The Brennan Center for Justice conducted what its own researchers describe as the first study to test bail reform's actual causal impact on crime using data from dozens of jurisdictions nationwide, rather than a single city or state in isolation. Comparing major offenses from 2015 through 2021 across 22 cities that implemented some form of bail reform against 11 comparable cities that didn't, the study found no statistically significant relationship between bail reform and crime rates, a finding that held true even specifically for the heavily scrutinized, large-scale reforms in New York and New Jersey.
Real-world results in specific jurisdictions echo this finding. After Illinois eliminated cash bail statewide in 2023 through its Pretrial Fairness Act, violent crime fell 7% and property crime fell 14%. New Jersey's 2017 reforms, which virtually eliminated cash bail, saw violent crime fall 20% while court appearance rates remained high.
Washington D.C. has operated largely without money bail for years, relying instead on tools like phone and text reminders and structured pretrial supervision. Between 2019 and 2024, 89% of defendants awaiting trial showed up to their scheduled court appearances, and 90% remained arrest-free during the pretrial period. Even among people specifically accused of violent offenses, 98% were not rearrested for a violent crime while released pretrial, according to analysis published in Honolulu Civil Beat.
This is a genuinely relevant data point precisely because it addresses the most common specific concern raised about bail reform, that releasing people accused of violent crimes without requiring payment poses an outsized public safety risk, directly with real, multi-year outcome data rather than anecdote.
Beyond crime statistics, cash bail carries a documented direct financial burden that falls disproportionately on lower-income defendants specifically. In Harris County, Texas, low-income defendants have paid an average of 8.4% of their annual income in bail premiums, according to compiled cash bail statistics. Nationally, U.S. jails hold roughly 500,000 pretrial detainees on any given day, at an estimated $14 billion in annual taxpayer cost, and 74% of U.S. jail inmates were pretrial (not yet convicted of anything) as of 2021, up from 60% in 1996, even as overall crime rates remained comparatively stable over that same period.
Bail reform supporters generally argue cash bail effectively criminalizes poverty, since it ties pretrial freedom to ability to pay rather than actual public safety risk or flight risk, and point to the Brennan Center's 33-city study and specific state-level crime data as evidence reform doesn't compromise safety while it does reduce this financial inequity. Reform skeptics generally argue that individual, high-profile cases where someone released without bail went on to commit a serious crime demonstrate real, unacceptable risk, regardless of what aggregate statistics show, and argue for preserving judicial discretion to hold specific defendants pending trial when circumstances warrant it. Both sides broadly agree the underlying tension, between minimizing pretrial detention for people who pose little genuine risk and ensuring the small number of genuinely dangerous defendants aren't released, is real; the actual disagreement is over which policy design and level of judicial discretion best balances that tension, and how much weight aggregate research findings should carry against individual, emotionally resonant cases.
Want the core arguments from both sides, side by side?
See the Left vs. Right Breakdown on Bail Reform →