Bail Reform Explained: Ken Good on Cashless Bail, Ankle Monitors, Risk Assessments and Public Safety

Bail is one of those words people hear all the time but often misunderstand.

To some, bail is a way to keep dangerous people in jail.

To others, it is a system that punishes poverty.

To judges, bondsmen, defendants, victims, families and communities, it can mean something much more complicated.

In this Season 3 Systems Explained episode of The Redemption Project, Brandon Burley talks with Ken Good, an attorney from Texas who has spent decades working in and around the bail system.

Ken began his legal career representing doctors and hospitals, then developed a practice representing bondsmen and insurance companies across Texas. He has argued bail-related cases before the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the highest criminal court in Texas, and the Supreme Court of Texas. He has also written extensively on bail reform, criminal justice reform and what he believes works — and does not work — in the pretrial system.

The conversation begins with a basic question:

What is bail for?

Ken’s answer is grounded in the traditional purpose of bail: making sure a defendant returns to court while the case is pending.

That sounds simple.

But the details are where the system gets complicated.

Brandon and Ken discuss one of the central tensions in bail reform: whether people charged with similar crimes should be treated the same or whether judges should consider the individual facts of the person, the charge, the risk and the circumstances.

Brandon raises the example of two people charged with theft.

One person has a long criminal history.

The other has no record and stole groceries to feed a family.

Should they be treated the same?

Ken’s answer is no.

In fact, he pushes the point further. Even two first-time defendants charged with similar offenses may not present the same risk. One may have deep roots in the community, family nearby, stable housing and a job. Another may have no ties, no support and a much greater risk of failing to appear.

That is the heart of the episode.

Fair does not always mean identical.

Ken argues that the justice system has historically relied on individualized discretion because people, cases and risks are different. The reform movement, in his view, often pushes toward treating people the same based on categories, charge lists or automated tools.

But the criminal justice system does not deal with abstractions.

It deals with people.

And people are not identical.

The conversation moves into cashless bail, which Ken describes more broadly as simple release — releasing someone on a promise to return, personal recognizance, zero bail or other similar mechanisms depending on the state.

Ken is critical of these systems when they are used too broadly. He argues that simple release mechanisms often produce higher failure-to-appear rates than private surety bonds and can cause major problems for courts because cases cannot move forward until defendants return.

Brandon compares that to Tennessee’s citation-release system, where a person signs a promise to appear in court. Ken explains that in Texas, citation release is used much less often and generally for low-level offenses.

From there, the conversation turns to what happens when someone commits a new offense while already out on bond. Ken explains a new Texas law requiring that, when a person is out on bond and arrested again for a new felony in the same county, only the judge from the first case can set bail on the second case. He also says the statute requires judges to consider revoking or modifying the first bond.

That part of the conversation shows why bail is not just a release question.

It is a supervision question.

It is a court-management question.

It is a public-safety question.

The episode then moves into ankle monitors.

Ken does not argue that ankle monitors have no use at all. He says they can provide supplemental data and may have a role in high-risk cases.

But he rejects the idea that ankle monitors are a replacement for the bail industry.

His concern is practical. Monitors can generate false alerts, dead-battery notifications, exclusion-zone violations and other reports that desensitize the system. He also argues that defendants learn how to work around them, including cutting off a monitor late on a Friday to gain a head start before a warrant is issued.

Ken also raises the cost issue. If someone is paying daily fees for an ankle monitor over a case that lasts years, that person may end up paying far more than they would have paid through a bondsman.

That is an important Season 3 distinction.

A tool can sound like reform.

But the question is how it works in real life.

Who pays?

Who monitors?

Who responds?

How fast?

What happens when the alert is false?

What happens when it is real?

What happens on Friday afternoon?

What happens when the case lasts four years?

The conversation then moves to the role of bondsmen.

Ken argues that private surety bonds provide more than a financial transaction. He says bondsmen often provide reminders, supervision, family contact and a relationship that can help get someone back into court if they miss a date.

Brandon raises the example of a family member putting something at risk to help a loved one get out. Ken explains that the details vary by state, but he agrees with the broader point: family involvement can matter.

That is another theme running through the episode.

Systems are not only statutes and software.

They are relationships, incentives and accountability.

The conversation then gets into one of the most debated ideas in pretrial justice: risk assessments.

Ken is strongly critical of using risk assessments to replace judicial discretion in bail decisions. He argues that risk assessments may be better at predicting group trends than individual behavior, that they can produce racially distorted outcomes, and that they often make mistakes in the direction of recommending release.

He also raises a key legal concern: if a risk assessment does not consider the seriousness of the pending charge, but state law requires judges to consider the charge when setting bail, then the tool may not comply with the legal framework.

Brandon presses the point with a practical example:

If someone has no criminal history but is accused of shooting multiple people, should a tool treat that person as low risk simply because it is a first offense?

That question captures the problem.

The presumption of innocence matters.

But bail is not the trial.

Ken emphasizes that presumption of innocence applies to the trial itself. Bail is about assurance — what it takes to ensure that a person returns to court and, depending on the jurisdiction, whether there are public-safety concerns while the case is pending.

The episode also covers the political pendulum around criminal justice reform.

Brandon uses the image of Newton’s cradle: when policy swings too hard in one direction, the reaction may swing just as hard the other way. Ken agrees and argues that public safety eventually becomes the demand when crime rises and the public believes the system is failing.

That leads into Tennessee’s proposed constitutional amendment and the broader question of whether reform can swing too far toward release or too far toward detention.

Ken’s position is that the middle ground should involve accountability, private surety bonds and sparing use of simple release mechanisms. He worries that one extreme releases too many people without accountability, while the opposite extreme may hold too many people and create costs the public is not prepared to pay.

The conversation does not stay only on bail.

It also moves into jail overcrowding, incarceration costs and mental health.

Ken argues that part of the problem is that the United States has moved much of its mental-health burden into the criminal justice system. Brandon agrees from his experience in East Tennessee, where the closure of mental-health facilities meant law enforcement and jails became the default place for people who needed very different kinds of care.

That may be one of the most important parts of the episode.

The jail is not just holding people accused of crimes.

In many communities, it is also functioning as the largest mental-health facility.

That creates problems for defendants.

It creates problems for officers.

It creates problems for sheriffs.

It creates problems for courts.

And it creates problems for the people who needed treatment long before they ended up in a cell.

Ken shares a personal example involving his sister, who suffered a severe injury and later dealt with a long struggle involving prescription drugs. He describes the importance of family involvement and says that, in his view, families often provide the best chance for success for people with serious mental-health or substance-related problems.

But Brandon adds the necessary caveat:

Not every family has the means, resources or ability to provide that level of care.

That is the kind of tension this episode keeps returning to.

The easy answer is usually too easy.

Release everyone is too easy.

Hold everyone is too easy.

Trust a computer is too easy.

Blame judges is too easy.

Blame poverty is too easy.

Blame crime alone is too easy.

The real system is harder.

It has defendants, victims, judges, bondsmen, families, mental illness, addiction, money, public safety, constitutional rights, political pressure and imperfect tools.

Ken closes by pointing listeners to pbtx.com and thebailpost.com for more information about his group, their blog and their podcast.

This episode is a reminder that criminal justice policy cannot be reduced to a bumper sticker.

Bail is not only about money.

Ankle monitors are not only about technology.

Risk assessments are not only about data.

And reform is not automatically good just because it is called reform.

The better question is the Season 3 question:

How does the system actually work — and what happens when we change one part without understanding the rest?

I am a retired detective and criminal justice / government educator based in Tennessee. I founded The Redemption Project, as a place to focus on civics, rebuild non-partisan trust, and provide educational and emotional grace while learning about the news. I also have a column in Knox TN Today. My reporting and commentary have also appeared in other outlets including; Governing, The Arizona Capitol Times, South Florida Sun Sentinel, Police1, among other state and regional outlets.