{"id":13386,"date":"2026-09-08T08:47:10","date_gmt":"2026-09-08T15:47:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aiasurety.com\/bail\/?p=13386"},"modified":"2026-09-08T08:47:10","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T15:47:10","slug":"hawaii-bail-agent-james-lindblad","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aiasurety.com\/bail\/hawaii-bail-agent-james-lindblad\/","title":{"rendered":"Hawaii Bail Agent James Lindblad Writes a Compelling Article on the Necessity of Secured Bail"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hawaii Bail Agent James Lindblad Writes a Compelling Article on the Necessity of Secured Bail<\/h1>\n

James Lindblad<\/a> 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<\/em><\/a>, argues that ending cash bail<\/a> because of poverty is not a complete or rational argument. The harder questions, Lindblad points out, are what happens after<\/em> release, who is responsible for getting the defendant back to court and how can that be done with the least restriction on liberty?<\/p>\n

\"HawaiiThe Rise of E-Carceration and Further Loss of Liberty<\/h2>\n

Reform has focused on the jail-gate decision (don\u2019t 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<\/a>. That shift isn\u2019t 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\u2019t truly \u201crelease\u201d; it is more what the ACLU calls \u201ce-carceration.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eliminating financial conditions does not automatically increase freedom if they are swapped for unnecessary and intrusive surveillance.<\/p>\n

Historical Point<\/h2>\n

Constitutional and statutory traditions have historically spoken about release not simply in terms of cash or money, but in terms of \u201csufficient sureties.\u201d 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:<\/p>\n