearance in court and ensure their whereabouts pending an upcoming court appearance.
As reported by the NY Post, now, despite the lapse of several months since the law was passed, City Hall admits that it has not launched any program and has not yet established a system for use of the ankle monitors. MOCJ officials admitted that though the system was set to begin on Jan.1, they still don’t even have a set timetable for when the system will come online. Manhattan prosecutors and judges expressed their consternation and disgust. “I feel sick,” said one Manhattan judge, who wished he still could require ankle bracelets for release. “I’m releasing defendants who are dangers to their community.”
The Post already cited five NYC criminal court cases in which judges or prosecutors sought ankle monitors, but were dismayed to learn that they have not yet been procured by City Hall. Previously, the individual bail bondsmen would be responsible for the GPS monitoring, and could charge the defendant up to $10,000 a year for the service. The new law, set in April, mandates that only a governmental agency or non-profit can handle the placement and tracking of the devices. The for-profit companies that traditionally handled this service can no longer do so. Moreover, the new electronic monitoring service cannot be billed to the defendants, as they had been previously. Advocates also pushed for that change following an expose by the New York Times/ProPublica investigation which revealed that the costs of the monitoring service left some defendants immersed in debt. “I think the legislature thought they were freeing poor minorities, but instead they handed a gift to a predominantly wealthy elite,” commented one Manhattan prosecutor.
City Hall declined to provide a statement, but did say that officials are “moving ahead” with the program and that they are “seeking to roll this out on the fastest timeline possible.”
