Vera Wants a “Culture Change.” The Facts Demand Accountability.
When Bail Reform Ignores Criminal History, Victims, Court Appearance and the Real Cost of Replacing Accountability With Government Supervision
The Vera Institute of Justice is once again promoting the idea that California’s courts have not gone far enough in reducing bail and pretrial detention. Vera senior researcher Madeline Bailey says the California Supreme Court made clear that “pretrial liberty is the norm” and now argues that implementing the decision requires a “culture change” within the courts. But the Sacramento Bee story Vera is promoting contains facts that raise a much more important question: why should judges be pressured to change their culture when the previous reforms have not demonstrated that they produced better results?
Start with Gerald Kowalczyk, the defendant whose case produced the April 2026 California Supreme Court decision. The story initially presents a low-level theft involving a credit card and a cheeseburger. Keep reading. Kowalczyk had approximately 60 prior convictions. The Supreme Court record is even more specific: 64 prior convictions, including felony attempted robbery and burglary, prior failures to comply with supervision, criminal activity across multiple counties and states, and substantial concerns that he would not return to court. The judge did not pull $75,000 out of thin air because Kowalczyk was poor. The judge was looking at the history of the person standing before the court.
That distinction is almost completely lost when the conversation is reduced to whether a defendant can “afford” bail. The California Supreme Court itself did not reduce the decision to that question. It said judges must consider the totality of the circumstances, including protection of the public and the victim, seriousness of the offense, previous criminal record, history of compliance with court orders, and likelihood of appearing for future court proceedings. Financial circumstances are also examined when a monetary bail amount is set, but the Court expressly said bail does not have to be “easily affordable or convenient” and judges are not required to accept unsupported claims that someone cannot pay.
That is very different from the narrative Vera continues to sell.
There is another fact buried in this story that deserves far more attention. California already tried a major version of this experiment after the 2021 Humphrey decision. The article says researchers found no evidence that Humphrey reduced California’s pretrial jail population or the average bail imposed. A district attorney interviewed for the story said it simply did not play out as envisioned. Yet five years later, instead of asking whether the ideology was flawed, Kowalczyk is described as “Humphrey on steroids,” and Vera is calling for an even greater culture change.
At some point, results have to matter.
The story also reveals what happens when financial accountability is replaced with government-operated pretrial supervision. California probation departments report rapidly increasing caseloads. Courts are relying more heavily on electronic monitoring. The head of the state’s chief probation officers organization warns that GPS monitoring is extremely expensive and that departments may not have enough resources to perform the work safely. So accountability has not disappeared. The expense has not disappeared. The supervision has not disappeared. Much of it has simply been transferred to government agencies and ultimately to taxpayers.
The article even criticizes judges who recognize that a defendant can obtain release through a bail agent by paying a percentage of the face amount of the bond. That criticism exposes another weakness in the anti-surety argument. A professional surety bond exists precisely so the defendant does not have to deposit the entire bail amount with the government. A licensed third party guarantees the defendant’s appearance and assumes a financial obligation if the defendant fails to appear. Vera and other reform organizations may dislike that system, but calling the premium itself proof of injustice ignores the accountability the surety provides.
And then there is the part of this debate that continues to receive far too little attention: the victim.
We are repeatedly told what an arrest and detention might cost the accused in employment, housing, family obligations and finances. Those consequences make powerful stories. But criminal justice cannot be designed around only one person affected by the alleged crime. What happened to the victim’s job? The victim’s finances? The victim’s family? The victim’s physical safety? What does the defendant’s criminal history tell the judge? Has this person appeared in court before? Has this person obeyed previous release conditions? Those are not side issues. They are fundamental questions in deciding what happens after an arrest.
There is an old saying: “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” A bail hearing is obviously not a determination of guilt and it is not sentencing, but the principle behind that saying is accountability. Criminal conduct has consequences, victims matter, court orders matter, and a defendant’s history does not disappear simply because discussing his financial condition produces a more sympathetic headline.
The most revealing statement in the entire story may be Bailey’s prediction that California should now see “a pretty dramatic decline” in the number of people sitting in jail because they cannot pay. That tells us what Vera is measuring. I want to measure something else. Are defendants appearing in court? Are victims being protected? Are defendants committing new crimes while on release? Are court orders being followed? Are cases reaching a conclusion? What is the cost to taxpayers of replacing private surety accountability with government supervision, GPS monitoring and growing probation departments?
Those are public-safety measurements.
Reducing the number of defendants in jail is an outcome. It is not, by itself, proof of a successful criminal justice policy.
Vera says California needs a culture change. I think organizations advocating fundamental changes to our criminal justice system need something much simpler: an honest accounting of the results. Stop measuring success only by how many people are released. Look at the crime, the defendant’s history, appearance performance, compliance with court orders, the victim, public safety, the cost of the replacement system and what happens after release.
Then show us the evidence that the public is better off.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article316858388.html
About the Author
Mike Morrison is the 2026 PBUS National Bail Agent of the Year, President of the Mississippi Bail Agents Association, and a nationally recognized bail educator, speaker, and criminal justice commentator. With more than 35 years of hands-on experience as a licensed Professional Bail Agent and owner of Mike Morrison Bail Bonding Company in Hattiesburg, Mississippi, he brings a practical, real-world perspective to discussions involving bail, criminal justice, constitutional rights, public safety, government accountability, technology, and public policy.
Morrison is recognized as a bail trainer by the Mississippi Judicial College and has been invited to present before judges, justice court clerks, prosecutors, bail professionals, and other criminal justice stakeholders, including as a guest speaker for the Mississippi Attorney General’s Office. He also leads professional education and ethics programs for bail agents across the country through the Master Class Bail Agent Series and other national training initiatives.
He has published nearly 200 articles examining the institutions, policies, and decisions that affect working Americans. His writing is grounded in decades spent inside courtrooms, jails, communities, and the criminal justice system, and his commentary has reached more than one million views across social media in 2026.
Independent, plain-spoken, and focused on accountability, Morrison writes and speaks about the intersection of government, liberty, public safety, professional responsibility, and the real-world consequences of public policy in Mississippi and across the nation.
© 2026 Mike Morrison. All rights reserved.
