Iron Sharpens Iron: Why California’s Pretrial Crisis Demands True Risk Assessment, Not Bureaucracy

There is a growing crisis in California’s courtrooms, and it isn’t just a matter of clogged dockets or standard political debate. A flood of Kowalczyk motions has forced judges across the state to rapidly review and slash bail amounts, compelling the release of individuals who, just weeks ago, would have been held to answer for their actions.

To the critics pushing these motions, the narrative is simple: it’s a victory over a system that allegedly favors wealth over risk. To anyone who actually understands the mechanics of pretrial accountability, that narrative misses the mark entirely.

The truth is, a properly managed bail system was never about the money. It has always been about risk. By reducing a complex human equation to a simple calculation of what is in a defendant's wallet, the courts are trading a proven system of personal accountability for a mountain of bureaucratic paperwork.

The judicial system is currently treating cash bail as an arbitrary financial barrier. It is true that the old, rigid county bail schedules which set fixed prices for specific crimes without looking at the individual were a flawed, one-size-fits-all approach. However, the remedy currently sweeping through our courts ignores a fundamental reality of human behavior, skin in the game matters.

When a professional underwriter evaluates a case, the question isn’t just whether a person can pay. Writing bonds indiscriminately based purely on volume or high fees is a fast track to high loss ratios and systemic failure. True underwriting is a disciplined, rigorous assessment of risk. It requires looking past the paperwork to find human anchors and sentimental equity.

A human anchor is the stable co-signer, the mother, the grandfather, the spouse, or the employer who steps up and put’s their own credibility and assets on the defendant’s promise to appear. This creates a web of real-world, personal accountability. A defendant might not care about missing a court date with an anonymous pretrial caseworker, but they think twice when their family’s home or hard-earned savings are on the line. It is about finding a solid anchor to stabilize a volatile situation, not just collecting a fee. Privatized bail companies, like my own foster relationships through weekly contact. Not one county or state program can say they have weekly contact. This contact is why our appearance rates are so high.

The current legislative and judicial trend aims to replace this private-sector risk management with government run, non financial supervision, such as GPS ankle monitors, phone check-ins, and pretrial tracking.

But a machine can’t replace a human anchor. An ankle monitor can be cut off in seconds. A government check in is a bureaucratic chore, not a moral obligation. By stripping away the financial and personal stake required by a secured bond, the system removes the very mechanisms that incentivize a defendant to face justice and ensure that victims and witnesses have peace of mind.

In leadership and in law, the mantra holds true, iron sharpens iron. A system left to purely academic or bureaucratic theories softens, it loses its edge and fails to protect the public. The current bottleneck in California courts, where judges are struggling under the immense burden of reviewing scores of custody cases is proof that a purely administrative approach to pretrial release is unsustainable.

If California wants a justice system that is truly fair, it must move away from the false narrative of wealth versus risk. It needs to recognize that professional, private underwriting is not a barrier to justice, but a partner in it. True accountability isn't found in a government mandated risk-scoring algorithm; it’s found in the human anchors and structured responsibilities that keep our communities safe.