Hawaii Bail Agent James Lindblad Writes a Compelling Article on the Necessity of Secured Bail

James Lindblad is at it once again. This time, writing a fantastic article on the necessity of bail and the failed arguments against it. This compelling article, which was published in the Hawaii Free Press, argues that ending cash bail because of poverty is not a complete or rational argument. The harder questions, Lindblad points out, are what happens after release, who is responsible for getting the defendant back to court and how can that be done with the least restriction on liberty?

The Rise of E-Carceration and Further Loss of Liberty

Reform has focused on the jail-gate decision (don’t detain people just because they are poor). It does not pay attention to the importance of what happens after release. Historically, family, friends, employers and sureties often stood behind a defendant. But today, modern pretrial systems have shifted that role away from personal connections to nameless, faceless, unconnected government pretrial agencies. That shift isn’t fairer or more effective but rather has the potential to be more restrictive on liberty. Mandating requirements like GPS ankle monitors, endless reporting to pretrial workers and 24/7 drug monitoring and testing isn’t truly “release”; it is more what the ACLU calls “e-carceration.”

Eliminating financial conditions does not automatically increase freedom if they are swapped for unnecessary and intrusive surveillance.

Historical Point

Constitutional and statutory traditions have historically spoken about release not simply in terms of cash or money, but in terms of “sufficient sureties.” A surety is a third party who accepts responsibility and guarantees the appearance of the defendant. That is very different than simply saying that the defendant is being forced to post money. There are many options for release. These include:

• Citation / release on recognizance
• Unsecured promises
• Personal/community sureties
• Cash as a condition
• Commercial sureties
• Government-supervised release
• Detention after due process

These are not interchangeable; judges should pick the least restrictive option that actually works for that person.

Proposed Framework

Lindblad proposes a “community-first continuum”:

1. Preserve judicial discretion rather than forcing either unconditional release or detention.
2. Use family and community accountability when it exists (federal law already allows release into the custody of a designated person).
3. Distinguish cash deposited by the defendant from a third party voluntarily accepting risk.
4. Treat government help as support first (reminders, rides, referrals), not automatic monitoring.
5. Reserve electronic monitoring and heavy conditions for cases where necessity can be shown.
6. Measure real outcomes, not slogans: appearance rates, how quickly people return after a miss, who locates them, technical-violation warrants, public cost, effects on families and victims and whether monitoring actually improves results enough to justify the intrusion.

Existing studies disagree and often stop at “did they fail to appear?” rather than what happened afterward.

Common Ground

Civil-liberties groups are right that poverty should not equal detention and that electronic monitoring should not become a substitute for jail. Practitioners and surety advocates are right to ask whether shifting all responsibility to government produces better results or just more surveillance and cost. Families and communities should not be ignored when they can help, and lack of social support should not itself become a reason to detain.

The better question is not “for or against cash bail,” but: Who takes responsibility after release, how much is actually needed and how do we do that with the least interference with liberty?

Conclusion

Lindblad concludes by explaining that successful pretrial justice is not measured only by how many people are released. It is measured by whether they are released fairly, return to court, finish their cases, stay connected to their communities and keep as much freedom as is reasonably possible. Detention, when truly necessary, should be ordered openly after a hearing, not achieved by an unaffordable money condition. Offense categories should not replace individualized judgment any more than they should for money bail.

A link to Lindblad’s full article is below…

Beyond the Courthouse Door: Who Takes Responsibility After Pretrial Release

Memorandum by James Waldron Lindblad, August 30, 2026

For more than a decade, bail reform has properly focused attention on a fundamental injustice: a person’s pretrial liberty should not depend simply upon how much money that person possesses. But eliminating an unjust financial barrier does not answer every question presented by pretrial release.

There is another question that deserves equal attention: Once the courthouse door opens, who assumes responsibility for helping ensure that the defendant returns to court and successfully completes the pretrial period?

Read the full article: Beyond the Courthouse Door: Who Takes Responsibility After Pretrial Release?