In debates over criminal justice reform, one basic question often gets overlooked: What actually ensures that people accused of crimes return to court while awaiting trial?
Washington state already uses several methods of pretrial release designed to balance fairness with accountability. But a recent reform proposal submitted to the Washington State Supreme Court by the King County Department of Public Defense, the Washington State Office of Public Defense, the Washington Defender Association and the Snohomish County Office of Public Defense promotes an alternative release mechanism known as “10% deposit bail.” This allows defendants to post only a small fraction of their bail directly with the court: 10%.
At first glance, this may sound like a reasonable compromise. In reality, experience shows it often fails to hold defendants accountable, leaves courts chasing debts they cannot collect and ultimately burdens taxpayers. Before Washington considers moving in that direction, policymakers should take a close look at the disastrous results Philadelphia experienced.
There are three common ways someone accused of a crime can be released while awaiting trial.
● First, a defendant may be released on their own recognizance, meaning they promise to return to court. This option is generally used for minor or non-jailable offenses or for individuals who cannot afford bail.
● Second, a defendant may obtain release through a surety bond arranged by a licensed bail bond agent. In this system, the bond company guarantees the full bail amount and has strong incentives to make sure the defendant appears in court.
● Third, a defendant may pay the full bail amount in cash. Like a surety bond, this approach gives the defendant significant financial motivation to appear for court dates. Because many people cannot easily pay the full amount, the surety bond option is often the most widely used.
Philadelphia’s experience with 10% deposit bail offers a cautionary tale. Under this system, defendants pay 10% of the bail amount directly to the court. If they attended all required court dates, most of the deposit is returned. If they fail to appear, the court keeps the 10% deposit and attempts to collect the remaining 90% as a debt. Supporters say this system expands access to pretrial release. However, experience shows it creates serious problems. Courts often struggle to collect the remaining balance; defendants have less incentive to return to court; and taxpayers end up covering the costs. Courts in Philadelphia fell victim to the false promise of financial security under this system.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the 10% deposit system is that it creates large debts that courts rarely collect. When defendants skip court, the remaining 90% becomes a financial judgment against them. But many defendants have few assets, making collection extremely difficult. Courts are left chasing debts that often go unpaid. In Philadelphia, the problem grew to enormous proportions. By 2009, the city’s courts were owed about $1 billion in forfeited bail from roughly 210,000 defendants who had failed to appear over several decades, according to an advisory committee’s report. Judges eventually concluded that only a small fraction of that money could realistically be collected. In 2010, the courts wiped out nearly $1 billion in unpaid bail debts, acknowledging that the system had produced mostly uncollectible paper balances.
The 10% system can also weaken the main purpose of bail: ensuring defendants return to court. Only a small portion of bail is paid upfront, so defendants risk losing relatively little if they flee. The remaining balance may technically be owed, but many know that courts have limited ability to collect it. This dynamic can lead to higher failure-to-appear rates. Each missed court date triggers additional warrants, police work and court hearings, placing added strain on the criminal justice system. Philadelphia’s massive backlog of unpaid bail judgments coincided with thousands of defendants who failed to return to court, creating ongoing enforcement challenges.
Philadelphia’s billion-dollar bail debacle shows how a policy that sounds appealing in theory can fail in practice. Courts were left with huge unpaid debts, defendants had fewer incentives to return to court and taxpayers ultimately absorbed the cost. Washington already has a bail framework that offers several paths to pretrial release while maintaining meaningful accountability. Rather than adopting a system that has struggled elsewhere, policymakers should focus on strengthening the approaches that already work. Philadelphia’s experience offers a clear lesson: When accountability disappears from the bail system, the consequences can be costly for courts, communities and taxpayers.
